By the same token that there's no baseball game so is there no memory. All memories are reconstructed piece by piece inventions, lies told anew with every "recollection". For more, here's a wonderful new book: Proust Was a Neuroscientist, by Jonah Lehrer, 2007. I urge Cheerskep and others here to read it. This book will be a classic. WC
--- On Sat, 10/18/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Synonyms" > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, October 18, 2008, 5:56 PM > In a message dated 10/18/08 3:55:56 PM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > "Well, this is a novel idea. I never thought of words > from two languages that > specify (call to mind) the same referent as *synonyms*. > This strikes me as a > contrived argumentb&. two words > from different languages that point to the same referent > (even a conjunction, > i.e., a syntactical function) are called exact > translations." > > Ho! You're an impertinent lad, Brady! But you're > young, so we'll hope you can > still learn. I shall quote from an account of address given > in 2005: > > "Umberto Eco, professor of semiotics from the > University of Bologna and > author of the celebrated novel The Name of The Rose, came > to a solemn > conclusion: b > There are no synonyms between languages.b To illustrate his > summation the > semiotician said: bNo English word really explains what the > German word, > Sehnsucht, means. Neither nostalgia, nor yearning, neither > craving nor > wistfulness > really describes the full and exact meaning of the word.b > > But then, I don't know why I quote Eco there -- my very > point is that he's > all balled up. > > Besides, youthful posting has more interesting errors to > dwell on. Let's go > back to that, "two words from different languages that > point to the same > referentb&" Words don't point, Laddie! > They're inert, insensate, and > indifferent. > > Your mind does all the doing and pointing. You > contemplate the words, and > the scurrying lump of links in your head retrieves lots of > associated memories > from its soft hard-drive. > > Then you say, "The utterance doesn't have meaning, > it provokes the meaning in > the listener -- in this case, a good or reliable or perfect > translation." > > Of course, the word doesn't "provoke" any > more than it "points". But the > phrase that really captures my attention is "the > meaning in the listener". > Let's > hope you don't mean "THE meaning". Let's > hope you mean "A meaning", by which > let's hope you mean "a notion" -- the which > notion is a memory that's a result > of the listener's exposure to repeated juxtaposition of > the word with the > notion in the past. > > Just to show what I reasonable fellow I can be about the > use of the word > 'meaning', here's this. Let's say as a very > little boy you saw lots of > baseball > played. And your Dad would repeatedly say such things as, > "Ah, now THAT's > baseball! Don't you love baseball! I know you want to > play baseball!" After a > while, even when you weren't at the game, when anyone > said "baseball", > memories of > the games you'd seen would "come to mind" -- > because of those impressed > associations of the word with what you were always looking > at when the word > was > uttered. Given that, one could fairly harmlessly end up > saying, say, "That's > the > meaning of baseball for me." > > Now, lest I seem too reasonable, I shall make this no doubt > opaque remark: In > fact, you never "saw" the game of baseball at > all. You saw pitchers pitch, > batters swing, fielders catch, and much running. But you > never saw the game of > baseball. Every observation was reducible to, > "accounted for" in, clips of > other objects and actions. You should be ashamed of > yourself, Brady, for ever > telling people you saw a baseball game! > > > > > > ************** > New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your > destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
