I was curious about the difference in direction between analog / digital photography and humans, which Paul, my friend, pointed out, and I thought about it for a moment.
I think there is a similar problem here between the sense of vision and the way of reason.
I focused on the verb model in the language.
There are active and passive voices of transitive verbs in Indo-European. When it comes to vision, it's "to see" and "to be seen."
In Indo-European languages, verbs determine the structure of the whole sentence. For verbs, the subject is defined (built-in) by conjugation changes, and the object is planned according to the corresponding sentence pattern.
That is, the verb "see" pre-plans the "seeing" subject and the "seen" object. This is, of course, the origin of dualism.
This is natural in Indo-European, but not in Japanese.
(This is something I'm curious about because my mother tongue is Japanese.)
Let me be specific:
The Japanese verb, which corresponds to look, watch, and see in English, is "miru", and its stem is "mi" (same root as the eye).
Correspond as follows.
Active voice : I see you : Watashi-ha Anata-wo Mi-ru
Passive voice : I'm seen by you: Watashi-ha Anata-ni Mi-rareru (-rareteiru)
See : Mi-ru 見る
Be seen : Mi-rareru 見られる
And there is another form of Japanese.
? : Mi-eru 見える
It seems very difficult and almost impossible to translate this into English, but the following case seems to be close.
In view, to be visible
Or, for example, a room with an ocean view.
Here, view is a noun or an adjective usage of a noun, which is expressed as a verb (intransitive verb) in Japanese.
Or, it can be said that the classification of verb-adverb-adjective-noun in Indo-European language does not exactly apply to Japanese.
What I pay attention to is that this state (mi-eru) corresponding to "in view, to be visible" in English is a state in which the subject-object are undivided, which corresponds to the phenomenon in phenomenology.
Adjectives are a function that indicates the attributes of what is expressed by nouns. But in Japanese, when it actually works in a sentence, it is not clear whether the attribute is an internal attribute of the object itself or a subjective one that is perceived by the subject. In Indo-European languages, there is still a tendency to emphasize the objectivity of target attributes regardless of the subject, but in Japanese it is an intermediate, mutual relationship.
We carry out our thoughts by language and, in that sense, unknowingly conform to the logos model, but when we refer to different types of languages (in this case Japanese), we could consciously reproduce the hidden model?
It is about capturing vision in contrasting active and passive directions, and in an interrelated state before that direction occurs analytically.
Subscribe by Email
Follow Updates Articles from This Blog via Email
No Comments