Etymological dictionaries and ? on IndoEuropean root
Marcello Penso
At Peter's request I'm posting these two questions:
Any good etymological dictionaries or references anyone would recommend
for the history of words. I'm look for good dictionaries/references for
English, Italian, German, Latin and Arabic (not all bundled up in one
obviously).
If something decent is available on CD or on a website I'd greatly
appreciate the link.
Also, I'm looking for an IndoEuropean root that could have been the name
of a female, begins with 'G' (or something similar to that
pronounciation) and might have been used for other meanings as well.
Looking for something that might have been used in the Georgia region or
thereabouts (Georgia-Russia)
(This is for a novel I'm writing).
Thanks.
Marcello
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Hi All,
>
> At Peter's request I'm posting these two questions:
(Because he posted them to rec.music.classical ...)
> Any good etymological dictionaries or references anyone would recommend
> for the history of words. I'm look for good dictionaries/references for
> English, Italian, German, Latin and Arabic (not all bundled up in one
> obviously).
"Etymological dictionary for Arabic" doesn't make much sense, since the
Arabic lexicon is so much vaster than that of any other Semitic
language, since lexicography has been going on for over a thousand
years, and etymological dictionaries of all the other Semitic languages
mine the native Arab lexica for more or less plausible candidates for
cognacy.
That said, the best etymological dictionary of a Semitic language
(largely, if not entirely, supplanting Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum
ed. 2 of 1928) is Wolf Leslau's three-volume etymological dictionary of
Gurage. His dictionary of Ge`ez, which came out a few years later, is
less detailed.
For English, we usually recommend either American Heritage (etymologies
overseen by Calvert Watkins of Harvard; the IE appendix, revised, is
published separately) or Random House (etymologies overseen by Eric Hamp
of Chicago).
> If something decent is available on CD or on a website I'd greatly
> appreciate the link.
>
> Also, I'm looking for an IndoEuropean root that could have been the name
> of a female, begins with 'G' (or something similar to that
> pronounciation) and might have been used for other meanings as well.
> Looking for something that might have been used in the Georgia region or
> thereabouts (Georgia-Russia)
> (This is for a novel I'm writing).
But the only IE languages in the Caucasus are much later intrusions,
viz. Armenian and Ossetic.
Obviously the root underlying the "gyn-" of gynecology and misogyny is
what you have in mind; look in Watkins for all the English words
deriving from that root, and you may find some that also provide names.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
: Marcello Penso wrote:
:>
:> Hi All,
:>
:> At Peter's request I'm posting these two questions:
: (Because he posted them to rec.music.classical ...)
:> Any good etymological dictionaries or references anyone would recommend
:> for the history of words. I'm look for good dictionaries/references for
:> English, Italian, German, Latin and Arabic (not all bundled up in one
:> obviously).
: "Etymological dictionary for Arabic" doesn't make much sense, since the
: Arabic lexicon is so much vaster than that of any other Semitic
: language, since lexicography has been going on for over a thousand
: years, and etymological dictionaries of all the other Semitic languages
: mine the native Arab lexica for more or less plausible candidates for
: cognacy.
however, there are a signifcant number of commonly used loanwords from
other semitic languages, especially in specialized uses. one might also
wonder what PS sibilant sin represents. there are also loans from persian
and greek and latin (usually via aramaic). middle arabic and modern arabic
borrowed from more exotic sources, to say nothing of the various
colloquials. so a compact etymological dictionary would be helpful.
words like 3askar (troops, military), ta'ri:x (history), 3araba(t)
("cart", a late medieval word, probably a qypchaq ("tatar") turkic
corruption of an arabic word) have yielded interesting discussions in
sci.lang
: That said, the best etymological dictionary of a Semitic language
: (largely, if not entirely, supplanting Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum
: ed. 2 of 1928) is Wolf Leslau's three-volume etymological dictionary of
: Gurage. His dictionary of Ge`ez, which came out a few years later, is
: less detailed.
: For English, we usually recommend either American Heritage (etymologies
: overseen by Calvert Watkins of Harvard; the IE appendix, revised, is
: published separately) or Random House (etymologies overseen by Eric Hamp
: of Chicago).
how about the oxford english dictionary?
:> If something decent is available on CD or on a website I'd greatly
:> appreciate the link.
:>
Peter T. Daniels
> : For English, we usually recommend either American Heritage (etymologies
> : overseen by Calvert Watkins of Harvard; the IE appendix, revised, is
> : published separately) or Random House (etymologies overseen by Eric Hamp
> : of Chicago).
>
> how about the oxford english dictionary?
How about its age?
Do they claim that they've reviewed and revised every single
etymological entry, dating back to 1880ish?
> :> If something decent is available on CD or on a website I'd greatly
> :> appreciate the link.
> :>
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
:> : For English, we usually recommend either American Heritage (etymologies
:> : overseen by Calvert Watkins of Harvard; the IE appendix, revised, is
:> : published separately) or Random House (etymologies overseen by Eric Hamp
:> : of Chicago).
:>
:> how about the oxford english dictionary?
: How about its age?
I don't know. I'm asking.
: Do they claim that they've reviewed and revised every single
André G. Isaak
<y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> : Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> :> : For English, we usually recommend either American Heritage (etymologies
> :> : overseen by Calvert Watkins of Harvard; the IE appendix, revised, is
> :> : published separately) or Random House (etymologies overseen by Eric Hamp
> :> : of Chicago).
> :>
> :> how about the oxford english dictionary?
>
> : How about its age?
>
> I don't know. I'm asking.
OED is definitely a valuable resource, and often provides more extensive
examples of usage from different periods than many other dictionaries do.
The etymologies which it gives are fairly reliable, but, as Mr. Daniels
suggests, I would definitely check them against a more recent source.
Personally, I would recommend AHD.
Andre
--
André G. Isaak
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address
John Lawler
>Hi All,
>
>At Peter's request I'm posting these two questions:
>
>Any good etymological dictionaries or references anyone would recommend
>for the history of words. I'm look for good dictionaries/references for
>English, Italian, German, Latin and Arabic (not all bundled up in one
>obviously).
>
>If something decent is available on CD or on a website I'd greatly
>appreciate the link.
I'll second Peter's recommendation of the American Heritage P-I-E roots
dictionary, by Calvert Watkins, now in a second edition. Add to that
Buck's "Dictionary of Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages",
available from U.Chicago Press in paperback, and Lewis Thomas's collection
of essays on P-I-E roots, "Etc, Etc". The three together constitute an
affordable and accessible introduction to P-I-E.
>Also, I'm looking for an IndoEuropean root that could have been the name
>of a female, begins with 'G' (or something similar to that
>pronunciation) and might have been used for other meanings as well.
The root you want is *gwen-, which is, as Peter suggests, the source of
Greek gynę 'woman', as well as of English 'queen', and of the Welsh female
personal name 'Gwen'.
>Looking for something that might have been used in the Georgia region or
>thereabouts (Georgia-Russia) (This is for a novel I'm writing).
Now there I can't help you, I fear. It's not impossible that some Celtic
speakers might have wandered into Transcaucasia -- everybody else seems to
got there at some time or other -- but if so, it wasn't recently and they
didn't stay long enough to get their language and naming conventions
adopted by others. Of course, if your Poetic Licence has the right
stamps on it, you can invent something like that.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." 'Language'
Henry Polard
jla...@xexex.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (John Lawler) wrote:
<snip>
> I'll second Peter's recommendation of the American Heritage P-I-E roots
> dictionary, by Calvert Watkins, now in a second edition. Add to that
> Buck's "Dictionary of Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages",
> available from U.Chicago Press in paperback, and Lewis Thomas's collection
> of essays on P-I-E roots, "Etc, Etc". The three together constitute an
> affordable and accessible introduction to P-I-E.
The actual title of Lewis Thomas's book is "Et Cetera, et Cetera"; you
won't find it by searching on "Etc, Etc" The ISBN is 1566491665.
Here is a link to price comparisons (for California delivery, but that's
easy to change):
http://www3.addall.com/New/compare.cgi?dispCurr=USD&id=249143&isbn=156649
1665&location=10000&thetime=20020805085132&author=&title=&state=CA
And Amazon US lets you look inside the book at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/1566491665/sli
de-show/lib_dp_sp_1/002-0529920-0365619#reader-link
--
Henry Polard || Reality is an allusion.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> : For English, we usually recommend either American Heritage (etymologies
>> : overseen by Calvert Watkins of Harvard; the IE appendix, revised, is
>> : published separately) or Random House (etymologies overseen by Eric Hamp
>> : of Chicago).
>> how about the oxford english dictionary?
>How about its age?
>Do they claim that they've reviewed and revised every single
>etymological entry, dating back to 1880ish?
Not yet, but I gather that just such a comprehensive revision is in
progress.
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
(John Lawler) wrote:
[...]
>The root you want is *gwen-, which is, as Peter suggests, the source of
>Greek gynę 'woman', as well as of English 'queen', and of the Welsh female
>personal name 'Gwen'.
Are you sure about that last? I was under the impression that <Gwen>
is from <gwyn> 'white, fair, holy', cognate with Irish <Fionn> and the
identical adjective.
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> >Looking for something that might have been used in the Georgia region or
> >thereabouts (Georgia-Russia) (This is for a novel I'm writing).
>
> Now there I can't help you, I fear. It's not impossible that some Celtic
> speakers might have wandered into Transcaucasia -- everybody else seems to
> got there at some time or other -- but if so, it wasn't recently and they
> didn't stay long enough to get their language and naming conventions
> adopted by others. Of course, if your Poetic Licence has the right
> stamps on it, you can invent something like that.
Well, the Galatians weren't _too_ far away from Greater Armenia ...
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> >>>to do a peterism, it most certainly is. what if Jones had only known
>> >>>Caucasian languages?
>> >> Then he wouldn't have made his famous observation, obviously. No
>> >> matter: he wasn't even the first.
>> >! ...ah, Moses, yesss.
>> No. James Parsons.
>> [...]
>Who dat?
Published a monstrously long and tedious book in 1767 in which he
first compared about 1000 words from Welsh and Irish and concluded
that they had originally been 'the same language', then went on to
compare number words (and possibly some others -- I don't remember) in
various Romance, Germanic, and Slavic languages, not to mention
Persian and Bengali, to conclude that they were all related. He even
went so far as to show that number words in Turkish, Chinese, and some
other non-IE languages did *not* seem to fit. All of this is from
Mallory's _In Search of the Indo-Europeans_; it's in the first few
pages.
>G. Bonfante, J World History 1 (1954): 680, cites "a distinguished Welsh
>writer and political figure, Giraldus Cambrensis, called in French
>Giraud de Barri (1146-1220?)" as having in 1194 discerned the common
>ancestry of Welsh, English, Latin, and Greek (though he attributed it to
>their Trojan origin).
You must know, too, that all the words in Welsh bear
agreement with either Greek or Latin. The Greeks say
_hudor_ for water, the Welsh 'dwfr'; _hal_ for salt, the
Welsh 'halen'; _mis_ and _tis_ for I and you, the Welsh
'mi' and 'ti'; _onoma_ for name, the Welsh 'enw'; _penta_
for five, the Welsh 'pump'; and _deka_ for ten, the Welsh
'deg'. The Romans said 'frenum', 'tripos', 'gladius' and
'lorica', and the Welsh say 'ffrwyn', 'tribedd', 'clddyf'
and 'llurig'. The Romans said 'unicus', 'canis' and 'belua',
and the Welsh say 'unig', 'ci', and 'beleu'.
Elsewhere:
It seems remarkable to me that I do not find so many
languages agree as much over any other word as they
do in this: _hal_ in Greek, 'halen' in Welsh, 'halgein' in
Irish, where _g_ is inserted, and 'sal' in Latin, where,
as Priscian tells us, _s_ replaces the aspirate in some
words. Just as _hal_ in Greek corresponds to 'sal' in
Latin, so _hemi_ is 'semi' and _hepta_ is 'septem'. In
French the word becomes 'sel', the vowel _a_ changing
to _e_ as it develops from Latin. In English a _t_ is
added to make 'salt' and in Teutonic the word is 'sout'.
In short you have seven languages, or even eight, which
agree completely over this word.
Unfortunately, the hot linguistic topic of the 13th and 14th c. was
grammar, not comparative/historical linguistics, so his ideas weren't
followed up at the time. (Sound familiar?)
Brian
Brian M. Scott
>b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote in
>news:3d5341d6...@enews.newsguy.com:
>> On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 04:04:56 GMT, mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote in
>>>news:3d53081a...@enews.newsguy.com:
>>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 19:06:16 GMT, mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> other meaning is secondary. But in fact it is true that many --
>>>>>>>> perhaps even most -- names have meanings at least etymologically.
>>>>>>>every etymologist provides one, anyway.
>>>>>> Demonstrably false.
>>>>>provides one for himself first; has a meaning in mind either before
>>>>>or after the word is examined. if it's a word, it has a meaning; if
>>>>>you are making a word list, then you attach meanings to the words.
>>>> You certainly do not do so if you are making a list of proper names.
>>>because the meanings are understood in advance enough to be seen as
>>>belonging to the list.
>> No. Are you really unaware of the elementary fact that there are
>> names, and not just modern ones by any means, whose etymologies are
>> completely opaque? Never mind that etymology and meaning are two very
>> different things.
>yes, i suppose that you could say that the failure of linguistics is that
>it hasn't shown what language is.
Translation: 'I have no relevant response, so I will make a random
selection from my list of put-downs.' (This one makes even less sense
than usual.)
[...]
>>>they diin't reshape the concept, because the concept is simply sound
>>>changes though rule. the couldn't do an archeology of language.
>> Ignorant as well. Even Jones knew better than that:
>> The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a
>> wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more
>> copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than
>> either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both
>> in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than
>> could possibly have been produced by accident; [...]
>this is feelgood.
Some of it. But you've no excuse for getting lost in those bits,
since I pointed out the key observation:
>> Note 'and in the forms of grammar'.
[...]
mike
sorry, as usual, that you arn't able to find the substance in something
which you haven't permission to have an opinion about.
"the elementary fact that there are names" isn't elementary at all, except
in elementary school. lingustically names aren't always pointers to an
object. sometimes they are the object itself, particularly when you want to
know why something was given a name. linguistics (your flavor) works only
with a minimal set of data, and allows only limited determinations. one can
say that you can't know why a name was given, but i wouldn't want to
present this notion to an educated audience as a fact. it's an opinion; the
fact being, that you might not know from whence a name comes shouldn't be
used as a general rule for understanding names, and hence, language (a set
of names).
etymology and meaning are identical. one starts with a meaning and refines
that meaning through etymological examination, which itself proceeds
according to the word's meaning, as you know. otherwise "ax me no
questions" would be sold in hardware stores by mistake.
>
> [...]
>
>>>>they diin't reshape the concept, because the concept is simply sound
>>>>changes though rule. the couldn't do an archeology of language.
>
>>> Ignorant as well. Even Jones knew better than that:
>
>>> The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a
>>> wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more
>>> copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than
>>> either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both
>>> in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could
>>> possibly have been produced by accident; [...]
>
>>this is feelgood.
>
> Some of it. But you've no excuse for getting lost in those bits,
> since I pointed out the key observation:
>
>>> Note 'and in the forms of grammar'.
"forms of grammar" is his consideration of what a grammar is, and he seems
to want to find a connectivity which will allow him satisfaction. but,
don't we all?
>
> [...]
>
Brian M. Scott
>>>>>>>> Demonstrably false.
Translation: 'You're right.'
>"the elementary fact that there are names" isn't elementary at all,
Apparently you have as much trouble reading English as you have
writing it. The elementary fact in question is not that there are
names, though that is indeed an elementary fact, but that there are
names whose etymologies are opaque.
>except
>in elementary school. lingustically names aren't always pointers to an
>object. sometimes they are the object itself, particularly when you want to
>know why something was given a name. linguistics (your flavor) works only
>with a minimal set of data, and allows only limited determinations. one can
>say that you can't know why a name was given, but i wouldn't want to
>present this notion to an educated audience as a fact. it's an opinion; the
>fact being, that you might not know from whence a name comes shouldn't be
>used as a general rule for understanding names, and hence, language (a set
>of names).
You're the first person I've encountered who didn't understand the
term 'proper name/noun'. Apparently you still haven't grasped the
fact that throughout this discussion I've used the term 'name' to
refer to entities like <George>, <Adeliz>, <Carsten>, <Brihtiva>,
etc., not to entities like <lion>, <car>, <moon>, etc.
But even in the sense in which you're using 'name', language is far
more than 'a set of names'.
>etymology and meaning are identical.
No.
You really are too stupid to bother with further, apart from
correcting your erroneous answers to questions.
mike
naw, you can't have it both ways. either all names were
originally associations or all names are arbitrary.
and you haven't understood that "george" was originally a
quality. what kind of linguist are you? berlitz?
>
> But even in the sense in which you're using 'name', language
is far
> more than 'a set of names'.
not really. the language associates these objects, but the
associations have no substance outside of language and the
world which language allows us.
>
>>etymology and meaning are identical.
>
> No.
have to be. otherwise we'd be doing maths.
>
> You really are too stupid to bother with further, apart from
> correcting your erroneous answers to questions.
well, i'm not getting any interesting feedback from you, so
it's no loss if you want to killfile my name. i'm not really
sure why you bother replying, since you know i'm dumber than
two sticks, and no one in the group would think that i can
successfully challange your education and intellect. probably
it's that you post in the shadow of Harlan, who's obviously
got an IQ off the charts? you should concentrate on presenting
original thoughts on words, rather than showing how many books
you can open at once, presenting yourself as worthy of being
his student.
i wonder at your method, though? like, if i'm stopped at a
word, i'll run it through it with as many forms as i can, with
the sound-rules and concepts which i know. then i'll go to the
books.
i wonder if you know of being "stopped at a word"? it must
sound childish.
Brian M. Scott
>b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote in
>news:3d569117....@enews.newsguy.com:
[...]
>> Apparently you have as much trouble reading English as you
>> have writing it. The elementary fact in question is not that
>> there are names, though that is indeed an elementary fact, but
>> that there are names whose etymologies are opaque.
>naw, you can't have it both ways. either all names were
>originally associations or all names are arbitrary.
Presumably in Mikeland either all fruits are apples or all fruits are
bananas. Oh, and 'etymologically opaque' says nothing about the
origin except that it is not known, so your comment is a non sequitur
as well as a nonsense.
[...]
>> You're the first person I've encountered who didn't
>> understand the term 'proper name/noun'. Apparently
>> you still haven't grasped the fact that throughout this
>> discussion I've used the term 'name' to refer to entities
>> like <George>, <Adeliz>, <Carsten>, <Brihtiva>,
>> etc., not to entities like <lion>, <car>, <moon>, etc.
>and you haven't understood that "george" was originally a
>quality.
Actually, I know the etymologies of all four of those names.
[...]
>> But even in the sense in which you're using 'name', language
>> is far more than 'a set of names'.
>not really.
Really. Just instantly language would names if set this be were of
understandable.
[...]
mike
@enews.newsguy.com:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:04:47 GMT, mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote in
>>news:3d569117....@enews.newsguy.com:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Apparently you have as much trouble reading English as you
>>> have writing it. The elementary fact in question is not that
>>> there are names, though that is indeed an elementary fact, but that
>>> there are names whose etymologies are opaque.
>
>>naw, you can't have it both ways. either all names were originally
>>associations or all names are arbitrary.
>
> Presumably in Mikeland either all fruits are apples or all fruits are
> bananas. Oh, and 'etymologically opaque' says nothing about the
> origin except that it is not known, so your comment is a non sequitur
> as well as a nonsense.
well, i'm pretty frooty, but i do know that things don't exist until we
give them a name. their qualities may exist before our final determination,
but the qualites are names too, and must be determined.
nice try though.
>
> [...]
>
>>> You're the first person I've encountered who didn't
>>> understand the term 'proper name/noun'. Apparently
>>> you still haven't grasped the fact that throughout this
>>> discussion I've used the term 'name' to refer to entities
>>> like <George>, <Adeliz>, <Carsten>, <Brihtiva>, etc., not to entities
>>> like <lion>, <car>, <moon>, etc.
>
>>and you haven't understood that "george" was originally a quality.
>
> Actually, I know the etymologies of all four of those names.
rite on! go for it! let's see what you have.
>
> [...]
>
>>> But even in the sense in which you're using 'name', language is far
>>> more than 'a set of names'.
>
>>not really.
>
> Really. Just instantly language would names if set this be were of
> understandable.
the grammar is the rule set, "mind", and not the genetic expression of
"mind". the word forms u youz allow me to read what you say because the
words are in rules form.
but, are we into surrealist expression? how about: "Justin's staunch
langour infests thisby's wood nymphs, weary of underwear".
>
> [...]
>
André G. Isaak
<orang...@aol.com> wrote:
> well, i'm pretty frooty, but i do know that things don't exist until we
> give them a name.
So presumably, everytime I run into something and don't know what it's
called, it doesn't exist?
This is good to know -- September approaches, and I'm really slow when it
comes to learning students' names. Fortunately, I no longer need to worry
about this since the students whose names I don't know actually do not
exist.
I feel so enlightened now.
André
mike
12080222...@pool-141-157-186-99.bos.east.verizon.net:
> In article <Xns9268A2B162851...@66.75.162.198>, mike
><orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> well, i'm pretty frooty, but i do know that things don't exist until we
>> give them a name.
>
> So presumably, everytime I run into something and don't know what it's
> called, it doesn't exist?
>
> This is good to know -- September approaches, and I'm really slow when it
> comes to learning students' names. Fortunately, I no longer need to worry
> about this since the students whose names I don't know actually do not
> exist.
>
> I feel so enlightened now.
>
> André
>
you know what it is, because it's an element in a catagory, and the
catagory is a languge object of your language. a pear doesn't say "i'm a
pear, mister" when you see it in the store.
André G. Isaak
<orang...@aol.com> wrote:
> you know what it is, because it's an element in a catagory, and the
> catagory is a languge object of your language.
Names don't denote categories, they denote individuals (you seem to be
confusing the two in your discussion).
Common nouns denote categories, but there is no reason to assume that the
existence of those categories is dependent on the existence of a common
noun.
mike
> In article <Xns9268A7F301F60...@66.75.162.198>, mike
><orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> you know what it is, because it's an element in a catagory, and the
>> catagory is a languge object of your language.
>
> Names don't denote categories, they denote individuals (you seem to be
> confusing the two in your discussion).
the subject, then, is "denotation" and how a denotation is possible in a
world of random objects.
>
> Common nouns denote categories, but there is no reason to assume that the
> existence of those categories is dependent on the existence of a common
> noun.
i thought everyone was having trouble even understanding pronouns as
existing as parallel language acts to the main discourse act? were it not
for catagory, duplication of discourse into parallel talk activity, the
pronoun would appear as a new object instance to the listener, instead of
as a permitted overloading of figure upon figure (how else to discribe
"me" in talk language except as "area from which discourse comes from" --
what you'd call "mike"
>
> André
>
André G. Isaak
<orang...@aol.com> wrote:
> ais...@wellesley.platypus.edu (André G. Isaak) wrote in news:aisaak-
> 12080222...@pool-141-157-187-237.bos.east.verizon.net:
>
> > In article <Xns9268A7F301F60...@66.75.162.198>, mike
> ><orang...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> you know what it is, because it's an element in a catagory, and the
> >> catagory is a languge object of your language.
> >
> > Names don't denote categories, they denote individuals (you seem to be
> > confusing the two in your discussion).
>
> the subject, then, is "denotation" and how a denotation is possible in a
> world of random objects.
There is a fairly large philosophical literature on the topic of
denotation. In the unlikely event that you are actually interested in
learning something, you might want to start with Gareth Evans -- he
addresses pronouns rather explicitly.
> >
> > Common nouns denote categories, but there is no reason to assume that the
> > existence of those categories is dependent on the existence of a common
> > noun.
>
> i thought everyone was having trouble even understanding pronouns as
> existing as parallel language acts to the main discourse act? were it not
> for catagory, duplication of discourse into parallel talk activity, the
> pronoun would appear as a new object instance to the listener, instead of
> as a permitted overloading of figure upon figure (how else to discribe
> "me" in talk language except as "area from which discourse comes from" --
> what you'd call "mike"
No idea what you're talking about -- the existence of deictics in language
is hardly a mystery.
mike
> In article <Xns9268AEEBB28C0...@66.75.162.196>, mike
><orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> ais...@wellesley.platypus.edu (André G. Isaak) wrote in news:aisaak-
>> 12080222...@pool-141-157-187-237.bos.east.verizon.net:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9268A7F301F60...@66.75.162.198>, mike
>> ><orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> you know what it is, because it's an element in a catagory, and the
>> >> catagory is a languge object of your language.
>> >
>> > Names don't denote categories, they denote individuals (you seem to
>> > be confusing the two in your discussion).
>>
>> the subject, then, is "denotation" and how a denotation is possible in
>> a world of random objects.
>
> There is a fairly large philosophical literature on the topic of
> denotation. In the unlikely event that you are actually interested in
> learning something, you might want to start with Gareth Evans -- he
> addresses pronouns rather explicitly.
thanks. i don't know evans, but will you talk of Frege with me? do you hold
that there's a permanent, mystically biological, link established when you
learn the name of the object, but, i don't know why you don't just say
something yourself about denotation. you must have had to form a notion of
it for your own understanding? what did you come up with? why allow such
an important subject to be subject to my reading and interpretation of
someone other than yourself? what's your relationship with evans? is this
the only work you've read on reference?
>
>> >
>> > Common nouns denote categories, but there is no reason to assume
>> > that the existence of those categories is dependent on the existence
>> > of a common noun.
>>
>> i thought everyone was having trouble even understanding pronouns as
>> existing as parallel language acts to the main discourse act? were it
>> not for catagory, duplication of discourse into parallel talk
>> activity, the pronoun would appear as a new object instance to the
>> listener, instead of as a permitted overloading of figure upon figure
>> (how else to discribe "me" in talk language except as "area from which
>> discourse comes from" -- what you'd call "mike"
>
> No idea what you're talking about -- the existence of deictics in
> language is hardly a mystery.
scope and delicacy is a special term for easing the mind of doubt when the
problem of "why should there be a pronoun?" haunts the language student.
'deitic' is a substitute for 'pronoun', it's not intended as an
explanation. the concept, to my mind, it the manipulation of 'otherness',
is whether language allows us to point to others, or whether the realities
of thing modify our language to allow the talking of "other".
>
> André
>
André G. Isaak
<orang...@aol.com> wrote:
> ais...@wellesley.platypus.edu (André G. Isaak) wrote in
> news:aisaak-1308...@pool-141-157-186-175.bos.east.verizon.net:
> > There is a fairly large philosophical literature on the topic of
> > denotation. In the unlikely event that you are actually interested in
> > learning something, you might want to start with Gareth Evans -- he
> > addresses pronouns rather explicitly.
>
> thanks. i don't know evans, but will you talk of Frege with me?
What about him?
> do you hold
> that there's a permanent, mystically biological, link established when you
> learn the name of the object
No.
> > No idea what you're talking about -- the existence of deictics in
> > language is hardly a mystery.
>
> scope and delicacy is a special term for easing the mind of doubt when the
> problem of "why should there be a pronoun?" haunts the language student.
> 'deitic' is a substitute for 'pronoun', it's not intended as an
> explanation.
It wasn't intended as an explanation. Since I don't see a problem coming
up with an explanation would be fairly pointless.
Andre
mike
> In article <Xns92695B47E68B6...@66.75.162.198>, mike
><orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> ais...@wellesley.platypus.edu (André G. Isaak) wrote in
>> news:aisaak-1308...@pool-141-157-186-175.bos.east.verizon.net:
>
>> > There is a fairly large philosophical literature on the topic of
>> > denotation. In the unlikely event that you are actually interested
>> > in learning something, you might want to start with Gareth Evans --
>> > he addresses pronouns rather explicitly.
>>
>> thanks. i don't know evans, but will you talk of Frege with me?
>
> What about him?
what was his favorite flavor ice cream?
>
>> do you hold
>> that there's a permanent, mystically biological, link established when
>> you learn the name of the object
>
> No.
>
>> > No idea what you're talking about -- the existence of deictics in
>> > language is hardly a mystery.
>>
>> scope and delicacy is a special term for easing the mind of doubt when
>> the problem of "why should there be a pronoun?" haunts the language
>> student. 'deitic' is a substitute for 'pronoun', it's not intended as
>> an explanation.
>
> It wasn't intended as an explanation. Since I don't see a problem
i'm happy for you.
> coming up with an explanation would be fairly pointless.
thanks for the advice.
>
> Andre
>