Noted without much comment

1. Davidson consistently misuses the semicolon.
2. His essays, like aesthetic ideas, occasion much thinking in me, without any concepts ever being attained—that is, I find the experience of reading them extremely frustrating. (Perhaps I will illustrate this at some point in the near future!)

Comments

[Jeff Rubard]

Ben, Davidson was a very good writer: perhaps not quite as stylish as Quine, but certainly capable of sufficient stylistic and verbal variation. Furthermore, I don't think the general direction of grammatical change can be from "incorrect" to "correct": new criteria are permitted, but remain new.

Robert Brandom, on the other hand, thinks things are "majesterial"; but if that's what correct English is today, I guess the the longer th' wurruld lasts th' more books does be comin' out.

[Jeff Rubard]

By the way, the picturesque language is from Dooley; I guess that might not be evident to everybody.

[ben wolfson]

The writing in "What Metaphors Mean" is excellent, and I ♥ that essay, but that doesn't change the fact that he misuses semicolons.

[Jeff Rubard]

I take it what you are objecting to is the multiple-semicolon sentences. I used to use double-colon constructions quite a bit, with the understanding it was "wrong" but pragmatically effective; I decided it wasn't worth it, but maybe he didn't.

[ben wolfson]

No, I object to sentences like this: "Neither speaker nor hearer knows in a special or mysterious way what the speaker's words mean; and both can be wrong.". Either the semicolon should be a comma or " and" or "and " should be deleted.

[Jeff Rubard]

The modern use of a semicolon is to indicate a pause: the idea that it must be a replacement for "and" was a pedagogical systematization of inconsistent literary practice, which has been revised. It struck me as inelegant; but again, maybe he had some special reason for doing so, eh?

[ben wolfson]

Very charitable of you.

[Jeff Rubard]

Well, that was the idea; charitable of you to notice.