A comment by Tetz Rooke on the „Structures & Concepts“ topic

I think that we need to discuss a theoretical framework for our research in terminological and conceptual history. Since translation 1:1 is impossible (a priori) we can never expect a perfect correspondence when terms/concepts travel accross linguistic boundaries. It would be wise to avoid stipulative definitions in our study of historical transactions and change. Especially concerning the ambitions set for group one: „to arrive to some clarity regarding the terminology used“. This must not be understood normatively.
In a sense the analysis of literary concepts in linguistic cultures does not differ from the analysis of other abstract terms/words, like „love“ or „feedom“. What is the difference between „love“ and „liebe“ and „amour“ and „kärlek“ in Westish and „Hubb“ or „ishq“ in Eastish? Is it the same feeling with different words? But the social pactice of this one feeling does not seem to be the same …
The meaning of words are defined by their use, which changes over time – if terms are used ambigously, this is something well worth to explore, point out and describe. But it is useless to prescribe a correct use. So, yes to descriptive studies of terminological/conceptual usage, but no to prescriptive, normative attempts that try to establish a „correct“ use of the literary terms.

Tetz Rooke

4.294 Kommentare zu „A comment by Tetz Rooke on the „Structures & Concepts“ topic“

  1. ??????sf?????www.a3sf.comQQ1285574370…

    ?????-RF???-???????-??2???-?????-??-SF?-?????-??????-???????-??????-???????www.119uc.com???????sf??QQ1124999543…

Kommentieren

Sie müssen angemeldet sein, um kommentieren zu können.