Carrol Cox wrote: >> Well, when you write this post, in the language of semantics yfour are >> encoding your thought. After all, your thoughts don't have a physical >> shape in a shade different from their background. So you 'translate' >> them into English
Joseph Catron wrote: > I don't buy this part. While I've forgotten most of the semantic verbiage I > learned in my cultural studies classes, it's apparent to me that most of my > thoughts arise from the English language and could have no existence > independent of it (except, perhaps, if I were equally fluent in some other > language). The notion that I "translate" my thoughts about the purpose of > life, the structure of the universe, etc. into English is absurd - the > thoughts themselves ARE English, because that is the language through which > I think abstractly. Sorry to use a dirty word, but isn't there a dialectic between one's thoughts and the way in which they are represented (the language)? Thus, the latter limits and shapes the former, just as the one's thoughts involve picking and choosing among the various niches and cliches that the language allows. Isn't this a dynamic process in which your inchoate thoughts push you to look for words from the dominant language(s) -- or to dredge up old and unused words or even to invent new words -- to make them make sense (to you) and the process of expression then turns around and changes the language? (Of course, no one individual has any significant impact on the language, but as large groups we do. One powerful individual like Obama has much more impact on the language than we do, but even he is dependent on large groups of people to aid him in this process, to imitate him, obey him, etc.) -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
