via the marvel that is Lakoffian cognitive linguistics, we finally have an hypothesis which will solve all relational strife: the conceptual metaphor "an instrument is a companion."
as the argument goes, the English "with" is used to indicate accompaniment as well as instrumentality because, as children, our tools were things we spoke with and, in short, viewed as fellow scamps rather than as means of scampitude.
despite my own suspicion of a purely (although this is not purely) developmental explanation, its merely existing gives me hope and a way of approaching the articulation of my ontological correctness to English speakers.
in Slavic languages, both accompaniment and instrumentality are governed by the instrumental case. however, the former requires a preposition while the latter involves only a case ending. the preposition, not surprisingly, translates as "with" when followed by a noun in the instrumental case (this is not a trivial point, because that same preposition, when followed by a noun in another case, must be translated/understood differently). however, that the English translation of the unprepositioned form also relies on "with" creates from the widespread conceptual similarity a lexical puzzle and almost unbounded frustration in trying to explain that these are not meaningless homonyms.
no accident governs the linkage of things that perch on one's shoulder and those that dislocate it. what is less than transparent is the underlying reason for the conceptual framework that results in the use both of a single case and a single non-arbitrary word in speaking of all things in these two categories. i would argue that, had English an existing case structure, the latter sort of "with" might either never have emerged, or would be optional and/or have disappeared.
what is striking about the above explanation is its grounding in a metaphor; that many many hypothetical reasons for events or outcomes are, thus, metaphorical brings to light a foundational attribute about the way we exist in the world, in thought, in language.
and in ethics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
There is much to respond to here, but this
> as children, our tools were things
> we spoke with and, in short,
> viewed as fellow scamps rather
> than as means of scampitude.
reminds me very strongly of your tales of the complaints of your two-wheeled friend. I'm not sure I am fully comfortable with the developmental explanation either, but there is something powerful about the metaphor of inanimate object as companion.
hmmm...and in politics.
Lady Bonds' personal favorite political/ethical imaginary (and perhaps metaphorical) construction is the human being "as individual."
g: interesting. i must have made quite the tiny tyrant—because my inanimate "companions" are largely such because they allow me to facilitatively bend them to my will.
lady bonds: yes, yes, you may have your politics.
as far as the human being/individual goes—what is pertinent about this is that, often, the metaphorical imaginary nature of the concept is forgotten, such that the "individual" is, then, merely assumed.
what is notable about metaphors for existence is that they must find grounding in the experiential world in order to gain stature and power (to "stick," in another metaphorical construction). that in many instances the individual/human being linkage does make sense (to a majority of people) creates the conditions wherein a quick blurring of logic can solidify this union. then, even in situations where this no longer holds experiential validity, the part-and-parcel nature of "a human being as individual" must be forced, rather than accepted as an adequate statement of fact.
yes, my friend, you are alone in your recollection there. not to be impeded by this fact, i will suggest a slight orthographic change (how you choose to enact such is yours alone) to reflect the ghetto-ness of the palatalized result.
> in Slavic languages, both accompaniment
> and instrumentality are governed by the
> instrumental case. however, the
> former requires a preposition while
> the latter involves only a case
> ending. the preposition, not surprisingly,
> translates as "with" when followed by
> a noun in the instrumental case (this is not
> a trivial point, because that same preposition,
> when followed by a noun in another case,
> must be translated/understood differently).
What is the other case? Dative? And how is the preposition translated/understood?
> however, that the English translation of
> the unprepositioned form also relies on
> "with" creates from the widespread
> conceptual similarity a lexical puzzle and
> almost unbounded frustration in trying to
> explain that these are not meaningless
> homonyms.
It does make sense now that you explain it.
no, the other usage (with which i'm familiar) occurs with the genitive (read: best case ever).
in general, the genitive governs incidences involve parts and wholes. this not only relates to actual things taken out of, arising from, or belonging to other things—but also the slightly more abstract realm of departures ("from") and destinations ("to"). although a couple of other prepositions are usually used to denote "from" a place/time, the same "c"/"s"/"sa" that occurs with the instrumental, meaning "with," can be found followed by the genitive to indicate "from." usually, the place is somewhere a bit amorphous, like a river, and down below, such that the implicit meaning is "up from," but not literally.
good night, fair and patient students.
Post a Comment