Verbatim quote · from the corpus

“A more synthetic term for this combination of appetite and the frustration occasioned by its (sacred) object’s withdrawal is desire . The above schema provides the means both for understanding and discounting the element of desire in linguistic intention, although the participants in the originary event neither possess nor have need of these means, given the symmetry of the situation mediated by the sacred. Desire nevertheless exerts a dialectical pressure on representa­tion by conferring on the sign the power to evoke the appetite-deferring significance of the object, eventually bringing about the lowering of the threshold of significance to include other, profane objects, while in a parallel development, the sacred guarantee of the communal scene of representation is reenacted and rein­forced through ritual. From the standpoint of our schema, this evolution takes place as though the individual-as-hearer were reinterpreting the others-as-speakers’ originary designation of the sacred object as the expression not of a collective but of an individual choice of referent, so that the ostensive-in-­general can come into existence to represent profane as well as sacred objects. The sacred power of the object was one with its desirability. But what is its “desirability” other than the fact of its designation by others? The dialectic of desire appears here fully mystified; language at this stage offers no possibility of representing its own operation, even in others.”

— Eric Gans, The New Origin of Language Part 8: The Fundamental Asymmetry of the Speech Situation · Saturday, April 15th, 2017 · Chronicles of Love & Resentment