# To mirror



## ThomasK

We have had a thread on mirrors here already, but not on 'to mirror'. I'd like to know how you use the verb, and what the connotations are.

Can you for example ...mirror things to people, etc., or can only the mirror mirror? ;-)

*Miroiter* in French for example (from 'miroir', based on mirari, to look, I guess) seems to be quite positive: to give someone an idea of the opportunities for example (but the example: _to make mirror perspectives, advantages [faire miroiter des avantages_]). It seems to me that 'miroiter' is in fact what the mirror does. 

In Dutch, however, _*voorspiegelen*_ (front-mirror  (voor = in front of), hold a mirror and thus showing...) would be fairly negative: we seem to believe that the mirror can distort reality or even create fiction, irreality, because you cannot assume that what we _voorspiegelen_, present (in the mirror ?), is really true, a fact.

Just by the way: _*speculate*_ for example seems far away from mirroring, whereas the basis is _*speculum *_in Latin, mirror.


----------



## Dymn

In Catalan, _*emmirallar *_(from _mirall_, from _miraculum_) can mean:

1. To reflect something mirrorlikely: 
_L'estany emmiralla els estels._
The lake mirrors the stars.

2. (pronominal) To have as a model
_El nostre sistema educatiu s'emmiralla en Finlàndia._
Our educational system mirrors(?) in Finland.

In the meaning of 'to be very similar' as in 'Our newspaper aims to mirror the opinions of ordinary people' I wouldn't use it. I'd say _representar _or _ser un mirall/reflex de _'be a mirror/reflection of'.

In Spanish, _*espejar* _(_espejo, speculum_) seems to have the same meanings as in Catalan, but I had never heard it before. Google gives 28,700 results for 'emmirallar-se' and 3,320 for 'espejarse'. The only common word which stems from _espejo _is _*espejismo *_'mirage'.


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek the v. is *«αντικατοπτρίζω»* [andikatopˈtrizo] a modern construction (1865) calqued from the Fr. refléter. It's a compound, prefix and preposition *«ἀντί» ăntí* --> _opposite, over against, instead of_ (PIE *h₂ent- _front, face_ cf Skt. अन्ति (ánti), _in the presence of, facing_, Lat. ante > It. avanti, Sp./Por. ante, Fr. avant, Rom. înainte) + Classical denominative v. *«κατοπτρίζω» kătŏptrízō* --> _to look into a mirror_ < Classical nominal neut. *«κάτοπτρον» kắtŏptrŏn* --> _mirror_ < compound, prefix, preposition, and adverb *«κατὰ» katà*, and *«κάτα» kátă* --> _downwards, against, along, through, over, across, concerning_ (PIE *km̥t- _down, with, along_ cf Hitt. katta (postpos.), _along, with_) + Classical v. *«ὄπωπα» ópōpă* (found only in perfect tense with present meaning) --> _to watch, observe, view, contemplate_ (PIE *h₃ekʷ- _to see_ cf Skt. अक्षि ‎(ákṣi), _eye_, Av. aiβii- _to watch_, Proto-Slavic *oko, _eye_).


----------



## 810senior

No matching word in Japanese.

mirror (noun) : _kagami _(mirror)
to mirror : _utsu-su_ or _hansha-suru_(to reflect, cast) having nothing to do with _mirror_.

kagami can also be used as paragon in English e.g. 彼こそが、皆の*鑑*(meaning mirror)となるべき人物だ。 (he should no doubt be the paragon for us).


----------



## ThomasK

There is something very peculiar about _speculum_, I think: its main function is showing (and thus seeing, _specere_). So it is something like a seeing tool, I now realize, though only referring to mirrors, I suppose _(does the -_ulum _refer to a diminutive, or to a tool? - Anyone?)_. Therefore there is a link with _mirage_, I suppose, though not via _mirror_, only via _mirari_, or something.

Catalan: so reflecting, and serving as a model --- OK, different from Dutch, or no! Reflexive _zich spiegelen aan_ someone is using that person as a model, trying to imitate that person.

Greek: surprising to me that Greek did not have its own word, whereas Latin did... But maybe there was a more general word before? Is the /anti-kata/ combination some kind of a tautology?

Japanese: so _kagami_ can refer to a model, can't it?

Just by the way: *Daily Mirror* as a name sounds strange nowadays. At its best media can be said to reflect something of reality, some scarce aspects. In more case it just offers a skewd picture/ Image/.... of reality...


----------



## AutumnOwl

ThomasK said:


> In Dutch, however, _*voorspiegelen*_ (front-mirror (voor = in front of), hold a mirror and thus showing...) would be fairly negative: we seem to believe that the mirror can distort reality or even create fiction, irreality, because you cannot assume that what we _voorspiegelen_, present (in the mirror ?), is really true, a fact.


Don't you have afspieglen in Dutch? The Svenska Akademiens Ordbok from 1898 compares it with the Swedish avspegling.

Spegel - mirror
Avspegling - to reflect, or be a mirror image of something, and it can also be used figurative.
(att) spegla/att spegla sig - to mirror/to mirror oneself

Husen avspeglade sig i vattnet - the houses were reflected in the water
Dikten avspeglar verkligheten - litterature reflects reality
En spegling på vattenytan - a mirror image on the surface of the water
Vårt skolsystem är en spegling av det finska - our school system is (like a) mirror image of the Finnish
Hon speglade sig - she looked in the mirror, e.g. she mirrored herself
Månljuset speglade sig i dammen - the moon light was mirrored in the pond


----------



## ThomasK

We have _weerspiegelen _(_wiederspiegeln _in German, I think) and _afspiegeling_.

I have put Dutch equivalents behind the slash, in bold: 


AutumnOwl said:


> Husen avspeglade sig i vattnet - the houses were reflected in the water/ *weerspiegeld*
> Dikten avspeglar verkligheten - litterature reflects reality/ *weerspiegelt (mirror back)*
> En spegling på vattenytan - a mirror image on the surface of the water/ *een spiegeling maybe, maybe afspiegeling*
> Vårt skolsystem är en spegling av det finska - our school system is (like a) mirror image of the Finnish, *maybe afspiegelin*_g _(something like a copy, but not a full copy)
> Hon speglade sig - she looked in the mirror, e.g. she mirrored herself *(-) *
> Månljuset speglade sig i dammen - the moon light was mirrored in the pond (*weerspiegeld*)


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> _(does the -_ulum _refer to a diminutive, or to a tool? - Anyone?)_.



Latin -_ulus/-ula/-ulum _is a diminutive suffix.

One way in which the English verb _mirror_ is commonly used nowadays is when talking about a website, or other internet content. E.g., if you said "My site is being *mirrored* at [X].com", this means that a copy of your webpage can be found at [X].com: in other words, your site has two locations rather than just one.


----------



## 810senior

ThomasK said:


> Japanese: so _kagami_ can refer to a model, can't it?



Yes it can. In addition, out of countless models, it indicates in particular a good model everyone should learn a hell of something from.


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> ...
> Greek: surprising to me that Greek did not have its own word, whereas Latin did... But maybe there was a more general word before?


There existed a verb in Classical Greek but not exactly with the sense of mirroring:
*«Ἀνακλάω/ἀνακλῶ» ănăkláō* (uncontracted)/*ănăklô* (contracted) -->  lit. _to bend back_ secondary meaning, _to reflect the light on water/mirror_ < compound; prefix and preposition *«ἀνά» ănắ* --> _up along_ (PIE *h₂en- _up, on high_ cf Proto-Germanic *ana > Ger. an, Eng. on, Dt. aan, Isl. á, Swe. å/på, D./Nor. Bokmål på, Nor. Nynorsk å) + Classical v. *«κλάω/κλῶ» klắō* (uncontracted)/*klô* (uncontracted) --> _to break (off)_ (with obscure etymology).
Noun: 3rd declension fem. noun *«ἀνάκλασις» ănáklasis* (nom. sing.), *«ἀνακλάσεως» ănăklásĕōs* (gen. sing.) --> lit. _bending back_, metaph. _reflection_


ThomasK said:


> Is the /anti-kata/ combination some kind of a tautology?...


I do not see it that way, since the verb is κατοπτρίζω (to look in the mirror), ἀντι-κατοπτρίζω means to reflect back the mirrored image


----------



## ThomasK

Very interesting, thanks. As for the /antikata/: I must admit that I had missed that, had not read well, I am afraid...


----------



## ger4

ThomasK said:


> [...] Catalan: so reflecting, and serving as a model --- OK, different from Dutch, or no! Reflexive _spiegelen aan_ someone is using that person as a model, trying to imitate that person. [...]
> Japanese: so _kagami_ can refer to a model, can't it? [...]


This is surprising: I always thought of a mirror as something neutral that can only passively reflect reality (in German, a positive model or a paragon would be a _Vorbild_, 'pre-picture') but apart from that, it's all very similar to Dutch and Swedish:


AutumnOwl said:


> Spegel - mirror - _*Spiegel*_ [...]
> (att) spegla/att spegla sig - to mirror/to mirror oneself - _*sich spiegeln*_
> 
> Husen speglade sig i vattnet - the houses were reflected in the water - _*die Häuser spiegelten sich im Wasser *_
> Dikten avspeglar verkligheten - litterature reflects reality - _*die Dichtung spiegelt die Wirklichkeit wider *_
> En spegling på vattenytan - a mirror image on the surface of the water - _*eine Spiegelung auf der Wasseroberfläche*_ [...]
> Hon speglade sig - she looked in the mirror, e.g. she mirrored herself - _*sie spiegelte sich *_
> Månljuset speglade sig i dammen - the moon light was mirrored in the pond - _*das Mondlicht spiegelte sich im Teich *_


----------



## ThomasK

I suppose that was the [naive] idea of the first newspapers: the _Daily Mirror_ was meant to be a reflection. Yet, I suddenly think of it: did you not have _Tugendspiegel_? These _virtue mirror_s were meant to be _Vorbilder_, or examples, I believe, for everyone to 'mirror him/herself in' and see what shortcomings one still had. After all, most of us use the mirror to see how far we (still) are from the ideal/ normative beauty, whereas that ideal of course only exists in our head (...).


----------



## Armas

AutumnOwl said:


> Don't you have afspieglen in Dutch? The Svenska Akademiens Ordbok from 1898 compares it with the Swedish avspegling.
> 
> Spegel - mirror
> Avspegling - to reflect, or be a mirror image of something, and it can also be used figurative.
> (att) spegla/att spegla sig - to mirror/to mirror oneself
> 
> Husen avspeglade sig i vattnet - the houses were reflected in the water
> Dikten avspeglar verkligheten - litterature reflects reality
> En spegling på vattenytan - a mirror image on the surface of the water
> Vårt skolsystem är en spegling av det finska - our school system is (like a) mirror image of the Finnish
> Hon speglade sig - she looked in the mirror, e.g. she mirrored herself
> Månljuset speglade sig i dammen - the moon light was mirrored in the pond



Finnish *peilata*, *kuvastaa* "to mirror", *peilautua*, *kuvastua* "to be mirrored" and *heijastaa* "to reflect", *heijastua* "to be reflected" are used similarly.


----------



## ThomasK

Just wondering: does 'to mirror' have two real synonyms? I suppose they refer to reflecting, or don't they? (I am sorry, I keep thinking of a mirror as something very specific, and therefore could not imagine it could have two synonyms...)


----------



## ThomasK

apmoy70 said:


> In Greek 5...)  Classical denominative v. *«κατοπτρίζω» kătŏptrízō* --> _to look into a mirror_ < Classical nominal neut. *«κάτοπτρον» kắtŏptrŏn* --> _mirror_ < compound, prefix, preposition, and adverb


 I just happened to learn that there was something like katoptrimancy, "divination by mirror"...


----------



## Yendred

ThomasK said:


> It seems to me that 'miroiter' is in fact what the mirror does.



In French _miroiter _is what the mirror does when it reflects sparkling light. This is why _"faire miroiter" _means _to make sparkling light appear_, and metaphorically _to give an idea of attractive opportunities, generally in a exaggerated way_.


----------



## ThomasK

OK! So that implies that miroiter is not just" reflecting??? That could explain that you do not use the miroir metaphor in a verb for example, as we do in _bespiegeling _(considérations, spéculations), _afspiegelen _(reflèter)…


----------



## Yendred

ThomasK said:


> as we do in _bespiegeling _(considérations, spéculations), _afspiegelen _(reflèter)…



Although in _spéculations_, _mirror _is hidden too, since it primarily comes from Latin _speculum = mirror_ (I just saw you already mentioned it in your original message  ).


----------



## ThomasK

You're right, but the specific French word does not seem to be used metaphorically. We have all copied _speculationes _(or something the like) from Latin, I believe...


----------



## Sobakus

Gavril said:


> ThomasK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something very peculiar about _speculum_, I think: its main function is showing (and thus seeing, _specere_). So it is something like a seeing tool, I now realize, though only referring to mirrors, I suppose _(does the -_ulum _refer to a diminutive, or to a tool? - Anyone?)_.
> 
> 
> 
> Latin -_ulus/-ula/-ulum _is a diminutive suffix.
Click to expand...

_speculum_ is based on the bare root _spec-_ "to observe" (cf. AGr. _σκέπτομαι_ "to look at, examine") and the instrumental suffix _-culum_ (also -_trum_ and many other variations), so "the thing used for observing". The bare verb _specere_ is so archaic that I didn't even think it existed before checking up with a dictionary; it's preserved in several prefixed forms like _cōnspicere_, and the archaic bare form usually appears as _spicere,_ with vowel reduction, which means it's more of a back-formation than a survival (though the two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive).


Yendred said:


> Although in _spéculations_, _mirror _is hidden too, since it primarily comes from Latin _speculum = mirror_ (I just saw you already mentioned it in your original message  ).


Actually _speculation, to speculate_ come from _speculārī_ meaning "to observe from a distance, keep watch, esp. from a vantage point such as a tower; to spy, act as a military observer".


----------



## ThomasK

I had not associated "speculate" with "spect-", but you are right. I still keep wondering why speculum/ mirror have often had this pejorative meaning. A "speculum" gives doctors an objective view and we use a mirror mainly for checking things, to see whether they are OK, and yet, we seem to distrust mirrors... Simply because watching in the mirror is never an objective activity as our judgment is often distorted by all kinds of values we have been brought up with???? I would not think so...

I am sorry, but I am not sure I can follow your reasoning leading to a back-formation. I do see the vowel reduction, but what could it be back-formation of? I have always thought it is (part of) a derivation.


----------



## Sobakus

ThomasK said:


> I had not associated "speculate" with "spect-", but you are right.


Yeah, I didn't explicitly say this but _spectāre_ is the frequentative of _specere._


ThomasK said:


> I still keep wondering why speculum/ mirror have often had this pejorative meaning. A "speculum" gives doctors an objective view and we use a mirror mainly for checking things, to see whether they are OK, and yet, we seem to distrust mirrors... Simply because watching in the mirror is never an objective activity as our judgment is often distorted by all kinds of values we have been brought up with???? I would not think so...


What languages besides Dutch have a mirror-derived word that is about being deceived? Perhaps I've missed them, but currently I don't see any; on the contrary, there's one about serving as a model (Catalan), and one as a role-model, even a paragon (Japanese).

Judging by this example, the Dutch use may be derived from the same use as that of the French _miroiter: de beleggingsadviseur spiegelde mij grote winsten voor. _So the shift of meaning is trivial: "attractive > exaggerated > false". I imagine the literal meaning to be flashing a mirror in front of somebody so that the reflection is difficult to catch a glimpse of, which is what entices the viewer further.


ThomasK said:


> I am sorry, but I am not sure I can follow your reasoning leading to a back-formation. I do see the vowel reduction, but what could it be back-formation of? I have always thought it is (part of) a derivation.


From _cōnspicere, aspicere_, anything where the -e- of _spec-_ was unstressed in Archaic Latin and so got reduced to -i-. Latin has a whole bunch of cases where prefixed verbs either lend the reduced vowel to the simplex verb, or where the simplex verb is back-formed from scratch to one or more of the prefixed verbs; in the latter case it often ends up being limited to poetry, used for metrical convenience.


----------



## ThomasK

Sobakus said:


> Yeah, I didn't explicitly say this but _spectāre_ is the frequentative of _specere._


I meant: I had not associated "specu-" with "spi/ecere", "spect-"... But I suppose that does not change a lot. 


Sobakus said:


> What languages besides Dutch have a mirror-derived word that is about being deceived? Perhaps I've missed them, but currently I don't see any; on the contrary, there's one about serving as a model (Catalan), and one as a role-model, even a paragon (Japanese).


I had a quick look at the above, and could not find one! But: isn't the mirror effect well-known? I mean: the mirror as a means to discover flaws, weaknesses, shortcomings (mainly physical, but often not only)... Could you not say that this critical aspect might remind of deceiving: we are convinced we see reality, but very often we come to realize that what we see is only our perception, coloured by our upbringing, our socialisation (home, school, society, ...)? 



Sobakus said:


> Judging by this example, the Dutch use may be derived from the same use as that of the French _miroiter: de beleggingsadviseur spiegelde mij grote winsten voor. _So the shift of meaning is trivial: "attractive > exaggerated > false". I imagine the literal meaning to be flashing a mirror in front of somebody so that the reflection is difficult to catch a glimpse of, which is what entices the viewer further.


Interesting idea: attractive turning into false, unreal. Sounds like my perception hypothesis: we come to realize after some time that our (self-)image is false or fake, whereas everyone seems to value a mirror as some kind of reality-check. 


Sobakus said:


> From _cōnspicere, aspicere_, anything where the -e- of _spec-_ was unstressed in Archaic Latin and so got reduced to -i-. Latin has a whole bunch of cases where prefixed verbs either lend the reduced vowel to the simplex verb, or where the simplex verb is back-formed from scratch to one or more of the prefixed verbs; in the latter case it often ends up being limited to poetry, used for metrical convenience.


Thanks again, but I'll have to see whether I understand correctly.


----------



## Sobakus

ThomasK said:


> I had a quick look at the above, and could not find one! But: isn't the mirror effect well-known? I mean: the mirror as a means to discover flaws, weaknesses, shortcomings (mainly physical, but often not only)... Could you not say that this critical aspect might remind of deceiving: we are convinced we see reality, but very often we come to realize that what we see is only our perception, coloured by our upbringing, our socialisation (home, school, society, ...)?


It seems to me that the mirror serving as a means to discover flaws is precisely the opposite of the mirror serving to deceive. Our perception is flawed until we look in the mirror, at which point we see the true, unadorned reflection and realise we've been deceiving ourselves. And this is the mirror association I'm familiar with - cf. the English idiom 'to hold a mirror up to somebody'. I think you're being mislead by your native language and trying to prove wrong assumptions (there being a well-known deceptive mirror effect) using even more questionable reasoning that actually leads to the contrary conclusion. May this thread serve you as the mirror of truth 


ThomasK said:


> Interesting idea: attractive turning into false, unreal. Sounds like my perception hypothesis: we come to realize after some time that our (self-)image is false or fake, whereas everyone seems to value a mirror as some kind of reality-check.


Again, we haven't seen any language where the reflection of self in the mirror is treated as fake, but on the contrary. I suggested that the Dutch metaphor is chasing a glimpse of something shiny and attractive that you're purposefully denied a good look at.


ThomasK said:


> Thanks again, but I'll have to see whether I understand correctly.


_specere, cōnspicere >_ (Ø, _cōnspicere) > spicere, cōnspicere_


----------



## Włoskipolak 72

Polish

Normally we use *lustro* or *lusterko* (a small mirror) , than *zwierciadło .*

Mirror (verb)* = *odzwierciedlić, odzwierciedlać, ( from zwierciadło ) , odbić , odbijać

Reflection = odzwierciedlenie , odbicie.

rebound = odbijać się, odbić się (refl.)


zwierciadło = _zierkadło_, derives from *zerknąć* ( glance , peek ).


tafla wody = sheet of water = specchio d'acqua (Italian)

Tafel (German) = board

Luster = (Latin) lustrare = light , illuminate .


----------



## ThomasK

Sobakus said:


> It seems to me that the mirror serving as a means to discover flaws is precisely the opposite of the mirror serving to deceive. Our perception is flawed until we look in the mirror, at which point we see the true, unadorned reflection and realise we've been deceiving ourselves. And this is the mirror association I'm familiar with - cf. the English idiom 'to hold a mirror up to somebody'. I think you're being mislead by your native language and trying to prove wrong assumptions (there being a well-known deceptive mirror effect) using even more questionable reasoning that actually leads to the contrary conclusion. May this thread serve you as the mirror of truth


Well, there is the infamous Instagram, based on pictures. The longer the more young ladies (and men?) cannot stand their appearance, what photography faces them with, and try to catfish, etc., using Photoshop, etc. I think one could consider a resemblance between mirrors and photographs, I think. 


Sobakus said:


> Again, we haven't seen any language where the reflection of self in the mirror is treated as fake, but on the contrary. I suggested that the Dutch metaphor is chasing a glimpse of something shiny and attractive that you're purposefully denied a good look at.


I do not like the last statement: purposefully deny??? Before I read about "using even more questionable reasoning", etc. Is this some kind of trial? I am just hypothesizing what our variation is based on, just exploring, ... The only thing you can accuse of (trial again) is wishful thinking. If you consider it nonsense, then simply say you disagree or stop answering...


Sobakus said:


> _specere, cōnspicere >_ (Ø, _cōnspicere) > spicere, cōnspicere_


----------



## Sobakus

ThomasK said:


> Well, there is the infamous Instagram, based on pictures. The longer the more young ladies (and men?) cannot stand their appearance, what photography faces them with, and try to catfish, etc., using Photoshop, etc. I think one could consider a resemblance between mirrors and photographs, I think.


Pictures have been around for millenia and the connection between them and making someone look more beautiful than they are is obvious. The target audience is mostly other people, the posterity. This is what photoshop + instagram is. Mirrors are the exact opposite of this - they represent reality uncompromisingly and they show it to the owner of the reflection. I don't think there's any connection.


ThomasK said:


> I do not like the last statement: purposefully deny??? Before I read about "using even more questionable reasoning", etc. Is this some kind of trial? I am just hypothesizing what our variation is based on, just exploring, ... The only thing you can accuse of (trial again) is wishful thinking. If you consider it nonsense, then simply say you disagree or stop answering...


Among other things, what I wrote was "you're purposefully denied", which is the passive of "someone purposefully denies you". You're irritated because you haven't understood my English; or you haven't understood it because you got irritated before you got a chance to understand it. What I wrote was a repetition of something I had already said before, which makes it even more surprising.

I'll recapitulate: you sit in a chair. Someone playfully flashes a mirror in front of you. The mirror is shiny and enticing. You try to catch a good look of the reflection, but you cannot because the person is purposefully denying you a glimpse - all you see is flashes. This is exactly what entices you even more - think of a cat playing with a ball, or a crow with, well, anything shiny. Another parallel that uses the same metaphor is this meaning of the English verb 'to flash': "make a conspicuous display of (something) so as to impress or attract attention."

I've already given you what I think is the correct explanation of the Dutch meaning, starting as in French: "flashy, attractive > exaggerated > false". I've also pointed out that the Dutch shift of meaning seems to have no parallels. Nevertheless, you continued with your line of reasoning, and I explained why I think it was incorrect because I'm under the impression that you want to understand what I think. If I wanted to be unfriendly, I'd reply to what you wrote above by saying that if you didn't want to hear where your reasoning is incorrect, or if you consider my own explanation to be nonsense, then you should simply say you disagree or stop answering. I do believe you genuinely want to understand, and not simply to hear either a positive answer or no answer at all ('tell me I'm right or get out'), and I hope that you're able to accept that someone believes that if one starts with imaginary assumptions and adduces far-fetched explanations that actually point in the opposite direction, one is unlikely to get very close to the truth. Cheers.


----------



## ThomasK

Sobakus said:


> (a) Pictures have been around for millenia and the connection between them and making someone look more beautiful than they are is obvious. The target audience is mostly other people, the posterity. This is what photoshop + instagram is. (b) Mirrors are the exact opposite of this - they represent reality uncompromisingly and they show it to the owner of the reflection. I don't think there's any connection.


(a) The target audience is the others with Photoshop and Instagram. Yes: they want to seem perfect (catfishing) in order to get praise, which has not always been the case, I think. But nowadays they have been trained (unconsciously) to look at themselves according to standards imposed by others. That is the tragic aspect nowadays: they cannot accept their real image. I wonder whether that is wrong. Other people may perhaps prove me wrong. So much the better. Maybe I could add this: they see themselves but they do not accept it, they cannot. And that is tragic.
(b) Mirrors work the same way: I see young ladies checking their appearance in the mobile phones all the time. Their mobile camera is a moving mirror. But the other thing is: the same mobile offers them pictures (and images) of "ideal" people, peers, complying with all standards now informally/ stealthily imposed on them.


Sobakus said:


> Among other things, what I wrote was "you're purposefully denied", which is the passive of "someone purposefully denies you". You're irritated because you haven't understood my English; or you haven't understood it because you got irritated before you got a chance to understand it. What I wrote was a repetition of something I had already said before, which makes it even more surprising.


I must apologize. I had been unhappy about some comments and I suppose that why I misread your note here. Apologies!



Sobakus said:


> I'll recapitulate: you sit in a chair. Someone playfully flashes a mirror in front of you. The mirror is shiny and enticing. You try to catch a good look of the reflection, but you cannot because the person is purposefully denying you a glimpse - all you see is flashes. This is exactly what entices you even more - think of a cat playing with a ball, or a crow with, well, anything shiny. Another parallel that uses the same metaphor is this meaning of the English verb 'to flash': "make a conspicuous display of (something) so as to impress or attract attention."


I can imagine something, but this is a very special kind of scene to me. The flashy effect is the one wished for by Instagrammers: they wish to impress, but not by their real self, I am afraid. That is what we hear all the time. Their mirror pictures might not even be mirror pictures in some cases because that reality would not be flattering. It shows reality and they cannot live with that reality. --- If this is not plausible to you, then we ought to give up, I am afraid.



Sobakus said:


> I've already given you what I think is the correct explanation of the Dutch meaning, starting as in French: "flashy, attractive > exaggerated > false". I've also pointed out that the Dutch shift of meaning seems to have no parallels. Nevertheless, you continued with your line of reasoning, and I explained why I think it was incorrect because I'm under the impression that you want to understand what I think. If I wanted to be unfriendly, I'd reply to what you wrote above by saying that if you didn't want to hear where your reasoning is incorrect, or if you consider my own explanation to be nonsense, then you should simply say you disagree or stop answering. I do believe you genuinely want to understand, and not simply to hear either a positive answer or no answer at all ('tell me I'm right or get out'), and I hope that you're able to accept that someone believes that if one starts with imaginary assumptions and adduces far-fetched explanations that actually point in the opposite direction, one is unlikely to get very close to the truth. Cheers.


Thanks for the explanation. I really wonder whether someone can confirm of counter my view on Instagram, and my link between (the dangers of) selfies and mirrors. I looked for some quotes, which seem to (!) substantiate my claim, which might be that my perception of the mirror reality is not the reality itself. But that might sound like nonsense, whereas I hope it is not.

I have just found this here:: "Still, it shouldn’t be surprising that the selfie arouses such passions. Similar anxieties and enthusiasms stirred hundreds of years ago, when the original tool for self-scrutiny emerged in its modern form: the mirror."

Or this one: "How Social Media is a Toxic Mirror' (Time).

One last aspect with regard to people losing weight, who then say:  “I really can’t see any improvement." The author comments: " The distortion comes from what's inside of your brain. It’s called having “fat eyes.” (...)  In fact, many of you have lost over 200 pounds. But you still don't see it because even though you keep staring in the mirror, you are looking with a distorted self-image."


----------



## Sobakus

ThomasK said:


> I must apologize. I had been unhappy about some comments and I suppose that why I misread your note here. Apologies!


No problem, these kind of misunderstandings happen!

I agree with many of your observations when taken by themselves - the distorted self-image as a reply to socially imposed standards of beauty, the constant search for validation of the image one is trying to present, and using mirrors as tools for vain self-validation. The trouble is, I don't think these phenomena can be lined up with any actual shifts of meaning in any actual language, as far as we have seen - not just involving mirrors, but even pictures. The Dutch use of _voorspiegelen _seems to be trivially derived from the meaning current in French (_miroiter_). Neither of these has anything to do with self-reflection - they refer to using a mirror to deceive others by enticing them with a shiny object, or perhaps with their desire to see their own reflection (this doesn't seem to be the French meaning, however). But cross-culturally speaking, mirrors are metaphorically thought of as reflecting objective and unflattering reality, and as tools for self-scrutiny. The deception is never in the mirror, it's always in the person's head. Even in the trope of female narcissism and vain self-objectification that is captured in the famous line "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?", the Magic Mirror never lies.

This is why I continue poining your attention to the lack of the actual phenomena you're trying to explain, which makes your explanations come across like generic social critique for its own sake. The critique is on point, but it doesn't seem to be connected with any linguistic facts.


----------



## ThomasK

I must admit that I cannot - so far ;-) - substantiate my criticism using linguistic references except in Dutch... But as you suggested in a PM, I might take that to the Culture Café. Thanks for now!

And yes, strictly speaking the mirror only shows reality. I had been pondernig about that: that it is not the mirror as such that distorts perception, as you suggest...


----------

