Language (n.) in Classical thought begins not with expression but with discourse.
Language (n.) is everywhere and yet slips away from us, surviving with its face turned toward a night we know nothing of.
Language (n.) is the original form of all reflection and the first theme of any critique — a logic the mind does not control.
Language (n.) could be born from the language of action in Condillac only because he had quietly slipped the structure of language into it beforehand.
Language (n.) is the first and last structure of madness: before the passion, before the image, the delirious discourse was already speaking.
Language (n.) in the Classical period is not a fragment of history but an area of analysis across which time and human knowledge make their journey.
Language (n.) in the sixteenth century was not an arbitrary system but a thing set down in the world, to be studied like animals, plants or stars.
Language (n.) made perfectly universal was dreamed of so that "peasants could better judge of the truth of things than philosophers now do".
Language (n.) always seems inhabited by the other, the elsewhere, the distant — hollowed by absence, its own existence dissipating into what it points at.
Language (n.) gives the perpetual disruption of time the continuity of space: it fragments the chaotic monotony of space and unifies the diversity of time.
Language (n.) even when dead is a finite body of rules for infinite possible statements; discourse is the reverse — always a finite set of what was actually said.
Language (n.) must be questioned not in the direction it points but in the dimension that gives it — not what it names, but the fact that here and there, there is language.
Language (n.) in the Classical era does not exist — it functions: its whole being is its representative role, which finally exhausts it.
Language (n.) cannot say a thought all at once: to my gaze the brightness is within the rose, but in my sentence it must come before or after it.
Language (n.) analyses — all Classical grammar was a commentary on that phrase, and on it the whole older Western experience foundered, the one that had led men to believe that language spoke.
Language (n.) and painting never reduce to each other: saying what we see is in vain; what we see never lives in what we say.
Language (n.) was studied to reveal man's face, and what turned up instead was structures, correlations, a quasi-logical system — and man had disappeared again.
Language (n.) is where tradition and the unspoken habits of thought live: it piles up an ineluctable memory that does not even know itself as memory.
Language (n.) in the Classical age is not a thin film duplicating thought on the outside: it is not an exterior effect of thought, but thought itself.
Language (n.) of every kind has had equal value since the nineteenth century: languages simply have different internal structures; hence Rask's curiosity for rare, little-spoken, poorly 'civilized' tongues.