Gary F: I personally consider both the added 'eh' at the end of a
sentence to be a mythic symbol; i.e. I've never heard any Canadian
speaking that way other than in comic routines. And I consider that
'being polite' as a description of Canadians is another myth. Try
looking for politeness on public transit at rush hour - or even in
non-rush hour..and on the road.
John S: With regard to the Japanese grammatical word order, I think
that's an interesting facet of a particular mindset, that sees the
Subject and the Object as together co-involved in the actions of the
verb; the verb affects BOTH the Subject and Object. . Ancient Chinese
was similar, as was Latin. It is perhaps of interest that the
separation of the Subject and the Object, such that the Object
becomes under the control of the Subject - who wields the
power-of-the-verb saw a different perspective emerge on the Relation
of Man to the Environment.
Edwina Taborsky
On Wed 11/10/17 11:42 AM , [email protected] sent:
John, your points about this medium are very well taken. And I think
that's why Terry Moore, one of the leaders of the SPIN project for
transcribing Peirce's manuscripts, has offered to set up a
videoconference for those who'd like to discuss issues arising from
the Lowells over that more immediate medium. 😊 If anyone reading
this wants to take part, let me know offlist and we can start making
arrangements for that.
You mentioned that "any Japanese sentence can be turned into a
question just by adding 'ka' at the end." Canadians often do that by
adding "eh?" (rhymes with "say") at the end of a sentence. Usually
it's the kind of "question" that expects a positive response, but
it's still a way of reducing assertiveness, often in response to the
other person's body language, and it's probably an aspect of that
politeness that Canadians are notorious for. 😉
Gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: John F Sowa [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 11-Oct-17 09:43
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.9
On 10/11/2017 7:50 AM, [email protected] [1] wrote:
> [Peirce] also says that “the logician assumes that the meaning
of
> language is well known between himself and the person to whom he
is
> imparting his doctrine” — an assumption that is quite
unrealistic in
> ordinary dialogue, and in fact is a common source of
miscommunication
> between people
I agree with both you and Peirce.
But I'd add two points, which I'm sure that Peirce would make:
(1) we have no other choice; and (2) we can always ask a question.
One reason why there are so many "flame" wars with email and tweets
is that it's not possible to make an immediate comment or question.
When two people are engaged in a face-to-face discussion, they can
detect intentions by tone of voice or gestures. But a text by itself
has no context -- that's why people added emoticons and emojis :)
In fact, it's not surprising that the Japanese invented emojis.
('ji' is Japanese for 'character'.) The Japanese language itself
has the word order Subject-Object-Verb. It also has the option of
putting a little particle after the verb.
For example, any Japanese sentence can be turned into a question
just by adding 'ka' at the end. You can add other particles to
emphasize it or weaken it.
That means you can watch the other person's expression while you're
talking. If you notice the beginning of a smile, you can add 'yo' to
emphasize the point. If you notice a frown, you can add 'ka' to turn
it into a question.
The listener can show a facial emoji during a sentence, and the
speaker can insert a responding emoji at the end.
John
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
