Word of the day- History
History
This one has interested me since I realized that in Italian, German, Greek, French, and Spanish the words for "History" and "Story" are the same (7th grade?). Until fairly recently (thank you postmodernism) in English it seems as if we have taken "History" as "fact" and "story" as fiction. I don't know about the languages outside of Europe, but Dutch does distinguish, and so does Portugese.
What strikes me is that in the recounting of any event, there is always selection, and that is what makes any history a anyone could write a story. There is always omission, underscoring, and the perspective and limited information of the viewer and what they decide is the most important (or prudent) to tell. Otherwise account of a battle would include the landing of a single fly, the thoughts and actions of every solider, etc. You cannot tell the whole story even if you tried. Not only that, but even a direct observer will not be able to see everything, or see the meaning or background behind everything they do see.
For the most part, the dictionaries define history as something like "a continous record of past events"
One at least gave the first definition as "a narrative of events, a story"
In the postmodern world we are at least begining to acknowledge that "fact" is a slippery concept, and that even the most reliable "facts" are still subjective in their way.
Also, I would respond to fallen_scholar that yes, I do believe there is a very strong relationship between linguistics and social paradigms. Words define and describe reality, and we create them. The way words are used and change their meaning over time and across cultures leaves traces of the turns of social perceptions of reality, realtionships and society.
This one has interested me since I realized that in Italian, German, Greek, French, and Spanish the words for "History" and "Story" are the same (7th grade?). Until fairly recently (thank you postmodernism) in English it seems as if we have taken "History" as "fact" and "story" as fiction. I don't know about the languages outside of Europe, but Dutch does distinguish, and so does Portugese.
What strikes me is that in the recounting of any event, there is always selection, and that is what makes any history a anyone could write a story. There is always omission, underscoring, and the perspective and limited information of the viewer and what they decide is the most important (or prudent) to tell. Otherwise account of a battle would include the landing of a single fly, the thoughts and actions of every solider, etc. You cannot tell the whole story even if you tried. Not only that, but even a direct observer will not be able to see everything, or see the meaning or background behind everything they do see.
For the most part, the dictionaries define history as something like "a continous record of past events"
One at least gave the first definition as "a narrative of events, a story"
In the postmodern world we are at least begining to acknowledge that "fact" is a slippery concept, and that even the most reliable "facts" are still subjective in their way.
Also, I would respond to fallen_scholar that yes, I do believe there is a very strong relationship between linguistics and social paradigms. Words define and describe reality, and we create them. The way words are used and change their meaning over time and across cultures leaves traces of the turns of social perceptions of reality, realtionships and society.