I disagree with Cheerskep's comment regarding German. While it is true that German contains many English cognates, particularly in reference to technical or scientific terms, other common words in German are not quite equivalent to English. In fact English is a rather blunt language that misses much of the poetic nuance in some other languages. Regarding German, take Spencer's famous title for his book on Western Civilization: Der Untergang des Abendlandes. What a beautiful sound! And what a beautiful, if also ominous, image it evokes! It begins with Untergang, a going down, a sunset conveying the image of a final, glorious burst of rosy light. Then des Abendlandes, the West -- with lovely alliteration to Untergang. But in English we have just a blunt, dun translation, the Decline of The West, and it loses all that imagistic color and melacholy captured by the original German Title. There are numberless examples.
I also disagree rather strongly with those who insist on one-to-one, person to person meanings in using words. Even Cheerskep is happily satisfied with "serviceable" in how words evoke similar but not the same notions in different people. There is a distinction to be made between expository language and, let's say, expressive language. With the former one aims for the clearest verbal definition or explanation of something like an object or an idea. Directions or a description of functions are good examples. With the latter, one aims for an expansive, allusive, associational, imagistic, communication, as with Spengler's book title. For some years, before I could survive as an artist, I wrote both consumer and business to business advertising copy and it was often very expository; that is, explanatory, descriptive, and simple. Word count was critical. One chose words carefully. Adjectives were rare and limited to the major product benefit: something cheaper, faster, easier. I think Art, aesthetics, and language suited to expressiveness is intentionally more inclusive in allusiveness -- when it evokes many meanings and interpretations. Thus it is not suited to nail-down explicitness. It relies on ambiguity (layered meanings). It aims at flourish, effulgence, suggestion, contradiction, paradox, intensity, and the personal. I don't see how the expressiveness of art and aesthetics can be reconciled with the uninflected factuality of expository definition. If we strip words naked they quickly lose their appeal. In art we dress them up and let them dance and sing. WC --- On Fri, 10/17/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: gift/talent/aptitude/skill/ etc > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 17, 2008, 11:14 PM > Cheerkep: I accept your point that there are readily > available translations > for many/most English words in German. Your examples would > probably be > easily translated in any language. I still do not accept > that all German > words ... how about "gesellschaft", may readily > be translated into English > without at least awkwardness. If Eskimos really do have > 27/whatever words > for snow, I'm sure that we don't have English words > which would readily > serve as translations for all of them. Translating words > expressing emotion > I would guess would be more challenging. That's without > even referring to > new technological terms. > I haven't read a lot of philosophers but would concur > that writing so that > the layman can comprehend the theses suggests that they are > clearer in their > own minds what they're discussing. I do resent the > employment of either > esoteric terminology or the use of familiar words in > unfamiliar ways. I'm > not sayng/writing that it shouldn't be done, isn't > done; just that I think > it gums up communication. > Geoff C > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: gift/talent/aptitude/skill/ etc > >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:42:57 EDT > > > >Geoff writes: > > > >"I can understand a German-speaker's belief > >that no English word quite expresses what he > understands in the German word > >"X"." > > > >If you know three or four people fluent in both English > and German, ask > >them > >how they would translate these four words: > > > >Cigar, soap, tooth, shoe. > > > >See if every one of them doesn't say: > > > >"Zigarre, Seife, Zahn, Schuh." > > > >Go on to prepositions and conjunctions. Don't > expect any of them to claim > >'und' is not synonymous with 'and'. > Words are my turf. I'd love to see them > >all > >glorified as unique. But that's baloney. > > > >In truth, I hate how custom made, specialized, the > philosophers have tried > >to > >make their language. It makes stuff inscrutable to > non-academics, and that > >shouldn't be. I'm pleased to notice what I > think is a sharp decline in > >recent > >years in the use of the symbols of mathematical logic > in philosophical > >journals. > > > >But wait, am I being inconsistent? "Be rigorous > but be readable?" No, I > >don't > >think I am. It's hard, but it can be done to a > useful degree. > >An essential required gift is good ability to see where > the reader can go > >wrong. I used to say in a self-aggrandizing way, > "I work and work and work > >on a > >piece till I've got it where it seems like it took > no work at all." (Not > >the > >pieces on this forum, I admit!) What I was largely > aiming at was silently > >side-stepping confusing verbal misteps while discussing > complicated > >notions. > > > >Some of the best philosophers are celebrated for their > writing "style", and > >that's the way it should be. David Hume, and, > often, Bertrand Russell, were > >none the less rigorous for making their work > "accessible" to the layman > >where > >they could. I honestly believe that the pursuit of > linguistic "rigor" has > >often > >been literally counter-productive in philosophy, and, > paradoxically, > >perhaps > >most woefully in academic philosophers themselves. > The devising of "terms > >of > >art" like 'epistemic' and 'the > aesthetic' (where 'aesthetic' is a noun) > >has > >made for more muddlement than clarification in > philosophy. > > > >The later Wittgenstein, despite putting forth some of > the most bizarrely > >novel philosophical ideas, worked hard, and often > successfully, to frame > >them in > >something very like "kitchen-table" lingo. > If he often failed, it had > >less to > >do with his language than with the fact that certain > key notions of his > >were > >muddled or incomplete. But all of us have those. > > > > > > > >************** > >New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your > destination. > >Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out > >(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
