Replying to LO26583 --
Dear Organlernears,
Leo Minnigh <l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl> writes:
>In Dutch and Afrikaans it is possible to reduce the size.
>The word for cup is 'kop', a small cup becomes 'kopje' or
>'koppie'. *) (see note below)
(snip)
>The importance of the diminutive form in a language is
>very large. It could for instance cover the communication
>with a varnish of soft sympathy and friendship - it makes
>the nouns less sharp. The diminutive used in this way
>does not so much reduces the size, but reduces the
>'sharpness'.
Greetings dear Leo,
Thank you very much for such a creative input.
Yes, this suffix for making the diminutive of a noun in Dutch and
Afrikaans is interesting. I suspect (please enlighten me) that in Dutch
the standard rule is to add the suffix "-tje" to a noun.
In Afrikaans it is more complex. The first rule is to add "-tjie" as
suffix (like "-tje" in Dutch). The "-tjie" sounds in English like "-chy".
It can be added to any noun. But there are many exceptions in which the
"-tjie" is changed into something else. For example, "kop" (head) will
become "koppie" rather than "koptjie". Also, "vark" (pig) will become
"varkie" rather than "varktjie". Hence the second rule in all these
exceptions is to get rid of the intricate sequence of consonants while
retaining the vowel "-ie" at the end which signals the diminutive. We call
such intricate consonant sequences "tong-knopers" (tongue knotters). In
Afrikaans tongue knotters are avoided.
Making a diminutive in Afrikaans does not only indicate smaller size (the
essentiality spareness), but it is also a powerful way of expressing
sentiment.
One of the sentiments is endearment. When I want to speak of our host Rick
in an endearing manner, I would do it as "Rickie" (Ricky). Other
sentiments are, for example, sarcasism or contempt. I may, for example,
write: "This is what that Ricky of the LO-list told." The point which I
want to make (the essentiality sureness) is that in Afrikaans you will
never know which sentiment is intended unless you view the diminutive in
the entire sentence and even in the entire paragraph to establish its
context. You will have to suspend your conclusion until the entire context
has been manifested so as to become sure of the sentimental meaning of a
diminutive.
[Host's Note: But, Atie, at what point will the entire context
be revealed? ..Rick]
Leotjie, you can imagine how much confusion arises here in South Africa
when people not having Afrikaans as mother tongue listen to Afrikaans or
read it. As soon as these people see or hear a diminuated noun, they judge
it according to their own mother tongue. Thus Afrikaans speaking people
are forced to avoid using diminutives for expressing sentiment so as to
avoid possible misunderstandings. This is tragic. I once read, but I
cannot remember where, that whoever wants to understand English, has to
master the art of adding suffices and prefixes to words so as to create
new meaning. In Arikaans it is perhaps more important than in English.
Making a diminutive of a noun or a verb concerns the essentiality
spareness ("quantity-limit"). The idea is to reduce the size of what has
been named. But what about the opposite, to inflate the noun to indicate
that the limit of its size has not yet been reached.? In other words, what
superlative suffix can be used to indicate an increase in size? The Banthu
languages of Southern Africa have a peculiar construction -- repeat the
noun immediately. For example, if I want to express that the tree is a
huge tree, I will say in them "tree-tree". This amounts to making the
entire noun its suffix. We have something reminiscent of it in English and
also Afrikaans by saying "that is a tree of a tree".
But how will we do the superlative in Afrikaans by way of a suffix and not
a prefix? I think that Dutch has no way to indicate this increase in size
to indicate the superlative form, but again I speak in ignorance. In
Afrikaans, like in Dutch and English, superlatives can be made easily by
adding the prefix "hiper-" (-hyper) to nouns derived from Greek or
"super-" to nouns from Latin. But can it be done with a suffix? The
diminutive is created by adding a suffix ending in the vowel "ie". Is it
possible that the superlative may be created in a similar manner? I have
combed the Afrikaans dictionary, but could not find one single example of
expressing the superlative by means of a suffix.
Yet in my past dialogues with desert people I seem to recall the
following, although I will have to make sure of it. It is done by adding
the vowel "-a" as suffix to the noun, but even there it happens seldomly.
For example, when they speak of a hole ("gat") as a big hole rather than a
tiny hole ("gatjie"), they will speak of it as a "gata". However, they
will more frequently use existing nouns ending in the vowel "a", nouns
which have no superlative meaning self, to express indirectly something
superlative. For example, the word "boeta" like the word "boet" means
brother. To express the superlative, they will say "Boeta, dis ^Ñn bok"
(Brother, that's a goat). Another example. The word "papa" like "pa" means
father. Thus they will also say "Papa, dis ^Ñn bok" in stead of "Dis ^Ñn
boka".
Is this adding of the vowel "-a" as a suffix to indicate the superlative
an emerging feature of Afrikaans? It happens very seldomly and then only
among some desert people. I cannot remember even having heard it done by
anybody else than a desert person. You fellow learners cannot imagine how
much resistance I get from my dear wife as well as my dear friend Ben
Goslin (a linguist and guru on Banthu languages) on this issue. They
assure me that my observation of the suffix "-a" is merely my imagination.
This "imagination" rather than "observation" is the very reason why I
replied in such detail on something which concerns languages and not
organisations. Are we able to observe readily the outcome (constructive
emergence or destructive immergence) of any ordinate bifurcation? In other
words, is it simply an issue of observing the outcome when it happens, or
do we not also have to prepare ourselves mentally so as to be able to
observe it? How much does imagination play a role in this mental
preparation? For example, did I observe the use of the vowel "-a" as
suffix to create the superlative form of a noun, or did I imagine it which
enabled me to observe it?
Here are other examples. When a man and a woman want to have a child, do
they not first imagine a baby before beginning to procreate one? Only nine
months later the actual birth can be observed. When a farmer wants to
breed new animals or cultivate new plants, does the farmer not first begin
by imagining what to do? When a painter wants to create a picture, does
the painter not first begin by imagining what to do? Sometimes it takes
many years before the painting actually materialises and thus can be
observed! In creating his Theory of Relativity (ToR), Einstein's
imagination played a crucial role. In his ToR Einstein let by imagination
space and time emerge into a 4D continuum. Only afterwards the correctness
of his imagination was empirically observed.
Let us think of the transformation of any Ordinary Organisation (OO) into
a Learning Organisation (LO). Is this transformation an ordinate
bifurcation or is it something else like a casual adaptation? Well, how
many OOs do you know of which tried to transform into a LO, but failed to
do so with costs and pain involved? Are they not examples of a destructive
immergence? How many LOs do you know of which radiate the joy of having
become humane? Are they not examples of a constructive emergence? I think
that the transformation from an OO to a LO is indeed an emergence.
Consequently, if we want to observe this emergence, should we not prepare
ourselves by first imagining the OO as a LO? Is the failure of members of
an OO to imagine that OO as a LO not perhaps the main reason why that OO
fail to emerge into a LO? How do we read the Fifth Discipline, like a
textbook with lots of facts to memorize, or like a novel in which we
imagine the story of the LO unfolding itself?
The latter question reminds me when students in chemistry encounter the
difficult topic of Quantum Mechanics (QM). QM is difficult because it
requires a mathematical proficiency (involving imagination) which they
usually do not have. They have to imagine the spatial form of the QM
functions describing the electrons in an atom. Only then are they able to
actually let different atoms emerge into a molecule with the definite
structure required. However, because of the rote learning they are used
to, they rather try to memorise pages upon pages of QM facts. Hence they
even have to memorise the structure of molecules rather than to create
them mentally whenever they need them.
When I want to discover a rare, known species of succulent plants, I read
all possible information on the morphology of the plant with which I
imagine a "3D picture" (like a hologram) of it in my mind. I sculpt the
plant in my mind just as I would do physically with a piece of clay. I do
not try to memorise pictures of it, even when they are available, but
rather use them to sculpt the plant in my mind. I do this before I begin
my journey to the desert. I make sure that I can effortlessly in less than
a second create the "3D picture" by imagination and "view" it mentally
from any position. Then, while actually walking in the desert, I would
look at all plants. When finally, perhaps after many days and creating the
image hundred of times, I stumble upon the desired plant, it is almost
uncanny what happens. I do observe the plant just as any other plant, but
meanwhile my mind create the image of what I am looking for. As I become
aware how this image matches with what I am observing, I will get goose
flesh and then dance with joy. I have also discovered a dozen or so new
species. The awe of creating and comparing image after image with the
strange plant under observation cannot be described.
Do we have the capacity to observe a constructive emergence while it
happens, or do we have to wait until the ordinate bifurcation has been
completed before we venture any observation? Do we have the capacity to
observe the actual emergence of an OO into a LO, or do we have to wait
before we observe success or failure? What role does imagination play in
creating this capacity to observe the actual becoming of a new order? What
role does imagination plays in any form of art?
As for myself, if I cannot imagine initially what has to emerge, I seldom
can observe the emergence later happening. Thus I have to rely heavily on
my intuition what ought to emerge so as to imagine it first.
Leo, I do not try to offer a theory of learning with its emergent and
digestive asymptotes. I am merely trying to articulate how it is with me
so that other learners can compare their own learning with it. Whether
their learning will be the same or different to mine, is for them to
decide. Sometimes I wonder with amazement at the many theories of learning
offered since time immemorial. Not one of these theories succeeded in
telling exactly how I learn. Not one of these theories succeeded in
telling me as teacher how to guide the learning of others. Sometimes hese
theories did more harm than good. As for me, at most each theory made me
sensitive to how complex learning is by highlighting some facets of
learning.
Worst of all, I cannot use my own learning as a theory to guide the
learning of others since the details of entropy production which is vivid
for me are not readily understood by others. Thus I am deeply under the
impression that learning is still much of a mystery to me. It makes me
lame whenever another person argues according to a particular theory how
we learn or imagine because I do not want to defend any particular theory.
I will listen quietly to what that person claims, but almost with every
claim I know by experience of exceptions to it. Sometimes I want to
exclaim "learning is often the exception to the rule" or "learning is
often emergent itself"!
I am also deeply under the impression that imagination is still much of a
mystery to me. Sometimes I have the fleeting understanding that learning
and imagination are two sides of the same coin. Sometimes I have the
fleeting understanding that creativity in the mind is prerequisite to
understand any creativity outside the mind. However, one thing I do know
as result of many years of experience as a teacher -- the better the
imagination of a learner, the better that learner learns authentically
while avoiding rote learning.
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.