Its Hard to Decipher....

[Splendour]

Maybe I am tpir...I wanted to put out info people might not be aware of...this was more of a presentation of just how precious the Word actually is...

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, you guys are making me crazy. I'd tend to take "literal interpretation" as an oxymoron.
I'm interested in just what "..some " literal interpretation means.

carry on, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
If I were to interpret you literally, I would take it to mean that you just accused us of causing you to be afflicted with a mental illness. By interpreting you partly literally and partly figuratively, I expect you mean that you are shaking your head sadly, wondering how anyone can go through these mental gymnastics in the modern age and wishing you could find some way to banish such mysticism.

Clarify at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, I've been using 'literally' wrong ( or perhaps 'interpretation'. Darn.

I never realized standard current idiom was consider anything but literal. So, if I say, "the show was a hit" you find you must interpret that and it doesn't mean "the show was a hit". Ok, my bad,

thanks, luckyme

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you mean Sub...can you clarify? Sarcasm intended?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sarcasm is usually a little more subtle, no?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, you guys are making me crazy. I'd tend to take "literal interpretation" as an oxymoron.
I'm interested in just what "..some " literal interpretation means.

carry on, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
If I were to interpret you literally, I would take it to mean that you just accused us of causing you to be afflicted with a mental illness. By interpreting you partly literally and partly figuratively, I expect you mean that you are shaking your head sadly, wondering how anyone can go through these mental gymnastics in the modern age and wishing you could find some way to banish such mysticism.

Clarify at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, I've been using 'literally' wrong ( or perhaps 'interpretation'. Darn.

I never realized standard current idiom was consider anything but literal. So, if I say, "the show was a hit" you find you must interpret that and it doesn't mean "the show was a hit". Ok, my bad,

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm puzzled as to your objection? Surely there is some interpretation occurring all the time when we listen to each other? Especially with phrases such as "You are making me crazy".

Even if such isnt the case by default, surely we can decide to interpret things differently from the literal meaning. My mother says "Wow, you've really done great things in the garden, I love the new pots!" then when she leaves my wife says "Your mum accused me of neglecting the garden previously!"

I'm missing the point, can you go slower?

EDIT: To clarify, I dont think it is necessary to make a decision on interpretation each time I read or hear something. It is an option for me though - even though I usually choose to take the literal view of what people say, it's by no means universal.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm puzzled as to your objection? Surely there is some interpretation occurring all the time when we listen to each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

That captures the nub of it. ( no reference to taking beasts into custody or of knobs intended).
If you take that meaning of 'interpretation' then 'literal' has no meaning in your world.
np. I'm too far removed from post-modern claims to cut that approach to meaning any slack. ( no intent to refer to knives or the tautness of ropes ).

interesting though, luckyme

ps. perhaps if you could define 'literal' and 'figurative' as you use them it would help. I'm not claiming my view is 'right ' (non-reference to bilaterals), just shocked at how far out my usage is to yours. No wonder ( none of the 7) we can't communicate.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm puzzled as to your objection? Surely there is some interpretation occurring all the time when we listen to each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

That captures the nub of it. ( no reference to taking beasts into custody or of knobs intended).
If you take that meaning of 'interpretation' then 'literal' has no meaning in your world.
np. I'm too far removed from post-modern claims to cut that approach to meaning any slack. ( no intent to refer to knives or the tautness of ropes ).

interesting though, luckyme

ps. perhaps if you could define 'literal' and 'figurative' as you use them it would help. I'm not claiming my view is 'right ' (non-reference to bilaterals), just shocked at how far out my usage is to yours. No wonder ( none of the 7) we can't communicate.

[/ QUOTE ]
You really think we cant communicate? I dont think the problem you are alluding to is very prevalent - but I do think it happens.

There may be some small chance I will misinterpret 'capture' to be a reference to placing a beast in custody - so what? People misunderstand one another. We can revisit and clarify later if it becomes a problem.

When you speak, I begin by assuming you are intending your words to have their usual, literal meaning. Sometimes (as with "you're making me crazy") I take it to be non-literal, but familiar and commonly used turn of phrase. Sometimes, I have no clue what you're talking about - sometimes the words you've chosen seem to make no sense and I have to strain my brain and interpret what you meant. Is this really different from what you do?

How about my wife-mother example? You really dont know what my mother meant unless you know her - it is entirely possible that my wife's interpretation was exactly what my mother meant. The only way to know is from an understanding of how my mum would make a criticism of my wife. If you insist that words only have their literal meaning - why say things like "You guys are making me crazy"? is this a lie, an error or...something you intend to be interpreted in a non-literal fashion.

[luckyme]

bunny, I find this interesting but don't take it as important.
[ QUOTE ]
If you insist that words only have their literal meaning - why say things like "You guys are making me crazy"? is this a lie, an error or...something you intend to be interpreted in a non-literal fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

"ONLY" cheeeeez.
I barely claim words have a literal meaning, let alone 'only'. A single word has very little meaning, almost none in a way. I'm a mega context guy and chuckle at most dictionary quotes.
Statements often have literal meaning. To claim that all statements must be interpreted ( your claim) seems to mean there is no such thing as 'literal' in your approach to understanding statements. So what would 'literal interpretation' mean.

"There is a ship in the harbor" has a literal meaning.
It may also have a variety of implications depending on the context of the world it is made in.
Perhaps it implies, "the russians are coming" or "our mail has arrived" or a figurative "they're having sex". None of those possible meanings take away from the literal meaning and the further information is from a source outside of the sentence.

Again, the term 'literal interpretation' seems oxymoronic or, perhaps, redundant. You took it even farther than I expected with the 'nothing is literal' claim.

Perhaps your wife-mother case will help >
Your wife's take was not the literal meaning of your mom's statement. The literal meaning is taking the normal meaning just as written or spoken, 'from the words only', if you like. Your wife added new information from other contacts with your mom, added the two together and came up with a global implication of your mom's statement. ( just as some may do with the ship).

This doesn't quite fit ..but if your wife found that statement on an anonymous note in the door, would you agree that it has a literal meaning, no interpretation necesssary, other than recognizing them as english words and phrases and not crow droppings?

luckyme

[madnak]

Only if everyone agrees on the semantics. If I don't know what a "ship" is, or disagree with you about it, then not so much. And sadly, there is no official storage place for definitions or relationships - the literal meaning of a given word is never absolute, and depends on contextual variables (like time).

Thankfully, most people have fairly common experiences with "ships." My interpretation of "ship" and yours are probably similar. Things get more impractical when you're talking about "faith" or "joy" as used in a text written thousands of years ago.

If the meanings of subject and object, the ways in which they relate, and similar factors are common among all the people communicating, then interpretation is unnecessary. But take people from wildly different cultures and you may be surprised at the "simple" statements that are open to interpretation. Some kind of consensus or shared experience is necessary as a basis for communication in the first place.

And then there's the question of language - how do you know when someone is speaking the same langauge as you? There's a hypothetical language where "there's a ship in the harbor" actually means "eat your vegetables." Ever read Borges' "The Library of Babel?" You can say that's abstract and irrelevant, but can you really define the language you speak? Is it the same as the language spoken in England today? What about 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 50? 100? 200? Where do you draw the line?

The only sure way to know the literal meaning of something is to understand what the author intended it to be. Everything else is guesswork. Then again, by that standard accepting that the table in your living room really exists is "guesswork," a conclusion based on the (circumstantial) evidence that your observations have been consistent with that proposition. So it's absurd - but is it logically inconsistent?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If the meanings of subject and object, the ways in which they relate, and similar factors are common among all the people communicating, then interpretation is unnecessary. But take people from wildly different cultures and you may be surprised at the "simple" statements that are open to interpretation. Some kind of consensus or shared experience is necessary as a basis for communication in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no particular objection to the bulk of your post. My question with bunny was along the lines of ...

ok, then what does 'take it literally' mean in your world. If it has no meaning, np.
If, "I lit my cigar with a twenty dollar bill" is going to mean we need to invoke a UN conference, so be it.
I claim it has a literal meaning.
I also claim it has several other possible implications depending on the context.
If somebody wants to take the position that it no meaning without context, well, er, oky-doky.

"How should we interpret this?"
"We shouldn't. We should take it literally."
makes sense to me. To bunny, and perhaps to the entire rest of the world, it needs interpretation.

I would disagree with this statement of yours -
[ QUOTE ]
The only sure way to know the literal meaning of something is to understand what the author intended it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the authors intend can determine the literal meaning, which seems a group effort to me.
Do we really care what he 'meant' by "there is a ship in the harbor" when deciding what the literal meaning is?
That statement can be made and the author die anonymously and it's literal meaning stands. For it to have a non-literal meaning we need to add information from outside the statement. It would help to know the author :-)

The interesting twist to this is that I'm a compulsive inference-drawer. I draw inference from how a person reaches for their keys or ties their shoes and whether they cross their t's. I don't let that detract from realizing "they have their keys." or "His shoes are tied".

luckyme

[Taraz]

Traditionally a "literal reading" of a holy text involves taking everything within as an accurate recording of factual history. A "figurative/meatphorical reading" involves attempting to determine the message or feeling the passages are supposed to connote. This is a common use of "literal" when discussing religious interpretation.

So basically a literal reading is like reading a history textbook while a figurative reading is like reading a poem or a book of fables.