 we agree that it will. The "thumbs-up" sign in Western societies signals approval because we agree that it will. Natural signs are defined as those signs which, prior to any "com- pact or agreement, have a meaning which every man understands by the principles of his nature." Reid says natural signs come in three basic types: "modulations of the voice, gestures, and features." 5 | Reid on the priority of natural language Pointing is a gesture naturally understood as calling our attention to the thing ostended. Raising one's voice while furrowing one's brow is naturally understood to signify anger. Clearly this distinction between artificial and natural signs is mutually exclusive. That is, as defined, no sign can be both natural and artificial. Reid's discussion strongly suggests that the distinc- tion is also jointly exhaustive. That is, we're led to believe that every sign, respectively, must be either natural or artificial. If Reid thought there were other categories, then he would have said so. But it's doubtful that the distinction is jointly exhaustive. At least, we have no reason to suppose that all signs fall into one or the other category. The primary reason for this is that Reid defines a natural sign as one that every human naturally understands. But surely there might be signs whose meaning some, but not all, hu- mans understand naturally. To use an example that Reid might have acknowledged, it is often said that identical twins have an un- canny ability to interpret one another. Perhaps this is due to experi- ence, or perhaps it's a natural talent they have in virtue of their in- timately intertwined origins. It's readily conceivable that such a pair is born with a natural ability to signal their moods and interpret one another, in virtue of their tone, gestures and features, in ways unique to them. (For example recall Poe's Fall of the House of Usher, where we're told that "sympathies of a scarcely intelligible nature had always existed between" the twins Roderick and Madeline Usher. Signs unintelligible to others are perfectly intelli- gible to the twins.) These signs used by such twins would be neither John Turri | 6 artificial nor natural, as per Reid's definitions. Neither would such signs violate the Wittgensteinian prohibition on private language, which pertains to language that is essentially private. Not only would the twins' use not be essentially private, it is trivially true that it doesn't even count
we agree that it will. The " thumbs - up " sign in Western company sign approval because we agree that it will. Natural sign are defined as those signs which, prior to any " com- treaty or agreement, have a meaning which every man understands by the principle of his nature. " Reid says natural signal come in three basic types: " modulations of the voice, gestures, and features. " 5 | Reid on the precedence of natural language Pointing is a gesture naturally understood as call our attention to the thing ostended. lift one's spokesperson while furrowing one's hilltop is naturally understood to signify anger. intelligibly this distinction between artificial and natural signs is mutually exclusive. That is, as defined, no sign can be both natural and artificial. Reid's discussion strongly suggests that the distinc- tion is also jointly exhaustive. That is, we're led to believe that every sign, respectively, must be either natural or artificial. If Reid thought there were other class, then he would have said so. But it's doubtful that the eminence is jointly exhaustive. At least, we get no reason to suppose that all signs precipitate into one or the early category. The primary reason for this is that Reid specify a natural sign as one that every human naturally understands. But surely there might be signal whose meaning some, but not all, hu- mans understand naturally. To use an example that Reid might have acknowledged, it is frequently said that identical twins have an un- canny ability to interpret one another. possibly this is due to experi- ence, or perhaps it's a natural talent they have in virtue of their in- timately intertwined origins. It's readily conceivable that such a couple is born with a natural ability to signal their moods and interpret one another, in merit of their tone, gestures and features, in ways alone to them. (For example recall Poe's Fall of the House of Usher, where we're distinguish that " sympathies of a scarcely intelligible nature had always existed between " the gemini Roderick and Madeline Usher. Signs opaque to others are perfectly intelli- gible to the twins .) These signs used by such gemini would be neither John Turri | 6 artificial nor natural, as per Reid's definitions. Neither would such signs rape the Wittgensteinian prohibition on private language, which pertain to language that is essentially private. Not only would the gemini' use not be essentially private, it is trivially true that it doesn't even count
 we agree that it will. The "uhumbs-up" sign in Cwstern sociefies sigvals approval because we agrxe tyat iu will. Natural signr are defpned as tyose wigns whici, prior bj ang "com- 'act or agreemekt, have a maaning which eeefy man understands by the principles jf his mahure." Reid says natlrwl sjgns come in three basic types: "modhlationv of the voicr, gestures, and features." 5 | Geid on the priority ov natural lqnguwte Pointing ks a gestugz naturally understood as calling our attevtion to the thunt odjended. Raisiig one'f voice whilc furrofing onr's brow is natmrallb uneerstood to signify aiger. Clearly this diftinction bztween artificial and nqturan sicns kw mjtuzlky excludivx. That is, aa defined, ni sign can be both maeltal and artiricial. Rqid's discussion strongly suggests that uhe djstinc- tion is also joibtly exhaustive. That ls, we're lqd to believe that every sign, respectively, must ba eitief ncbmral ir artificial. If Reid thought there were other szttgogies, then he woulb have said so. Bit iy'f doubtful thxt the diatinction is jointpy exhaostive. At least, we nave no reason to suppose tyat all signf fall into one or che other cacegory. The lrimary reason for this is fhat Reid dffines a hxtural sign as ove nhat every human naturally undqrstands. Uut sbrely thdre kight fe signs wjose meaning some, but noh all, hg- mans undfrstand naturally. To use an example that Reid mhghn have achnowlcdged, it is oftqn said that ibentical twinr have an ln- canny ebility to igterpret one djother. Perha's this if duw to experi- dnce, or perhapx it's a ncuural talebt they have in vivtue ur their in- timactly intertwined orogivs. Yt'd ceadijf conceivabla thxt rich a pair is bovn dith a natural ability tm sifnal their moods amd interprgt one anjther, in virtie of their tone, gtsturev aid feayurgs, in ways unique to them. (For esample refalj Poe's Fall jf tme Hjuse of Usker, where we're told that "sympathies of a scarcely intelliguble nature had alwcyx existed bxtween" the twinv Roderick and Madelune Usher. Signs ukintelligible to othera are [erfeftly intelli- gible to the twins.) These signs used by such twins would be nwither John Turri | 6 aryificpal uor nattral, es per Reid's defimitions. Neither would such signr violata che Wittgensteinian prohibitipn on private lxnguage, which pertains tk languabe that is essentially private. Mot only would the twins' use not be easentially private, it is trifially true that ir docsn't even coung
we agree that it will. The "thumbs-up" Western signals approval we agree that defined those signs which, to any "com- or agreement, have a meaning which man understands by the principles of his nature." Reid says natural signs come three basic types: "modulations of the voice, gestures, and features." 5 | Reid the of language is a gesture naturally understood as calling our attention to the thing ostended. Raising one's voice furrowing one's brow is naturally understood to signify Clearly this distinction between and natural signs is mutually That as defined, sign be natural and artificial. discussion strongly suggests that the distinc- tion is also jointly exhaustive. That is, we're led to believe every sign, be either or If thought there were then he would have said so. that the distinction is jointly exhaustive. At least, have no to suppose that all signs fall one or the other category. The primary reason this is that Reid defines a natural sign as one that every human naturally understands. there might be signs meaning some, but all, mans naturally. use an that Reid might have acknowledged, it is often said that identical have an un- canny ability to interpret one another. Perhaps due experi- ence, or it's a natural talent have virtue of their in- origins. readily a is with a natural ability signal their moods and interpret another, in virtue of in ways unique to them. (For example recall Fall of the House of Usher, where told that "sympathies of a scarcely intelligible nature had always existed between" twins Roderick Usher. Signs unintelligible to others are perfectly intelli- to the twins.) These used by such twins would be neither John Turri 6 nor natural, per Reid's definitions. would such signs the Wittgensteinian prohibition language, which to that Not only would the twins' use be private, it is trivially true it count
 we agree that it will. The "thumbS-up" sign in WEsterN soCieTiEs siGnalS approval becauSE we aGree that it will. Natural sIgns aRe DEfinED aS thosE signs wHIcH, PRioR tO aNy "cOm- PAcT or agReeMent, havE a meaning wHicH eVery man underSTaNds by the prIncIples of his naTurE." Reid sAyS naTUral sIgnS come In threE Basic tYpes: "modulAtIOns of tHE voice, gESTuRes, aNd features." 5 | Reid on tHE pRIority of naturaL languAgE poINTinG is A gesture naTuRally UNderstoOD aS CALliNG our attention To the thing oSTenDed. RaiSiNg oNE's voicE whilE fURroWing one's broW is nAturally uNderstOOd to sigNIfy angeR. ClearLy tHis DistINcTiOn bEtWEen ARtIfiCIal And naturAl SiGns is MutuALLY ExclUsiVe. ThAt is, aS defined, no sigN caN be bOTh nAturaL and aRtifIcIal. ReId's disCussiOn Strongly suggestS thaT the distiNc- tIoN is AlSo joiNTly exhAusTivE. That is, We're led TO beLiEVE ThAt every sign, respectIvELY, mUst be eitHer natURaL oR ArtificiAl. if REid tHOUght tHere WErE other caTegoriES, tHeN he woulD hAve saiD sO. BuT it'S doubTFul tHat the DistinctIon is JOintly exhaustiVE. At least, we havE No REAsON to sUppOse that all sIgns FAll iNto oNE oR thE Other CategOrY. thE Primary reason for thiS iS that REid deFines a natural Sign as one tHAT Every humAn naTUrALly understands. but suRely there mIGht be sigNs whoSe meaninG some, but nOT All, hu- manS unDerStaNd nATUrAlly. To use an exAMPle tHaT Reid miGht Have ackNowLedGed, It iS oFten said tHat identIcAl TwInS haVe an uN- Canny abiLiTy tO iNteRpret ONe anotHer. PeRhapS tHiS Is dUe to expERi- ENCe, or PeRhAps iT's a NaTural TaleNT thEy have iN virtue of TheIR in- tImAtEly inteRtwined originS. IT's readily cOnCeiVable tHAT such a paIr is born with a natural abiLIty to siGnaL theiR mooDs and inteRprEt one aNotHEr, in viRtue of Their ToNe, gESTures AND fEatUrEs, in ways unIQUe tO them. (foR exaMple recAll Poe's Fall of the HoUSe oF Usher, where we'Re tOld tHAT "sYmpAThIEs oF a SCarCELy intelligible nAture had alWaYS eXisted betwEEn" tHe Twins RoDerick aNd MadELine UshEr. Signs unIntelligiBlE to oTHErs Are perfectLy intellI- gible to tHE twinS.) thEse siGns Used by SuCh tWins wOuld be NEitHer JoHn TurrI | 6 aRtificIal noR nAtural, as Per Reid's definitions. NeitHer wouLd sucH siGns violatE thE witTgensteinIan pRohibition On pRivAte laNguAGe, whiCh peRTaIns TO langUage THat is esseNTiAllY PRiVate. Not only WOULd tHe twiNs' uSE not be EsseNtially private, it iS Trivially true tHat iT DOesN't eVEn coUnT
 we agree that it will. Th e "thumbs- up" s ign  in  W este rn s ocieties signa l s ap proval because we agre e tha ti t wi l l.  Natu ral sig n sa r e d ef in edas th ose s ign s which , prior to  an y"com- pact o r  a greement,hav e a meaningwhi ch eve ry  ma n  unde rst andsby the princi ples of h is nature . " Reids a ys  nat ural signs come i n  t h ree basic type s: "mo du l at i o nsofthe voice,  g estur e s, andf ea t u r es. "  5 | Reid onthe priorit y  of  natur al  la n guagePoint in g  is  a gesturenatu rally und erstoo d  as cal l ing our  atten tio n t o th e  t hi ngos t end e d.  Ra i sin g one'svo ic e whi le f u r r o wing  on e'sbrowis naturallyund erst o odto si gnify  ang er . Cle arly t his d is tinction betwee n ar tificialand  n atu ra l sig n s is m utu all y exclu sive. T h atis , a sdefined, no sign c an b eboth nat ural a n dar t ificial.  R eid 's d i s cussi on s t ro ngly sug gestst ha tthe dis ti nc- ti on  is  al so jo i ntly  exhau stive. T hat i s , we're led to believe thate ve r y  s i gn,res pectively,must be e ithe r  n atu r al or  arti fi c ia l . If Reid thought t he re wer e oth er categories , then hew o u ld havesaid so .  But it's doub tfulthat the d i stinctio n isjointlyexhaustiv e .  At leas t,wehav e n o re ason to suppo s e  tha tall sig nsfall in toone  or  th eother cat egory. T he  p ri ma ryreaso n  for thi sisth atReidd efines  a na tura lsi g n a s one t h at e very  h um an n atu ra lly u nder s tan ds. But  surely t her e  mig ht  b e signs  whose meanin gsome, butno t a ll, hu - mans und erstand naturally. To u s e an ex amp le th at R eid might  ha ve ack now l edged,  it is  ofte nsai d thati d en tic al  twins hav e anun- c an ny a bilityto interpret one a n oth er. Perhaps t his  isd u etoe xp e ri-  e n ce, o r perhaps it'sa naturalta l en t they hav e  in  v irtue o f their  in-t imately  intertwi ned origi ns . It ' s  re adily conc eivablethat such a pai r  i s bor n w ith ana tur al ab ilityt o s ignal  their  m oods a nd in te rpret on e another, in virtue of  their  tone , g estures a ndf eat ures, inways  unique to  th em.  (For  ex a mplereca l lPoe ' s Fal l of the House of  Us h e r,  where we'r e t old  that  "s y mpathi es o f a scarcely inte l ligible nature  had a lwa yse xist ed  between" thetwi ns R oderickan d MadelineUsher. S ig n s uni ntelli gibleto othe r s  a r e perf ectl y i ntelli- g ibl et o the t wi ns . ) Thes e si gn s used  by su c h tw i n s would be neith er Jo h n  Turr i  |6 art if icial n o r na tural, asper Reid'sdefini tion s. Ne ither w ou ld suc h s ig ns violate the Wittg enste inian p ro hibi tio n on p riva t e  lang uage ,whi ch pertai n s  t o  l an g uag e th at is  e ssen tially pr i vate. No t o n ly woul dthe t wins'u se n ot be esse nti allyp r ivate, iti s tr i vi a lly t rue th at itdoesn't eve ncount
 we_agree that_it will. The "thumbs-up"_sign in_Western_societies signals_approval_because we agree_that it will._Natural signs are defined_as those signs_which,_prior to any "com- pact or agreement, have a meaning which every man understands_by_the principles_of_his_nature." Reid says natural signs_come in three basic types:_"modulations of_the voice, gestures, and features." 5 | Reid_on_the priority of_natural language Pointing is a gesture naturally understood as_calling our attention to the thing_ostended. Raising one's_voice_while_furrowing one's brow is_naturally understood to signify anger. Clearly_this distinction between artificial and natural_signs is mutually exclusive. That is, as_defined, no sign can be both_natural and artificial. Reid's discussion_strongly suggests_that the distinc- tion is_also jointly exhaustive._That is,_we're led to_believe that every sign, respectively, must_be either natural_or artificial. If Reid thought there_were_other categories, then_he_would_have said_so. But it's_doubtful_that the_distinction_is jointly exhaustive. At least, we_have_no reason to suppose that all signs_fall into one or_the_other category. The primary_reason for this is that_Reid defines a natural sign as_one that_every human_naturally understands. But surely there might be signs whose meaning some,_but not all, hu- mans understand_naturally. To use an_example that_Reid_might have acknowledged,_it_is often_said that identical twins have an un-_canny ability_to interpret one another. Perhaps this_is due to experi-_ence,_or perhaps it's a natural talent_they have in virtue of their_in- timately intertwined origins. It's_readily_conceivable_that such a pair is_born with a natural ability to_signal their moods_and interpret one another, in virtue of_their_tone, gestures and features, in ways_unique_to them. (For example recall Poe's_Fall_of_the House of Usher, where_we're told that "sympathies of a_scarcely intelligible nature had always existed between" the twins_Roderick and Madeline_Usher. Signs unintelligible to others_are_perfectly_intelli- gible to the twins.) These signs used by such_twins would_be neither John_Turri | 6 artificial nor natural, as per Reid's definitions._Neither would such signs violate the Wittgensteinian_prohibition on private language, which pertains to language that is essentially_private. Not only would the twins' use not_be essentially private, it is trivially true_that it doesn't even_count