Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: sproloquio australiano

Potreste aiutarmi a tradurre questo apparente sproloquio?
Suppose, for instance, that somebody describes a very complex pattern
of wallpaper. Suppose nobody else does either in the whole history of
the universe. [e fin qui ci arrivo anche io...].  It is clear that
there was nothing in the laws of nature that prevented the pattern's
ever having an istance, from ever having a token of the type.
?!?!
Grazie

 
Non c'è niente di intrinsecamente difficile. È che non so di cosa si parli.
Ciao, FB
-- 
L'importante è che risplenda tu, sola primadonna e immarcescibile leggenda
del tuo pianerottolo.
(Lucangel su it.cultura.libri)

 nonostante ritenga di aver capito la struttura della frase.
Il tuo č piů chiaro del testo originale.

Non c'è niente di intrinsecamente difficile. È che non so di cosa si parli.
Secondo te quel "pattern's ever having" che vuol dire? che tipo di
struttura sintattica è? E' l' "ever having" che mi procura problemi.
Perchè dopo "prevented" non c'è un "to"?
V'è un genitivo sassone in "pattern's"?
Grazie

Cos'è un testo di divulgazione scientifica sui misteri dell'universo?
No, si tratta di un saggio sul problema degli universali in ontologia
formale. Per ora di misterioso c'ho trovato solo il modo di scrivere
dell'autore (D. M. Armstrong) ;->
Grazie

 wrote in message
news:0konn0l3u2k8e9bp8...@4ax.com...

The grammar : yes , a genitive . 'prevented the pattern's having '  .
'having' is a gerund , so read 'the pattern's ever having an instance' as a
noun phrase object of 'preventing' . cf  'I prevented his moaning by
stuffing a sock in his mouth.'  OK , it sounds ugly here , but none of it's
a model of good style ! By the way , we don't ever say 'prevent to ' , but
many would have written here 'prevented the pattern from ever having' .
The meaning : seems straightforward (to a madrelingua !) . It appears to be
from some (amateur ?)  attempt to explain something along the lines of
Platonic idealism . He's saying that the pattern can exist without ever
having been realised in a concrete instance (ie as actual wallpaper , or as
an actual drawn design) , and that there's clearly nothing in the laws of
nature that prevents such a concrete instance . The idea of the pattern ever
having an instance is just a restatement of the idea of the pattern being
realised in actual drawing or wallpaper , and the idea of the pattern ever
having a token of the type is simply another restatement of the same idea :
the 'type' being the 'pattern' , and the 'token' the concrete instance .
'Type' and 'token' are presumably terms he has been deploying already in his
argument , and the last phrase simply serves to bring this wallpaper example
within his already defined terms of reference .
Mike

 wrote in message
news:a0qnn0hup79enbjuh...@4ax.com...

Wow ! I'd better apologise for the slur in my earlier post ('amateur?') on
this emeritus professor of philosophy at Sydney University . Maybe he thinks
better than he writes .
Mike

Mike
Wow! Do you know him? Are you australian?
I think you are an expert about this argument, isn't it? Great.
Perhaps you could give me some tip for my thesis.
C

The grammar : yes , a genitive . 'prevented the pattern's having '  .
What's the meaning of "ever" in "pattern's ever having..."? Is it
something like "never" or rather "forever"?

 something like "never" or rather "forever"?
at least once
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 wrote in message
news:o9hpn0holoj79948i...@4ax.com...

 No , no and no - sorry ! (Well , not that sorry, on any of the three
counts.) Having suggested he was an 'amateur' , when I saw you'd given his
name I thought I'd just check him out , and found he was a prof. with quite
a few books to his name (one was complimented by a critic as a model of
clarity and a paradigm of exposition!) . I did have a look at a sample (on
the net) of his work - an address he gave to professional colleagues at a
workshop at Konstanz University in Germany . I didn't understand a twentieth
of what he said , which rather disqualifies me from offering help with your
thesis ! It did , however , confirm my view that modern philosophy seems to
be mostly a desperate struggle with the restrictions of language , and
involves principally a constant elaboration of new vocabulary and
redefinition of old .  Whilst there's some attraction in the idea of being a
professional philosopher (there are many less pleasant ways of earning a
living) , I can't see anyone without that ambition wanting to read any of
this stuff - whereas the vision , imagination and humanity of Plato will
always make him a must for educated people of any nationality .
Mike



Come "mai" in "hai mai letto un libro?": "impedisce che il "pattern" abbia
mai..."


 mai..."
Sto ridiventando analfabeta: "impedisce al "pattern" di avere mai...".
Ciao, FB
-- 
Se dico "siedi!" manca l'oggetto.
Siedo chi? Lei o me?
(da it.cultura.linguistica.italiano)

 wrote in message
news:2u4f67F...@uni-berlin.de...

Gee, you didn't have to go back that far. What about Benedetto Croce,
or Albert Camus?   :>)
Joe from Massachusetts


Well , Camus has a special place in the affections of many of my generation
, though I don't think he's in the same league as Plato as a philosopher !
But you're quite right - far better read him than Armstrong et al . Your
reference to Croce interested me , though . I did come across him decades
ago , when briefly looking into aesthetics (perhaps the most unrewarding of
all branches of philosophy) , though I only read bits of other people's
accounts of his work ; and the fact is that I cannot recall ever knowing
anyone who had read any of his books ; certainly I've never heard his name
spoken , or come across it in any more general context . So I wondered if
he's maybe a great deal better known in the USA (or maybe by Americans with
Italian connections ?) , and in Italy . If so , though I certainly haven't
the energy to embark on his oeuvre , if there were one book you could
particularly recommend , I'd give it a go .
Mike (writing from the UK)

 wrote in message
news:2u83a5F...@uni-berlin.de...

The selection of Camus and Croce is both Italocentric and personal.
Plato failed in his experiment in practical politics in Sicily.
Croce was a scholar and practical politician, a moderate liberal,  who
opposed totalitarianism during the era of Fascism in Italy, and is
regarded by some as the most prominent Italian intellect of the first
half of the 20th century. He was a great influence on Gramsci, and
this influence led Gramsci to lead the Italian Communists in a
direction which would eventually separate the Italian Communists from
the International. Croce served as President of the Liberal Party
after 1943, during the post-war reconstruction.
Some say the reconstruction was a success. :>)
I think the best way of selecting what, if any, of Croce's works are
worth reading might be through reading what his critics say of him and
his work.
I sarted reading Camus while in High School in New York, starting with
"The Stranger" (which continues even today to reap huge profits for
its publisher, particularly among young people). I continued reading
Camus after I joined the Army and was stationed  in Italy. I remember
that in the train station in Vicenza, there was a large travel poster
warning travellers to the mountains not to pick the wild mountain
flowers. Next to that was another travel poster extolling the virtues
of Vicenza, accompanied by a quote from Camus. Evidently, Camus
enjoyed strolling through the streets of Vicenza (as did Goethe, who
even has a street named after him there), something I can understand,
having lived there several years. Once, on a train on the way to
Florence, I tried to strike up a conversation with a South-American
girl, an art student, but she ignored me, pretending not to understand
Italian, French, or English. I persisted in my attempts at
conversation, commenting on the book she was reading, which happened
to be by Camus. My interest in Camus finally got her to speak, in
English, and she became my guide to the art of the city of Florence.
Thanks to Camus.
Camus broke with Sartre, who insisted on supporting Stalin even after
his true nature had been revealed, and the two became enemies.
Camus is still mentioned occasionally here in America. Just last week,
the comedian John Stewart, who hosts a program entitled "The
Daily Show", a comedy "newscast", appeared as a guest on the "serious"
political program called "Crossfire", where he lambasted the hosts of
the program, who had expected him to be funny. This is what a reviewer
said of this encounter:
<<Stewart exposed what has long been apparent: “Crossfire” is the
theater of the absurd and Carlson, Begala and other hosts are bit
players in the script. Camus couldn’t create a better forum of
absurdity.>>
http://www.thedmonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/20/417669aa816db
Joe from Massachusetts