Michael is wrong to say my example of a tube of red paint validates his claim that words pre-limit the meanings ascribed to them. A tube of red paint is not the same as the word red. The pigment in the tube has certain properties that limit its use, to produce redness being one. There are limits to what can be done with material things but not with immaterial notions. A word is not limited by inherent properties. It is immaterial in the sense that a musical note is immaterial. That's why we can use a word for any purposes we choose. If we don't use the word red to convey redness but for some other purpose, to evoke non-redness, for example, we are still making good use of the word. If we stray further from the usual notions of red to convey redness, then I suppose we are using the word poetically, or absurdly. If we use it poetically we are on safe ground since the metaphorical uses of words are unlimited. If we use it absurdly, we are either ignorant, mistaken, or intentionally evoking absurdist content (as in Dada readings, for instance).
----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, April 2, 2010 2:39:40 PM Subject: Re: "What is happening during an 'a.e.'?" On Apr 2, 2010, at 3:24 PM, [email protected] wrote: > (At some stage someone is likely to look up 'scription' in a dictionary. > Unless you go to the OED, you won't find it defined quite the way I use it, > and the OED calls my usage "Archaic". I'll try to convey my notion of it like > this: As 'utterance' is to a spoken word (or "sound"), 'scription' is to a > written one. 'Inscription' comes close.) The act of circulating forged money is called "uttering counterfeit money." FYI
