Re: vive !

Jim said:
<< Since the word "tree" doesn't derive its meaning from a physical tree out
there, but from the idea "tree" in someone's head, the word "tree" really
gets its meaning from the other words around it.

If you have a problem with this idea, think of the millions of trees in this
world, and then think of the image you get when you use the word "tree."
Then ask yourself: "What are the odds of someone living halfway across the
globe having the exact same visual image of a tree that I do?" Pretty slim
to impossible, I'd say.>>

But the image in your head is not of tree, but of A tree. I doubt that one
can imagine (make an image of) tree, by which I mean tree itself. It's true
that the second fellow might first think of a different tree, but if he
encounters YOUR imaginary tree he probably won't call it a flower. You
probably both think of treeness is the same way, or in very similar ways.

I am not writing this to disagree with the principle, but I'm not sure that
this explanation (or example?) of it is the best.

And it seems reasonable to me that the word "tree" is as you say: it is
arbitrary, it has no necessary connection to a physical thing, and thus the
designation of "tree" instead of "shmoolah" to one specific object (or idea)
is a sort of "internal" concern of the language with no real bearing on bark
and branches. But I don't understand how the word "gets" its meaning, as
you say, from other words around it. Is that actually what you meant? How
should an infant who knows no other words then attach "mama" (or first, I
suppose, the syllable "ma" or the string of them "mamamama") to its
referent? Surely WHICH sounds is the arbitrary result of the mother's
language, but I don't see how the word gets meaning from other WORDS. It
seems to me that language acquisition and conceptual knowledge generally are
more complex than that.

An added complexity is the onomatopoetic words, of which there are probably
more than most of us expect. There are often words of similar sound in
unrelated (and even entirely isolated) languages, which cannot always be
explained by chance or historical connection. These tend to be explained
either through imitative formation or some very subtle formative principle
that is shared. Most of my knowledge of this comes through comparing
Semitic languages to Indo-Germanic ones; I unfortunately can't cite much
written work on the subject, since I don't know of any that is written in
English or that has common/good translations. Much of what I know of seems
dubious to me, anyway. But there ARE such striking examples as the
prevalence of "L" sounds in words meaning to "lick" (rather often also in
words for "language"), the prevalence of the harshest consonants a language
has for words meaning "to scratch," et cetera.

These are thoughts, anyway.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Dec 15 00:12:41 2002