language and mind

May 8, 2013

The apostasy of the First Amendment?

Ideas of governments over tongues are aged. They have been about curbing language.   I came across a book stern in criticizing the human liberty to speak; the resource is ascribed to Richard Allestree, an author within the recognized scope of religious thought.

The text of the Government of the Tongue

Let us “begin with the very beginning”: there are things that change about the humanity over time; there are respects with which humanity remains invariable.

We humans are mortal and realize this. No one may assert that he or she knows what happens after his or her death. Faith is not knowledge, and no knowledge is all-encompassing. Therefore, people have been believers and non-believers, never to become intellectually strict opposites.

The non-believer does not necessarily claim there is no God: he or she may just decline concluding on the universe entire. The believer may reject holistic postulates, too: religion is not about picturing the cosmos. The non-believer may live and work without a yearning for God’s existence as well as non-existence. The believer will live and work without God being his or her very focus a proportion of the time.

The resolve on belief or non-belief remains equally with the individual. A non-believer might refuse deliberation on existence of a being not believed. A believer can leave comprehension of existence with the deity understood to have originated gnosis altogether.

Here are a few Greek words on existence, as for the matters that happen to change from time to time ;)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?type=begin&q=exist&lang=greek

Therefore, let us try thinking about freedom of speech in some detachment from the actuality of belief and disbelief. The distance may keep The Government for the resource with one reservation: the book does not figure in the bibliographical notes for Richard Allestree, same as The Whole Duty of Man, ascribed to 27 people so far.

Open BookGovernment of the Tongue second impression

 The Government recommends memorization.

But sure tis a pitiful pretence to ingenuity that can be thus kept up, there being little need of any other faculty but memory to be able to cap Texts.

 The book ascribes the tongue an independent volition.

The Tongue is so slippery, that it easily deceives a drowsy or heedless guard.

 The writing has speech for separate from mind.

 … so the childish parts of us, our passions, our fancies, all our mere animal faculties, can thrust our tongues into such disorder, as our reason cannot easily rectify.

  It condemns linguistic fluency.

Language command is attributed supra-individual qualities.

David uttered a bloody vow against Nabal, spake words smoother than oil to Uriah …

The due management therefore of this unruly member, may be rightly be esteemed one of the greatest mysteries of Wisdom and Virtue.

The effort associated with controlling speech makes the author(s) invoke King Solomon.

42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here (Matthew 12).

27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. (Luke 12)

And here, the irresistible philological temptation is to compare Wycliffe.

28 And of clothing what ben ye bisye? Biholde ye the lilies of the feeld, how thei wexen. Thei trauelen not, nether spynnen;29 and Y seie to you, Salomon in al his glorie was not keuered as oon of these. (Matheu 6)

42 The queene of the south shal rise in doom with this generacioun, and schal condempne it; for she cam fro the eendis of the erthe to here the wisdom of Salomon, and lo! here a gretter than Salomon. (Matheu 12)

The history of the First Amendment emphasizes the separation of the Church from the State: In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson‘s correspondence to call for “a wall of separation between church and State”, though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute, says Wikipedia.

It was yet the fluent quality in the tongue to encourage reference to Wycliffe in preparing the new version of King James Bible: :)

Simply put, in countless passages of the “Early Version”, both the poetry of the language and fidelity to the original Greek text are superior to that found in the “Later Version”, says the Bible Gateway.

Looking to Wycliffe is another of my projects, strictly philological, intended to show English as a live tongue. :)

Looking to WycliffeLooking to Wycliffe sample with preface

978-1-304-02730-6

Freedom of speech is a most important human freedom. There is much room for it in my grammar: the course invites student independent practice, some exercises being open-ended or left without any prescribed answer at all. :)

View this document on Scribd

Travelers in Grammar Appendix 3 contains faithful typescripts of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights: Dunlap, Carter and Wheeler prints, respectively. I think the material vital for comprehension of the American language and thought; students may benefit considerably from copies at hand.

April 28, 2012

Burning the Flag – where is the language?

Filed under: language, language processing, language use, law, psycholinguistics — teresapelka @ 10:46 am

Having earned a legal badge with EzineArticles should not make one overconfident, I realize. The legal profession is a depth of recondite detail the Supreme Court has the right firmly to deliberate. The linguist I am, I yet can venture a few observations — and this has been quoting freedom of speech to invalidate prohibitions on desecrating the American flag.

United States versus Eichman, United States versus Haggerty, Texas versus Johnson: all cases argued violation of free speech under the First Amendment. Haggerty’s case would have the implication to make the Flag necessarily your piece of cloth before burning. It is when the Flag belongs to an institution like Seattle’s Capitol Hill Post Office that you get fined. ;)

Let me think. I imagine a person burns something. Is there a speech sound produced, should the human just silently sit by a campfire, warming his or her hands? Is there any written or printed stretch of language to emerge from the flame? Should one try to interpret the wood or coal crackling and hissing as stanzas, quatrains, epodes? Could we hear the anacrusis?

I could not, and there is nothing wrong with my hearing. Things do not produce language. Facts remain similar with hammers, saws, wrenches, screwdrivers, and whatever a handyman’s bag might contain: there is no speech produced with the use, unless the guy is eloquent, interesting, and whatsoever handsome — however noisy the job. ;)

Non-verbal acts cannot convey speech and language. The Flag itself – the many the people, the many the answers; ask someone what the Flag looks like and what it symbolizes: no description will be identical, owing to language specifics.

The Supreme Court decided the Flag could be burned under the First Amendment. It does not allow abridgment of free speech. If a burning object could be legally a speech act, what do you do if you see the Flag burning on a barrel saying ‘TNT’ – would putting it out be against the law? ;)

The Flag Code may be found here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code,

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html,

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf, and many other places.

I do honestly believe that flags are for people and, naturally, their use should not be forbidden. I have put an image of the American flag on my grammar book covers. For one thing, I like it: I think the flag is visually attractive. More, the grammar is not a temporary idea. :)

May 5, 2011

‘Hey, I’m just selling this; it’s not mine’

Filed under: business, language, law — Tags: , , — teresapelka @ 8:59 am

Carl Gustav Jung theories got shifted into the awareness of modern neurology long ago. Still, some Internet companies would be showing symptoms of a suckling archetype. Success in free publishing might become the unlikely common experience, should the primordial behavior be let dominate.

Specifically, the publishing and sharing platforms such as Associated Content or Delicious, becoming sold, have started bringing new terms of use that could trigger word associations.

The publisher to have taken over from the Associated Content, ‘just wanting to make things easier’, offers a new log in option to require accepting new terms of use. The terms no longer state that content providers are the exclusive owners of their work. Further, the publisher expects to be granted the right to produce derivative works from the content on their platform.

As for awareness again, it is probably enough to look at Wiedmaier’s Physiology to get the picture on what ‘derivative’ might mean. Arthur Vander, James Sherman, and Dorothy Luciano came up with quite a good book on human physiology. It’s title is ‘Human Physiology. The Mechanisms of Body Function’. Eric Wiedmaier, Hershel Raff, and Kevin Strang came up with ‘Vander, Sherman, and Luciano’s Human Physiology. The Mechanisms of Body Function’.

There are also the ‘Art Notebook to Accompany Vander Et Al.’s Human Physiology’ and the ‘Loose Leaf Version of Vander’s Human Physiology’. The ‘companions’ are not revisions. I read a Vander when I studied. Google search in the Wiedmaier shows much the content of the Vander, without inverted commas. This is what ‘derivative’ might mean.

Another ‘opportunity’, with the Delicious new owner – they do not claim any ownership to submitted content; they want the right to SELL it. The platform ‘does not claim any ownership rights in any such Member Content’. The ‘such’ does not refer to a clause exclusive of rights. Yet you are expected to grant ‘a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense, to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, SELL, transfer, publicly display, etc.’ your content.

‘Hey, I’m just selling this; it’s not mine’ – Northern District of California jurisdiction have been named by the publisher for the only legal authority here, however you like to travel. Maybe it is just my word association, but selling would be a transfer of ownership rights you have yourself. Otherwise, you do not have any right to transact. I would have another word association. It is the phrase ‘a valid contract’. I have parted with the publishers in a spontaneous act of individual sovereignty.

Please feel welcome to see my poetry corner

https://sites.google.com/site/teresaspoetrycorner/home

or my scribbling site

https://sites.google.com/site/teresasscribbling/Welcome

Customized WordPress Classic Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers