I guess what I am saying is that informed in the sense of educated is generally reserved for people, not objects. Therefore, a performance cannot be educated. A building cannot be educated.
dt At 10:06 PM 3/27/2010, you wrote: >David, > >I am relying solely on memory here, but I believe that "forma" was >the Latin term used for both "eidos" and "morphe" when Aristotle was >translated into Latin in the late twelfth century (though I could be >wrong). The scholastic Latin usage of "informare" means "to put form >into," and has the sense of the Latin "in" plus the accusative case. >The prefix "in-" in the word "informis" is a negative prefix meaning >"not" and has no relation to the "in" in "informare." According to >the Aquinas dictionary I cited earlier, "informatio" means (1) >"formation, i.e., providing with a form, synonym of 'formatio' " and >(2) "arrangement, management." The meaning of "idea" is not listed, >though perhaps St. Thomas does use it in that sense somewhere, and >his contemporaries certainly may have as well. > >The OED has two listings for "informed." The first, which does not >concern us here, derives from "informis" and means "unformed." The >second, which does concern us, derives from the perfect passive >participle "informatum" and has as its first meaning "put into form, >formed, fashioned," though that meaning is now regarded as obsolete >(except in Neo-Scholastic circles, in which it is still very much in >use). The second and current usage, which the OED gives as >"instructed; having knowledge of or acquaintance with facts; >educated, enlightened, intelligent," I suspect derives from the >first. In scholastic epistemology the "forma intellectus" is the >"species" or concept abstracted from the "phantasma" or sense >impression. It "informs" the intellect in a way analogous to that in >which the forms of natural things "inform" their matter. The >intellect that receives the abstracted "form" is thus "informed," >both in the sense of having undergone an (in)formation and of having >knowledge or information in the modern sense of the word. > >With regards to HIP, the question, I think, is whether "informed" >means that the performance has been formed or shaped by historical >principles (the OED's first meaning for the past participle) or that >the performer is educated in historical practice (the OED's second >meaning for the past participle). I have always taken it in the >first way, in which case it is perfectly correct grammatically to >say that a performance is "informed." If it is meant in the second >way, then, if not ungrammatical, it is at least illogical, since as >you say, only "people are informed." I suppose that it is the very >illogicality of that usage that led me to take it in the first way, >in addition to my familiarity with the Aristotelian-Thomistic >philosophical tradition. > >It is always a pleasure to read your learned disquisitions. > >Equally respectfully, > >Stephen > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tayler" <[email protected]> >To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:25 PM >Subject: [LUTE] Re: HIP, was string tension of all things > > >> >>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 >>
