Subject
Re: THOUGHTS re: stranger-danger; midges-midgets
From
Date
Body
Jansy: you miss a few basic points. Languages were evolving over many
millennia before they were written or regulated. (The vast majority of the
6000+ extant languages today still lack formal writing systems &
³literature.²) Without the aid of dictionaries and linguists, objects,
actions and properties were being named (nouns, verbs, adjectives) and
grammatical markers invented (tenses, inflections etc.). It is this amazing
³untutored² everyday SPOKEN process that reveals the playful INVENTIVE
metaphorical aspects of language to which I was referring. The key here is
that IF words (except for obvious imitations of nature as in ³buzz² ³hum²
³purr² and ³yuck!²) did somehow mysteriously (contra Saussure) match their
sounds with their referenced ³essences,² then LESS ( or NO) inventiveness
would be demanded, and LESS (or NO) variety found, in the ³naming of parts.²
IF, e.g., there was something innately canine in the name/sound D-O-G, we
might expect that word, or or one similar, to predominate in the many
language-communities that have domesticated Man¹s Best Friend. Saussure¹s
use of the word ³arbitrary² in designating the nature of the link between
spoken-written ³d-o-g² and
<that-4-legged-whoof-whoofing-creature-over-there> is really unarguable and
undisputable. Otherwise, we would be forced to accept that thousands of
non-D-O-G non-English designations also managed to ³capture² the essence of
caninity! Chien (French); Gi-li (Cherokee); say no more! Further, it¹s quite
likely that dog¹ in some remote Papuan tongue means cat!¹ (We know that
NAY means YES in some languages; every year Bradford girls touring Greece
become pregnant because of this linguistic quirk.) The point seems too
obvious to belabour! Denying this arbitrariness in the MAPPING is to push
linguistics back into pre-scientific dark ages.
This arbitrariness remains an OBSERVED MYSTERY rather than ANY proferred
EXPLANATION. We know so little about the origins of language, which is why
the Biblical myths are rather tempting! We have Adam naming things in some
UR-UR er-er language, but no clue how he named the verbs and all the
conjunctional and interrogative ³glue² allowing him to converse with Eve!
Where inventive playful metaphor enters the equation is WHAT WE (as
everyday language USERS) DO WITH THE NOUN DOG¹ ONCE IT HAS BEEN WIDELY
ACCEPTED INTO a PARTICULAR SPEECH-COMMUNITY. Think of the leap to the VERB
DOG¹ as in ³The exegetical problems of Pale Fire have been dogging me for
years.² Such idioms vary in inventiveness but are coined by both ³pimp and
poet² -- some such usages, and this is where JM and AS may become confused,
are NOT arbitrary but DERIVATIVE. From signifier ³d-o-g² to signified
<dog-the-quadraped> IS arbitrary, but once ³dog² is in the lexis, it can be
applied in many related figurative ways. Thus ³shagging doggy-style,²
³dog-in-a-manger,² ³Dog Shit Blues**² and a ³hang-dog expression² require
little metaphorical inspiration, while ³dog rose² and ³dog star² are a tad
more ³arbitrary² and teasing.
** ³Woke up this mornin¹, Dog Shit on my head! [Repeat] Had the Blues so
bad, had to go right back to bed!²
Summary: language along with human consciousness stand out as major UNSOLVED
mysteries challenging science. They are areas that encourage both formal
and informal, both informed and uninformed, speculation. ALL are welcomed,
but the latter should pause and examine some of the FEW reasonably
well-established facts about language IN ACTION. David Crystal¹s ³How
Language Works² is a good general introduction.
Stan Kelly-Bootle
On 22/09/2008 18:13, "jansymello" <jansy@AETERN.US> wrote:
> Stan K-B: Midgets and midges are essentially ³close² synonyms for small
> entities[...] Common usage emerged to favor midge¹ for insects (in particular
> the Chironomid) and midget¹ for dwarf humans and other species. Nevertheless,
> BECAUSE LANGUAGES WORK THAT WAY*, midget¹ has evolved idiomatic usages as
> noun and adjective for anything tiny or insignificant.[...] Imagine my shock
> on reading the word GENITAL only to discover the word was in fact GENIAL... we
> are back to those verbal coincidences and how much significance they
> hold.[...]
> * There¹s a strong metaphorical force at work which is essentially playful and
> inventive even at the everyday common-language-user level. Of course, we
> admire VN so much because he magnifies that force in dazzling ways and
> unexpected directions.
> JM: When we consider everyday language as "playful and inventive", or
> depersonalize "verbal coincidences", we are neglecting the possibility that
> what is then happening lies only in the eyes of the beholder - not in any word
> per se.
> I'm sure SKB is jesting when suggesting a "strong metaphorical force at work"
> ( a trap for the orthodox Freudian?).
> After all, quite recently he advised us to: "Recall Saussure¹s key notion that
> the mapping from signifier to signified is quite arbitrary...It¹s fine to
> indulge in puns and word games as long as you don¹t start attaching mystical
> significance to accidental resonances and anagrams..."
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/