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 & “literature.”) 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 “untutored” 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 “buzz” “hum” “purr” and “yuck!”) did somehow mysteriously (contra Saussure) match their sounds with their referenced “essences,” then LESS ( or NO) inventiveness would be demanded, and LESS (or NO) variety found, in the “naming of parts.” 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 Man’s Best Friend. Saussure’s use of the word “arbitrary” in designating the nature of the link between spoken-written “d-o-g” 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 “capture” the essence of caninity! Chien (French); Gi-li (Cherokee); say no more! Further, it’s quite likely that ‘dog’ in some remote Papuan tongue means ‘cat!’ (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 “glue” allowing him to converse with Eve!
Where inventive playful metaphor enters the equation is WHAT WE (as everyday language USERS) DO WITH THE NOUN ‘DOG’ ONCE IT HAS BEEN WIDELY ACCEPTED INTO a PARTICULAR SPEECH-COMMUNITY. Think of the leap to the VERB ‘DOG’ as in “The exegetical problems of Pale Fire have been dogging me for years.” Such idioms vary in inventiveness but are coined by both “pimp and poet” -- some such usages, and this is where JM and AS may become confused, are NOT arbitrary but DERIVATIVE. From signifier “d-o-g” to signified <dog-the-quadraped> IS arbitrary, but once “dog” is in the lexis, it can be applied in many related figurative ways. Thus “shagging doggy-style,” “dog-in-a-manger,” “Dog Shit Blues**” and a “hang-dog expression” require little metaphorical inspiration, while “dog rose” and “dog star” are a tad more “arbitrary” and teasing.
** “Woke up this mornin’, Dog Shit on my head! [Repeat] Had the Blues so bad, had to go right back to bed!”
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 Crystal’s “How Language Works” 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 “close” synonyms for small entities[...] Common usage emerged to favor ‘midge’ for insects (in particular the Chironomid) and ‘midget’ for dwarf humans and other species. Nevertheless, BECAUSE LANGUAGES WORK THAT WAY*, ‘midget’ 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.[...]
* There’s 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 Saussure’s key notion that the mapping from signifier to signified is quite arbitrary...It’s fine to indulge in puns and word games as long as you don’t start attaching mystical significance to accidental resonances and anagrams..."