[lit-ideas] Re: Jack Fell Down
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 18:32:10 +0200
Well, is it argued that the US is by itself an empire, or rather that it is
the center of an empire ? On the analogy of Rome or Britain, I would think
that it is probably the second. (Although the first might also be
considered.)
O.K.
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
