On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:58, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar > > has no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or > > written utterance. > > This is so patently, obviously, demonstrably false that if you > continue to assert it, I don't think there's much point in continuing > the conversation. Grammar -- and I don't mean "schoolmarm grammar," I > mean "combinatorial grammar" -- is absolutely integral to meaning. > Grammar is the *only* thing that distinguishes the meaning of "Dog > bites man" vs. "Man bites dog."
Grammar enables the construction of message, yes. But it doesn't control the meaning conveyed. > Obviously, we do not consciously think about grammar when we speak > our native language, but that doesn't diminish its significance in the > slightest. But it is *still* insignificant, i.e., a background characteristic, of the thought being expressed. That's what I mean by "physics has no musical significance" -- that physics has zilch to do with the foreground meaning of a musical utterance. It may *enable* the uttering of the thought, but the message itself is not "about" physics. I'm done here. This is so obvious to me that I don't know how to explain it to people who don't see it that way. Maybe I should suggest that y'all read some Jakobsen (or maybe Scholes would be as better place to start). -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
