First off you are much less a scientismist than most people. It's easy to tell because you can discuss and understand premises.
Dang, I'm I already starting to loose my scientism cred? I was just beginning to embrace the label.
Secondly every word in every human language today has no fixed meaning therefore no word is entirely abstract or entirely concrete. Even words used with a concrete meaning STILL have a level of abstraction because they are defined with abstractions, are symbolic, and because their meaning must be parsed. Ancient Language had no definitions or abstractions and can not be parsed.
I would say that language is de facto an abstraction.
I fully agree that there is no fixed or permanent association with a particular label (be it a word, symbol, sounds, or picture) and a specific associated meaning or definition. It all comes down to usage and context. We try to standardize these associations to some degree to facilitate clarity of communication. It becomes tiresome and inefficient if a particular label points to a different meaning unfamiliar to others, for each individual that uses it.
I assume that "Ancient Language" points to a specific thing for you and does not refer to ancient languages in general. If it is a specific language, as a language my assumption would be that it would consist of labels that reference meanings. Regardless, as a language, I would still classify it as abstraction.
Last edited: