[lit-ideas] Re: Shall But Won't
- From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 06:41:39 +0000
Dear Speranza you are kindly asked to stop lying
In French and Italian there is no infinitive +to have (there is quasi
progressive in French but let us keep things simple)
RIVERS OF BLOOD WILL FLOW (with the possible variants with SHALL replacing WILL)
The case in Italian is the following
SCORRERANNO FIUMI DI SANGUE
Or else, what are you talking ‘bout?
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 31 October 2014 19:22
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Shall But Won't
In a message dated 10/31/2014 11:49:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
The original Serbian is: "teći će rijeke krvi", but as we see, in this case
the ambiguity is perfectly translatable into English. (Or any other language
that has future tense, I suppose.) True, there is no "I" in Šešelj's statement
- he does not say "I shall make rivers of blood flow" - but as he was a chief
of a political party (which was formally in opposition a the time, but close
to the government policy in some respects) and had some paramilitary troops
under his control (at least partially), there are reasons to think that he was
in the position to at least contribute to the outcome that he was ostensibly
predicting.
Well, perhaps we can get into the grammatical-syntactical detail of
i. Teći će rijeke krvi.
And compare it with German, and English, and Latin, and Italian.
We assume the verb is 'flow'. In Latin, 'flow' in the future, possibly in some
sort of 'neutral' sense, would just add a verb ending to the root and stem.
In German it's still different.
In modern English, the use of 'will' seems to be a development from an older
use of 'will' (will to). Note that this use of 'will' is still operative in
German, where 'willen' means 'wish', more or less.
In Italian, and French, etc., the future is made up of the infinitive plus a
verb ending of the verb to 'have', and it's quite a complication from the
simpler Latin.
So, we may compare (i) with
ii. Rivers of blood will flow.
Grice writes:
"Sensitive Englsh speakers (which most of us are not) may be able to mark
this distinction by discriminating between 'shall' and 'will', Grice regrets,
and goes on to say:
"'I shall-I go to London' stands to 'I intend to go to London'
analogously to the way in which 'Oh for rain tomorrow!' stands to 'I wish for
rain tomorrow'."
which we can express in a sort of proportion:
a c
--- = ----
b d
I.e. Grice is saying that
ii. Rivers of blood will flow.
with 'will' understood 'intentionally' stands to
iii. Rivers of blood 'intend' to flow.
"analogously to the way in which"
iv. Oh for rivers of blood to flow!
stands to
v. I wish for rivers of blood to flow.
-- by which I take it that Grice is proposing that the 'willing' element is
MERELY implicated, rather than explicitly stated in the 'intentional' use of
'will' (versus a rather hypothetical merely 'indicated or factual' use of
'will' -- cfr. Hume on 'to cause' meaning 'to will').
Omar: "in Šešelj's statement - he does not say "I shall make rivers of blood
flow" - but as he was a chief of a political party (which was formally in
opposition a the time, but close to the government policy in some
respects) and had some paramilitary troops under his control (at least
partially), there are reasons to think that he was in the position to at least
contribute to the outcome that he was ostensibly predicting."
The subject heading I chose is "shall but won't" because I think the phenomena
is indeed semantic, rather than implicatural or pragmatic, in that
"I shall but I won't"
sounds like a logical contradiction.
The element (perhaps atavic or a relic) of 'willing' in the use of 'will flow'
(from 'will to flow') does make it sound of paradoxical that an utterer could
EVER predict a NOT desired (not willed) outcome.
And Šešelj's defense may (?) claim that an expansion of the original claim
could be rendered as:
vi. We don't like a civil war; but I can tell you and predict you that, if such
a civil war should take place, then it 'will' VERY UNFORTUNATE for us Serbians
that, if I may speak hyperbolically, rivers of blood are a future state.
I wonder how they are discussing this in The Hague.
-- And cfr.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest
on/off), visit
www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html<http://www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html>
Other related posts:
