Some words are ambiguous in unique, idiosyncratic
ways: e.g. pen (‘writing-implement’; ‘corral’; ‘female swan’; ‘penitentiary’); these do not generalize in any sense. Others, in ways more systematic,
though still contingently gerrymandered over the lexicon as a whole: as, the actio/actum distinction of many verbal
nouns, which has counterparts in many languages.
An ambiguity of the latter sort I noticed just the other day. Schematically,
&
<the [Surname] of … [area of activity]>
I was reading (somewhat drowsily, candle guttering
on the nightstand) a history of the early twentieth century, and encountered the phrase
“the Nelson
of the Russo-Japanese War”
My semi-befuddled brain (well prepped for noctural
Lethe by abundance of brandy, but
less well fit for analysis) first apprehended this as referring to: a certain Commodore or Admiral, active
in the R-J war, and surnamed Nelson (by
Christian name a Clive, or a Bartholemew, as the case might be), but not to be confused with his
more celebrated predecessor and namesake, Horatio
Nelson.
But the reference was to: Admiral
Togo.
~
I noticed that while wearing my linguistic cap; but upon re-reading, it stands revealed as but an instance
of, or at least closely related to, the general topic of possible-world counterparts, and the sort of conundrums of counterfactuals discussed, for example, by Nelson
Goodman in Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. As such, a philosopher will greet it with a nod of
recognition, or perhaps a yawn.
But for the benefit of such of my readers who may have spent too few
hours reading analytic philosophy, and too many playing “Angry Birds”, we offer
it anyway, in all humility.
No comments:
Post a Comment