[lit-ideas] Re: For our language mavens
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:11:17 EDT
No. I cannot explain the pattern. Laurence R. Horn, of Yale, MAY. I would
often discuss these and other patterns with him. I think that there cannot
be a rule about this. And a "google hit" is just that: a statistical index.
I think it's all contextual and intentional. And for ANY 'adjective' you
can add those qualifying phrases that are mentioned in the article. To wit:
adj.
"fucking ADJ"
"ADJ as shit"
---
The idea behind the cartoon is a noble one, but the fact that they chose
those OBSCURE adjectives can only confuse, even if it's the whole point of it
(the cartoon qua humorous thing).
--- Geary may have a different view. I think that the idea of 'zero-hit' is
pretty senseless. Although it does have sense. If you go and quote what
the cartoon holds to be a zero hit, and post it online, it will not be
'zero-hit' anymore.
----- But I like the idea of experimenting with this. Austin and Grice once
spent a whole term studying why 'highly' is used with "highly intelligent"
but not "highly stupid". Grice used that as an example of 'language
mavens' without a cause. The quote in "Reply to Richards" is pretty
interesting
and other philosophers of the same Play Group recollected the anecdote with
some charm. The whole point about Austin and Grice was a serious one. When
is a language maven inquiry of philosophical interest and when is it not?
For Grice it ALWAYS is --. In the case of the 'highly' stupid, I will have
to revise what he thought the consequences for stuff were. Etc.
Speranza
In a message dated 9/27/2010 1:24:06 P.M. Coordinated Universal Time,
john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Is _this cartoon_ (http://xkcd.com/) fucking marvelous or deep shit? Can
you explain the pattern?
Other related posts:
