Luiseach

I don't speak German, but I thought there were 'High' and 'Low' versions of the language...the high for formal address and the low for more colloquial ones. Am I mistaken?

Luiseach

The following link is quite interesting:

http://www.wkonline.com/d/verbiage.html

Includes definitions of verbiage and links to texts dealing with the subject.

sweep

Luisearch, I implore you to type some more Englefield. I for one, was particularly pissed at all those philosophy texts that I had to wade through. Wasn't impressed by philosophy. Picked out several books at random, on one occasion, read through a couple of pages from each, and wondered whether these people were getting anywhere at all other than lost.

Neilium, you're right that I hadn't thought through what I was writing enough. I know I am on to something, but I don't know quite how to express it, so I am glad to get some feed back. I'm tired of wading through piles of text, and getting no-where fast. Ideally I could do with a reliable method of testing for substance. IF you could, I would be pleased for you to provide examples of replacing language and taking away the context. maybe you could explain a little more for me.

As far as exact meaning goes, I think that does largely depend on context.

Anyway I'll rewrite your paragraph, in my own words, just as an interesting experiment. Feel free to mess with my own language. I hope you don't object.

1.

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.

2.

What is the essence, the core meaning of a word, if any? I can grasp a sentence and alter words, perhaps using more ambiguous terms, which re-create a text and reveal the same message, but with wider implications. Have I made the meaning more obvious? I've changed words, that, in my view, conjure a synonimous picture. In doing so, the rhythm and tone, have been altered, but has the context, if any? Is this more or less obvious than the prior text? If so has the original been distorted?

jay, I see what you mean about flavours. I suppose, even though different words might be viewed as flowery, they might aid our imagination in a philosophical sense. Who says where the line between art and science goes?

DoubleDutchy

If it only were so simple ... Spoken German divides up into many dozens of dialects which vary wildly among each other.
Some of these are gradually vanishing, giving way to the, strictly unified, written language; others are alive and well indeed. It is an interesting matter, but far off topic. Written German, especially in literary or popular texts, sometimes contains allusions to dialect forms that can be puzzling a translator. In philosophical texts, that's what we were talking about, no such problems arise. As for the thou/you question: No German dialect that I am aware of has different words for the two. Except Dutch, which on good grounds can be taken to be the oldest member of the Low-German dialect family. I am however not allowed to say this at home, they don't want to hear about it...

Luiseach

Will do! I'll try to post something tonight (GMT); if not, then tomorrow.

Neilium

Sweep,

I'm thinking. I'm thinking hard, but I'm not in good form this morning (head cold is taking over.) I'll try and drum up some sort of example today or tomorrow, but no guarantees. (I'm feeling quite un-philosophical at the moment.)

btw: I like your rewrite better than what I wrote.

One thing that hit me (along with this cold) was that maybe part of Heidegger's long-winded, circuitous writing style could be a result of this quest for an essential, exact meaning. In his attempt to express his ideas precisely, he uses more, rather than fewer, words.

Cheers,

-Neil

Ensign Steve

I think the similarities of the words in the language are out-weighed by their subtle differences. When writing an essay or a speech, I might have a word in mind that means pretty much what I mean, but it just doesn't express my thought exactly. So I will search my vocabulary (or thesaurus) for a synonym that better conveys the exact sentiment I am looking for. It takes away a lot of confusion, especially in writing, when tone of voice may not come through as well.

I think being unecessarily verbose can definitely detract from the content, for example using current industry buzzwords in business writing. Business writing should be susinct and to the point. But not all writing needs to be that efficient. Writing does not need to convey as much information as possible using as few words as possible. Have you read the way they talk in 1984? It reads like stereo instructions. The written and spoken word can be forms of art, and a large and diverse vocabulary is a necessary tool for that art.

Jen

Luiseach

Okay, the quotation I already posted was incomplete; here is what Englefield says next:

'What is deplorable is that young students, hoping no doubt to acquire wisdom by studying philosophy, should be fed on such rubbish [referring to the supposed 'inoherence' of some metaphysical writings]. One of two effects may be expected from the treatement: either they realise that they do not understand a word and suffer discouragement and self-distrust, or they fail to realise it, and their minds are stuffed with jargon and make-believe, with which they see nothing amiss. Some of them then discover that they can without much difficulty write the same kind of stuff themselves and win applause for it, and so it perpetuates itself.'

---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.