the creature

Status
Not open for further replies.

magic dragon

Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Would you answer my question? Thanks in advance.

A: "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists."
(C. S. Lewis)
B: "The creature is not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists."
(from google)
C: The lion is a wild animal.

I think "the lion" in C is a generalized concept of lions.
I think in B, the author meant by the creature creatures in general as in A.
However, I wonder whether B is really right or not.
"The lion" in C has an upper class, that is; a wild animal, while I don't think of any upper class of creatures.
If "the creature" can well be used, it's when used in contrast to the Creator as in D.

D: Some people believe God is the creature / Creature as well as the Creator.
(Should "creature" be capitalized?)
Here the upper class might be, I think, beings or entities concerned with the Creation.
I'd like your opinions about whether B is right or not, and about my explanation.
 

abaka

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I don't think it's possible to say what (B) means out of context. (B) could be a rephrase of (A), or it could be something else.

In (C), it's fairly safe to say that the The specifies lion (as an abstraction of lions) as opposed to other entities that may or may not be wild animals. if (B) is a rephrase of (A), then its use of The is functionally the same as (C)'s -- to specify creature from among other things that are born and yet aren't creatures.

In (D), the Creature and the Creator share identical The's: God is the special, primary, first Creator, and, as some people believe, Creature. Since a creature is properly a created being, sentence (D) presents a complex theology and cosmology of which a proper discussion must transcend English linguistics. (If you capitalize God, you should capitalize both Creature and Creator; and if not, not.)
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Let's be clear about something: the actual quote that C.S. Lewis wrote is A, not B. There's therefore no point as far as I'm concerned in trying to understand what he may have meant by B, because he didn't.

However, if he had used the form of B, then we would understand the use of The in the same way as C, as abaka says above.
 
Last edited:

magic dragon

Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Thank you abaka.
<quote>
(B) could be a rephrase of (A), or it could be something else.
-I agree. I assume the rephrase of (A) by the author might be for nobility or loftiness.

<quote>
the The specifies lion (as an abstraction of lions) as opposed to other entities that may or may not be wild animals.
--I would agree if you said "The specifies lion as opposed to other (entities that are) wild animals. I think the opposition would be clear if it's that of the lion and other wild animals. Not so with the opposition of the lion and other entities that are not wild animals, I think.

<quote>
if (B) is a rephrase of (A), then its use of The is functionally the same as (C)'s -- to specify creature from among other things that are born and yet aren't creatures.
--- Indeed the function of "the" is to specify something from other things in the same class of it. However, in the text including A (C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity), there is no description of "things that are born and yet aren't creatures". Instead I repeatedly see the word God or other paraphrased words.
I think in A creatures' upper class is the Creator, that is; God. And "things that are born and yet aren't creatures" are also made to come into being by God.

My hypothesis is, in general, something (here the creature) is specified if it is well defined by its upper class (here God), just as the lion is defined and specified by its upper class, that is; a wild animal. Of course, the creature and the lion are both generalized concepts, so my hypothesis might be true only when sentences or discourses those concepts are used in are general ones.
If my hypothesis is true, the specificity of the lion is determined not just by its opposition to other wild animals but also by its definition by its upper class, that is; a wild animal.
(I think the definition or limitation of the lion by a wild animal is denoted in the fact that the lion is definitely a member of wild animals, and that of the creature by God is denoted in the fact that the creature is the very thing God created.)

I'd like your opinion about my hypothesis. Sorry I'm a bit too philosophical rather than linguistic.
I totally agree with your comment of D.
 
Last edited:

magic dragon

Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Thank you jutfrank.
Yes, B is not what C.S. Lewis wrote.
I'm not trying to understand B. My concern is whether "the creature" in B is rightly used or not in grammatical terms. My point is clear in my reply to abaka.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
If you would like me to comment on your hypothesis, I'll be happy to, but you'll have to be a little clearer. Could you take the trouble to restate it in different words? I don't want to waste time commenting if I'm not completely sure of how you're thinking.

My hypothesis is, in general, something (here the creature) is specified if it is well defined by its upper class (here God), just as the lion is defined and specified by its upper class, that is; a wild animal. Of course, the creature and the lion are both generalized concepts, so my hypothesis might be true only when sentences or discourses those concepts are used in are general ones.

As I've suggested, I don't think you should base your thinking around B as it is not a case of actual language. Mind you, this is also true of C, which you appear to have made up. Personally, I don't think you're going to get very far by using that particular example, but I'll make a comment nonetheless.

I would agree with abaka that the use of The lion probably picks out the lion as a particular member from the class of all animals, whether wild or not. It is not in opposition to other wild animals. The lion is a wild animal. The goldfish is not.

However, context does play an important part in setting what you call the 'upper class'. Although it is likely that I'm picking out the lion from all other animals, it may also be that I'm picking it out from a more narrow class (say, mammals) or indeed a much wider class (say, all things).

The way I see it, by saying The lion is a wild animal, you're simply saying something along the lines of: I'm referring to a particular member of an unstated class as being a member of the subclass 'wild animal'. This is a statement of classification. The descriptor wild tells us what type of animal the lion is.
 
Last edited:

magic dragon

Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
I would agree with abaka that the use of The lion probably picks out the lion as a particular member from the class of all animals, whether wild or not.

-I wonder what you think defines an individual lion as particular.

Abaka said: The specifies lion (as an abstraction of lions) as opposed to other entities--- .
It seems to me that he is saying the specification is caused by the abstraction of lions and the opposition of the lion to other entities. If so, I agree with abaka.

I think it can be said that "the lion" is qualified for having "the", just because it's an abstracted (a generalized) concept, which is one and only entity. However, it's not that "the lion" as such is well used in any kind of sentence or discourse. Context, as you say, plays an important role, I think.

For example, you rarely say, "The lion is a thing (or a creature)." (The upper class / category here is things or creatures, and the opposition seems unclear.) or rarely say, "The lion is an animal" (unless it's a talk in kindergartens or something). (The upper class here is animals, and the opposition still seems unclear.)
However, you could say, "The lion is a wild animal (or a mammal)," as long as you prepare the suitable context. (Here the upper class is wild animals or mammals, and the opposition to them seems clear. Of corse it's clearer in the case of a binary opposition as in E.)
E: The lion preys on the zebra.

And you could say, "The lion is the most dangerous among animals used in circuses."
(Here the upper class is animals used in a circus. The opposition is clear.)

I think it's when the lion's upper class is a relatively narrow one (such as mammals or wild animals or animals used in a circus) that the lion (the generalized version of lions) is rightly used in sentences (of course general ones). Then the opposition of the lion to other mammals or wild animals and animals used in a circus is clear-cut.
I think, after all, what defines an individual lion as particular/ specific is the generalization of lions and the opposition of the lion to other entities of a narrow class.
That's part of what I was trying to say.

Sorry, I may have talked too much. So I'll put off stating my opinion about "the creature" in B and my hypothesis.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I'm not trying to understand B. My concern is whether "the creature" in B is rightly used or not in grammatical terms.

It doesn't work for me.
 

magic dragon

Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Tdol, I'd like you to give me advice on how I should correct.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
-I wonder what you think defines an individual lion as particular.

Abaka said: The specifies lion (as an abstraction of lions) as opposed to other entities--- .
It seems to me that he is saying the specification is caused by the abstraction of lions and the opposition of the lion to other entities. If so, I agree with abaka.

Yes, I agree. I was trying to say the same thing. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough—I think I said it badly. I just meant that the lion refers to a particular kind of animal, not a particular animal.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England

magic dragon

Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Thank you jutfrank.
Let me give an opinion about "the creature" in C, based on the arguments in my previous reply. My concern is whether or not B (including "the creature") is a correct expression. (B is of someone's writing, not of my own).

My awareness of the issues was born when I had some misgivings about the generalization of plural nouns by the noun:
One of my misgivings is whether the generalization is always possible. For example, in F I wonder "objects (at large)" can be replaced by "the object (as a generalized concept)".
F: Objects are in space. (I saw this sentence somewhere.)

I don't think it's possible, for "objects" don't seem to have an upper adjacent class (a narrow class), so doesn't stand in opposition to anything. I think there won't be a corresponding context, either.

Then I hit on the word "creature", and wondered if creatures at large can be generalized by the creature (as a concept), except when it's used in opposition to the Creator.
Then there happened to come to my mind C. S. Lewis' words beginning by "creatures are not born---. I searched google for a similar sentence as A beginning by "the creature is not born---", and I was lucky enough to find one. That's B.

Considering the number of hits is just one, I thought B might be wrong, or at least odd. I can't think of any upper adjacent class "a creature belongs to", so there is no opposition. Only when the Creator is assumed to be as such, does there arise an opposition indeed, I think.

Anyway I decided to confirm this with native speakers. And so I'm asking to abaka and you.
What do you think of B and of another similar version of F: The object is in space?
I myself am doubtful as to the rightness of the 2.

By the way the "my hypothesis" is as follows:
If a noun (of course a countable one) has an upper adjacent class (a narrow class) of which it's a member, the generalized noun can be seen as a specified one, irrespective of the reference to the opposition of the noun to other members of the class.

For example, in C: The lion is a wild animal, or in another example: The lion is a mammal, "the lion" is a generalized concept and belongs to its upper adjacent class. Here
the requirements for "the lion" being specific is fully met, and referring to the opposition of the lion to other entities is unnecessary.
It's Just as "the east" (as a generalized concept) is specified by being a member of seasons (its upper adjacent class) irrespective of referring to the opposition. 

That's my hypothesis, but the word "hypothesis" is a bit exaggerated. I should have used the word "idea" instead. I'd like your opinion.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I'd like to comment but I really can't understand what you're saying.

1) What do you mean by 'upper adjacent class'?

2) What do you mean by 'in opposition to'?

3) Regarding B, you're creating a problem that need not exist. The fact is that the correct quote begins Creatures ..., not The creature ..., therefore the latter is incorrect. The fact that someone seems to have written it incorrectly is irrelevant. Please just forget about B!

Please just try to focus your questioning on one point at a time, and keep your posts clear and concise. It's very hard work trying to follow what you mean.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Tdol, I'd like you to give me advice on how I should correct.

I wouldn't presume to correct CS Lewis. He did, after all, write sentences as good as this one:

There was a boy called Eustace Scrubbs, and he almost deserved it.


Use his sentence- it's fine, and ignore what you got from the search engine.
 

magic dragon

Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
I'd like to comment but I really can't understand what you're saying.

1) What do you mean by 'upper adjacent class'?

2) What do you mean by 'in opposition to'?

3) Regarding B, you're creating a problem that need not exist. The fact is that the correct quote begins Creatures ..., not The creature ..., therefore the latter is incorrect. The fact that someone seems to have written it incorrectly is irrelevant. Please just forget about B!

Please just try to focus your questioning on one point at a time, and keep your posts clear and concise. It's very hard work trying to follow what you mean.

to 1)
I think it's similar to "narrow class" you used. "Near upper class" would be more appropriate.
To put it broadly, the lion's farthest upper class is things, and less far upper than things is animated things, and still less far upper is animals, and near upper is mammals or wild animals. Of course a more minute classification is possible.

to 2)
Sorry, I misused it. I'll change it to "as opposed / contrasted to"

to 3)
All right, I will.

Would you answer the following question?
Is F a correct sentence?
F: The object is in space.
I myself created it for the question. The object here is not a specific object. It is meant to be a generalization of objects. I myself am doubtful as to F. "Objects are in space" would be correct, I think.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Is F a correct sentence?
F: The object is in space.

Well, you'd need a special context to justify using a definite, singular noun phrase there. What could that be?

I guess you're making a general statement about objects: Objects exist in three-dimensional space.
 

magic dragon

Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
---Tdol. I don't think B is right, either. I don't think I can trust google search results so much.
To my students, I of course teach A not B.
However, my concern here was not which is correct but rather in what point B is wrong in grammatical terms. I thought B's being wrong is because of the invalidity of "the creature", but was not so sure. So I tried to confirm.
What would you answer if your students asked you why A is correct and B isn't?
Just affirming A's validity wouldn't be enough. Anyway thank you.
 
Last edited:

magic dragon

Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Well, you'd need a special context to justify using a definite, singular noun phrase there. What could that be?

I guess you're making a general statement about objects: Objects exist in three-dimensional space.

"The object" in F is meant to be objects in general, so I think it doesn't need an anaphoric reference. I wrote F as meaning the same as "Objects are in space." of course as a general statement.
What I asked is whether F is wrong or not. What I'd like to know is why F is wrong and "Objects are in space." is right. I think your example is better, but mine (Objects are in space.) is right, too.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
What do you mean by 'wrong'? Wrong in what way?

It's grammatical, if that's what you mean, but that doesn't make it appropriate, or good use of English. Like I said, it could be perfectly appropriate given a suitable context. I'm imagining a philosophical text about ontology, for example.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
As a matter of fact, I've got a book right here as I type this: The System of Objects by Jean Baudrillard (translated by James Benedict)

Flicking through it, I see that it is absolutely littered with examples of using the object to refer to the abstracted concept. Here's a selection of some of the section headings:

The Modern Object Liberated in its Function
Reverse Projection: The Technical Object and Primitive Man
The Object Abstracted from its Function
The Object as Passion
From Quantity to Quality: The Unique Object
The Object Destructured: Perversion
The Pre-Industrial Object
The 'Personalized' Object

You might want to give it a read, if you like that sort of thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top