Stan K-B [ JM: When we consider everyday language as "playful and
inventive", or depersonalize "verbal coincidences", we are neglecting the
possibility that what is then happening lies only in the eyes of the beholder -
not in any word per se.I'm sure SKB is jesting when suggesting a "strong
metaphorical force at work"] : Jansy: you miss a few basic points.
Languages were evolving over many millennia before they were written or
regulated[...] It is this amazing “untutored” everyday SPOKEN process that
reveals the playful INVENTIVE metaphorical aspects of language to which I was
referring[...] Saussure’s use of the word “arbitrary” in designating the nature
of the link between spoken-written “d-o-g” and
<that-4-legged-whoof-whoofing-creature-over-there> is really unarguable
and undisputable. Denying this arbitrariness in the MAPPING is to push
linguistics back into pre-scientific dark ages. This arbitrariness remains an
OBSERVED MYSTERY rather than ANY proferred EXPLANATION[...] Where inventive
playful metaphor enters the equation is WHAT WE (as everyday language
USERS) DO WITH THE NOUN ‘DOG’ ONCE IT HAS BEEN WIDELY ACCEPTED INTO a PARTICULAR
SPEECH-COMMUNITY [...]
JM: There is a slight
misunderstanding. I was never in
disagreement concerning Saussure's observation about
the arbitrary relation between signifier and signifieds. What I meant was
that, since I cannot see "language" operating like non-anthropomorphic
deities who are playful and inventive nor, in a similar acception,
understand "a strong metaphorical force at work" without involving an
original "mover", the wording of your message confused me.
Now I see that you didn't mean to isolate
this "force" from humanity, but you attributed it to the "spoken process"
through which languages were evolving over the millennia and
were incorporated by a speech community.
Thank you for the explanation and examples
related to the "arbitrary" and "derivative" aspects related to the word "dog".
There is still something I cannot
grasp, though. For me, such "derivatives",themselves, are signifiers
and therefore, they retain a measure of "arbitrariness", too.
BTW: I enjoyed Penelope Fitzgerald's ( The
Gate of Angels) hillarious debate (in her novel it took
place in the early nineties in Cambridge
U.) over the existence of a "soul" and how
different people saw the same thing
according to their way of thinking.
It was suggested, then, that "things" should rather be named
"thinks"...
Jerry Friedman:[...]Though Nabokov certainly said he believed in the supernatural, I
don't know what he believed about similarities between words, and I have to
resist thinking he believed what Shade believed.
JM: Indeed, the similarities
between words leading us to verbal day-dreams are encountered all the
time - as are Shade's plexed artistry with correlated patterns
and bobolinks.
Eerie coincidences instill a sense of awe in me
( a religious response, perhaps?) but I don't know if one can
"reasonably" generalize them into some sort of cosmic design. Nevertheless,
when these occurrences can be exploited through fiction, as
VN did, this widens our scope to explore them without
common-sense,rational prejudices. Let them hold sway to carry us on a
magic carpet...
Andrea Pitzer
pondered "the line John Shade uses while making a
bloody mess of himself shaving in Pale Fire (lines 899-900): "...some
day I must set free/The Newport Frill inveterate in me...", mentioned
frill-necked lizards ( "I'm sure Nabokov loved his
reptilian reference"). She found out that frills also describe a "decorative, fluted paper "sock" that is slipped over a
protruding meat bone, such as in a crown roast." and it may be synonimous
to papillote. She considers it lovely " not only
because of the relationship between papillote and papillon ... but
also because to bake something en papillote is to cook food prepared
by wrapping it inside paper, which steams it. From the same book: "At the
table, the paper is slit and peeled back to reveal the
food."
JM: I also wondered about
various related items, like the examples of "stripped to the waist"
in TRLSK. I'll try to
connect these strange references to the frills-papillotes which,
after being peeled back - like Aunt Maud's skinscarf, or
a foreskin - reveal a
secret.