Ever Student
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Member Type
- Interested in Language
- Native Language
- Persian
- Home Country
- Iran
- Current Location
- Iran
What is Humpty Dumpty's theory?
Thank you.
Thank you.
"Blending" can be derived from Humpty Dumpty, like "frown" and "scowl" cause "frowl". Am I saying correctly?Apparently, an ancient Athenian philosopher named Cratylus felt that language could change so quickly that it was impossible to be sure of its meaning. It depended on what its speaker meant to say. Cratylus gave up speaking entirely.
Then along came Lewis Carol's Alice in Wonderland, and translated the Cratylus Theory of Language into his nonsensical allegory. On her adventures, Alice met Humpty Dumpty on his wall, and he was talking nonsense, or what seemed to her to be nonsense or at best, unintelligible. He used words that had entirely different meanings to Alice.
Cratylus has been nearly forgotten, but Carol's Humpty Dumpty lives on:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that's all.’
No, if you use 'frowl' to describe a facial expression, that is a neologism based on blending and doesn't depend on Humpty Dumpty's 'theory' at all."Blending" can be derived from Humpty Dumpty, like "frown" and "scowl" cause "frowl". Am I saying correctly?
Doubt is good! :-D - far better than credulity.I'm still in doubt.
Hi,Doubt is good! :-D - far better than credulity.
This is correct if "Humpty Dumpty's theory" refers to the formation of portmanteau words.Hi,
"we may select two or more words to express our thoughts and instead of deciding between them, produce them as "portmanteaus", as Humpty Dumpty calls them. such blends are ilustrated in the following errors;
frown/scowl=frowl"
Now please convince why Humpty Dumpty refers blending "frowl" as "portmanteaus''?
This was my original viewpoint. But I haven't read the book recently. Here is the actual passage from the book:Humpty Dumpty breaks the convention of shared meaning by asserting that words mean what he wants them to mean, and not what the speech community would commonly give the word. I think this concept should be separated a but from his use of portmanteau words, as jamming two bits of other words together doesn't lose or really alter the meaning of the original words- brunch is literally a combination of breakfast and lunch, while claiming that words mean exactly what you want them to mean strikes me as very different.
No, you have been right all along. Linguists do in fact invoke Humpty Dumpty when describing blending and portmanteau words.In fact, Humpty Dumpty theory is different from what linguists use as "blending". Am I getting correctly?
Thank you. Ok, I will give up.No, you have been right all along. Linguists do in fact invoke Humpty Dumpty when describing blending and portmanteau words.
The argument is merely whether they should or not - a peripheral matter that's not essential to your work. You're possibly over-rating the importance of Humpty in linguistics.
Phew! Thank you. :-DThank you. Ok, I will give up.