[lit-ideas] The Ocean, the Bird, and the Scholar
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:10:44 EST
Before opening R. Paul's post, thinking that he might be overcritical, I
double checked with OED. I was of course confused when I wrote 'kith OR kin"
(Google confused me). The phrase, standard one, is 'kith & kin" -- quotes
below.
My favourite seems to be Max Mueller's.
So now I feel less guilty to change the silly anyway header into something
more relevant.
In a message dated 2/27/2009 7:44:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes:
>This seems just a weird stipulation on
>Vendler's part. (What is it to 'grammatically
>well used,' anyway?)
Very good point. I'll recheck. You don't hold your breath! Take a seat!
Relax!
R. Paul produces what he thinks is a grammatically correct by native
speaker's intuitions:
(1) p Smile!
&
q You are on Candid Camera.
This I take as extremely _ironic_. And possibly sensible though, in that
without the _stimulus_, "Smile!" the candid-camera'ed would bleep out an
expletive which may need to be deleted.
R. Paul continues:
>Perhaps (director to actor):
(2) p Smile!
For [the love of Mike Geary].
q you are supposed to be happy in this scene.
>is more imperative than the
>injunction to
(3) p Smile, boys!
q That (i.e. smile) is the style.
Yes, we should do 'injunction'. I wonder if injunctions are etymologically
_orders_:
OED
injunction, from Latin "injungere", to enjoin.
Cognate with Italian, "ingiugnere" (as in "Tea with Mussolini")
-- From Latin injungere
literally: "to join on"
Obviously from
"in-" + "jungere" to join.
I suppose that I never felt the imperative force of 'join', either:
"Join them or beat them".
1955 Sci. Amer. Apr. 100/3 This epistemological problem is best solved by
following the classical dictum, ‘If you can't beat 'em join 'em’.
1976-7 Sea Spray (N.Z.) Dec./Jan. 94/1 ‘Best way to beat the opposition is
to join 'em’ would seem to be the philosophy behind a decision by C. W. F.
Hamilton Marine Ltd to offer OMC, MerCruiser and Volvo sterndrives through its
dealers.
R. Paul continues:
>but in any event,
>philosophers are fond of stipulating how we ordinary speakers should
>behave linguistically; they needn't be listened to.
I thought he was a linguist! I would never consider him a philosopher! :)
>I went to a party at (the late) Zeno Vendler [born Hungary, 1921]'s house
>once. Helen [Hennessy, b. 1933 -- was in
>the kitchen, like a good graduate student wife.
>Some time after that
>they parted ways and she became a well-known
>literary critic,
Odd. When I read your 'some time after that' I thought you meant, "Some time
after washing the dishes!".
>while Zeno
>became one of America's finest second-rate philosophers.
Loved that. Has to be "amongst the first second-rate philosophers". The pun
on 'first' versus 'second'.
But let's see how confused could I be about his affiliation with linguistics:
1967 Z. VENDLER Linguistics in Philos. v. 124 In technical terms, we will
end up with a list of nominalized sentences.
1999 Shakespeare Q. 50 529 The critical disease Vendler attempts to cure is
the habit of mining literary texts for paraphrasable content.
1972 Z. VENDLER (title) Res cogitans: an essay in rational psychology.
You _must_ love that first-rate Xian name -- "Zeno". "Zenon" is a common
Argentine name, among gauchos!
I fail to find out if the Vendlers's sons, either of them, is called Zeno
Vendler, Jr.
---
wiki:
(why are wiki entries anonymous?)
"His work on lexical aspect, quantifiers, and nominalization has been
influential in the field of linguistics."
And one is surprised that Holdcroft finds so much time to discuss this odd
Hungarian's odd views (affectionately speaking on both counts).
Again from wiki:
"Under Vendler's model, events may be
classified into one of four aspectual classes:
1. states, which are static and
do not have an endpoint ("know," "love");
2. activities, which are dynamic and do not
have an endpoint ("run," "drive");
3. accomplishments, which have an endpoint and
are incremental or gradual
("paint a picture," "build a house"); and
4. achievements, which have an endpoint and
occur instantaneously ("recognize," "notice").
Vendler's Law:
Activities and accomplishments are able to appear
in the progressive
(1) He is running
(2) He is painting a picture
whereas states and achievements are not
(3) *He is knowing French
(4) *He is recognizing his friend.
"Linguist S.-Y. Kuroda has said that Vendler's terms achievement and
accomplishment "have since become basic technical vocabulary in modern
linguistics,""
--- You see -- philosophers won't!
His 1967 collection of essays -- that the OED quotes under 'nominalisation'
"has been described as an attempt to 'reconcile the empirical basis of
linguistic science with the a priori nature of philosophical reasoning'"
---- which we don't need!
I mean, we don't _do_ empirical basis, philosophers.
Recently, when S. R. Chapman (a linguist) published her book on Grice (now
in paperback!) she writes, as she subititles, grossly, the book as "philosopher
_and_ linguist_". "Grice would be offended". Then why does she go on and
keep keeping that title?
Sybesma, Rint (1997). "Why Chinese Verb-le is a Resultative Predicate".
Journal of East Asian Linguistics: 215-261.
Holdcroft's treatment is in subsection, "Some grammar" -- so he's obviously
having fun with the Hungarian. It's available in googlebooks.
pp. 128ff
It's interesting, of course, to challenge Vendler's (and Holdcroft's) use of
"*". I don't think Grice would ever use "*" (Chomsky's term for
'ungrammatical').
Examples cited by Holdcroft:
(5) * I convince you that you are wrong.
(7) * I persuade you that you are wrong.
(8) * I frighten you that your family is in danger.
On differences between 'know' and 'report'
(9) For how long have you known that Zeno and Helen are separated?
-- For four years.
(10) *For how long have you reported that Zeno and Helen are separated?
-- a nondeviant answer is not available (Holdcroft).
(11) When did you report that you saw them?
At 5 pm
(12) When did you know that you saw them?
"has no comparable answer" (Holdcroft).
However, unfortunately, I cannot really trace Holdcroft's treatment of
imperatives, so I'll revise R. Paul's thoughts (there's always something to
learn
from an overcritical philosopher):
R. Paul conisders just 'smile', which Vendler would have as an actvitity, so
indeed, it can be "!" ordered. -- whether successfuly or not is another
point. My philosophy tutor used to say, "Don't smile -- Chimpanzees smile" (He
was a Darwinian and explained to me that chimps smile when they want to display
aggression -- show teeth -- but there are many shades of meaning here -- cfr.
Italian 'riso').
If it just means 'articulate the jaw' then indeed it can be an order.
Ockham's example, I recall, in Summa Totius (in a bilingual English-Latin
translation I once saw) has:
risus significat interiorem gaudem
(I think), i.e.
a laugh (or a smile) _means_ inner joy.
But back to R. Paul's example
(1) Smile!
&
q You are on Candid Camera.
is indeed friendly.
(2) p Smile!
For [the love of Mike Geary].
q you are supposed to be happy in this scene.
>is more imperative than
(3) p Smile, boys!
---- So what was _Yost's_ problem?
Whatever.
But I still would think that some verbs in the imperative sound somewhat odd.
(1) Enjoy! (I have come to accept it -- I even reply with 'thanks')
The other day I noticed the interview during the Oscars:
RED-CARPET JOURNALIST (to couple of actors): Have a wonderful time!
husband of actress: "We will -- thank you"
which sounded *slightly* odd:
"We will --" can be _rude_: implicating, 'you are not going to tell us if we
are going to have a good time or not'. As Vendler notes, relying explicitly
on Grice, it's all about speaker intention, and this is not a _prediction_ to
be answered with "We will" -- I'd say "I'll try" at most -- for how can I
speak on behalf of my wife in something so subjective?
But I think the intention of the journalist was an implicit performative, "I
wish you two _have a wonderful time_." In which case the 'thank you' is
perfect.
It's just the conglomeration (as Vendler would put it) between the exegesis
of the illocutionary uptake as _both_ prognostic and _boulemaic_ that can, as
Geary would have it, be 'provocative'.
Cheers,
JL
------
1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. xv. 497 How ritwis men..Fer fro kitth and fro kynne
yuel yclothed eden. a1400 Octouian 1822 I-dryue Ywas,..From ken and kyghth.
c1450 St. Cuthbert (Surtees) 23 Of saynt cuthbert kyth and kynne. 1570 LEVINS
Manip. 150/36 Kith or kin, cognatio. 1794 BURNS ‘My Lady's gown’ ii, My lady's
white, my lady's red, And kith and kin o' Cassillis' blude. 1824 BYRON Juan
XV. xxxi, Daughters, brothers, sisters, kith or kin. 1872 BLACK Adv. Phaeton
viii, If any extra bit of comfort or kindness is wanted for their own kith
and kin.
1861 MAX MÜLLER Sci. Lang. iv. 156 That Greek and Latin were of the same
kith and kin as the language of the black inhabitants of India.
1861 MAX MÜLLER Sci. Lang. iv. 156 That Greek and Latin were of the same
kith and kin as the language of the black inhabitants of India.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
------------------------------------------------------------------
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] The Ocean, the Bird, and the Scholar - Jlsperanza
