Every language started primordially (the language equivalent of the' big bang') with a sound (the first word), then different sounds stood for the 'parts of speech' that would come to describe that first word. Along with other symbols, signs and gestures, they all became interdependent but at the start was the first word just a meaningless sound?
If that word was meaningless in its primordial isolation, then is it the same for all words even now, when they are isolated from the signs, symbols, words and gestures that describe them?
Do words (these smallest packets of meaning) only exist because of their 'interdependence' upon one another and not at all when they are independent and isolated from the other words etc. that describe them?
What does this say (if correct) about the concepts that rely on these words if each word in isolation is meaningless?
Can concepts ever deliver anything more than conventional truth?
A lot of good points regarding your OP have already been made by previous posters, but i thought i'd throw in my two cents anyway.
It may seem a strange thing to say, but i think it unlikely that "language" did start primordially. i mean, it may be an undiscovervable fact, that one gesture preceded all others as a meaningful unit, but (and it may be a nit-picky point) to qualify as a language, communication requires a plurality of signs and social inferences. If nothing else, to qualify as a language-making event the response to one word would require a variable response. The primordial equivalent to "i'm gonna cut you, sucka!" would at register two possible, different visible/audible responses.
...Man, i've re-written my point beyond the former statement several times, and each time i've tried to boil my point down a little more. Here's my last attempt: "Language" only exists, insofar as languages exist, languages only exist insofar as dialects and idioms exist, dialects and idioms only exist insofar as dialogues exist, dialogues only exist insofar as communication is possible. Maybe communicability, which underlies all language but is not responsible for all of the possibilities within it, also relies, in part, on the experientially and ontologically more involved medium of translatability.
Words do not only co-exist on the basis of their own existential strata, but on the basis of alternate or unavailable versions of their own (ontological) combinations, and yet, they only become affective as a isolated, gestural parody of their potential. They exist only insofar as they undermine themselves.
Yes the disquotational theory of truth does demonstrate that truth is a redundant concept.
While i agree with some of your other points in this thread, i remain skeptical as to this question of the redundancy of a "truth statement". "Truth statements" do not only refer to themselves, they specifically refer to the wider contexts in which they have been made. "Truth" must be "verified" by a socially anchored method and in a socially recognized environment.
No "truth value" contains within itself the statement claiming to be the fact, except insofar as it it also attaches itself to the method and context of verification. "Truths" never contain a "why" or a "what", but by a "how".
Sheesh..what a lot of bullshit. Still, a guy's got to go to bed sometime.
NB: i agree, Imans is pretty useless on this forum, but feel free to form your own opinion.