sweep

can any of you kind philosophers please explain to me why we have more than 1 word, that mean the same thing, of all the words I can find in vernacular (the common tongue). I am aware that there are some cases where there are similar words which carry a different meaning: paradigm and model, for example- even though I can't remember the exact distinction between those terms.

My opinion is that some of the extra terms are a throwback to a victorian age, where aesthetic properties in language, were esteemed.

What is my reason? well, consider me a dog, rooting for titbits. Sometimes I come across turd (RED: don't eat), and on other occasions I come across scraps of food (GREEN: eat) I have been taught that flowery language makes little headway in scientific/rational arenas, although it can be useful in an artful sense. So, some of what I read here has DEFINITELY been constructed for reasons other than reason; palpable? Could some of those reasons be to sound/seem intelligent and, thereby, more respected in scientific circles. (what about scientific squares?) and, Yes, I am guilty of the same, before you ? me. that is why I am aware of this/it.

To pick out all those guilty of flowery language (for those who are wondering), simply work out the exact meaning of each word in context, discern whether a simpler alternative could have been used, then try to reduce a sentence revealing the substance in a given text.

Luiseach

The beauty and power of the English language rests on its ability to absorb 'foreign' influences. The history of English is a huge subject in itself. But to answer one of your queries: we have more than one word for many things in English, simply because of the influence of other languages on the development of English.

French.
Gaelic.
Latin.
Greek.
Even African (okay is usually thought to be an African word, for instance)

I love this subject...

Philosoft

You might want to start with some reading. I recommend Steven Pinker - he merges science and philosophy of language in a very readable manner. I think his most known work is The Language Instinct. I am currently reading his Words and Rules. Got it from the half-price rack at Barnes & Noble.

sweep

thank you both luisearch and philosoft. Funny you should mention steven pinker since I am almost through with reading one of his books (the blank slate), although I haven't yet seen the language instinct.

Time to use my xxx mas book tokens, methingks

Neilium

What is exact meaning? I can take a sentence and replace the flowery words with more familiar synonyms and come up with a second sentence that says the same thing as the first in simpler terms. But what have I really accomplished as far as exact meaning? I've exchanged words that, in my judgement, are equals. In the process, I have stripped away the rhythm, the context, the tone of the original sentence. I'm no closer to any sort of exact meaning. In fact, I may be further away from the author's intended message than when I started.

The relationship of a word to its meaning shifts in regards to the participants in the exchange. Attempts to remove all language of such ambiguities result in (IMO) a language unfit to describe the world we live in.

Exact and precise language is only possible when a group of people agree on the meanings of words in advance. Air traffic controllers, for instance, have absolutely no room in their work for vagueness. There's a set of words that, within that profession, always mean the same thing regardless of context, tone, etc. To the layperson listening in, though, it sounds like a code.

Anyway, enjoying this thread. It's a good question. If you've run out of things to read: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6s.htm

-Neil

callmejay

I find (as a big reader) that a lot of words usually considered synonymous actually have slightly different "flavors." Consider "use" and "utilize." Maybe "utilize" is just trying to sound bigger, but to me it implies something like "using to its potential." I think it's because words don't actually literally mean anything -- they are metaphors for some amorphous concept. (What's the difference between "amorphous" and "shapeless?")

Luiseach

Another interesting book on the subject you've raised is this one:

Critique of Pure Verbiage: Essays On Abuses of Language in Literary, Religious, and Philosophical Writings, by Ronald Englefield (eds. G.A. Wells and D.R. Oppenheimer). Essays published in collected form in 1990.

He was an advocate for what is commonly referred to as 'militant common sense,' and was devoted to rooting out, analysing, and dismissing what he calls 'worthless writing' - writing that aims to impress readers, obscure meaning, or fluff up a mundane or unoriginal subject.

His essays slam the writing styles of T.S. Eliot, Thomas Carlyle, Martin Heidegger, Immanuel Kant, and John Ruskin, amongst others.

The first part of the collection tackles the works of literary critics. The second takes on the rhetoric of Christian apologetics. The final section assesses the writing styles of philosophical texts.

Needless to say, he finds much of what is considered 'fine writing' to be excessive and obscure, in dire need of the editor's pencil.

Englefield is a very readable writer, and extremely witty into the bargain. Refreshing and to-the-point.

He teaches and entertains at the same time.

I recommend his work very highly.

Neilium

Does Englefield critique Kant and Heidegger in the language they were written or in the English translation? I read some of Heidegger in a college German course, and, despite my grade-D student struggle with the language, Heidegger's style made more sense to me in German than in most translations. Same for Wittgenstein.

In light of that, I wondered if all the "Thou" and "Thy" in George Eliot's translation of Freuerbach's "Essence of Christianity" was Eliot's poetic flourishes or a literal translation of Freurbach's German. Anybody know about that? I remember something about "Alte Deutsch" but that class was so long ago, and I did sooo poorly in it.

-neil

Luiseach

Englefield looks at Heidegger and Kant in English translation, but takes into account key terms in German.

Englefield is rather harsh!

For instance, here's what he says in the essay 'Truth and Words':

'What must surely be clear from all this [preceding analysis of Heidegger] is the sheer incoherence of Heidegger's writings...he is in many respects typical of a school of German metaphysicians which has flourished since the end of the eighteenth century. During the nineteenth century the disease spread to Britain and elsewhere, with the cult of Immanuel Kant, of which I have written in another chapter.'

--- above excerpt from Ronald Englefield's essay, 'Truth and Words,' in Critique of Pure Verbiage: Essays On Abuses of Language in Literary, Religious, and Philosophical Writings, eds. G.A. Wells and D.R. Oppenheimer (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1990), p. 105.

A scathing critique!

P.S. I must look for a source for this book online...I'll post the link if I find one.

DoubleDutchy

Must be, Thou and Thy have no equivalents in German:
'Ich bin der HERR, dein Gott, der ich dich aus Ägyptenland, aus der Knechtschaft, geführt habe. a 3Du sollst keine anderen Götter haben neben mir.' (1st Commandment, Luthers translation)
Whether 'du' translates into 'you' or 'thou' is up to the translator.
Don't bother about Altdeutsch, that was (very) long before Feuerbach or even, for that matter, Luther.