The Ambiguity as to the Referent of ‘I’
November 16th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: The Simplest of Sentences? :: The Ambiguity as to the Referent of ‘I’ :: Words Have Changing Referents :: The Simplest of Sentences?
15/11/2008 _Zgmet at yahoo.com_ (mailto:Zgmet@yahoo.com) writes:
(snip) ‘I am’ = ‘I am an existent (of some sort)’ ‘I am’ = ‘I am a reality
(of some sort)’ ‘I am’ = ‘I am a being (of some sort)’ ============
G:
Hi Jud and sorry for making trouble. It’s true that all Israelis are
anti-semites, but one has to draw somewhere the line. Whatever the degree of my
anti-semitism, I refuse to admit fundamental philosophy inaccessible to (stupid)
Jews.
Now, your above would be so, as translating it to Hebrew would give in
English transcription:
‘I ??’ = ‘I ?? ? existent (of some sort)’ ‘I ??’ = ‘I ?? ? reality (of some
sort)’ ‘I ??’ = ‘I ?? ? ?? (of some sort)’
Sorry again and cheers
Georges
Jud:
No apologies are needed Georges. It is not *my* above.* In this instance
you and me (and Hebrew Grammar/Jewish intelligence) are in complete
agreement. The above supposed instances of the missing predicate, which the pronoun
dependent, indicant *is* or *am* sentences as *I am* or *He is* are the
goyisher ferdrayt luftmensh Joe’s fantasies - not mine.
For me there are two forms of covert predication characterised by the
orphanic copula.
FORM (A) Such assertive phrases which are addressed to others as statements.
(God’s, Popeye’s and Joe’s *I am.* (I Yam, whad I yam) etc.)
FORM (B) Such supposed internalised whisperings, feelings or existential
questionings characteristic of neurological, solipsistic interiorising, which
Descartes verbalised and converted into words, thereby revealing to others that
his supposed existential discovery/conclusion was a redundancy. His
verbalisation immediately rendered the whole statement *I think therefore I am* as a
statemental, pronoun dependent assertion, thus consigning it to history as a
philosophical and ontological superfluity or tautology. To think - either in
its narrow or expanded meaning is a necessary concomitant of existing as a
member of the human specifies (genetically damaged or neurologically
traumatised persons apart.)
1. Other than in dumb show language or gesticulation (not the language of
the deaf, which includes most of the grammatical features of the language of
hearers) instances of the mandatory use of pronouns are necessary for normal
human communication. However, such pronouns remain predominantly unused and
unnecessary in the interior thought of rule-ungoverned rumination, other than in
the internal (neurological) generation of formalised sentences. In other
words when we think about ourselves in relation to the world we adopt a *wordless
mode* (called by Chomsky *deep grammar*) where only those linguistic symbols
that are important to our reverie float in and out of the meta-linguistic
consciousness. At a deep level we do not *think in words.* Such
internalisations lack semantic, syntactic, morphological and grammatical structure. We
*feel* and *emote* more than *think.*
2. The missing predication is not actually *hidden* for such a situation
needs *a hider.* In discourse the statement *I am* is full of self-importance,
conceit, vanity and egotism for it makes it clear that the utterer feels
himself so important that other, lesser mortals are expected to already know his
existential modes and the presumption is that they are worthy of admiration.
Thus when God says *I am* he is not deliberately concealing the way he is - he
naively expects that anyone he meets must already know of his attributes.
3: The utterer’s unspoken predicational attributes are already known to all
utterers of *I am* phrases. Not just the obviousness that they are a *real
being or existent.* For both the addressor and addressee such a fact is obvious
for only an alive human being could ever generate such a complicated
linguistic construction.
This raises the question of whether copula depletory sentences as
encountered in Russian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic and many Indo-Pacific languages
(Tagalog etc.) are more ontologically sophisticated than those of the majority of
the members of the great Indo-European language family? I think that
certainly, at least in the area of a perception of the ontology of linguistic
communication, they probably are superior forms of linguistic construction, for such
copula zeroing and depletion does demonstrate a greater degree of existential
refinement and communicative savoir-faire. Whatever you think of Jews
Georges (and I speak as a goy who generally speaking admires Jews and is intensely
grateful for their huge contribution to human culture in practically any
cultural and intellectual domain you care to mention ) they are more intelligent
human beings, and (statistical) evidence is available on the Internet which
proves it. It follows that, certainly in the case of Hebrew, that the
intelligent omission of superfluous linguistic luggage does lend support to the
statistical proof of a higher intelligence.
Shalom,
Jud.
