# etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet



## Löwenfrau

Hello.
Again, "etwa" is causing me some trouble:


"... so erkenne ich auch hier den unheilvollen Doppelsinn, das Doppelsehen des menschlichen Denkens, das im naiven Realismus des gemeinen Mannes und in der verstiegensten Philosophie gleicherweise zu finden ist, und das uns noch oft beschäftigen wird; und ich wüßte nicht zu sagen, ob dieses gefährliche Verdoppeln aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie kam oder umgekehrt, wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist." Mauthner

It means "somehow", "perhaps", "somewhat"... ?

Maybe this usage of "etwa" is similar to that we discussed on thread http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2779932
?
I remember bearded man pointing out the meaning of 





> ''wie man glauben könnte''


And Shimmelreiter's reading indicates something that here maybe I could understand as "[most] certainly".
Or "rather"? (Rather deeply rooted on the [very] nature of human language than originated from instinct"


----------



## Schimmelreiter

It's an intensifying particle. You won't lose anything if you ignore it.


----------



## Löwenfrau

I see.
But, the same way, I would not be adding something by using "rather than", would I? In this case this sounds like an intensifying particle.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_I cannot tell whether this dangerous duplication made its way from instinct into philosophy or is actually __not deeply rooted in the essence of human language.__
_


----------



## Löwenfrau

Schimmelreiter said:


> _I cannot tell whether this dangerous duplication made its way from instinct into philosophy or is actually __not deeply rooted in the essence of human language.__
> _


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Mauthner should posthumously be awarded the _How could you do this to translators _medal.


----------



## jakowo

…wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist.

It means «possibly».


----------



## Schimmelreiter

jakowo said:


> It means «possibly».





Schimmelreiter said:


> It's an intensifying particle. You won't lose anything if you ignore it.


_*etwa
*​Wortart: Partikel
verstärkt in *negierten* Aussage-, Frage- und Wunschsätzen *die ausgedrückte Verneinung*
Beispiele
·    ist es etwa nicht seine Schuld? (es ist doch wohl offensichtlich seine Schuld!)
·    er soll nicht etwa denken, ich räche mich
·    glauben Sie nicht etwa (nur nicht, ja nicht), das wäre ein Versehen!_

Duden (boldfacing by me)



PS
How would _possibly_ work here? Mauthner presents two ideas, between which he's undecided: 

_T__his dangerous duplication made its way from instinct into philosophy 
_vs. the obvious (not _possible_) antithesis thereto, i.e. 
_T__his dangerous duplication __is not deeply rooted in the essence of human language._


----------



## bearded

Hello
I agree with SR, the best you can do is ignoring the word, which adds nothing to the meaning of the text.  But if I *had* to translate it, I would suggest _for example (beispielsweise), _like in  _wo können die Kinder sein? Im Schlafzimmer etwa (= beispielsweise)?_  This is very near to SR's last example: Sie sollen_ beispielweise_ nicht glauben....


----------



## Löwenfrau

bearded man said:


> Hello
> I agree with SR, the best you can do is ignoring the word, which adds nothing to the meaning of the text.  But if I *had* to translate it, I would suggest _for example (beispielsweise), _like in  _wo können die Kinder sein? Im Schlafzimmer etwa (= beispielsweise)?_  This is very near to SR's last example: Sie sollen_ beispielweise_ nicht glauben....


I really feel that this usage of "beispielsweise" corresponds to "vielleicht": _wo können die Kinder sein? Im Schlafzimmer vielleicht (= etwa = beispielsweise)_


----------



## bearded

I feel that _vielleicht, beispielsweise_, (sometimes)_possibly_, even _wie man glauben könnte_ are all possible correct translations of _etwa_, among which you may choose according to the context (unless you agree on following SR's advice, and ignore the word altogether in this case).


----------



## Löwenfrau

SR: 





> _This dangerous duplication is not deeply rooted in the essence of human language._



Just checking, because in this phrase the word "not" seems not to have a rhetorical accent... But it has, doesn't it? I mean, it's a no for something positive.

Ok, I understand that I can ignore it. But it's also not incorrect to use "actually" or "rather", or, as bm's indication, "perhaps" or "possibly".


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Schimmelreiter said:


> _I cannot tell whether this dangerous duplication made its way from instinct into philosophy or is actually __not deeply rooted in the essence of human language.__
> _


_actually _is my rendering of _umgekehrt _as I didn't find either _conversely_ or _vice versa _appropriate here.

Nothing rhetorical about _nicht_. M. presents a thesis _(rooted in instinctive language) _and an antithesis _(not rooted in instinctive language)_ and says he _couldn't tell _(I ignored the subjunctive for idiomatic reasons) which of the twain is true. To express the antithesis, M. makes use of a grammatical peculiarity possibe in German, expressing it in the form of a conditional clause (cf. _Ich wüsste  nicht zu sagen, *wenn* es eine Lösung gibt = Ich wüsste nicht zu sagen, *ob *es eine Lösung gibt_).


----------



## Hutschi

"Nicht etwa" is one phrase

As you see in the examples of Schimmelreiter, you have to consider the whole phrase "nicht etwa" in your example.

But I am not sure if this "nicht etwa" indeed expresses a negation.


Instead of
_



			"... oder umgekehrt, wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist."
		
Click to expand...

_
_I read



			"... oder umgekehrt, wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist."
		
Click to expand...



I think it has (together with "umgekejrt") a kind of double negation.

So it means the contrary of  Schimmelreiter #4.
I cannot tell whether this dangerous duplication made its way from instinct into philosophy or is actually (not  - strikethrough)deeply rooted in the essence of human language.
(supporting #12 of Löwenfrau) "nicht etwa" has basically rhetorical function.

Example:
Wenn ich nicht etwa in die Schule gehe= wenn ich eventuell sogar in die Schule gehe.
Du bist nicht etwa schon 9 Jahre alt? = Du bist wohl sogar schon neun Jahre alt?
    Du kommst doch nicht etwa heute? = Du kommst wohl gar heute? 

_This is a rather difficult and fuzzy idiom.
And it depends on intonation. It works this way if "nicht etwa" is one phrase.

It does not work if "etwa" is an amplifier of "nicht" and nothing else.

Take care. You should not ignore "etwa" but "nicht etwa" or nothing.
But I can be wrong with this opinion.

I do not know if you can use "not" in English this way as rhetorically in such phrases. If yes, Schimmelreiter's translation is good.



_PS: The proposal "vice versa" works, if you omit "not".

I cannot tell whether this dangerous duplication made its way from instinct into philosophy or is vice versum deeply rooted in the essence of human language.

_
Because the title omits "nicht" it works suggestive into the other direction.


_



			"... oder umgekehrt, wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist."
		
Click to expand...

_
This could be possible but even here "nicht" seems to be rhetorically in the sense of double negation.
Here "etwa" means "for example". (Also used in one of the answers of others.)


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Hutschi said:


> _Wenn ich nicht etwa in die Schule gehe= wenn ich eventuell sogar in die Schule gehe.
> Du bist nicht etwa schon 9 Jahre alt? = Du bist wohl sogar schon neun Jahre alt?
> Du kommst doch nicht etwa heute? = Du kommst wohl gar heute?_


I see the rhetorically inverted meaning in questions (your sentences 2 & 3) but I don't in a conditional clause as used by Mauthner and in your first sentence. Where do you see a positive meaning there? _Wenn ich nicht etwa in die Schule gehe, *sondern *einen Beruf erlerne, verdiene ich früher mein eigenes Geld._


----------



## Hutschi

> ... und ich wüßte nicht zu sagen, ob dieses gefährliche Verdoppeln *aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie kam *oder *umgekehrt*, *wenn es *nicht etwa *tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist*."



 Ich sehe es durch den Kontext.
*Das Verdoppeln kann 1. aus dem Instinkt kommen oder 2. im Wesen der Sprache verankert sein.
*
Deine Version wäre:
*Das Verdoppeln kann 1. aus dem Instinkt kommen oder 2. nicht im Wesen der Sprache verankert sein.
*
Das scheint mir aber komisch zu sein. Man vergleicht dann einen Fakt mit der Negation eines anderen Faktes. 
Wenn es kein anderes Argument gäbe (sprachlicher Natur), würde ich hier Ockhams Rasiermesser anwenden.

Ich denke "wenn es nicht etwa" erklärt (und verstärkt) "oder umgekehrt".

PS: Es ist nicht ganz einfach. Deine Version hat auch etwas für sich, ich verstehe aber dann das Wesen des Satzes nicht.


----------



## Löwenfrau

I think we are reasoning the same way, Hutschi.
To put in a more pure logical form, the way I see it is:

"aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie kam" (A) is not the same as "tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist" (B), as if the negation pointed to a structure in which A = B, and with B we would be contrasting A to itself, denying it without comparing it to nothing further. On the contrary, I understand that A is opposed to B, they indicate two very different things, so that the phrase structure is A _or_ B, A _vs_. B and the negation can only be rhetoric. It took me a while to understand that Schimmelreiter was understanding A as = B.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Löwenfrau said:


> the negation can only be rhetoric.


Sure? Read my #15? Hutschi sees a _rhetorical conditional clause_, which, while negative in structure, is positive in meaning. 

Howsoever often I read out the sentence loud, I simply can't share his point. There are _rheorical questions_ but there are no _rhetorical conditional clauses_. Sorry. I can only suggest Hutschi and I agree to disagree. 

Why would it not be logical to say that that "dangerous duplication" is *either* _deeply __rooted in instinctive language _or _*not *__deeply __rooted in instinctive language_? And then to say, as Mauthner does in my reading, that one can't tell which of the two is right, one thing or its opposite?

Let's proceed from Hutschi's assumption: 
This requires us to assume that _instinct_ exists outside of language. Hence his two alternatives: 
The "duplication" *either *made its way from _instinct _into _philosophy_ *or *_is deeply rooted in language_ (requiring the conditional clause to be_ rhetorical_, which I don't think conditional clauses can be). 
Consequence: *Either *the "duplication" went from a non-linguistic/pre-linguistic instinct directly into philosophy and didn't bother to first become part of language as such, *or* is deeply rooted in language (which the first option doesn't even mention). I'm unable to find this logical. 

I believe we have _instinctive __language__​ _on either side of Mauthner's inequation. 
And we have _philosophy_ on either side of Mauthner's inequation. 

Mauthner calls this _instinctive __language_ "instinct" *on the left side of his inequation*. 
Mauthner says it's _deep down in the essence of language _*on the right side of his inequation*_. 
_
Mauthner offers two choices, between which he's himself undecided: 

That "dangerous duplication", which exists in philosophy, *did or didn't* originate from the instinctive essence of language.


----------



## Hutschi

Our problem is we cannot ask Mautner directly. And the sentence is fuzzy.
 In oral language intonation would make it clear.
 In the given text only content or context can make it clear.

 The real problem here is whether "nicht" is a negation particle or an amplifier. Is it literally or an idiom?

 If it is not fully clear in German, I would suggest to translate it in a way so that it is not fully clear in the translation, if this is possible.

In grammatical point of view I understand the point of Schimmelreiter. It is just that I do not understand why Mauthner used this construction in this literal sense - given Schimmelreiter is right.

Is there any place where he explained his theory further, so you can see what he meant?


----------



## Hutschi

PS: What exactly means #4 in English? As I read Löwenfrau's answer # 17, she did not read it as Schimmelreiter thought. So it might have the same fuzzyness. Is this true?


----------



## manfy

Hmmm...heavy thoughts for an early morning.
I can't quite see the 'wenn es nicht'-subclause as a conditional here. Isn't that more of an additional alternative that is being introduced?
My first impression was: wenn es nicht etwa = falls es nicht gar = unless it were (is) 

Hence, Mauthner is arguing 3 different sources A, B, C for 'verdoppeln':
_...und ich wüßte nicht zu sagen, ob dieses gefährliche Verdoppeln aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie *(A)* kam oder umgekehrt *(B)*, wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache *(C)* begründet ist." _

So, I read this more like:
I cannot tell whether this dangerous duplication made its way from instinct into philosophy or vice versa -- unless it were even rooted deeply in the essence of human language (in the first place). _[unwritten after-thought: , in which case the instinct vs. philosophy argument is futile because the essence of human language is source for all forms of verbal expression - instinctive, philosophical, or otherwise.]
_


----------



## Schimmelreiter

manfy, re your "source B": How might a philosophical concept possibly get from philosophy into instinct? Don't you massively overestimate what philosophy can do?

So I still think that _not deeply rooted in the essence of language _is the opposite (hence the adverb _umgekehrt_) of _(deeply rooted in) instinct_: _Instinct_ is where the _deep roots of language_​ lie. And that's where the philosophical concept of duplication either does or doesn't come from: Is it a pure product of philosophy, or does it have its roots deep down in the very essence of language, where instinct reigns? In his sentence under discussion, Mauthner admits to his inability to tell whether the former or the latter is true.


----------



## manfy

Schimmelreiter said:


> manfy, re your "source B": How might a philosophical concept possibly get from philosophy into instinct? Don't you massively overestimate what philosophy can do?


 Fair enough! I did not really look at any aspects of content, but only at sentence structure.
But I do recognize now that this sentence can be interpreted in 2 distinctly different ways:

1) _...und ich wüßte nicht zu sagen, ob dieses gefährliche Verdoppeln aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie kam. [End of main statement]
[added alternative to main statement:] oder umgekehrt, wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist."
(here the subclause describes 'umgekehrt') _

---------------------
1a) a new alternative came to mind:
_[added alternative to main statement:] oder umgekehrt (gesagt), wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist."
_
This is possible but unlikely. To express this idea, I'd normally use "...oder *anders* gesagt, *ob* es nicht etwa...". Not that this matters much normally, but surprisingly I found that his way of expressing himself is very close to my own, based on various segments I read from his works. But no guarantees - he's talking 1910 and I do 2010.
---------------------

2) _...und ich wüßte nicht zu sagen, ob dieses gefährliche Verdoppeln aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie kam oder umgekehrt. [End of main statement]
[added 3rd alternative to main statement:] , wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist." _
('_wenn es nicht etwa' has the same meaning as 'wenn es nicht gar'_) 

Both interpretations are possible - purely based on grammar rules and sentence structure.
However, the addition in version 1) seems to make little sense, because main statement claims 'instinct to philosophy' and the add-on claims 'umgekehrt' with '_Wesen der menschlichen Sprache_' -- but somehow instinct is much closer to '_Wesen der menschlichen Sprache _' than philosophy, isn't it?

Anyways, I don't know what Mauthner really had in mind, hence I cannot claim that I am right and you are wrong or vice versa.
Thus spoke manfy: "Ich bin mir sicher, entweder du hast recht oder ich, wenn wir nicht etwa beide voll daneben liegen...!"


----------



## bearded

@ manfy 
The same idea (3rd alternative) had occurred to me,too.  If it were valid, ''wenn nicht etwa'' would correspond to ''es sei denn''.  But then I thought of the same objection as SR (can something philosophical become instinctive? That would be alternative no.2), so I deleted the post I had prepared, because it seemed to me that it does not make much sense.  From a linguistic point of view, though, it would represent a convenient solution, so I wonder if that ''umgekehrt'' really could not mean ''from philosophy to instinct'.'


----------



## manfy

bearded man said:


> If it were valid, ''wenn nicht etwa'' would correspond to ''es sei denn''.


Exactly. "Es sei denn" is a very clear and unambiguous synonym for "wenn nicht etwa". Maybe it was a bit too unambiguous for Mauthner's taste? 



bearded man said:


> But  then I thought of the same objection as SR (can something philosophical  become instinctive? That would be alternative no.2), ...


Actually, why not? First of all, Mauthner does not literally say that philosophical  becomes instinctive; he just says that either one might have influenced the other.
Secondly, let's not forget that everything that is pre-dating the advent of information age, i.e. radio/TV in the mid of the twentieth century, was practically word of mouth. Considering the influence that Christianity had in Europe before that and furthermore considering that theology - or religion in general - is practically the commercially successful big-shot brother of philosophy, it does not seem overly far-fetched that the theological-philosophical teachings and hair splittings of the Church have influenced the instinctive language of the basic man in a period of 1500 years -- at least in the countryside, sunday church was the primary source of information and gossip for centuries!! 

If I'm not mistaken then Mauthner turned atheist some time in his life and this sort of irony and sarcasm against the Church's teachings would be exactly down his alley!!


----------



## bearded

You may well be right, manfy, and if it is so, then your translation as in #21 becomes most plausible (but I fear that SR, whose opinion I hold in very high consideration, will not agree...I will leave it to you to persuade him,  'es sei denn' you think/wenn Du nicht etwa denkst that it is too difficult).


----------



## manfy

bearded man said:


> You may well be right, manfy, and if it is so, then your translation as in #21 becomes most plausible (but I fear that SR, whose opinion I hold in very high consideration, will not agree...I will leave it to you to persuade him,  'es sei denn' you think/wenn Du nicht etwa denkst that it is too difficult).


Well, there's no point in trying to persuade Schimmelreiter because his interpretation is equally valid as mine. I even read the surrounding context in Mauthner's text, but it doesn't provide any conclusive and definitive clues to prefer one interpretation over the other.
Obviously, I prefer my own interpretation because it makes more sense in my way of thinking, but I can't be sure if Mauthner thought of it the same way and I also can't say that Schimmelreiter's interpretation is outright wrong, neither grammatically nor philosophically. With his interpretation the word 'umgekehrt' bothers me though.
The problem is, once you have a comfortable, fitting interpretation in your head, it's very hard to think in a different direction...as I've noticed in the past...for some interpretations I had gotten blatantly wrong, it took considerable time and distance to realize 'oh my god, what was I thinking!'...


----------



## Löwenfrau

Hutschi: 





> In the given text only content or context can make it clear.



Yes. But the trouble is that Mauthner does not continue talking about this relation instinct - philosophy - language. What I can tell is, however: I don't see why would he compare language to instincts; the fact that he is talking about the deep roots of language doesn't make them equal or close; to me the natural understanding of the text is that he is opposing: A) an origin in the instincts which somehow made its course to philosophy (and language), to B) an origin in the language itself, which, being close to philosophy, was already one step closer in the way to it.
It's worthy to remember that "the essence of language" is for Mauthner a question of "form", not of "content" (instincts, on the contrary, are related to contents), otherwise his whole idea of Critic of Language would be seriously compromised.

(EDIT):
In other words, I can't be easily convinced of SR's reasoning: 





> So I still think that _not deeply rooted in the essence of language is the opposite (hence the adverb umgekehrt) of(deeply rooted in) instinct: Instinct is where the deep roots of language​ lie. And that's where the philosophical concept of duplication either does or doesn't come from: Is it a pure product of philosophy, or does it have its roots deep down in the very essence of language, where instinct reigns? In his sentence under discussion, Mauthner admits to his inability to tell whether the former or the latter is true._


----------



## Löwenfrau

I see I wasn't questioning one thing: Mauthner says "ob" in the first clause and introduces the second one with "wenn". I was reading it as if this "wenn" meant the same as the first "ob", which would confirm my own hypothesis of interpretation. My doubt is: is this even possible in terms of grammar (that 'wenn' means what 'ob' means here?)? If this is absolutely not possible, SR's arguments seem more convincing, even though I still find quite odd the choice Mauthner did to express his point...


----------



## bearded

Hello
Löwenfrau, in your Edit #28 you are quoting manfy's, not SR's reasoning.  Is it the wrong person or the wrong quotation?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Löwenfrau said:


> I was reading it as if this "wenn" meant the same as the first "ob"


No problem:


Schimmelreiter said:


> M. makes use of a grammatical peculiarity possibe in German, expressing it in the form of a conditional clause (cf. _Ich wüsste  nicht zu sagen, *wenn* es eine Lösung gibt = Ich wüsste nicht zu sagen, *ob *es eine Lösung gibt_).







manfy, further to your #21 and my #22:
It might well be that Mauthner makes fun of a kind of thinking that
(1) assumes an instinct inherited from times before language existed, i.e. from the animal kingdom
(2) and assumes that that non-linguistic/pre-linguistic instinct influences philosophy
(3) or, conversely, assumes that philosophy influences that instinct

and that Mauthner concludes by saying that the truth is that there are philosophical concepts that are deeply rooted in the very essence of language.


Against whom is he arguing then? Is there anybody that advocates (1) & (2) or (1) & (3)? 

The above reading, by virtue of its plausibility, can't be ruled out. It appeared so unlikely to me - _Who on earth might argue thus?_ - that I read it as the following choice: _philosophical concept rooted in instinctive language _vs. _philosophical concept *not *rooted in instinctive language._


----------



## Löwenfrau

bearded man said:


> Hello
> Löwenfrau, in your Edit #28 you are quoting manfy's, not SR's reasoning.  Is it the wrong person or the wrong quotation?



Sorry for that: wrong quotation. Already corrected, please see #28 again.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, it is another hierarchy.
"Ob" means "if" or "whether" and is related to a follow up. if/whether ...
The second is "in case of", if it is related to time, it means "when".

The difference between the interpretations of Schimmelreiter and me is what belongs in which way to the "wenn" phrase.

I interpreted
(wenn es nicht etwa)(tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet liegt).
Here "wenn" indicates that there is an alternate form 
this is only the case if - as I it may be possible -  it lies in the essential part of the human language 
(wenn indicates a propability) 

Schimmelreiter reads, if I understand correctly
(wenn es) (nicht (etwa) tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet liegt).
(wenn indicates an alterate cause in form of a negated sentence. It is only the case if the negation is not true.)

I think,  however, that "wenn" and "ob" are different.
"Ob" aks if the proposition is true, while Wenn gives a condition that has to be true so that the proposition is true.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Schimmelreiter, it seems you already erased something about my knowledge of Mauthner: and well done, because I'm not a specialist. On the contrary, you guys of this forum have frequently helped me understanding him better, in terms of German vocabulary and Grammar as well as in terms of the philosophical ideas, often obscure, of this author.  

I'm almost concluding that the best thing to do is to find a solution that somehow maintains the ambiguity in Portuguese. In English, that could be: 

"and I could not say whether this harmful duplication came from instinct to philosophy, or, on the contrary, is in fact not deeply rooted in the essence of human language"

Correct me if I'm wrong: but I think that in English this word order, "in fact not", leaves an ambiguity concerning what is this not negating, while the opposite order "not in fact" would lead the reader in the path of my first interpretation (a rhetorical no). "actually not" or "indeed not" could also function fine.

Do you agree with this solution? Because in Portuguese I could do the same way as in English.


----------



## manfy

All good arguments, but all seems based on Mauthner's meaning of the individual terms: 


			
				Mauthner said:
			
		

> "... so erkenne ich auch hier den unheilvollen Doppelsinn, das Doppelsehen des  menschlichen Denkens, das im naiven Realismus des gemeinen Mannes und in der  verstiegensten Philosophie gleicherweise zu finden ist, und das uns noch oft  beschäftigen wird; und ich wüßte nicht zu sagen, ob dieses gefährliche  Verdoppeln aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie kam oder umgekehrt, wenn es nicht  etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet  ist."


Let's see what we know or what we can conclude from this sentence and if we can agree on that or not. 
(Just as Löwenfrau said, there is no other context in the paragraph that would describe the ideas in this sentence any further).

*) What is being criticized? => der unheilvolle Doppelsinn [i.e. the dual sense or multiple definition of single words; in my opinion, this is a phenomenon that definitely can be seen in philosophy because if the core meaning of a word does not fit a given philosophical theory, the philosopher will invent a new word or he simply provides a new, and sometimes twisted, secondary definition of the same word. I feel, Mauthner sees it the same way]  

*) In the introductory sentence he states a fact: "...das im naiven Realismus des gemeinen Mannes *und* in der  verstiegensten Philosophie gleicherweise *zu finden ist*..." 
I think this is the basis for his subsequent comparison of instinct vs. philosophy. Since his core argument is language, he doesn't mean instinct or philosophy itself, but he uses it as a short form for instinctive language vs. philosophical language.
Hence there is a direct correlation of naiven Realismus des gemeinen Mannes *= *instinctive language and der  verstiegensten Philosophie = philosophical language.
Out of this we can conclude that instinctive language = dialect/colloquial language or more aptly, the language a "gemeiner Mann" would speak if he never went to school, hence cannot read nor write -- don't forget, this was the standard for thousands of years throughout the world!! And all of those people were able to live and speak, even though their verbal expression might not have been overly refined.
I believe, this instinctive language has to be seen as a purpose-driven language that's trying to remain as simple and unambiguous as possible. Somewhere along the lines of a tree is a tree and a house is a house - full stop.
Also, I'm confident that Mauthner did not see the term 'instinctive language' as a language based on primary human instincts, because by 1900 it was surely known that a child brought up by wolves will develop a voice and yet it will not develop speech due to the lack of need!

Now, if we consider Aristotle's era as the actual beginning of philosophy and thus philosophical language, then we have a period of good 2500 years during which this philosophical language developed itself and 2500 years of time to imprint itself on the common man. After all philosophers were at the core of the evolution of education. So, it doesn't seem far-fetched that this habit of creating multiple definitions from the same word, which might have originated first in early philosophy due to lack of knowledge or simply doubts, was gradually fused into the commoners language, i.e. instinctive language.

*) Since Mauthner stated as a fact that the phenomenon of dual sense exists equally in instinctive language and philosophical language, it is obvious that he wonders which one was the source of this undesirable habit. As such, the question "did instinctive language influence philosophical language (in this aspect of dual sense) or vice versa" is an obvious one.
He cannot know or even research this, because he didn't live in the period pre-philosophy and no records do exist due to lack of reading/writing in instinctive language. Every written record from that time has to be treated as philosophically influenced.
It goes without saying that instinctive language must have influenced every higher form of language (at some point in time!!) because it is the basis without which the latter could not have formed! 

*) This leaves the phrase "tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache" (which in my opinion is a third alternative) and how this is different to instinctive language.
That's a tough one and here I have to speculate. 
Since it was impossible for Mauthner to compare instinctive and philosophical language from 2000 years ago, his statement in the introductory sentence might have been based on 1900. Hmmm...the more I think about it, it must have been his current day use of instinctive/philosophical language! It's the normal, common sense approach: you look at the current situation and make conclusions about the source of this situation.
Hence, his term 'instinctive language' must be seen as the colloquial language, the commoners language of 1900 and not as a primal language before the beginning of time.
As such it does make sense to introduce _the essence of human language_ as another rudimentary concept which cannot be directly equated to instinctive language or philosophical language because both of them are based on it and both draw from that essence, but they cannot be called the same thing.

Oops, this has gotten very long - sorry for that! I hope it's helpful in some way.


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> "and I could not say whether this harmful duplication came from instinct to philosophy, or, on the contrary, is in fact not deeply rooted in the essence of human language"


Yes, this English sentence sounds good and makes sense (actually more than the German one) when viewed from SR's perspective.

In modern German 'wenn' and 'ob' usually are not interchangeable, but I admit that there are uses of 'wenn' that have the exact same meaning as 'ob'.
It has become rare in modern times but I do know that this was more prevalent in older writings (19th, 18th century).
Even so, the mix of 'ob' and 'wenn' in Mauthner's sentence throws me off and it guides me to believe that they have a different meaning here. But of course I can't guarantee that, it could have been common in 1900 or it could be a distinctive Mauthner language expression feature.

There is one more thingy that makes me question SR's interpretation:
If I were to write the same sentence with SR's view, I'd always, always, always write:
"...oder umgekehrt, wenn es *etwa nicht* tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache  begründet ist."
but Mauthner wrote:
"...oder umgekehrt, wenn es *nicht etwa* tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache  begründet ist."

You see the difference? "nicht" is normally placed in front of the sentence element that is being negated, i.e. in the first sentence 'Wesen der Sprache' and in the second 'etwa', i.e. nicht etwa/nicht vielleicht/nicht doch/nicht sogar.

...and Mauthner is not really known for making such _Flüchtigkeitsfehler_! Food for thought!


----------



## bearded

Hi Lfr.
Manfy's argument has definitely convinced me, and consequently I would advise you to modify your translation as follows:
....from instinct to philosophy, or the opposite, or whether it is in fact not deeply rooted... 
(or, if you prefer)...or the opposite - unless it is in fact deeply rooted...
As you see, in this interpretation (which matches the German expression very well) Mauthner appears to have proposed three alternatives.


----------



## Hutschi

bearded man said:


> Hi Lfr.
> Manfy's argument has definitely convinced me, and consequently I would advise you to modify your translation as follows:
> ....from instinct to philosophy, or the opposite, or whether it is in fact not deeply rooted...
> (or, if you prefer)...or the opposite - unless it is in fact deeply rooted...
> As you see, in this interpretation (which matches the German expression very well) Mauthner appears to have proposed three alternatives.


I read it again, and this seems to be plausible.


----------



## Löwenfrau

1) "and I could not say whether this harmful duplication came from instinct to philosophy, or, on the contrary, is in fact not deeply rooted in the essence of human language"

.2)"...from instinct to philosophy, or the opposite, or whether it is in fact not deeply rooted..." 
(or, if you prefer) 3)"...or the opposite - unless it is in fact deeply rooted..."

the third sounds better but choosing it means to determine the translation in one direction only... I have a final question, after so much thought... One thing is the argumentation, the reasons we all have to think that Mauthner would say A and not B; another thing is the possibilities given by grammar; and, finally, there is what a native would first understand by reading the text, in other words, if Mauthner chose to express himself in a particular manner, what is this manner more likely to mean, assuming (hypothetically) that Mauthner was being clear in his expression and not complicating it?


----------



## Hutschi

> "...  und ich wüßte nicht zu sagen, ob dieses gefährliche Verdoppeln aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie kam oder umgekehrt, wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist." Mauthner



Hi I read the last part from the beginning as I wrote in detail but did not see the easy solution.
I did not see that the middle part is connected to the first rather than to the last part.

It was only a very small shift in intonation that I did not see from the beginning the three-part structure.



> "...  und ich wüßte nicht zu sagen, ob dieses gefährliche Verdoppeln aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie kam* oder umgekehrt*,
> wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist." Mauthner



instead of


> "...  und ich wüßte nicht zu sagen, ob dieses gefährliche Verdoppeln aus dem Instinkt in die Philosophie kam oder umgekehrt, wenn es nicht etwa tief im Wesen der menschlichen Sprache begründet ist." Mauthner




In case of this three-part structure the ambiguity vanishes.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Ok.

Many thanks to all of you, that was *really* helpful!


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> One thing is the argumentation, the reasons we all have to think that Mauthner would say A and not B; another thing is the possibilities given by grammar; and, finally, there is what a native would first understand by reading the text, in other words, if Mauthner chose to express himself in a particular manner, what is this manner more likely to mean, assuming (hypothetically) that Mauthner was being clear in his expression and not complicating it?


When Mauthner was intentionally ambiguous in other parts of the book, he used additional sentences to explore those ambiguities further or to make his own position clear to the reader.
He did not do this here, so I'm confident that Mauthner thought, he was being very clear with this sentence. 

The first time I read it (without external influences), I recognized the 3-part structure and only after seeing the other posts I realized that the 2-part structure is grammatically possible as well. Initially I guessed a 50/50% chance that Mauthner intended either one of those versions, but after I noticed the 'nicht etwa' vs. 'etwa nicht' oddity in my post #36, I'm now good 70% confident that he intended the 3-part structure.


----------



## Löwenfrau

In this case I think that using "unless" for introducing the third part is the best way to translate without ambiguities...


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> In this case I think that using "unless" for introducing the third part is the best way to translate without ambiguities...


 I might do the same if I were in your shoes. I probably wouldn't really worry too much about getting this one sentence perfectly right because the sourrounding context does not depend on it. It's just a general statement that reaffirms his criticism about the existence of multiple definitions for a single word - and he's probably only referring to those that cannot be explained linguistically.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Thanks, manfy. 

There's one last thing... 

In the end, if the third part is connected to the first, the "winner-interpretation" considers that "nicht" in fact as rhetoric: 




bearded man said:


> Hi Lfr.
> Manfy's argument has definitely convinced me, and consequently I would advise you to modify your translation as follows:
> ....from instinct to philosophy, or the opposite, or whether it is in fact not deeply rooted...
> (or, if you prefer)...or the opposite - unless it is in fact deeply rooted...
> As you see, in this interpretation (which matches the German expression very well) Mauthner appears to have proposed three alternatives.




Right?


----------



## manfy

Never mind if third part is connected to first or second.
If you read it as a 3-part structure, then:
"..., wenn es nicht etwa X ist." is semantically similar to "..., falls es vielleicht doch X ist"
In German you cannot easily call 'nicht' rhetorical because here it has the function of negating 'etwa', and 'nicht etwa' thus turns into 'vielleicht doch' or similar. 

"or whether it is in fact not deeply rooted" is actually ambiguous, but if it expresses the same meaning as above then 'not' is purely rhetorical here.


----------



## bearded

I confirm manfy's view. In many languages (including mine), sentences like ''tell me   if the sky is blue today, or you do not see it grey'' are very common, and the negation is just an apparent or rhetorical negation, often expecting  a positive answer. In a philosophical essay, it could seem ambiguous, but I approve of manfy's last sentence in #46.


----------



## Löwenfrau

I understand. 
The thing is (and I think I haven't said that yet), if I use the negation in this third part, in the way we agreed to be the best, it will not have in Portuguese the possibility of being rhetorical, so I'd have to suppress it:


> "or whether/ unless it is in fact deeply rooted".


----------



## Hutschi

This (not to use negation) was what I supposed in my first answer - which reopened the discussion after all seemed already to be clear -  even not considering the three-part structure. 
(I would use the "nicht" structure myself, but would translate it this way.)


----------



## bearded

''Unless it is in fact deeply rooted..'' is just perfect (especially if in Portuguese you have no possibility to use the 'rhetorical not'). I am glad that you confirm something I had suggested in one of my previous posts.


----------



## Löwenfrau

bearded man said:


> ''Unless it is in fact deeply rooted..'' is just perfect (especially if in Portuguese you have no possibility to use the 'rhetorical not'). I am glad that you confirm something I had suggested in one of my previous posts.


----------



## manfy

''Unless it is in fact deeply rooted...'' Here 'in fact' has a similar semantic function as the 'nicht etwa' in the German original.
(EDIT: Or maybe it's a syntactic function, i.e. an intensifier that adds/removes a hint of doubt!? Either way, it works well here!) 

(Caution: This does not mean that every German sentence with 'nicht etwa' can be blindly translated as 'in fact'! You always have to look at the specific context to decide which foreign phrase renders the overall meaning of the sentence best.)


----------

