Bill and Lluis:
 
Woud it be any difference in its meaning the altered order translated in the 
different languages?. 
 
LLuis said:
Rana = Frog
Charco = Pond
Chop!   = Plop

 
Bill Said:
pond = charco
frog =  rana
plop! = chop!  (James Kirkup)
 
Thanks 
Mayka

--- On Mon, 15/11/10, Lluís Mendieta <lme...@intermail.es> wrote:


From: Lluís Mendieta <lme...@intermail.es>
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 15 November, 2010, 15:02


  




Hi, Bill
 
Well, I am just a chemist, not a linguist.
But I have been teached the metalanguage theory of  Chomsky: all languages have 
a subjacent grammar that brain understand, process and implement, making this 
way that children could produce perfect phrases that they have never heard 
before.
So, the metalanguage exists before it is placed in the form of grammar.
Grammar would be the verbalization of the metalanguage. Not after language. 
Just the language (or just this)
 
The direct experience I feel that is something that could not be communicated.
Would be maybe like the sufi tales: if you do not understand them, they are not 
for you.
You feel (even beeing dualistic, I know, but I could not place in other way), 
or you feel not.
No way to explain. No way to shre. Whe moment arrives, is there.
 
Or maybe I am just a plain brick, very far from awareness
 
With best wishes
 
Lluís
 
P.D.: the non dualistic form of the haiku, at least in spanish 
Rana
Charco
Chop!
 
would be the lazy westerner form of : there is a frog, and a pond, and the frog 
makes plop (or my mind works this way, at least)
 
----- Original Message ----- 

From: billsm...@hhs1963.org 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:42 AM
Subject: !QRE: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas

  

Lluis,

I’m not saying that Westerners, in fact all humans that manifest a
dualistic, discriminating mind, are tied to subject/object and verbs that
describe action. That’s a given.

What I’m saying is that there are forms of English (and I suppose other
languages) that are utterances free from subject/object/verb, that are not
restricted by grammar.

In the example phrases I used below: ‘Hungry!’ and ‘Fire!’, YOU are the one
who is interjecting the dualism. If I yell ‘Fire!’ or ‘Duck!’ you will
first just equate the sound to DANGER and react BEFORE you mentally
reconstruct and augment the sound to ‘I have observed a fire and want to be
sure you are aware of it.’

Other non-exclamatory examples are in poetry, especially zen-inspired haikus
such as Basho's famous haiku in which he attempted to communicate a DIRECT
EXPERIENCE (Buddha Mind) he had. There are many attempts at translating
this haiku, and the results show me whether or not the translator was
translating with his/her discriminating mind or Buddha Mind:

ORIGINAL JAPANESE

Furu ike ya
kawazu tobikomu
mizu no oto (Basho)

DUALISTIC/DISCRIMINATING MIND TRANSLATION

There once was a curious frog
Who sat by a pond on a log
And, to see what resulted,
In the pond catapulted
With a water-noise heard round the bog. (Alfred H. Marks)

MIX OF DUALISTIC/DISCRIMINATING MIND AND BUDDHA MIND TRANSLATION

Into the ancient pond
A frog jumps
Water’s sound! (D.T. Suzuki)

BUDDHA MIND TRANSLATION

pond
frog
plop! (James Kirkup)

Remember when I posted about what I describe as 'zen talk' and 'talking
about zen'? The first translation above is 'talking about an experience'.
The second is a mix, and the third is 'experience talk' - or 'zen talk'.

The point is that language does have the ability to be used and to
communicate non-dualistic (no subject/object/verb) experiences. Language
evolved, not engineered. It is not appropriate to try to superimpose a
logical structure on an evolved system. The grammatical rules that we
associate with languages have been developed AFTER-THE-FACT, not CONCURRENT
with the language. For example humans could speak and communicate very well
before anyone ever decided to categorize words into nouns, verbs, subjects
and objects. All this grammar is imposed upon language in an attempt to
'understand' language. 'Understand' always means 'impose a logical
structure'.

...Bill!

From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Lluís Mendieta
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 4:42 PM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas

  
Hi, Bill
 
Hungry! has also an implied subject: I am hungry!
 
Fire! has also one, "it" : It is in fire! (although could be also "there is
a fire!" and that would be impersonal, I suppose)
Ugghhhhh!
Y only know true impersonals (no subject ) in spanish, catalan and french
 
On vende .....
Se vende botellas ("se venden botellas" is a pasiva refleja, not a true
impersonal.... That drived me crazy in Bacchaloreat....)
 
Seems that westerners are tied to sujects and verbs.
 
With best wishes
 
Lluís
----- Original Message ----- 
From: billsm...@hhs1963.org 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 3:39 AM
Subject: RE: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas

  
Lluis,

In the example I used ‘Hungry?’ you are correct that the subject (you) is
implied probably because it is a question. How about ‘Hungry!’; or better
yet ‘Fire!’?. In the case of ‘Fire!’ there is no subject/object implied –
just ‘Fire!’, Just THIS!

It’s interesting to learn that Finnish has a lot of words to define
relationships.

…Bill!

From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Lluís Mendieta
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 4:06 PM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas

  
Hi, Bill
 
I beg to differ in two non zen questions
-Hungry? has the subject implicit. You do not place it, but it is implied.
 The werb in spanish or catalan would be also implicit, so, I suppose same
in english.
 
-finnish is a westerner language. And they have a lot of words to design the
relationship within family.
 
With best wishes
 
Lluís
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: billsm...@hhs1963.org 
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas

  
Anthony,

I know Thai’s drop subject and sometimes even object all the time, but I
thought it was just because they, like Westerners, are lazy.

For example, I could ask you: ‘Are you hungry?’, or I could just ask by
saying: ‘Hungry?’ (with a rising tone). That's just laziness, or being
casual in your speech.

I do think language does reveal the different values of culture. For
example in Thai there are only 3 tenses: past, present and future; whereas
there are many, many adjectives and pronouns that are used to specifically
identify the speaker's relationship with the one addressed. In English
there are many (27?) verb tenses and very few special pronouns. This I
think shows that Westerner's value time more than Asians; whereas Asians put
more importance on personal relationships than time.

...Bill!

From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5618 (20101114) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5618 (20101114) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5619 (20101114) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5619 (20101114) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com







Reply via email to