'constitutive OF' or 'constitutive FOR'?
Robert Lieblich
Vesa Raiskila wrote:
>
> My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive of'
> or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
> share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
>
> "Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
> religion or tradition can be constitutive for my conception of good or
> ideal life."
>
> Oh, should one say 'THE good or ideal life'? I've seen 'the' precede
> 'good life' (for a reason I cannot fathom).
I have no recollection of ever before encountering the word
"constitutive" in my entire life, and I had to look it up. Having done
so, I still don't know what preposition it takes (no examples in my
AHD3, which is what I use at home). I would guess "of" simply because
most words of similar effect take "of." From AND3: "Constitutive - 1.
Making a thing what it is; essential. 2. Having power to institute,
establish, or enact." E.g., Congress is constitutive of the laws of the
United States. Well, I think that's a good sentnence.
My advice is not to use the word. It's too obscure. Think of some
other way to convey what you want to say.
"The good life" is an idiom. Its exact meaning varies with the speaker,
but it means, approximately, a life of economic comfort and pleasant
interaction with one's family and neighbors, sometimes solaced by
religion or philosophy. Or it can mean (perhaps ironically) great
wealth and the chance to lord it over others even if one's existence may
be hollow. Depends on the user. It's not quite the same as "a good
life." I believe Tony Bennett (US popular singer) sings a song about
"The Good Life."
These are challenging questions, and I may have missed a few nuances -
if not entire points.
Bob Lieblich
Vesa Raiskila
My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive of'
or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
"Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
religion or tradition can be constitutive for my conception of good or
ideal life."
Oh, should one say 'THE good or ideal life'? I've seen 'the' precede
'good life' (for a reason I cannot fathom).
Vesa
--
http://www.jyu.fi/~raives/
**To reply via e-mail, please delete DEL. from my e-mail address.**
E-mailed copies of responses are highly appreciated.
Truly Donovan
Vesa Raiskila wrote:
> My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive of'
> or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
> share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
Unless you are writing in a particular discipline where it is a common
word, I would suggest you not use it at all. Most of us could figure out
what you meant by it, more or less, but few of us would ever have seen it
before (or since).
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Truly Donovan
Martin A. Mazur wrote:
> Truly Donovan <ma...@lunemere.com> wrote:
> >Unless you are writing in a particular discipline where it is a common
> >word, I would suggest you not use it at all. Most of us could figure out
> >what you meant by it, more or less, but few of us would ever have seen it
> >before (or since).
> >
> Wow. Two AUE regulars giving a shrug to this one! I'll agree it's a bit
> unusual, but I've seen the construction "constitutive of" in many of my
> readings. It usually turns up in philosophical discussions,
Well, that explains why I've never seen it (and never will).
John Nurick
>Oh, should one say 'THE good or ideal life'? I've seen 'the' precede
>'good life' (for a reason I cannot fathom).
In this kind of philosophico-ethical context it's "the good life",
along with "the Absolute", "the common good", and so on. "Good life"
sounds like the title of a book by S J Gould.
If, however, you get Rabelaisian pleasure out of religion and
tradition, it might be appropriate to say "a good life".
In other contexts, though, the meanings seem to reverse: one would say
"Mother Theresa lived a good life" (=>saintly) rather than "the good
life" (=>hedonistic). Ain't English fun?
John
I dislocated my e-mail address, and the doctor says it will be
six months before I can see a specialist.
Martin A. Mazur
In article <3430BC71...@lunemere.com>,
Truly Donovan <ma...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>
>
>Vesa Raiskila wrote:
>
>> My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive of'
>> or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
>> share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
>
>word, I would suggest you not use it at all. Most of us could figure out
>what you meant by it, more or less, but few of us would ever have seen it
>before (or since).
>
Wow. Two AUE regulars giving a shrug to this one! I'll agree it's a bit
unusual, but I've seen the construction "constitutive of" in many of my
in discussions just like the one Vesa Raiskila writes about in the (snipped)
passage in his post, i.e. discussions of what constitutes *the* good life.
The way to get at what the preposition should be is to think of the usage of
"constitutive" as roughly analogous to that of "made up" as in "comprised". We
say "X is made up of Y and Z" or "X is comprised of Y and Z". These mean that
"Y and Z are constitutive of X"
--
Martin A. Mazur .................... Representing only himself
To reply by e-mail, remove spam filter (SPAM-BE-GONE)
http://www.personal.psu.edu/mxm14/
COMETS: http://www.personal.psu.edu/mxm14/comets.htm
Some spammers I have known:
day...@onramp.net no...@jet2.net 9415...@cache-in.com M...@cache-in.com
au...@freedomnet.com lo...@aol.com SMorr...@aol.com
R...@auto2.cybermirror1.com 4381...@msn.com 5553...@aol.com
fulli...@aol.com so...@main.rgv.net 4241...@18529.com
fo...@vtx.ch tu...@rcp.net.pe 8884...@15831.com
cred...@6031workathome.com
Mark Barton
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:46, Martin A. Mazur
<mailto:SPAM-BE-G...@psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <3430BC71...@lunemere.com>,
> Truly Donovan <ma...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>>Vesa Raiskila wrote:
>>> My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive of'
>>> or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
>>> share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
>Wow. Two AUE regulars giving a shrug to this one! I'll agree it's a bit
>unusual, but I've seen the construction "constitutive of" in many of my
>readings. It usually turns up in philosophical discussions, and in
particular
>in discussions just like the one Vesa Raiskila writes about in the
(snipped)
>passage in his post, i.e. discussions of what constitutes *the* good life.
>The way to get at what the preposition should be is to think of the usage
of
>"constitutive" as roughly analogous to that of "made up" as in
"comprised".
>We
>say "X is made up of Y and Z" or "X is comprised of Y and Z". These mean
that
>"Y and Z are constitutive of X"
That said, I can also attest "constitutive for" in very literate and
readable philosophers such as Dennett. As far as I can tell it's
synonymous.
Cheers,
Mark B.
----------------
Please remove the spam filter from my address before replying.
Martin A. Mazur
In article <B057D58...@131.215.125.35>,
"Mark Barton" <mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp> wrote:
>That said, I can also attest "constitutive for" in very literate and
>readable philosophers such as Dennett. As far as I can tell it's
>synonymous.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mark B.
>
Mark Barton
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:18, Vesa Raiskila <mailto:del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
wrote:
>My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive of'
>or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
>share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
>
>religion or tradition can be constitutive for my conception of good or
>ideal life."
>
>'good life' (for a reason I cannot fathom).
As used above, "good" and "life" are entirely literal. The writer has made
an evaluation of factors affecting quality of life and has decided that
religion/tradition is so essential that in his/her opinion it ought to be
part of the definition of a high-quality life. (Personally I think this
sentiment is dangerous nonsense if intended literally, because it
dishonestly creates the "fact" that atheists are unhappy.) The sort of
evaluation implied by this literal usage is careful and philosophical. On
the other hand, "the good life" is a specific idiom describing a paradise
for a relatively unsophisticated taste: lots of money, lots of fast cars,
lots of fine food and lots of beautiful young women.
femal...@sprintmail.com
Mark
<snip interesting philosophical discussion>
> "the good life" is a specific idiom describing a paradise
> for a relatively unsophisticated taste: lots of money, lots of fast cars,
> lots of fine food and lots of beautiful young women.
With respect, I think this is rather too narrow a description of
possible meanings of "the good life." The expression usually encompasses
having enough money to cover not only essentials but luxuries, but the
choice of luxuries is up to the liver of the good life in question. My
idea of "the good life" would not involve owning a car, whatever it's
potential for speed, nor women of any description (other than my
friends: I'm assuming you meant "women" as "sexual playthings" and
apologize if I've misunderstood).
There is a wonderful old Brit-com called _The Good Life_ (_Good
Neighbours_ in the US) starring Richard Briers, Felicity Kendal,
Penelope Keith, and Paul Eddington, some episodes of which have recently
been released on videotape. The premise of the show was that Tom Good
gave up his upwardly mobile job to live off the land of his suburban
back garden, with the wholehearted approval and support of his wife,
Barbara. Self-suffiency and contentment away from the rat-race of urban
living was the key to "the good life" in this case.
Cheers,
femalewits
Magic Pen
--------------F02E246CDD4A9FA68DBA67CA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:18, Vesa Raiskila <mailto:del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
wrote:
>My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive of'
>or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
>share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
>
>"Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
>religion or tradition can be constitutive for my conception of good or
>ideal life."
>
>Oh, should one say 'THE good or ideal life'? I've seen 'the' precede
>'good life' (for a reason I cannot fathom).
Suggestion for your text:
>"Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
>religion or tradition can be constitutive OF my conception FOR A
good or
>ideal life."
A reply from Nicole Smith,
Editor/Publisher For:
The Magic Pen & The Quill
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/1899
magi...@netrover.com
http://www.thequill.com
aus...@thequill.com
--------------F02E246CDD4A9FA68DBA67CA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:18, Vesa Raiskila <<A HREF="mailto:del.r...@cc.jyu.fi">mailto:del.r...@cc.jyu.fi</A>>
<BR>wrote:
<BR>>My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive
of'
<BR>>or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
<BR>>share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
<BR>>
<BR>>"Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
<BR>>religion or tradition can be constitutive for my conception of good
or
<BR>>ideal life."
<BR>>
<BR>>Oh, should one say 'THE good or ideal life'? I've seen 'the' precede
<BR>>'good life' (for a reason I cannot fathom).
<BR>
<P>Suggestion for your text:
<P>>"Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
<BR>>religion or tradition can be constitutive <B><U>OF</U></B>
my conception <B><U>FOR A</U></B> good or
<BR>>ideal life."
<BR>
<P>A reply from Nicole Smith,
<BR>
Editor/Publisher For:
<P>
The Magic Pen & The Quill
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/1899">http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/1899</A>
<BR>
magi...@netrover.com
<P>
<A HREF="http://www.thequill.com">http://www.thequill.com</A>
<BR>
aus...@thequill.com
<BR>
<BR> </HTML>
--------------F02E246CDD4A9FA68DBA67CA--
David McMurray
Mark Barton <mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:18, Vesa Raiskila <mailto:del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
> wrote:
> >My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive of'
> >or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
> >share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
> >
> >"Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
> >religion or tradition can be constitutive for my conception of good or
> >ideal life."
> >
> >Oh, should one say 'THE good or ideal life'? I've seen 'the' precede
> >'good life' (for a reason I cannot fathom).
>
> As used above, "good" and "life" are entirely literal. The writer has made
> an evaluation of factors affecting quality of life and has decided that
> religion/tradition is so essential that in his/her opinion it ought to be
> part of the definition of a high-quality life. (Personally I think this
> sentiment is dangerous nonsense if intended literally, because it
> dishonestly creates the "fact" that atheists are unhappy.) The sort of
> evaluation implied by this literal usage is careful and philosophical. On
> the other hand, "the good life" is a specific idiom describing a paradise
> for a relatively unsophisticated taste: lots of money, lots of fast cars,
> lots of fine food and lots of beautiful young women.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark B.
>
> ----------------
> Please remove the spam filter from my address before replying.
I took the quoted sentence ("Language may play ...") to be an
illustration of the use of "constitutive for" rather than a statement of
the writer's philosophy. Even if it were the latter, I fail to see how
"can be [not "must be"] constitutive for my [not "anyone's"] conception
of good or ideal life" is the equivalent of "is so essential that ... it
ought to be part of the definition of a high-quality life".
The writer says "religion *or* tradition" [emphasis added] which you
rewrite (dishonestly?) as "religion/tradition" before proceeding to
suggest dishonest "fact" creation. Do atheists reject tradition as well
as religion?
Surely the nature of "the good life" varies with the liver.
Enlighten us; which of the following would constitute "the good life"
for a person with *sophisticated* taste: no money, not enough money,
enough money; no car, a slow car, lots of slow cars, one fast car; no
food, enough bad food, lots of bad food; no women, one beautiful young
woman, lots of ugly old men?
--
Dave M.
(spam-resistant; remove temporary technical impediment to reply)
Donna Richoux
BR>>religion or tradition can be constitutive
<B><U>OF</U></B>
> my conception <B><U>FOR A</U></B> good or
> <BR>>ideal life."
> <BR>
>
> <P>A reply from Nicole Smith,
> <BR> &n
bsp;
> Editor/Publisher For:
{Snip a bunch more paragraphs of:]
<P>  
Usually I just send a private message to people when this happens, but
this time I got a real kick out of all the nbsp & nbsps.
It reminds me of Thurber's "The Great Quillow" == woddly woddly woddly.
Pleae check your settings. Your posts appear on my machine and others'
in dupelicate with HTML tags. If you use Netscape Communicator, you can
go to Edit - Preferences - Mail & Groups - Messages, and then deselect
"By default, send html messages".
Thank you --- Donna Richoux
(With thanks to Vesa Raiskila for the exact command)
Magic Pen
Absolutely. It is correct to say CONCEPTION OF, NOT conception FOR.
I must have been in another world when I wrote that message. It started out
with my postings being all wrong, and my message appeared in HTML with all
sorts of nbsn & nbsn. Thanks to you and Donna Richoux for your help in
correcting that.
So, to sum up the original text, we would now have:
"Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
>
> >religion or tradition can be constitutive OF my conception OF
> A good or
> >ideal life."
An interesting question.
Best regards,
Nicole Smith
Editor/Publisher
The Magic Pen http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/1899
Vesa Raiskila
Magic Pen wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:18, Vesa Raiskila <mailto:del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
>
> wrote:
> >My reference works don't tell me whether I should say 'constitutive
> of'
> >or 'constitutive for' (or use a different preposition). Allow me to
> >share with you the philosophically stimulating construction:
> >
>
> or
> >ideal life."
> >
> >Oh, should one say 'THE good or ideal life'? I've seen 'the' precede
> >'good life' (for a reason I cannot fathom).
>
>
>
> >"Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
>
> A good or
> >ideal life."
There seem to be many views of the 'the/a good life' thing, but why
'conception FOR'? My dictionary says 'conception OF' ("the conception of
friendship", "the conception of the book").
Vesa
--
http://www.jyu.fi/~raives/
E-mailed copies of responses are highly welcome. To reply via e-mail,
Mark Barton
On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 1:01, Vesa Raiskila <mailto:del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>Magic Pen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:18, Vesa Raiskila <mailto:del.r...@cc.jyu.fi>
>> Suggestion for your text:
>>
>> >"Language may play a purely practical role in my everyday life, while
>>
>> >religion or tradition can be constitutive OF my conception FOR
>> A good or
>> >ideal life."
>
>There seem to be many views of the 'the/a good life' thing, but why
>'conception FOR'? My dictionary says 'conception OF' ("the conception of
>friendship", "the conception of the book").
I don't know the mind of Nicole, but there are two possibilities. Note that
in general, substituting "for" (with either "constitutive" or "conception")
adds a layer of indirection. "For" is not being used to connect "a good
life" directly to "conception" as "of" would be, but for its usual meaning
of purpose. The reader is meant to infer appropriate linking words such as
"my conception _of_ whatever it takes _for_ producing a good life", or more
elegantly, "my conception of the requirements for a good life". She could
be suggesting this as an improvement to the meaning, or she could be trying
to avoid repetition of the preposition "of". I tend to agree that it's an
improvement on both counts. However I still think that taken literally the
sentence is nonsense, and that "constitutive" is being used as a
meaningless intensifier like "literally" (which is routinely used in places
where its opposite, "figuratively" would be accurate).
Peter Moylan
Magic Pen <magi...@netrover.com> wrote:
><BR>
>
><P>A reply from Nicole Smith,
><BR>
>Editor/Publisher For:
>
><P>
>The Magic Pen & The Quill
><BR>
><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/1899">http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/1899</A>
><BR>
>magi...@netrover.com
>
><P>
><A HREF="http://www.thequill.com">http://www.thequill.com</A>
><BR>
>aus...@thequill.com
><BR>
><BR> </HTML>
Any HTML editor that can do this ought to be taken out
and shot.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://www.ee.newcastle.edu.au/users/staff/peter/Moylan.html
Donna Richoux
Peter Moylan <pe...@AtHome.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
[snip]
> >aus...@thequill.com
> ><BR>
> ><BR> </HTML>
>
> Any HTML editor that can do this ought to be taken out
> and shot.
Netscape is downloading Communicator (Navigator 4.0) with the default
setting to display all this, can you believe it?! Does anyone have
reason to believe that Netscape would listen to protests?
Bemusedly --- Donna Richoux