First off, Happy New Year.
Well, it's been a good while, and I don't know quite what i can do in terms of making up for all this lost time. I think nothing. I must constantly remind myself that I'm doing this for me and not for you. Even with that hurdle overcome, there are so many obstacles obstructing the paths that led me up to writing this.
The very keyboard I am using is FUCKED. The "L" key doesn't work, unless I first press "K" . Pay close attention here, there may well be some instances of missing letter L's, scattered throughout this bog. It's incredibly annoying. I want to throw our 10 year old Sony Vaio from our 10 storey window. I shoudn't thoughl. How many modern devices ike that have such a remarkabe ifespanl.
We had a guy round here once to repair a pane of glass that had started to crack in our living room window. The man I called out to do the job was, on first appraisal, both hapless and hopeless. That initial judgement proved to be entirely accurate. I watched on in horror as he dropped his hammer, not once, but twice, 10 floors to the street below. Fortunately, no one passing below at the time had the misfortune of breaking the hammer's fall, but it could easily have been quite different. In a fatal way.
Anyway, I've had enough for now. I'll leave you with a bit of what's on my tiny little mind right this very instant:
What are the limits of language? What can be said and what cannot? Is there a real difference between a dialect and a language?
How many uses are there for the word quite in English?
I've decided that as a teacher I should trade in descriptions and not explanations wherever possible.
Some mild mispronunciation fun:
"When I go home tonight, I'll asses my email account."
Bye for now.
Assinar:
Postar comentários (Atom)
5 comentários:
"I don't know quite what i can do in terms of making up for all this lost time.
Don't post entries and then delete them before they can be read? Just sayin'.
I'm doing this for me and not for you.
Well, quite.
there may well be some missing letter L's throughoutthis bog
And some extraneous "k"s unkless I'm very much mistaken.
What can be said and what cannot?
The primary interest of your man Wittgenstein, I believe. Here are a few quotes from him on which I've been musing recently:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent"
This statement is often glibly mocked as tautologous, but I interpret it as being in the imperative rather than the assertive mood. According to Ludwig, "language sets everyone the same traps; it is an immense network of wrong turnings" and by understanding the proper limits of language we can limit our linguistic folly. After all, "words are also deeds".
"Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly"
Note that this does not imply that everything that can be thought can be said cleary. There is a difference between saying something and merely making an utterance.
"What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think."
Although, again, this does not imply that we cannot think what we cannot say.
Anyway, back to you:
Is there a real difference between a dialect and a language?
Yup. Languages are distinguished by fundamental differences in grammar and syntax rather than "superficial" variations in vocabulary or pronuciation. That's why Scots (whatever that is) is a dialect of English while Gaelic is language in its own right. Similarly, Yiddish is a dialect of German (from "Judische" - "Jewish") rather than an active form of Hebrew as many people think.
How many uses are there for the word quite in English?
Two.
Thank you for your comments. Last week I began a class by opening up a discussion about communication (this particular student describes herself as communication manager). Our discussion began by considering the very quote: Everything that can be said, can be said clearly. At first I think she basically saw it as a platitude, but the more we talked about it, the more it started to mean to her. What Wittgenstein has to say certainly invites a serious amount of musing. Obviously in the context of what i do for a living, I'm striking (weakly) at the coal face of what interested Ludwig. I struggle to understand a lot of his work, it all starts to get a bit wobbly around Religion. But I enjoy the struggle and he's become something of a guiding light for me since i moved here.
Someone, (a Jew), once said that a language is just a dialect with an army and navy. Would you accept that the distinction is often made for political reasons? I for one think the distinction is highly subjective.
It might make more sense to say that no one in fact speaks a language, but rather we all speak dialects.
What I like about the word QUITE is how it works. The two meanings are quite at odds with each other.
Well, you can say we all speak dialects if you like - it is true, although it doesn't change the fact that we speak dialects of a variety of languages! No, I wouldn't accept that the distinction is made for political reasons. You may be able to find some rare cases where the issue is blurred, but by and large the meanings of the two terms are distinct and useful.
It's like that thing about not being able to define exactly how many hairs constitute a beard - just because it's not precisely quantifiable doesn't mean you can't tell the difference between a man with a beard on one without!
There is a real difference between what is and what is not a beard. The same argument would deny the difference between what is hot and cold, and between what is black and what is white. The fact that there is continuity between what is a beard and what is not does not show a real difference.
"What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think."
Although, again, this does not imply that we cannot think what we cannot say.
So what.
Just as there is much that can be thought without the use of words, there is also great deal that can be done.
Postar um comentário