You can look up the definitions of inform as a verb and informed as an adjective in any good dictionary.
The definitions are different. The reason is that there are a number of words that split off in the middle ages that share the same root, form- I haven't seen a dictionary that says adjectives derived from verbs have a different, unspecified definition. Why would people write down definitions that they knew to be incomplete or wrong? As far as the Classical Latin meaning, one can select the medieval definition instead of the classical one, but of course there were many words in medieval Latin with that root, and they, as well, all have different meanings. As far as the Greek references, the situation is more complex. I myself don't agree that there is a direct parallel to the Greek morph- stem. There was a distinct split in Greek usage. Many of the Greek writers that were admired in the renaissance, and now, and therefore were influential in the development of the language, preferred the word eidos over those words which were based on the morph- root. Homer and Plato, for example. Eidos was so important that it was picked up in Latin as well, but nowadays in relegated to the "oid" in android, anthropoid, etc., as well as the word "allantois" which appears in 17th century English. Regardless, morph turned into morphology, one branch of form- went to information, the knowledge branch, if you will, and the other branch of form- went into character or substance. One could argue of course that the definitions in the dictionary are wrong, or don't tell the whole story, but in this case the dictionary is widely supported by literature and etymology. If there were a strong "verbal force", it would appear in the definition. Since you bring up Aquinas, I would point out that "informare" means to give shape, but at the same time of Aquinas, the word "informatio" in Latin means, not surprisingly, "idea" but does not mean shape; "informitas" in Aquinas means ugly, here relying on the antonym of the older meaning of "beauty", and "informis" in Aquinas means "shapeless", more closely related to the antonym of "shape". And there are many more such examples, showing a common etymological thread--different words with the same root have very different meanings. The word information, for example, one of a number of early split-offs, doesn't mean shape--the information kiosk is never the shape kiosk. And the Latin cognate Formosa, the early name for the island of Taiwan, means beautiful, just as it does in the Psalms, carrying no trace of information in its meaning, otherwise the Vespers would have the informed daughter of Jerusalem in the text. Or, in this case, the historically informed daughter of Jerusalem. Respectfully, dt At 06:14 PM 3/27/2010, you wrote: >Once again, without in any way wishing to be contentious, "informed" >in HIP is a verbal form (a past participle) used adjectivally. It >therefore retains its verbal force. Just as "a written message" >means "a message that has been written," implying "a message that >someone wrote," so (as I have always understood it, at least), >"historically informed performance" means "a performance that has >been historically informed, i.e., given a historical form," implying >"a performance to which someone has given a historical form." I >checked "A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas" and found >that it defines "informare" as "to give a thing its essential or >substantial form." Although I'm not sure at the moment whether St. >Thomas himself uses the perfect passive participle "informatum," I >can say that among Neo-Scholastic philosophical writers (from Gilson >onwards) "informed" (and its equivalents in other European >languages) is quite common in this sense. Having been schooled in >that tradition, I naturally take "informed" in HIP in that way. I >realize, however, that those who coined the phrase may not have had >any familiarity whatsoever with the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition >and thus may have had something else in mind. > >---- Original Message ----- From: "David Tayler" <[email protected]> >To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:59 PM >Subject: [LUTE] Re: HIP, was string tension of all things > > >>I have a slightly different view of the meaning of inform. >>The definition you give is for the verb: >>Snip >>"inform ...v.t. ...3. to give character to; pervade or permeate with >>resulting effect on the character: A love of nature informed informed >>his writing" >>Snip >> >>Informed in this case is not a verb, as you state below (e.g., >>"Informed" is an adjective here:). As an adjective, "informed" is, >>amazingly, a different but related word. It means to have >>information. As a verb, it has two meanings, the one you mention, >>plus the meaning of to give knowledge to, like "inform the accused of >>their rights." >>That's why it intuitively sounds different to use it as a verb. When >>"The love of nature informs the writing", no knowledge is transferred >>to the writing, rather, it is, as you say, to give character to. >> >>One could say "historically informed writing", and that to me sounds >>wrong, but it still isn't parallel because it refers back to the >>writer as a single person, or, rarely, coauthors.. The parallel would >>be an event or a group of people at an even, e.g. >>historically informed convention--which sounds pretty bad, I think >> >>This differs from a group of people of like mind working on a closely >>related, purely literary project, e.g. >>historically informed encyclopedia >> >>All of the above would sound fine if informed were used as a verb, >>but creaky if used as an adjective, because as in "historically >>informed building", no knowledge is transferred to the building. >>Another way to look at it is that you can make an informed decision, >>but a building cannot. >> >>I still think historically informed encyclopedia is bad English, but >>I could sort of make a case for it, but it isn't as bad as >>historically informed performance which is missing an antecedent and >>is substituting the verb connotation for that ofthe adjective. >>The question is, who is doing the informing? "Historically informed >>performers" immediately is clear, because they, the performers, have >>the information or knowledge. Can a performance have knowledge? >> >> From an advertising perpective, one can of course make the case that >>if the phrase has something quirky in the structure, it is somehow >>more memorable. >>I think the thing I dislike the most is the automatic implication of >>modern performers as uninformed. >>Historical performance has less of a bite in that regard. Modern >>performers aren't claiming to be "historical", but they would be >>annoyed at being rendered uninformed. >> >>For sure, most modern players have studied history, and that study >>"informs" their peformances, so the term is moot--they use history in >>a somewhat different way! >> >>Snip >>This is actually the "original" and most intuitive sense of the word >>"inform," which is "to give form to" >>Snip >> >>The original meaning of the word is derived from the Latin informare >>which means to shape, form, train, instruct or educate, so even in >>the classical period it did not mean exclusively to give form to. >>Earlier than the classical period the etymology is obscure; forma can >>also mean beauty, for example. At what point the term "formed" the >>English cognate is also unclear, but it would definitely antedate the >>classical term which had already produce related words in Latin such >>as informatio, which means idea. >> >>dt >> >> >> >> >> >>>On Mar 27, 2010, at 2:38 PM, David Tayler wrote: >>> >>> > The main reason not to use the phrase is that it is >>>excruciatingly bad grammar. >>> * * * >>> > Performance, of course, is not informed. People are informed. By >>>extension, I concede the transfer to the action of the person:one >>>can, of course, make an informed decision. "Make" takes on the >>>temorary role of a stative verb. And one can have an informed >>>opinion, again, there is an implied reference to the owner of the opinion. >>> > But can one make an informed performance? >>> >>>"inform ...v.t. ...3. to give character to; pervade or permeate >>>with resulting effect on the character: A love of nature informed >>>informed his writing" >>> >>> From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, >>>Unabridged Edition (1968) p. 730 >>> >>>So writing, or a building, or, yes, performance, can be >>>"informed." This is actually the "original" and most intuitive >>>sense of the word "inform," which is "to give form to" rather than >>>the now more common "to impart knowledge." And in this original >>>sense it is things, not people, that are informed. >>> >>> > Performance is also not "historically"--performance can be >>>historic, but that means something very different. >>> >>>Historically modifies "informed," not "performance." >>>"Informed" is an adjective here: the performance is described as >>>being informed in some manner. And if you're going to describe >>>that adjective (in what way is it informed? what informs it?), you >>>need an adverb, such as, for example, "historically." >>> >>>I don't think "performance to which considerations of historical >>>practice have given character" would have caught on. "PTWCOHPHGC" >>>makes a lousy acronym, at least in English. >>> >>> >>> >>>To get on or off this list see list information at >>>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >
