The primary structure of language is the 'thing', not the noun as commonly taught in public schools. You English teacher probably defined a noun this way:
A noun is a person, place, idea, or thing.
Actually, all of those are things and since the noun is an idea it is a thing.
For example, when we want to give an identity to as yet unnamed practice, we say it 'should be a thing', not that it 'should be a noun.'
There is a movie about a creature with no qualities of it's own, yet exists. It's name: no not "The Noun", it's "The Thing"
The member of the Addams' family who is nothing more than a hand living in a box? Noun? Nope. Thing. Why? "He's" not really a person... more of a ... thing.
The first few examples take advantage of the weirdness when it's realized that all living things -- even someone -- is still a just a thing in the first place. This has to do with the expectation set up by personification in language and that's beyond the scope of this post and doesn't really matter as people are, despite the effect of personification, derived from the base class of thing.
The fact is when we speak in the most general terms about what a noun 'should' be... we actually use the word thing.
On game shows like Family Feud contestants are asked to name 'something you bring to a birthday party'.
When we don't know what we want to eat we narrow it down from 'anything' to 'something spicy'.
These last few examples shows what is presupposed by the word 'thing' -- that the thing, whatever it is, is a member of a set.
In the first example, the set belongs to a set of things brought to a birthday party. In the second, it's a set of all things edible and spicy.
The words :
- anything
- everything
- something
- nothing
are derived from 'thing' and are words used to define selection within a set or exclusion from a set.
Consider:
I would like --
- anything spicy
- verything spicy
- something spicy
- nothing spicy
To use 'nothing', or 'no-thing' as philosophers do -- as a thing itself rather than as a 'negative selection' (exclusion) within a set is a wonderful way to uselessly brainfuck yourself.
Nothing. From what? -- This is something philosophers will ask themselves to the end of time.
Additional Notes
The personified versions of --
- anything
- everything
- something
- nothing
are
- anyone/anybody
- everyone/everybody
- someone/somebody
- noone/nobody
It's still possible to use 'one' to impersonally refer to a person:
- One without a sword is swordless.
However, the use of 'body', while once used is antique.
- A body without a sword is swordless.
Final note, Spanish, which doesn't have either the 'one' or 'body' convention of English requires a 'a of personalization' which 'doesn't translate' (is built into) English. To give some idea, everyone is 'todo el mundo' or 'all the world' and anyone is 'nadie'.
- Veo la bicicleta. I see the bicycle.
- Veo a Janet los lunes. I see (human being) Janet on mondays.
No comments:
Post a Comment