[lit-ideas] Re: In Search for the African Language
- From: Michael Chase <goya@xxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:27:23 -0700
Le 1 ao=FBt 04, =E0 08:45, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx a =E9crit :
>
> snip
>
> M.C. : Now this is getting interesting
>
> Thanks to M. Chase, and to R. Paul for correcting M. Chase.
M.C. I join jls in thanking R. Paul for his interesting comments. But=20
is it correct to say they "correct" me?
My claim was : "not even Russell would have been wacko enough =
to=20
suggest, as jlsperanza does, that the latter of these phrases [sc. "The=20=
king of France is bald"] implies that "something like the king of=20
France exists" ". In other words, I claimed that, for Russell, "The=20
king of France is bald" *does not* imply that somethng like the king of=20=
France exists. If R. Paul's remarks are to be said to "correct" me,=20
then they would have to show this proposition is false.
But it's not, nor does R. Paul say it is. What he does say, if I=20=
understand him rightly, is that for Russell, a proposition such as "The=20=
king of France is bald" *appears at first glance* - i.e., until it is=20
analysed - to imply the existence of something like the king of France.=20=
But what happens when we *analyse* such phrases, i.e. go beyond=20
appearances and try to figure out what is actually going on in them=A0?=20=
In the extract provided by R. Paul, Russell allows two possible=20
analyses of such statements:
1. We say, with Meinong, that propositions that appear to lack a=20=
denotation in fact *have* a denotation. Russell *rejects* this=20
Avicennean/Meinongian/Speranzanian solution.
2. We deny that any denotation is actually taking place in such=20=
statements. This is Russell's solution.
R. Paul is quite right to bring up Meinong, whose views - =
remakably=20
like those of Avicenna - are extremely pertinent here. Meinong would=20
say that a phrase about an object normally taken to be non-existent -=20
for instance, "the mountain I'm now thinking of is made of gold" can be=20=
a *true* statement about a non-existent object. But like Avicenna,=20
Meinong distinguishes between "Sein statements", which predicate=20
existence, and "Sosein statements" which do not. A Sein-statement is an=20=
affirmative statement that can be existentially generalized : from=20
=93=A0Swahili is difficult" we can infer "the Swahili language exists".=20=
Sosein-statements are not existentially generalizable : from a=20
statement about the golden mountain we *cannot* infer that golden=20
mountains exist.
So much for Meinong. But Russell *denies this distinction =
between=20
Sein-statements and Sosein statements* : in his theory of description,=20=
every statement is either a Sein-statement (i.e. one that affirms or=20
presupposes the existence of the object in question) or the negation of=20=
a Sein-statement; for Russell *there are no Sosein-statements*.
In summary, I still maintain my original view : it is *not* the =
case=20
that Russell thinks the statement "the king of France is bald" implies,=20=
presupposes, or allow the legitimate inference that "something like the=20=
king of France exists".
Best, Mike.
> Indeed, the
> 'wacko' one was Meinong -- a German, etc. --. In Russellian (and=20
> Gricean)
> parlance, while"The king of France is not bald" _implicates_ that=20
> there is a king of
> France (due to the word 'not', not to the fact that we know France is =
a
> Republic), "The king of France _is_ bald" certainly _implies_ it (i.e.=20=
> that there
> is a king of France). (v. Grice, "Presupposition and Conversational
> Implicature", in Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard).
>
> But back to 'the African language':
>
> M. Chase answers:
>
>>> Do you speak any African languages?
>> Well, I'm learning Egyptian.
>
> There is a sense in which we can say that Egyptian is indeed _the_=20
> African
> language (_par excellence_). Ergo: 'the African language' =3D =
Egyptian.=20
> A purist
> would perhaps object at this point that there's no such thing as _the_
> African language (let alone anything as reasonably thinking that=20
> Egyptian is
> _it_), but that's neither here nor there: the crux is that there _is_ =
a
> legitimate, colloquial use of the definite description, "the African=20=
> language" to refer
> to "Egyptian": Cf.
>
> The African language M. Chase thinks is _the_ African language"
>
> Oddly, this becomes otiose (and quasi-tautological) when expanded:
>
> Egyptian is the African language that M. Chase thinks
> is the African language"
>
> I note "quasi-tautological", because M. Chase can be wrong -- or think
> things differently.
>
> A still different, current among historical linguists, legitimate use=20=
> of
> "the African language" is the definite description used to refer=20
> (attributively
> and predicatively) to the Ur-African language -- a proto version of=20
> Swahili,
> but with much more declensions--, out of which _all_ (current) other=20=
> varieties
> of the African language can be shown to have sprung (cf. "M. Chase=20
> speaks
> French, therefore he speaks Indo-European", or "JL speaks Spanish,=20
> therefore he
> speaks Latin").
>
> Cheers,
>
> JL
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
Michael Chase
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76
7, rue Guy Moquet
Villejuif 94801
France
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
