Ok, I was pretty much with Postman & Weingartner up until pages 122-132 which consist entirely of quote after quote of people saying that all thought is linguistic and all reality is is what our thoughts are capable of perceiving. Unless visual language is included in this definition of linguistics I can't agree with this conclusion. As a visual artist a lot of my own thoughts consist only of elements visual aesthetics (or at least my time working with aesthetics has made me keenly aware of my own abandonment of or absence of linguistics in much of my thoughts). Also, according to this line of thought, babies would not be capable of thought until they learned to understand language. There is no way that can be true. Also, much of what my pets do would be impossible under this presumption.