Contents ||| Study Tools |||
Classical Literature ||| Contact |||
Blog
How can language undermine or support my efforts for clarity?
From: Augustine, de dialectica, here translated by J. Marchand
Page 5
Let us keep this distinct and look at that type which I call of the same origin, which is again divided. It is divided into two, one of which occurs in 'translatio' (usual Latin word for metaphor; the examples given are of metonymy, Tr.), the other in inflection. I call that 'translatio' when either because of similitude one name is give to many things, e.g. 'Tullius' means both a great orator and his statue -- or when the part is called by the whole, e.g. when his body is called 'Tullius' -- or the whole by one of its part, e.g. when a house is called 'roof' -- or a species by a genus.
Words are in general all things spoken, but those things are properly called 'verba' (words, verbs) which we inflect for mood or tense -- or the genus by the species: 'scholasticus' (schoolboy, scholar) was not only properly but first applied to those who were in school, but this name is now corrupted for all who live by letters -- or the effect from the cause, as 'Cicero' for Cicero's work -- or the person causing it from the effect, e. g. 'terror' for the person who causes terror -- or the thing contained from the container, e.g. 'house' for those who are in the house -- or vice versa, e.g. when we call the tree a 'chestnut' -- or anything else of a like kind which you can find called from the same origin by a kind of transfer. You see, I think, what an ambiguity it brings about in words.
Things of the same origin, but ambiguous because of inflection are like this: Let someone give this as an example: 'pluit' (it rains), and let it be diversely defined. Likewise if someone says 'scribere' (write) it is uncertain as to whether it is an active infinitive or a passive imperative. 'homo' (man), though it is one noun and one utterance, is either the nominative or the vocative, like 'doctus' (learned) and 'docte' (O learned one), where the utterance is different. 'doctius' (more learned) is different when we say 'doctius mancipium' (a more sensible contract' or when we say 'doctius illo iste disputavit (this one argued more learnedly than that one). The ambiguity arose thus from inflection. We call that inflection which occurs either by voice or signification in inflecting a word. 'hic doctus' (this learned man) and 'o docte' (O learned man!) are inflected by the voice, 'hic homo' and 'o homo' solely by meaning. But to follow this type of ambiguity minutely is almost infinite. It is sufficient for you to note this section for now, especially for your mind.
Cf. Rilke, Letter to a Young Poet | Plato, Whom are we talking to? | Kierkegaard, My work as an author | Emerson, Self-knowledge | Gibson - McRury, Discovering one's face | Emerson, We differ in art, not in wisdom | Joyce, Portrait of the Artist
