»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Tongue Tied (How far can language be twisted?)
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Tongue Tied (How far can language be twisted?) |
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA 
|
The thread with Essorant brought this to mind ... I'm always amazed at the suppleness of language, and how it has evolved through time and cultures ... how slang and even playful onomatopoeia has worked its way into the mainstay, even into formal and established language. Yet two stabilizing things seem clear to me: 1) Language is pragmatically binding (though organic, still breakable), and 2) it is democratic in a sense, resistant to many a private permutation. So my question is, how far is too far in stretching language, and how can we tell? Grbixkjsh labeuethidol,  Stephen |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Stephen Douglas Jones - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I'll go back to Old English if you will.  Care for any "GrÃmnir's lip-streams?" We've come a long way, StephEn, or have we? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grimner's lip streams? I'm clueless. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
She means Odin's mead |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
It's a kenning for "poetry." The quote is from an Old Norse poem, Thorsdrapa, Lay of Thor. Kennings were prominent figures of speech in Old English and Old Norse. Some love them, some hate them. I think they're awesome. And Yes, Ess! You never disappoint me, my Beowulf friend. It also stands for the drink of Odin. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
P.S. Perhaps we can borrow a bit from Pink Floyd's-- Learning to Fly. "Into the distance, a ribbon of black Stretched to the point of no turning back" "Tongue-tied and twisted Just an earth-bound misfit, I" |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What about the word muscle from Latin musculus "little mouse" (mus "mouse" + culus, a diminutive suffix). We ought to wonder about parts of our body being "little mice", not only that but mutated mice, sometimes biceps "twoheaded" or triceps "threeheaded". |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
1533, from L. musculus "a muscle," lit. "little mouse," dim. of mus "mouse" (see mouse). So called because the shape and movement of some muscles (notably biceps) were thought to resemble mice. (From the Online Etymological Dictionary) |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
And did you ever wonder why people have so much difficulty understanding calculus "a little stone" (from calx "stone (usually limestone)" + -culus, diminutive suffix)? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Maybe there is a creative legitimacy to creating new words by analogy (if they catch on, and don't die miserably in someone's own mouth, head, or notebook). But I doubt there's any legitimacy in altering established words, not by analogy, but by sheer gutting. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Believe it or not many male swordsmen also have a vagina. [scabbard, sheath]  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, are you trying to get us booted to mature?  Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sorry, Stephanos. No maturity intended |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
While the word is flying around like a bird today: Inaugurate, from inauguratus passive participle of inaugurare to take omens from the flight of birds, to act as an augur, to hallow by augury. (in "in" + augur "(from avi-"bird" + gur "talk/sound" = "birdteller/reader") + are, present active infinitive ending. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Just like every rose, every human has a spine (from Latin spina "thorn"). |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
One might get a bit cold, if he doesn't keep his focus [fireplace]. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Stephen, RE: "So my question is, how far is too far in stretching language, and how can we tell?" Ya uses yor crap detector and does your best. Language may be God's blessing or curse, but it sure messes with a lot of minds. Best, Jimmy |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." Genesis 11:9 |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Right, Essorant. And later He would walk on water. When you can do the latter, maybe we'll let you get away with doing the former. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
LOL. Sorry. But "LOL" is also a great example of newfangled language. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron, But give it up with the nonsense of me trying to take over the word and redefine it. Personally, I have no more patience for it from you or Stephanos. A man arguing about something, however ridiculous you think his statement and belief, is not the same as someone taking over a word and trying to confine it to something he believes about what the word refers to. My days are done here if this continues. I am now become too sick of it to put up with anymore. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So you think everyone in the world should just ignore dictionaries and common usage, Essorant, and acquiesce to whatever you want a word to mean? And if we don't, you don't want to talk to us any more? That's your choice, of course. While I'll admit that 90 percent of the time I choose to just smile and ignore your lexical idiosyncrasies as harmless, I have no intention of ever rolling over and playing dead. I'm honestly sorry if that offends you, but words are too important to take so lightly. I'll support your right to say it, but continue to reserve my right to disagree. It's up to you how you choose to deal with it. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No, what I think is that people should not accuse a person that puts forth arguments and beliefs about something, whether "supernaturalism", "omniscience", "god" "ghosts", etc,, as attempting to change the meaning of the word to the argument or belief itself. Having different arguments and beliefs about something is not the same as "murdering, mangling, gutting" etc a word. I no more wish omniscience to have my beliefs about it in the dictionary than I wish the definition of "house" to have the specifications of my house. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
schnigglefarggins! You two quit fighting like that. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Seriously Ess, I want to let it rest. Still, it doesn't seem to be just the content of argument, but the usage of the word "omniscient" that raised such a ruckus in a previous thread. Still I say, we should all lighten up. Perhaps the best response to a neologism (snagged that word from BobK) is to just pass it by, if pointing out the infraction is not acknowledged. We've all been under friendly fire in these forums from time to time, Ess. Wanting to leave is quite an overreaction in my opinion. Even if you do stretch a word beyond recognition from time to time, you are a part of the family and contribute alot. Just my thoughts, Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I stumbled upon this and thought you might find it interesting. quote: That particular section from a B.B.C. series entitled "Words Fail Me," is also the only known recording of her voice. Found here: Woolf Speaking Being a daughter of a knight would certainly have an affect on one's grasp of "pure." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Some words manhandled by Religion have the greatest deviations, such as Angel From Greek aggelos [gg pronounced "ng"] "messenger" Devil From Greek dia-bolos (dia "through" + bolos "throwing") "through-throwing one = slanderer". Neither of these words originally implied the kind of supernatural nonsense by which we define them in our English language today. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, It is altogether different (though some would deny it) to say something is "nonsense", than to say "it doesn't make sense ... and here's why". The connotations behind these words, make the difference between insult, and intellectual critique. One fits a philosophy forum, the other doesn't. However, at least in Christian Theology (there are other streams of belief which use these words as well), both "Devil" and "Angel" are part of the created order ... ie, nature. And their names have been derived from human experience of what such created beings have been known to do. Whether you agree with any of that or not, it certainly understandable to me how the names were acquired. One who almost always bore messages might naturally assume that name. One who always accused or slandered might easily bear the other. It's not like taking the word "wet" and using it to describe dry things, since most dry things contain some moisture ... or taking the word "light" to describe darkness, since there is seldom a total absence of light. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: I forgot to point out, in my response, that the Greek word "Angelos" was used in pre-Christian times to describe oracles / soothsayers giving messages from the gods. Looks like you're not exactly correct in attributing the religious aspect of the word, to a later English innovation. It seems, since people have been religious from time immemorial, quite understandable that a word for "messenger" might have both sacred and 'regular' applications. And since the etymology of the Greek word is unknown, you're likely to have a hard time finding a time when the word wasn't used in this way. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, Just a short note to defend my point.I never said it excluded any such kind of messenger. My point was that the meaning of the word was just that "messenger, envoy, etc" in general, not defined by such things as we usually imply today, such as being a celestial or supernatural being, from heaven, having wings, etc. For example, using the original meaning, an aggelos "messenger" of earth or even from hell or the underworld, would be just as much an aggelos. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-03-2009 11:05 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Another word overthrown by religion is certainly demon from Greek daimon "(a) divinity, guardian spirit and the like" Eventually, Christianity used it in a very contrary way and filled it with negative connotations, so that now it is wellnigh impossible to say the word without an accompanying sense of evil. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Pan daemonium! See Pan and The Underworld by James Hillman for a seat of the pants thrill ride through religion, language and Analytical Psychology seen through the eyes of a real master. He bends concepts like pretzels into new sculptural forms. He loves the world of dreams. He defies gravity. His viewpoint dips into and out of the polytheistic, and certainly into the world of classical antiquity. He thrills on word origins. He chills with his logic. Five Stars out of Three on the intellectual curiosity List! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Well Ess, I suppose we need words for distinctions, and opposites, as well as more general words like "deities". You fault religion for the evolution of the words "angel" and "demon" ... leaning too good on one side, and too evil on the other? But these words are still quite congruent with their original meanings, though adding specification / valuation. Again, this is not quite like calling black white is it? And here's another question to explore: What makes some innovations endure, and others fizzle? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I agree. But I guess if I happen to use a word in a different way, but unlike those above, in a way that by no means is ever likely what so ever to change the definition nor threaten it, nor intends to, it gets to be attacked as "murdering, mangling, gutting, etc" the word? quote: I think both wisdom and unwisdom. On one hand someone may use something in a very wise way and it may catch on and continue, but on the other someone may use something very unwisely and mistakenly and it may catch on and continue as well. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, You specifically? How would I know? I don't think my funny word buzzer or anybody else's is much affected by the fact that you're doing the verbal shuffling or if somebody else is. I have trouble with some sorts of split infinitives that others use with ease; they simply ring badly to my ear. Such things I think may be disagreed about without too much trouble. It's when the actual meaning of the words themselves gets shuffled around too abruptly that discord comes in. We are then talking about the content and meaning of the words themselves, and suggesting that folks don't actually mean what they say when they say something, but may mean instead something almost entirely different. This is something that is essentially an attack on the social construction of the reality that a culture shares in common. And an attack on the social contract that governs the behavior of members of that culture toward each other. In our culture we call these attacks "freedom of speech," and we permit them with the understanding that this is "protected speech" and should be permitted, even if it is uncomfortable and impolite. We are less lenient about speech that is not political, and which attacks the social contract between people. The business about changing the meaning of a word seems to me to fall into this latter category. If a person is willing to change the meaning of one word unilaterally in the middle of a debate to their own advantage, it undermines the level of trust necessary to hold a discussion. What terms, then, might be shifted without warning unilaterally in the future? Why should such a conversation be attempted if it is not done from a position of mutual understanding? "Omniscience" probably was the word that you were looking for when it was time to provide a good hook for your title. But it was not the word that you would want to build a good case around; certainly not the word as it was defined by the dictionary. You probably could have solved your problem by coming up with a different word in the title, provocative enough for a good lead, and yet defensible without having to distort the language for the work you wanted to do in the body of your responses. I was struck by this exchange between you and Stephanos: quote: What you say here has some merit. I think that what may be equally important is what the language needs as opposed to what we need for our own purposes. As we stumble along in our writing and conversation, we will occasionally come to places where there are ideas that need to be expressed for which there are no words that come quickly to mind, or where those words that come quickly to mind have an over-chewed texture to them, and an over-familiar flavor and too simple or too rough a shape. At those places and at those times the language asks us for a contribution. We can rise to it or not, and the contribution will be accepted or not, but there will be out chance. It is a playful moment of creation as much as it is wisdom. Anyway, some thoughts of my own on the nature of the dilemma. Best wishes, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bob. For myself though, I don't care to wordwrestle about it any further. I will leave the rest to you and Stephanos. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, Me and Bob are going at it in at least a couple of other threads. Add another conversation with that guy, and my tongue is fit to be tied. (just kidding Bob) I do get away with spelling his name backwards, anytime I want to express subtle disdain. Stephen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
People do it all the time. I've been known to do it myself. bob |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
yeah boB, it's really hard to detect ... especially when you capitalize the last letter and then sneak it to the front. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
