Oops, I meant Spengler. Another typo resulting from poor typing skills. WC
--- On Sat, 10/18/08, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: gift/talent/aptitude/skill/ etc > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, October 18, 2008, 10:34 AM > 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
