I am not sure that I understand your objection, Cheerskep. It cannot be the case that you disagree with Eco about the tranlatability of Sehnsucht (by a single word in English). And, even by your own account, you cannot be claiming that Shoe and Schuh are synonymous, for that would imply '_the meaning_ of "Shoe" and "Schuh" is _this_ third thing, X.'
so, forgive me for being dense, but I am totally confused about what the problem is. Care to formulate it in a single phrase? I also find your baseball analogy equally incomprehensible. You seem to think that parts do not compose wholes. Why so against Mereology and Teleology? For especially with baseball, one can't run around the bases (any more than an observer can identify an activity of someone else as 'running around the bases') until one has built (or identified) the field. one can't build (or identify) a field until one knows the regulations of baseball (however fuzzily), and one can't know the regulations of baseball without knowing what baseball is. So I challange you: I say that one cannot 'see' someone running to/around the bases unless one knows what baseball is. I say that the whole comes before the parts (although perhaps not as clearly as one would normally think) For that matter, one can't see someone running unless they know what 'running' is. Now tell me, Cheerskep, how is my account any less coherent than yours? And remember that metaphysics doesn't bother me -- but I would like to hear why it should, or how my infinity of meanings is any worse than your infinity of unrepeatable actions and encounters -- to wit, your infinity is bigger than mine!. On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:56 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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: b No 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)
