|
Post by Tone on Apr 24, 2008 21:04:01 GMT
I felt that this was an interesting thread to lose, so:
I understood that Sue suggested that nouns were abstract (in Sweden) when one can't "see of feel them". (Hope that's right.)
I replied: And presumably, by the Swedish definition, the moon is abstract when it's not above the horizon.
And Sue replied: I'm not sure about Tone's spurious moon, though. It sounds a bit like the idea of "hand" being abstract if it's in my pocket.
Ah, Sue, but you said "see or feel".
So, people, can we develop a satisfactory (English English) definition of "abstract"? And answer my: " So are privatives automatically abstract?"
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Apr 24, 2008 21:38:32 GMT
Actually, Tone, I said "see or touch", but it's the same difference - you can't touch my hand if it's in my pocket, unless you're being very forward, so as far as you're concerned it would be abstract!
Not being a Swede, I don't subscribe to the "see or touch" definition, anyway.
I was quite happy with the answers I got on the APS - is there more to say?
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Apr 25, 2008 8:07:59 GMT
At its simplest, I reckon an abstract noun does not have its own physically-detectable presence.
Fred is concrete, a picture of Fred is concrete, the memory of Fred is abstract.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 25, 2008 9:25:48 GMT
You could detect happiness by EEG analysis, at least in principle. Does that make it concrete?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Apr 25, 2008 9:49:31 GMT
> you can't touch my hand if it's in my pocket, unless you're being very forward, so as far as you're concerned it would be abstract!< Ah ha! So it's abstract for me, but concrete for you! What about the privatives? > At its simplest, I reckon an abstract noun does not have its own physically-detectable presence.< Sorry, Dave, but I think that your "at its simplest" is far too simple. Surely one detects the presence of something by its effect (that's what "physically- detectable" must mean). So, one can die of cold, or be punished due to "justice". I'm tempted toward a definition along the lines of: Abstract entities (nouns) are those that cannot exist without human presence and would cease to exist if humans (or intelligent aliens ) did not exist. In simpler terms -- the things that are only in the mind of man. Tone
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Apr 25, 2008 10:25:52 GMT
Paul - my point was that a concrete noun has its own physically-detectable presence.
What we detect by ECG analysis is the effect of happiness in the brain, not the happiness itself.
Tone - Of course, when we see a person, what we experience is the effect on our minds of the actions in our brains of the signals in our nerves generated by the reactions in our retinae to the arrival there of photons which have bounced off the person ... but if we say that the the bounce-photon-retina-nerve-brain system is the detector, then what it detects is the person. What the ECG detects is still not the happiness itself.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 25, 2008 10:26:15 GMT
> In simpler terms <
Or in even simpler terms, a concept.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 25, 2008 10:27:29 GMT
Dave, fair point.
It doesn't do to worry too much about these things, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Apr 25, 2008 10:34:39 GMT
> I'm tempted toward a definition along the lines of: Abstract entities (nouns) are those that cannot exist without human presence and would cease to exist if humans (or intelligent aliens ) did not exist.
In simpler terms -- the things that are only in the mind of man.
My view is different: I'd include in "abstract" such nouns as age, absence, change, continuity and difference. Without man ever having existed, there'd be no-one here to notice the difference between Earth and the sun, or their respective ages, or the absence of water on the sun, or the changes to the continuity of Earth's orbit - but they'd still exist! (Of course, we have to watch whether we're referring to the nouns - which only exist when someone creates the language which holds them - or the realities to which the nouns are applied.)
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 25, 2008 11:28:20 GMT
> age, absence, change, continuity and difference <
Concepts, as I say.
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Apr 25, 2008 11:46:16 GMT
I let my colleague (the one who raised the question in the first place) read all your replies on this subject (on both forums) and she agrees with what we are basically all saying, and has revised her opinion on the matter.
She's impressed by your general erudition and amazed that you have taken her little problem so seriously! She now understands why I enjoy your company so much!
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 25, 2008 13:20:59 GMT
Sue: Well done for The Cause! You win a Billy Graham medal! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Apr 25, 2008 20:22:30 GMT
Dave M, > there'd be no-one here to notice the difference between Earth and the sun, or their respective ages, or the absence of water on the sun, or the changes to the continuity of Earth's orbit - but they'd still exist!< But would they? (Only by faith. ) I would opine that the anthropic principle might well rule them out. Sue, > She's impressed by your general erudition and amazed that you have taken her little problem so seriously! She now understands why I enjoy your company so much!< "Little problem"? A fundamental one, I'd say. So when's she agonna be posting here? Tone
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Apr 25, 2008 23:46:16 GMT
You win a Billy Graham medal!
That's very kind of you, Vv. I'll put it with my collection of awards in the shoebox under my bed. Tone, I don't imagine she'll be posting here as she usually manages on advice from her trusty grammar books and her colleagues! She probably knows more English grammar than I do, if the truth be known, since she's studied grammar books pretty thoroughly, unlike me, I must confess. Sue
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Apr 26, 2008 8:14:25 GMT
> they'd still exist!
But would they? !<
Mmmm ... it's the old "Would a falling tree makes a sound, if there were no-one there to hear it?" problem.
When I rephrase it as "If there were no humans, the Earth would not be any different from the sun", I get a clear answer - the difference WOULD still exist!
|
|