[lit-ideas] Jack Fell Down
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 11:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
As opposed to 'up'?
Fall
of Rome, etc.
In a message dated 5/1/2014 9:50:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes of 'fall':
"[...] it has been often written, probably before Gibbon, that empires
"rise and fall"; so in that sense Rome did eventually fall. Even if the city
remained and Odoacer was king of Rome, the Roman Empire had fallen.
Of course one could argue that bits of Roman power existed in
Constantinople, Trieste and elsewhere, but if they are considered to comprise
Roman
empirical continuity then the definition of "empire" is being strained.
On the other hand, the straining of that term seems a modern enterprise:
many writers attempt to fit the U.S. into the Roman or British mold. I
think of Niall Ferguson arguing that the U.S. is an empire, just not a very
good one since it doesn't do any of the things that earlier empires did --
but, not to worry. The world has changed; so empires need to do things
differently nowadays."
Indeed.
But I was thinking more along, er, Griceian lines.
We do fall a verb, 'to fall'.
What goes up must come down. Sort of thing.
It is an Anglo-Saxon verb. The Roman term, when used to apply to Rome, is
'caduta' (the fall).
It may be argued that we should examine more closely the etymology of
'fall'.
INTERLUDE on etymology of 'fall' from
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fall&allowed_in_frame=0
Old English feallan (class VII strong verb; past tense feoll, past
participle feallen) "to fall; fail, decay, die," from Proto-Germanic *fallanan
(cognates: Old Frisian falla, Old Saxon fallan, Dutch vallen, Old Norse falla,
Old High German fallan, German fallen), from PIE root *pol- "to fall"
(cognates: Armenian p'ul "downfall," Lithuanian puola "to fall," Old Prussian
aupallai "finds," literally "falls upon"). Most of the figurative senses had
developed in Middle English. Meaning "to be reduced" (as temperature) is
from 1650s. To fall in love is attested from 1520s; to fall asleep is late
14c. Fall through "come to naught" is from 1781. To fall for something is
from 1903.
--- END OF INTERLUDE.
Now, Grice, in unpublications, wants to stick with Occam's razor, which he
formulates, "Do not multiply SENSES of words beyond necessity." So there is
ONE sense of 'fall'.
Should it apply to PHYSICAL events?
I think Grice considers examples like
"Tom is above Jerry"
Or
"Tom is between Jerry and Joe."
Grice wants to say that, whether a merely PHYSICAL or non-physical
(figurative, in terms, say, of moral esteem) is meant, or regardless of whether
this or that use is meant, the word 'above' (or 'between') are NOT polysemous.
The idea that the MATERIAL, PHYSICAL 'sense' is the original one was, I
think, fashionable back in the day when Metaphor was a hot topic among
philosophers. I think I learned about that from Lands volume in Longman
Linguistics Library: "The concept of form".
A similar point I found at
http://biblehub.com/library/barrows/companion_to_the_bible/chapter_xxxv_the_
figurative_language.htm
The author writes:
"A large proportion of the words in all languages, in truth all that
express intellectual and moral ideas, were originally FIGURATIVE, the universal
law being to represent immaterial by material objects. Examples are the
words exist, existence, emotion,affliction, anguish, etc."
"But in these, and innumerable other words,
THE PRIMITIVE PHYSICAL MEANING
has become obsolete, and thus the secondary spiritual meaning is to us
literal."
But it shouldn't, of course. As in 'fall' -- Adam's fall, Satan's fall --
Satan's fall is literal. Adam not so much so.
Fall of Rome, figurative.
The author goes on:
The fall of the statue of Nero -- the Colossus -- literal.
The fall of the Colossus of Rhodes, literal.
The fall of Constantinople, figurative.
The author goes on:
"Or, what often happens, while the original physical signification is
retained, a secondary figurative meaning of the word has become so common that
its use hardly recalls the physical meaning, and it may therefore be
regarded as literal."
But again it shouldn't. Grice calls figures of speech (such as metaphor, or
to use I think a favourite with L. Helm, synecdoche, or I think a
favourite with Omar K, metonymy, or metaphtonymy) are IMPLICATURES. It's
something
the utterer IMPLIES (and can thus cancel) rather than EXPLICATE or express
in EXPLICIT terms.
The author finishes the paragraph:
"As in the words "hard", "harsh", "rough", when applied to character."
Or 'fall' as applied to Rome.
"In the first of the above examples: "It is hard for thee to kick against
the pricks," the transfer of the word "hard" from what is physically hard to
what is painful or difficult, is so common that it can hardly be regarded
as figurative".
But hardly a Griceian will agree!
"But the expression that follows is figurative in the fullest sense of the
word."
Only that it's best not to multiply senses beyond necessity!
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
