Re: CHAT Cartesian parataxis (was: ANNOUNCE: First longer sentence in S7)

En réponse à Ray Brown :


>>Actually, you're wrong here.
>
>It's not clear from your response what is wrong.
That you treat the expression as parataxis. Why should all juxtapositions 
be parataxis? Descartes just refused to put a connector between the verbs 
in order to point out at their deep identity, that's all. If you read his 
words around the cogito, he makes it clear. The cogito is only ambiguous in 
isolation, but it seems people got agitated with this catch-phrase and 
forgot the explanation around it...

>You seem to agree that "cogito ergo sum" and "cogito sum" are not the same
>& that misunderstanding has arisen because of the incorrect version of D's
>words. So I assume that's not wrong.
No indeed.

>"cogito sum" is parataxis & parataxis has been attested in Latin for 3000
>years.
It's *not* parataxis. Parataxis is a specific device, subset of 
juxtaposition. Descartes was making a simple juxtaposition here.

Don't forget he was writing at a time when even mathematical formulae were 
still written in full words. The mathematical notation didn't exist yet. He 
just did as good as he could with the way things were in his time :) .


>So he maybe should've used a different construction or different wording.
He found a simple way: the cogito is to take in context, i.e. with all the 
text around it. When you read it all, its meaning becomes clear enough, *if 
you don't concentrate purely on the catch-phrase*. It's only meant as a 
simple shortcut to sum up his demonstration up to this point.


>Nah - the 1st person, i.e. I, is expressed in Latin only by the morphemes
>-o and -m. What is emphasized is "thinking" and "being".
If you read Descartes, you find that he emphasizes clearly the first 
person. Once again, the cogito is just a summary, not a declaration of 
contents.

>  If the
>juxtaposition of the two verbs is meant to denote equivalence then it
>should mean  my thinking = my being _and_ my being = my thinking.
Indeed. And that's what he writes :)) .


>Then with respect to Descartes, the Latin really ought to have 'ego'
>explicit.
I don't have the text at home (it's at my parents' place in France) but as 
soon as I can get my hand on it, I'll check it. I think the term "ego" was 
used quite often in the explanations around the cogito. Once again, the 
cogito is ambiguous only taken out of context.


>Yes, but what he repeated is different from what I said. According to you,
>  what he repeated was all this stuff about _I_.
Which applies to the cogito, as he said it himself.


>Thank you - that's precisely my point about the identity of 'cogito' and
>'sum' being absurd. 'cogit-' and 'su- are not identical.
But Descartes never talked about "cogit-" and "su-". He didn't write 
"cogitare, esse". He wrote "cogit*o*, su*m*". Why separate the root from 
its ending? It's the whole that is meaningful here.


>And an 'ego' in Latin   :)
No, the ending is enough. It was for Descartes, and it is for me. I never 
misread him.


>But when all's said and done, I can see how your clarification of what
>Descartes really mean (which I appreciate) really differs from my
>conclusion:
>"Gosh, I'm thinking! Well, if I'm thinking then I must have an existence".
>==========================================================================
Do you mean "can" or "can't" here? :)

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang. 

Reply