![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jun. 10th, 2008
linguistic turnip
Jun. 10th, 2008 10:50 amwe are trying to solve a very important issue this morning. I just greeted fresh-from-the-shower ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
theophile as "Hey, Jesus" on account of his face-framing locks and facial hair, and he said that he had always though that to be the sort of man that Jesus was described as being, Jesus would have had to be short.
"Are you saying Jesus had a Napoleon complex?" I asked.
"No, I think he had a Christ complex" he replied.
Can Jesus have a Christ complex? Can someone be diagnosed with something that has been named after them (or their circumstance?) It's not quite anacrhronistic...it's something else, right? When I askedtheophile, he said "would you call Oedipus Oedipal?" I said that I would not think it was proper usage; he thought it was appropriate.
So is there a language rule for this? Is there a term for this? Can you say that Bonaparte has the Napoleon complex? It seems like there is a problem with the linguistic turn (or semiotic break,msmsgirl!), where the distance between the signifier and the signified collapses when you attempt that sort of usage, no?
theophile as "Hey, Jesus" on account of his face-framing locks and facial hair, and he said that he had always though that to be the sort of man that Jesus was described as being, Jesus would have had to be short."Are you saying Jesus had a Napoleon complex?" I asked.
"No, I think he had a Christ complex" he replied.
Can Jesus have a Christ complex? Can someone be diagnosed with something that has been named after them (or their circumstance?) It's not quite anacrhronistic...it's something else, right? When I asked
theophile, he said "would you call Oedipus Oedipal?" I said that I would not think it was proper usage; he thought it was appropriate. So is there a language rule for this? Is there a term for this? Can you say that Bonaparte has the Napoleon complex? It seems like there is a problem with the linguistic turn (or semiotic break,
msmsgirl!), where the distance between the signifier and the signified collapses when you attempt that sort of usage, no?
