|
time_is_now
|
 |
« Reply #195 on: 02:10:50, 07-09-2007 » |
|
It was the 'warmest of performative utterances' that I wasn't sure about ... Haven't read your link but from my understanding of Austin a performative utterance is not really a greeting as such but a phrase like 'I promise'.
I suppose 'I greet you' would also be one. Maybe that's what you meant!
'Phatic' is a good term - it means an utterance where the fact of its being uttered is more important than any specific signification. Friendly noises, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #196 on: 02:16:14, 07-09-2007 » |
|
I suppose 'I greet you' would also be one. Maybe that's what you meant! Yes; yes it is! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baziron
Guest
|
|
« Reply #197 on: 10:56:53, 07-09-2007 » |
|
Interesting exchange on the "London Underground" thread: Being new to this interesting thread, somebody may already have mentioned this somewhere...
True, although they'd have to have done so on a different thread, if they were, as you suggest, new to this one! I wonder - modern and decadent Political Correctness aside - whether t-i-n could explain the linguistic rectitude of referring to "somebody" as "they"? Baz  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kittybriton
|
|
« Reply #198 on: 14:23:25, 07-09-2007 » |
|
And how do you feel about "house styles", particularly when it really goes against the grain? On the whole I'm not a fan of house styles. Squeaking as one who has done a tad less than her share of academic typesetting, house styles are A Good Thing. The problem seems to be that whenever a new editor is appointed, the first thing they do is change the house style to match their own preferences. performative Don't you mean phatic? I am not too well acquainted with that word. I have looked "phatic" up; while it also applies just as well in the case you quoted, and is, indeed quite a lovely; certainly worthy of use in this subforum; it's meaning is rather different to mine, however. For the term I used, performative utterance, see http://www.stanford.edu/class/ihum54/Austin_on_speech_acts.htm. It's one of these things that one gets to use once or twice (I think I have already used it once here), and then it withers up and its use becomes rather MONSTROUSLY unfashionable. A bit like nugatory in that respect. Particularly on the wrong lips. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Click me -> About meor me -> my handmade storeNo, I'm not a complete idiot. I'm only a halfwit. In fact I'm actually a catfish. |
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #199 on: 00:38:33, 09-09-2007 » |
|
And how do you feel about "house styles", particularly when it really goes against the grain? On the whole I'm not a fan of house styles. Squeaking as one who has done a tad less than her share of academic typesetting, house styles are A Good Thing. The problem seems to be that whenever a new editor is appointed, the first thing they do is change the house style to match their own preferences. I'm okay with house-styles as well. Could you give an example t_i_n of any house-styles that particularly annoy you? A bit like nugatory in that respect. Particularly on the wrong lips.
Oooh yes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #200 on: 09:05:05, 12-09-2007 » |
|
You'll be amused to know that I was in fact named after Copland The foundations of my understanding of the great Atlantic divide have been shaken again. It's the 'named after' bit. I had understood that, as well as you saying tomayto while we said tomarto, and you saying potayto while we said potarto (let's call the whole thing Orff), you said 'named for' while we said 'named after'. Not so, Aaron? Or perhaps you are very kindly making adjustments in anticipation of your move? Come to think of it, I've spotted 'named for' appearing over here so maybe that's the way we are heading too. 'Bored with'/'bored of' anyone? We seem to be almost half way now in moving from the former to the latter. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:10:29, 12-09-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #201 on: 09:36:45, 12-09-2007 » |
|
'Carmeena, Carminor,
Burahna, Burayner...'
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 09:59:48, 12-09-2007 by martle »
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #202 on: 10:04:25, 12-09-2007 » |
|
I wonder - modern and decadent Political Correctness aside - whether t-i-n could explain the linguistic rectitude of referring to "somebody" as "they"? A pedant writes: We welcome this development as an elegant and quintessentially European solution to what had become a genuine problem. It had been clear for some time that recent advances in the relative standing of the sexes had led to a position where the use of the masculine pronoun for a single person of unknown identity was no longer completely satisfactory. This had led to various solutions we find somewhat inelegant, such as the construction of new pronouns, the peppering of one's prose with 'he/she' or the use of 'she' where one would previously have used 'he', which is hardly less unsatisfactory although it must surely have been satisfying to turn the tables in this manner. The continental Europeans have no problem with certain slippages of person, gender or number, which they have used for centuries for the purpose of formality. The French address single interlocutors in the second person plural without a second thought. The Germans similarly address single interlocutors in the third person plural. Formerly they would also address single persons in the third person singular, as can be seen in a musical context in the libretti of Wozzeck, Der Rosenkavalier and Die Soldaten. The Italians would formerly address single persons in the second person plural (voi), as we again know from operatic libretti. Nowadays they address single persons in the third person singular feminine form (Lei) regardless of their actual gender. In this context we find the use in English of the gender-neutral 'they' to replace the gendered 'he' to be a quite satisfactory solution, and are heartened by its growing acceptance. Persons troubled by this on grounds of logic may of course cast their own sentences entirely in the plural, especially if they are intended for recipients some of whom may be similarly troubled. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #203 on: 10:05:07, 12-09-2007 » |
|
'Carmeena, Carminor,
Burahna, Burayner...'
...'But how sad the change from...' - oops, wrong song. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #204 on: 10:12:33, 12-09-2007 » |
|
We thank him, Member Sudden, for his first message - we could not, as the saying goes, have put it better ourself.
Regarding his second message: 'strange the change', no?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #205 on: 10:16:37, 12-09-2007 » |
|
Ah well, since the song was wrong in the first place, sheep, lamb, all that... Ahem.  Nonetheless: we would certainly for the time being prefer 'ourselves' to 'ourself', not yet having become sufficiently accustomed to singular/plural slippage to employ both within one and the same word. We suspect however that Member Now was, as one says, making a point. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #206 on: 10:31:16, 12-09-2007 » |
|
Nonetheless: we would certainly for the time being prefer 'ourselves' to 'ourself', not yet having become sufficiently accustomed to singular/plural slippage to employ both within one and the same word. We suspect however that Member Now was, as one says, making a point.
He was indeed, amused by the fact that intuitively correct as Member Sudden's logic seemed there are these reflexive pronouns where popular usage seems to have definitively attempted to confuse the matter of grammatical number with that of actual number. Themself, anyone? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #207 on: 21:28:03, 12-09-2007 » |
|
Nonetheless: we would certainly for the time being prefer 'ourselves' to 'ourself', not yet having become sufficiently accustomed to singular/plural slippage to employ both within one and the same word. We suspect however that Member Now was, as one says, making a point.
He was indeed, amused by the fact that intuitively correct as Member Sudden's logic seemed there are these reflexive pronouns where popular usage seems to have definitively attempted to confuse the matter of grammatical number with that of actual number. That is to say, cardinality? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #208 on: 21:30:30, 12-09-2007 » |
|
Nonetheless: we would certainly for the time being prefer 'ourselves' to 'ourself', not yet having become sufficiently accustomed to singular/plural slippage to employ both within one and the same word. We suspect however that Member Now was, as one says, making a point.
He was indeed, amused by the fact that intuitively correct as Member Sudden's logic seemed there are these reflexive pronouns where popular usage seems to have definitively attempted to confuse the matter of grammatical number with that of actual number. That is to say, cardinality? Ah, you refer to good old car(di)nal sin? Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
