[lit-ideas] Re: Improper Misunderstandings
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
I don't understand this.
________________________________
From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 11:32 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Improper Misunderstandings
________________________________
From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
>In the case of the 'key tenet', it seems that to _qualify_ "understanding"
by means of an adverb is what Austin calls an 'aberration' (Searle, "No
modification without aberration"). So,
"He understood me".
does just fine.
"He properly understood me" doesn't. >
Hmmm. There may be many understandings of something, not all of them
"proper" or correct - so "proper" or "properly" may not be an aberration or
otiose.
In its typical sense "He understood me" means "He understood me properly",
whereas "He understood me to be suggesting he was mistaken" need not imply "He
understood me properly as suggesting he was mistaken", and in context may even
have the implicit sense that he did not understand me properly.
Because the "properly" is often implicit in "He understood me" it may be fine
to leave it out - but there is nothing wrong with leaving it in, particularly
for emphasis or to be absolutely clear: though a more natural word-order might
be "He understood me properly." In fact, because "He understood me to be
suggesting...etc." may typically have the sense that he did not understand me
properly, in this construction it may be best to include a "properly" if we
want to show that is not the intended sense: as in "He understood me properly
to be suggesting he was mistaken" etc.
[Proper dress need not be prim and proper but simply correct dress: this was
first noted by Cicero in respect of Roman orgies.]
Donal
Defender of what is proper
Other related posts:
