[lit-ideas] What's _not_ in a name
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:56:42 EDT
Omar: A cat is not a 'name.'
Donal: What? You may be sure I meant
the term 'cat' is a name of the object cat?
Is this not true? Why?
In a message dated 4/20/2004 7:42:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,
atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I am ever grateful to JL for preserving my lectures. He will be revered by
future generations.
Oh, My pleasure. May I take this opportunity to point out to possible sources
of misinterpretation:
(i) The title of the lectures was "What's _not_ in a name" (a pun on
Shakespeare). It's part of _theologia negativa_ -- you shall know the tree by
its
nonfruits.
(ii) More substantially: what looks like a typo in the transcript:
"This distinction, between name and noun,
was lost by the Greeks -- and the Romans --
but not the English".
-- sic with "lost _by_," and not the more idiomatic "lost _on_". I remember
raising the point to Geary:
"How can a distinction be lost _by_ the Romans
if they never had it -- in the first place? Don't you
mean 'lost on'?" His reply rings on me as a clear
bell: "Well said. But, how can it be _lost on_ unless
it's previously _lost by_?"
Meanwhile, there are still people (sects) who think 'cat' is the name of cat.
A further argument against Donal's inconsistencies (his thesis: 'cat' is a
name) is that we never say, "Cat is on mat" -- at least not after the
Paleolithic.
Cheers,
JL
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
- » [lit-ideas] What's _not_ in a name
