[lit-ideas] Re: Russian?
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:00:42 -0330
I have never claimed, suggested, dreamt, hypothesized or hallucinated that the
thesis of "innate rules" comprises any kind of truth, trivial or otherwise.
With the later Chomsky, I aver it is false, false false!
So that's
Okshevsky 1
Chomsky 0
There's no overtime here.
Re Dummett: I doubt that Dummett would support the early Chomsky over the
Wittgensteinian position of B&H. Not even friendly amendments would be
proffered.
So if B&H "are confused about what a rule is" - do tell. For if they are
confused, what could a "rule" then mean?
Stopping at stop signs (usually) but not because that act is determined by his
brain.
Walter O
Just 2 more sleeps! Oche chorniye .... C#
Quoting Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dear WO can you produce any evidence, within linguistics that (what you call
> rule) is innate is a trivial truth.
> The late bake hacker are confused about what a rule is (but many other
> topics, see .g. the late M.A.E. Dummett, see e.g the almost too polite
> UNSUCCESFUL DIG in phil quarterly, 1984, p 377 & ff)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Walter C. Okshevsky
> Sent: 05 January 2014 07:02 PM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Omar Kusturica
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Russian?
>
> I believe Chomsky has since recanted all that "innate rules" kind of stuff,
> perhaps due to the compelling analyses provided by the likes of Baker &
> Hacker who suggest, outlandishly, that a rule is a social sort of thing, not
> a biological sort of thing (vide: *Language: sense and nonsense*).
>
> It should be noted that Okshevsky corroborated B&H's view in his previous
> post of today, before returning to shovelling out his driveway and a path to
> the compost.
>
> Walter O
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > This would be a pretty good way to rephrase it / explicate it except
> > that I would like to keep the term 'pragmatics' because there is a
> > distinction to be made between grammar (rules of language) and
> > pragmatics (common usage). The expression 'a glass of tea' is not
> ungrammatical in English, only uncommon.
> > The expression 'a box of pizza' might not be grammatical in English
> > but it is still intelligible. The rules of grammar are somewhat less
> > flexible than the pragmatic 'rules of thumb.' In my view, they are
> > both largely contingent but with grammar rules one has to deal with
> > Chomsky who claims that there is an underlying 'deep grammar' common
> > to all languages, and presumably hard-wired in our brain structure,
> > although nobody has managed to reconstruct it in terms of formal logic
> yet.
> >
> > O.K.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, January 4, 2014 8:55 AM, Donal McEvoy
> > <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I'd suggest that most or
> > all of these supposedly unsayable things can become sayable, if the
> > pragmatics of language calls for them to be sayable.>
> >
> > If I understand this
> > right, then it might be rephrased - avoiding terms like "unsayable"
> > which has a particular meaning in Kantian and Wittgensteinian
> > approaches whereby the unsayable cannot become sayable, and also
> > jargon like "the pragmatics of language". Rephrased: most of what
> > might appear to be some kind of nonsense in that it violates some
> > 'rules' in a particular language, would not be nonsense if that
> > particular language had different 'rules' - and in many/most cases the
> > 'rules' in a particular language could be otherwise because they fall
> > short of being strictly logical rules or rules that are inescapable
> > for some other reason.
> >
> >
> > On this view, a 'box of pizza' may or may not be regarded as a proper
> > construction depending merely on contingent and variable 'rules' in a
> > particular language: and what is regarded as a proper construction in
> > one language may not be so regarded in another. In one language
> > referring to a 'box of rain' may be nonsense where it is used to refer
> > to heavy rainfall, in another the expression a 'box of rain' may be an
> > accepted idiom that refers to heavy rainfall.
> >
> > It is therefore a sandtrap to mistake variable contingencies that
> > govern 'sense' in a particular language for some kind of necessary
> > truths as to what makes sense.
> >
> > Expressions that deviate from norms of 'sense' are often not therefore
> > nonsense in the sense that they are unintelligible: we can understand
> > their 'sense' even if the expression deviates from norms of 'sense'.
> >
> >
> > This is very evident in language-acquisition: a child may grasp the
> > term "bit" as a quantifier - as in "It's a bit scary". Here "a bit" means
> "quite".
> > They then may apply this in a way that violates norms of sense as when
> > they are asked how they are and reply "I'm a bit fine". We understand the
> 'sense'
> > of "I'm a bit fine" nonetheless - it means something like "I'm quite
> fine".
> > But somehow norms of language affect sense so that, in terms of those
> > norms, "a bit" is apt to mean "quite" in "It's a bit scary" but not
> > apt in "I'm a bit fine". For an adult to say "I'm a bit fine" might be
> > taken as indication that they are not very fine at all (because of
> > 'implicature' that only "a bit" is fine leaving the rest not fine),
> > which is not the sense the child intends.
> >
> >
> > Might say more but need to mind 3 year old - and their language.
> >
> >
> > Donal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday, 3 January 2014, 22:54, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'd suggest that most or all of these supposedly unsayable things can
> > become sayable, if the pragmatics of language calls for them to be
> > sayable. If we have no glasses and have to serve vodka in china cups,
> > a 'cup of vodka' will quickly become a sayable expression. Simarly
> > with a 'glass of soup' if we haven't got cups or plates. I don't want
> > to get too Donally here, but really a distinction has to be made
> > between linguistic pragmatics and philosophical logic. A statement
> > like : "two cups of tea are five cups" violates logic, although to be
> honest I can imagine contexts in which even this is sayable.
> > Human language isn't by any means literally translatable into the
> > language of formal logic, or vice versa. End of sermon now, but this
> > is meant as a serious comment.
> >
> > O.K.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday, January 3, 2014 6:14 PM, Walter C. Okshevsky
> > <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Po Russkie, a cup and a glass may be made of the same material - i.e.,
> > plastic, glass - and still the former would be called "krushka" and
> > the latter "stakan."
> > The shape is the thing, though their edges are admittedly at times fuzzy.
> > While
> > there are plastic glasses and plastic cups, never the twain shall meet.
> >
> > Things never said in Russian:
> >
> > - a glass of soup
> >
> > - a cup of beer (unless of course all the glasses have been smashed in
> > the fireplace and cups are all that remain.
> >
> > - a glass of pizza
> >
> > - a cup of pizza
> >
> > - a glass of herring
> >
> > - a cup of single malt (the Scots may contend this does not generalize
> > to
> > Scottish)
> >
> > - a glass of borscht (a cup of borscht is perfectly in order, though
> > Russians prefer bowels))
> >
> > - a glass of pieroshkis
> >
> > I don't know who meant what in Julie's post, as my mug of tea is not
> > empirical but purely transcendental.
> >
> > Vsevo horoshovo, Valodsya
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > May I revise my statement about English? I should have said that in
> > > the part of the country I live in, American English does pretty much use
> "cup"
> > > and "glass" to indicate the shape of a container, rather than what
> > > it is made
> > of. Which, oddly to me, is what
> > the quote indicates about the Russian
> > > distinction (and "juxtaposes" it with the English distinction). So
> > > either she meant to say that Russian distinguishes between cup and
> > > glass based on what they are made of, or Russian doesn't differ from
> > > English in this particular case, or my understanding of the English
> > > useage is either faulty or narrow. I'm trying to figure out which...
> > >
> > > Julie Campbell
> > > Julie's Music & Language Studio
> > > 1215 W. Worley
> > > Columbia, MO 65203
> > > 573-881-6889
> > > https://juliesmusicandlanguagestudio.musicteachershelper.com/
> > > http://www.facebook.com/JuliesMusicLanguageStudio
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:12 PM, <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ia message dated 1/2/2014 7:58:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > > > juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> > > > cups and glasses, but in Russian, the difference between chashka
> > > > (cup)
> > > and
> > > > stakan (glass) is based on shape, not material.>>I wonder if she
> > > > meant
> > to
> > > > say the opposite? To me, in English, the difference
> > between "cup" and
> > > > "glass" usually is the shape. Is that different in Russian?
> > > >
> > > > Mmmm
> > > >
> > > > I wonder.
> > > >
> > > > But then I would think that:
> > > >
> > > > That glass is made of glass.
> > > >
> > > > is what philosophers (or Witters at any rate) would call a
> > > > tautology,
> > i.e.
> > > > an item that does not "speak" about the world.
> > > >
> > > > Revising the etymologies may help, though -- or then, confuse one
> > further!
> > > > :) -- below.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Speranza
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > >
> > >
> > > > cup:
> > > >
> > > > from online source: Etymology Online:
> > > >
> > > > Old English cuppe, from Late Latin cuppa "cup" (source of Italian
> > > > coppa, Spanish copa, Old French coupe "cup"), from Latin cupa
> > > > "tub, cask, tun, barrel," from PIE *keup- "a hollow" (cf.
> > > > Sanskrit kupah "hollow, pit, cave,"
> > > > Greek kype "a kind of ship," Old Church Slavonic kupu, Lithuanian
> > > kaupas).
> > > > The Late Latin word was borrowed throughout Germanic; cf. Old
> > > > Frisian
> > kopp
> > > > "cup, head," Middle Low German kopp "cup," Middle Dutch coppe,
> > > > Dutch
> > kopje
> > > > "cup, head." German cognate Kopf now means exclusively "head" (cf.
> > French
> > > > tête, from
> > Latin testa "potsherd"). Meaning "part of a bra that holds a
> > > > breast" is from 1938. [One's] cup of tea "what interests one"
> > > > (1932), earlier used of persons (1908), the sense being "what is
> > > > invigorating."
> > > >
> > > > glass:
> > > > Old English glæs "glass, a glass vessel," from West Germanic *glasam
> (cf.
> > > > Old Saxon glas, Middle Dutch and Dutch glas, German Glas, Old
> > > > Norse gler "glass, looking glass," Danish glar), from PIE *ghel-
> > > > "to shine,
> > glitter"
> > > > (cf.
> > > > Latin glaber "smooth, bald," Old Church Slavonic gladuku,
> > > > Lithuanian glodus "smooth"), with derivatives referring to colors
> > > > and bright materials, a word that is
> > the root of widespread words for gray, blue, green, and
> > > > yellow
> > > > (cf. Old English glær "amber," Latin glaesum "amber," Old Irish
> > > >glass "green, blue, gray," Welsh glas "blue;" see Chloe). Sense
> > > >of "drinking glass" is early 13c.
> > > > The glass slipper in "Cinderella" is perhaps an error by Charles
> > > >Perrault, translating in 1697, mistaking Old French voir "ermine, fur"
> > for
> > > > verre
> > > > "glass." In other versions of the tale it is a fur slipper. The
> > > > proverb about people in glass houses throwing stones is attested
> > > > by 1779, but earlier forms go back to 17c.:
> > > > Who hath glass-windows of his own must take heed how
> > he throws stones at
> > > > his house. ... He that hath a body made of glass must not throw
> > > > stones
> > at
> > > > another. [John Ray, "Handbook of Proverbs," 1670]
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation
> > > > on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest
> on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
