On Jun 26, 2009, at 1:38 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Miller's definition was this:
"A mark is whatever is done to a surface in a single uninteruppted
touch." Miller's definition implies marks being limited to human
action alone.
Where? I'm afraid I don't see it.
One might serviceably conceive a context in which the "meaning" of the
term "mark" be *limited* to human action, and one might make a
defensible case that Miller was indeed thinking of marks made by
humans. But that is not the meaning that is somehow encoded in the
words Miller typed, which in some inscrutable way was transferred into
my head and took the form of a notion.
But your assertion above is one of them inference things, not an
implication. *You* interpreted "single uninterrupted touch" to convey
exclusively human touching, not bird-poop touching or wind-blown stick
scratching or residue of rain touching--which, by the way, is what is
one of the definitions in that big compilation of conveyed meanings
people have reported they receive from "mark," e.g., "high-water mark."
Matter of fact, a certain amount of study of very, very old artifacts
goes into trying to determine whether the surface marks on old
artifacts were originally made intentionally, whether they were part
of the piece when it was intentionally shaped, or whether the marks
are the result of some kind of erosion or deterioration that occurred
later.
As for my reply to Kate, I was addressing only the nature of human-
made marks. What I said did not preclude non-human-made marks, but of
course, we are not in a position to infer any intentionality or power
of signification to water stains, termite holes, and scratches from
flying debris.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
