etymology of speech
conrad
for "speech" but none have shed any light
on how "speech" might include
"symbolic speech." Where does
the notion that "symbolic speech" is
described by "speech"?
--
conrad
Brian M. Scott
<con...@lawyer.com> wrote in
<news:a676e120-0c83-4b31...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
Why on earth would you expect the etymology to tell you
about the current range of meanings?
Brian
conrad
I figured it might have had something to do
with how it was used in the past.
But speech seems to be a phonetic
thing. It seems kind of peculiar that
some consider "symbolic actions" to
qualify as a form of "speech."
--
conrad
Peter T. Daniels
What non-spoken "symbolic actions" do you find being called "speech"?
conrad
>
For example: flag burning in the US.
--
conrad
benl...@ihug.co.nz
People who do such things see themselves as "making a statement" or
"expressing their views", and want to argue that these actions should
therefore be recognized as a kind of speech and protected by the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. You may not agree, but
it is futile to argue from the etymology. Meanings of words are not
determined by their origins. If they were, "freedom of speech" would
not even extend to writing.
Ross Clark
conrad
I am actually indifferent to the issue. I'm more puzzled about
where the idea of "symbolic speech" comes from. Everything
that I have read, with respect to the meaning of "speech",
suggests an explicit phonetic utterance. It's almost
as though "symbolic speech" is an oxymoron. I'm
reminded of George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"
here.
--
conrad
benl...@ihug.co.nz
As I just explained, the reason for extending the word "speech" to
such cases is to bring them under the scope of the widely accepted
right to "freedom of speech". That right _already_ extends to more
than just speaking. As Wikipedia, under "freedom of speech", notes:
"The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred,
since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to
protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or
ideas, regardless of the medium used."
If your sources say that "speech" can only refer to explicit phonetic
utterance, they clearly have not taken cognizance of the already
established usage by which "freedom of speech" includes (at least)
writing. I don't think Orwell is going to be any use to us here.
Ross Clark
Harlan Messinger
Look up "metaphor" and "semantic change" or "semantic shift".
Dušan Vukotić
Speech is verbal communication and symbolic speech is non-verbal. I
cannot see what etymology has to do with "symbolic speech", unless you
think about etymology of both speech and symbol separately.
As for "speech", it would be interesting to compare this with "preach"
and see if there is anything "in common" between these two words?
According to etymological books, preach comes from OE predician (Ger.
predigen; Serb. pridika /preach/). The same process of sound changes
occurred in Serbian, where pridika (preach, lecture) is "transformed"
to priča (narration, story; verb pričati /narrate, chat, say, talk,
converse/).
On the other side, English speech (from OE sp(r)ecan; Ger. sprechen)
also seems to be related to the above mentioned words - OE predician;
Ger. predigen and Serb. pridika. If we added Latin spargo (scatter,
sprinkle, throw about, to disperse) and German spritzen (to spatter,
sprinkle, spray; cf. sprengen) to the above-mentioned words we could
see that the (Germanic) ancient man realized "speaking" as a kind of
"word dispersion". A similar logic could be seen in Serbian: prskati/
prsnuti (sprinkle, spray, disperse; also brizgati /sprinkle, spray/)
and praskati/prasnuti (utter in a loud voice, shout).
The Serbian verb is-pričati (to talk about, report) is the word
derived from the secondary ur-basis Br-Gon ("opposite driving"; from
Bel-Hor-Gon), wherefrom the other Serbian words as borenje (fighting;
from bo(l)hrenje; cf. Lat. bello -are /to wage war, fight/), preganje/
prezanje (press) and the adverb preko (over, across, throughout,
beyond, above). Another Serbian word (sprega link, coupling) is
telling us that priča (narration, story) is impossible if you don't
have a "speech companion" who is "placed" across, vis-à-vis or in
front of you (Serb. preko on the other side).
Of course, there are other Serbian words that were derived from the
same secondary Br-Gon basis, as zborenje (talking), sporenje
(argufying, quarrel, dispute; Russ. спорить)... all related to
sprezanje, sprega (connection, link), sprezanje (pressure) and borenje
(fighting).
On the other side is the word symbol... Let us see what the etymology
of that word is. First, it seems logical if we say that symbol is
"picture of something"! Serbian word slika (picture, image; Serb.
sličan /similar, alike/) is derived from sa-oblik (Gon-Bel-Gon ur-
basis) and it could be compared with German Latin similis (like,
resembling, similar) and German selbe (same). I have already wrote
about Gon-Bel-Gon basis http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/2b148db0121c908b?
where from we can see the main directions of Gon-Bel-Gon-ic evolution.
Now we are able to grasp that Serbian slika (picture; from sa(h)blik)
is derived from the same basis as the verb sakupljati (collect), Eng.
collect, assemble, Lat. capillus, conligo, Ger. sammeln, Serb. gomila
(heap), zemlja (earth), nebo... (sky).
Greek σύμβολον used the same logic as German Zufall (coincidence, hap;
cf. Serb. slika /picture, image/, slično /alike, similar/ and slučaj /
hap, coincidence/). Old Slavonic лоучити/lučiti is derived from the
same basis as the Serbian obliti (suffuse), in fact from the same Gon-
Bel-Gon basis as the Serbian verb ubaciti [throw in; from
(h)ub(l)aciti; cf. Serbian pucati /shoot/, from pu(l)knuti, opaliti].
Coincidence is nothing else but an unexpected insertion (throwing in)
of the third element into the well-known environment.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> As I just explained, the reason for extending the word "speech" to
> such cases is to bring them under the scope of the widely accepted
> right to "freedom of speech". That right _already_ extends to more
> than just speaking. As Wikipedia, under "freedom of speech", notes:
>
> "The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred,
> since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to
> protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or
> ideas, regardless of the medium used."
That's ironic coming from someone who uses "verbal" to specify "oral".
Marc
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> That's ironic coming from someone who uses "verbal" to specify "oral".
This comment is ironic in light of the fact that this whole discussion
is about how the range of a word's meaning is not limited by its
etymology.
Marc
Harlan Messinger
Ah, but this is one of those cases where the shift interferes with the
existing meaning, creating ambiguity when anyone uses the word at all,
in the exact detail where the purpose of using the word is to create a
clear distinction. It's like when people use "literally" to mean
"figuratively", defeating the whole purpose of using the word at all,
which is to signify, "I mean this *literally*! I'm not exaggerating or
being dramatic!"
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Well, maybe, but OED's sense 4.a. for "verbal" ("Expressed or conveyed
by speech instead of writing; stated or delivered by word of mouth;
oral.") is well attested from the end of the 16th century, and seems
to me to be at least as common in present usage as the other, in
expressions like "verbal agreement". In fact "oral" nowadays is likely
to be taken as referring to non-linguistic aspects of the mouth (oral
hygiene, oral sex). If you referred to a politician's "oral skills"
nowadays you might get a snigger.
Ross Clark
Marc
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> clear distinction. It's like when people use "literally" to mean
> "figuratively", defeating the whole purpose of using the word at all,
> which is to signify, "I mean this *literally*! I'm not exaggerating or
> being dramatic!"
Yeah, doesn't language suck when it changes like that?
Marc