Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA23315 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:34:03 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: The Demise of a Meme X-Remote_Addr: 195.195.65.222 Message-Id: <E14kN8u-0004pD-00@gaea.uk.clara.net> From: Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 10:30:28 +0100 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Arbitrary = without reference to the state or process of affairs
> purportedly represented. Thus, onomotopoeic words (such as
> 'hiss' for the sound a snake makes) are not arbitrary or by mutual
> convention, since the sound of the term resembles the sound made
> by the referent, while the name 'snake' to refer to the no-legged
> critter that so hisses is an arbitrary term, agreed upon by mutual
> convention; we could just as well call snakes 'egbert's', if we all
> agreed to..
This is ok so long as you keep within the boundaries of the system -
the English language. But do all languages follow this pattern for the
sound a snake makes? If they don't, which is likely (just an opinion)
why have generations of English speakers chosen to use a word that is
onomotopoeic?
I haven't looked up the etymology of snake, but the slightly hissing
sound of 'SN' evokes an echo of an hiss. This is only to suggest that
what appears arbitrary today may not always have been so. It's
apparent arbitrariness may be derived from a collective forgetfulness
of the word's origin.
--=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 10:36:51 BST