[lit-ideas] A Grecian Peculiarity
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:36:13 EDT
"French is a logical language" (and other "Language myths"
R. Paul provides an interesting quote from Wittgenstein's Philosophical
Investigations:
"This case is similar to the one* in which someone imagines that one could
not think a sentence with the remarkable word order of German or Latin just as
it stands. One first has to think it, and then one arranges the words in
that queer order. (A French politician once wrote that it was a peculiarity of
the French language that in it words occur in the order in which one thinks
them.)"
See what I mean?
He's using 'peculiarity' (Pekuliaritaet) _and_ 'remarkable' rhetorically.
Surely there's nothing remarkable (except perhaps to G. E. M. Anscombe who
struggled to English it) with German -- or, God fobid, Latin.
Indeed, one of the chapters in P. Trudgill's Penguin paperbacks, "Language
Myths" is entitled, "French is a logical language".
The idea was especially popular in the Harvard area when Chomsky dedicated a
whole little book to "Cartesian" linguistics.
What Wittgenstein calls 'remarkable' for Latin and 'peculiarity' in French
should provide some food for thought (hateful phrase that).
I DON'T KNOW of _any_ *French* expression that does *not* derive (in its
grammar) from _Latin_ (This was due to the adoption of that Classical Language
by the Franks -- albeit in a 'vulgar' state of development.
As a native speaker of an Indo-European language I must say that I *do* find
the order in syntax to correspond pretty well with my "language of thought"
-- except when my thoughts are 'analogical' rather than 'digital'.
Wittgenstein probably wants to say that in his earlier days he would think
that it was Russell/Whitehead's Principia Mathematica that _constituted_ the
'correct syntax' of the perfectly logical language.
Unfortunately, Grice defended this very idea in his 'Logic and
Conversation', by claiming that there is _no_ divergence (in logical syntax)
between, say,
Russell's "horseshoe" and 'if'.
I cannot think of what remarkable word order Wittgenstein is thinking for
Latin or German.
German, I can imagine he is having in mind the fact that all verbs are put
at the end of the sentence, as in:
Johann schwimmen kann.
John swim can.
Rather than the 'more natural?', John can swim.
But surely any normal brain is able to process *both* "John can swim" and
"John swim can".
In Latin, I can think of similar considerations -- and also of things --
which do not relate to word order as:
"temor Achillei"
''fear of Achilles": fear FOR Achilles or Achilles's fear?
Perhaps he is thinking of something simple like:
Errare humanum est.
"To err is human". Surely Wittgenstein is not expecting that it is _less_
"remarkable" to say, "Errare est humanum".
The Romans did copulate at the end (of the sentence) -- and while I cannot
say other nations did not, that hardly qualifies as "the Roman peculiarity" or
does it not?
J. L. Speranza
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Other related posts:
