The Lord High Everything Else's Glory (was Fantin's Query).
Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler
(who do you think you are kidding Herry Hitler).
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory
(i.e. lordship).
The Lord's prayer.
Re: RT, efficiency in communication, and the expression of a superlative
concept. J Fantin, of Biblical Studies, Sheffield, who has an essay on the
imperative mood in the NT, writes: "I have been wrestling with the
relational word "lord" in ancient literature."
Have you considered OE (or is it merely Germanic, "herr", as in "herr
Hitler"). I understand Frisian and Dutch and German have nothing like
"lord". Only "herr". I have written on Anglo-Frisian studies a lot! See
some links and references below.
"I have never spoken with a real live RT scholar (or person for that matter)"
Oh, never mind about "person". We's all virtual here!
"Using Sperber and Wilson's discussion of efficiency in communication
(p.46) and the principle of relevanc as a point of departure, I propose
that an abstract relational concept such as
"supreme lord/master"
may be expresse/realised in a surface structure/text/utterance by different
words or phrases depending upon the referent of the label itself.
Specifically: the SOCIAL status/relationship between the referent and the
utterer and what the utterer wishes to communicate about the referent will
result in different types of expression for different individuals."
1. the relationship
of the referent to the individual
using the label.
2. the social status of
the referent with respect to the individual using the
label.
3. the social status and
relationship of the referent to the community
TO which the individual using the label belongs.
4. the social status and relationship
of the referent to A WIDER cultural
context.
"Therefore, Nero by virtue of his social status and relationship to his
subjects could simply be called
"lord" (Latin "dominus"; Greek: kyrios or despotes) to express this
superlative
concept".
====
True, but "domina" meant prostitute
See my reference below this time to a Classical source: Catullus.
=====
"The use of any modifiers such as "one" or "most high" would be
redundant unless the purpose of the utterance was praise or flattery."
===
Which, on the other hand, is irritatingly common with the Bible. This was
studied in Coventry by M.M.Warner, Oxon-educated philosopher -- he said I
was too much of a Gricean to abide by his terminology, though!
Anyway, M.M.Warner's ref. is to his "The Bible and Conversational
Implicature".
He found the Lord's prayer terribly hyperbolic, but then he notes that
there are very different formulae too.
I forget the references. He notes that "high lord" parallels English "king"
or "queen". I.e. there is an implicature of UNIQUENESS here. "King" implies
ONE KING. That's why the Queen is the Queen of England, but her husband is
PRINCE CONSORT, not "King". Asymmetrically, the king's wife is called
"Queen". I always found she should be called "princess consort" (it's less
ageist and less sexist) but then I'm no Brit.
=====
"The emperor's status in the empire is unparalleled and his relationship to
all subjects (including other local "lords") is one of supreme master/lord.
Therefore, efficiency would suggest that only the one-word label "lord"
would be sufficient to express this superlative concept. However, in a
more localised case
such as a King in Palestine or Asia Minor during the same period, the title
"lord" by itself could not mean
supreme lord/master because of his status and relationships between his
subjects and the emperor. He would, indeed, be "lord" _to his people_ but
it is understood that
he is _not_ supreme lord/master because of the implicit relationships
within the empire between emperor, vassal kings, and people.
"Therefore, there would be no conflict in the following statements:"
1. Nero is lord
1b. Lord Nero, answer me.
2. Agrippa is lord
2b. Lord Agrippa, answer me.
If however, one wished to express that the Vassal king is the
____supreme____
lord/master, the communication process would demand some type of
modifier(s) because he is
not normally
so considered. Therefore,
2c. Agrippa is the most high lord
d. Agrippa is the one lord
would be necessary.
====
This reminds me of G&S's MIKADO. You should revise the dramatis personae,
and the song:
KO-KO: Lord High Executioner of Titipu.
POOH BAH: Lord High Everything Else.
====
"Because of the relational nature and semantics of the term "lord" (viz,
"there can be only one supreme lord"), the modified statements would
involve an implicit challenge (as per argumentation theory) to the
statement, "Nero is lord". Am I correct to see that relevance theory helps
explain this?"
I hope so. Other Gricean theories, too, would, I guess.
I would concentrate on specific utterances as per King James's version of
"Lord".
Best,
JL
Grice Circle.
Ps. The Old Frisian version of the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer
goes (from E O Robinson's Book, English and its Closest Relative): "Thit
riuht skref God selua, use hera, tha thet was thet Moyses latte thet
Israheliske folk thruch thene rada se"
Note the expression, "God selva, use hera" -- literally: God self, us
herr". I.e. "God himself, our lord".
Cfr. the uniqueness implicature (as in "the King of France is bald" Grice's
favourite example): "Thin God thet is thi ena, Thine God that is the one".
====
I must say that I always found the rubric, "lord's pryaer" kind of
confusing. If God = Lord, who is JESUS, really? So I guess _Lord's_ prayer
is a misnomer. It should be "Jesus's prayer".
The Lord's prayer ends, in Frisian, with "For thine is the kingdom, the
power and the glory". The Frisian word for "glory" is:
"hear-lik-heid"
Literally,
lord-like-hood.
(cfr. Middle Dutch, 'heerlijkheid', Middle German, 'Herrlichheit',
Vortigern, of
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk
tells me
"both mean something like 'glory', but also denotes it belongs to the Lord
(Middle Dutch 'heer', Middle German 'Herr'). It is very ancient language,
but "the Power & the glory", in a sense that they are the Lord's, are
probably the nearest descriptions here."
=====
My Classical reference to Catullus: In "Learn Latin", JLS (Grice Circular)
writes:
"If you want to be a writer, learn Latin"
R. M. Brown, Virginia ranch.
Interview to The Houston Voice.
Consider:
1. Isqve domvm nobis isqve dedit dominam
ad qvam commvnes exerceremvs amor
2. So a house to us, so he gave a woman,
in whom we could share the common loves. (Copley)
3. So a house to us, and so he gave a housekeeper
under which we could enjoy the common loves (Goold)
4. He gave us a house and a honey
towards whom we could exercise the common loves (Kinsey)
What the heck did Catullus mean in his dirty poem, a la Grice? Alison
Parker wrote in an essay for The Classical Association that "(1) has proved
a critical slough, mired with unnecessary emendations, and it's the poem's
addressee who gets burned. (1) has suffered badly at the hands of their
'rescuers.' A first, innocent reading might make (1)'s meaning seem fairly
clear, but they have been rendered a critical swamp-pit of perverse
quibbles on word meanings, and even dubious grammar, not forgetting a
scholarly zeal to clean the whole thing.
Some reference assignment, first: in (1) most take "domina" => "Lesbia" &
tend to follow Froehlich who changes the original "dominam" into "dominae".
Consider (2). But (3) sees her as a "housekeeper" (euphemism for
"chaperon") who covers for an adulterous tryst. In Kinsey's interpretation
(MINE TOO. JLS) the "domina" was sure brought in for a menage a trois with
Allius -- whom Catullus really loves. But is it necessary to see this as a
cheesy affair with a wanton woman in a lent-out love-nest, or should we try
to see it as a true favour from friend to friend, a real domus and a
respectable marriage? Now that IS the question. Consider "domum" here. We
shouldn't think here of
a cute condo(m)(inium).
Also, we can't say that Allius is giving Catullus a mistress. He already
has her. Allius must be giving only the cheesy love-nest. Froehlich's
illegal emendation to "dominae", as Lieberg aptly quips, is very "traurig"
(= sneaky, unhappy, what-ever). But if the "dominam" is just a scheming
"chaperone", Catullus would not
like to have HER or would he. The classical scholer [sic. JLS :)] Solmsen
tangentially remarked that the
Romans were not known for the practice of having a chaperon, but what did
he know anyways.
Consider "dedit". Some prim and propers have said the verb "to give"
(donate) implies "adoption or lawful marriage", but doesn't it. Is Catullus
leading his audience that marriage is at last on his brain? Mmmm... Recall
the missive that Catullus received from Mallius:
Dear Catullus,
Why don't you come over to my place, so we
can screw around and then you can put us to sleep
reading your poetry.
Yours,
Mallius.
And cfr. poem No. 50, where Catullus gets together with _Calvus_ for a
night of decadence. But Catullus's brother's death has changed him,
hormonally. He's just not in the mood for casual sex. Note that in 68a
Catullus himself puts aside heavy partying Mallius had accustomed him for.
And there's a silly little puer. So it would seem as though, via his bro's
death Catullus has finally given
up making love to the unsuitable sluts, plus going out with that silly
little puer. But is he real settling down? Note the "ad" (in (1) "make love
TO the domina". "Ad" towards persons is not overly common as an equivalent
to "apud" ("in the house of,", French "au Pierre LaFleur"), so it could
just mean make love TO somebody. The interpretations of "ad quam (dominam)"
as 'in which whore' or 'in the whore where...' is, admittedly, rather
shaky. Note that no sex play is necessary involved. Cfr the previous poem:
I don't jump someone else's whore
I don't hog the food or get drunk...
On the other hand, I display charm, love,
and pleasant civility.
This contrasts with Copley's translation of the same line,
That guy that beat you outa yer gal,
& is doing yer exercizes fer ya.
"But it ruins the joke here, whatever the joke is." (I AGREE. It doth seem
to kinda ruin it). But then is 'exerceret amorem' rather lofty -- kinda
'courts'- But there's a problem here, if Mollius smells, the domina (unless
she's really a one) would not have sex him. Sex the aemulus is unthinkable. As
Catullus puts it,
No pretty girl would sleep
With a smelly fellow.
Only there is one lady so lustful
that she will
"and we can guess who she is". I take "amores communes' to mean, obviously,
"mutual orgasm". Solmsen, the classical scholar, objects that in the case
of friendship and enmity, "communis" is always used for two people's
feelings for a third. But that's apples and oranges! There's the possible
objection that Catullus can't call Lesbia or anyone else his wife, because
she isn't. Our confessional poet wouldn't lie to us. Of course he can call
her whatever he likes. Is Mollius a socer? One can see Catullus as having a
joke at the addressee's expense. "Okay, okay," he says, "that was no wife,
that was my lady. -- and she isn't much
of a lady, for that matter". He's sure jerking the audience around. And
we've yet to learn that Catullus's lover is a married one and no meretrix
she -- which delighted the Roman audience even more, and we have
eleven poems about Lesbius pulcher, the darling brother. But the darling
brother -- THAT is another story".
====
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 28 2001 - 15:55:59 GMT