At 03:12 PM 2/8/2007, Diana Manister wrote:
>Carroll, since you are being legalistic about it, I should say the affect
>is elicited by language designed to do so. I do not believe that words
>have their own feelings. Diana
Carrol sort of has a point, as not only affect but anything at all
relating to language must be located in the hearer (more than the reader)
or the speaker (or writer). On the other hand, surely we can all agree that
there is affected language. It's affected because it is spoke or writ that
way. In that sense, a physics formula is without affect. That isn't to say
that Lawrence Stearne or James Joyce would not delight in nesting e=mc
twoed is such a way as to give it affect -- but it would get affect in
part by playing off of it affectlessness, yes?
BTW, tho Carrol doesn't object, the proper spelling of his name is with
(he said, affecting not to elicit affect).