> When I’d practice sword fencing in martial arts, it felt quite natural to say that I hit my opponent or that he hit me, even though it’s really the swords that hit our respective bodies. But if he knocks my sword off to the side, it feels very weird to say he knocked me off to the side.
I think the grammar allows you to "hit your opponent" using a sword, still treating the sword as an object (or tool), not part of yourself. The reason you don't say "I hit my opponent with my sword" is simply that the sword part is inferred from context, not that it wouldn't suddenly exist as an object separate from "me". So justifying "tools are part of 'I'" from linguistics doesn't feel very natural.
The car example is much better. When driving, the car becomes part of the body. Physicality of the body isn't important: when playing a virtual rally game, the body is partly virtual. What's important is the tool aspect: do I control it directly and voluntarily, or do I need to act on it indirectly.
> What's important is the tool aspect: do I control it directly and voluntarily, or do I need to act on it indirectly.
Exactly.
> The reason you don't say "I hit my opponent with my sword" is simply that the sword part is inferred from context, not that it wouldn't suddenly exist as an object separate from "me".
I very much disagree. I'm guessing you're not very familiar with swordplay. With experience, swords absolutely do become an extension of you, just like any tool.
The equivalent in driving is to say that when an experienced driver says "Oh shoot, I almost hit someone", that they really mean "with my car" but that they don't say it simply because it's implied by context. I think that's false. I think very experienced drivers don't specify "with my car" because they're in fact not experiencing the car as separate from themselves.
That said, a NEW driver might ALSO say "Oh shoot, I almost hit someone" and they very much WOULD mean to imply "with my car". But I think that's because they still feel the car as an external thing they're trying to learn to control.
I'm guessing that's what you're running into when imagining the sword situation.
I have a junior national champion title in épée, from very long time ago ;) so maybe I'm partially reflecting back to that time, but mainly my point was to not give too much weight to particular linguistic expressions (syntax, almost) as opposed to more general phenomenology. I'm not completely disagreeing either: "Me-ness" or "toolness" is definitely a spectrum, and the book used to flip a switch and vehicle body while driving are in the opposite ends of it.
Especially things that are done using a single tool in hand; the tool is typically omitted (or included in the verb: shoot, weave, etc.) in verbal expressions but this doesn't need to mean the same as the feeling of being one with the tool. Saying something isn't the same as feeling it.
I'd compare the feeling of hitting the opponent with the sword to hitting an archery target with an arrow, or hitting the target when shooting a rifle. Probably in that order on the spectrum, but close by. I'm not the arrow, much less the bullet. While aiming I don't think of the arrow or the bullet as an object; it's all part of the act of shooting. But scoring a hit with the sword definitely isn't as controlled or automatic as typing on the keyboard or parking the car.
As for hitting someone "with the car", perhaps an experienced driver would say that, too, since the car hitting something already implies it went out of control, and hence detached from "my" voluntary control -___-
> When I’d practice sword fencing in martial arts, it felt quite natural to say that I hit my opponent or that he hit me, even though it’s really the swords that hit our respective bodies. But if he knocks my sword off to the side, it feels very weird to say he knocked me off to the side.
I think the grammar allows you to "hit your opponent" using a sword, still treating the sword as an object (or tool), not part of yourself. The reason you don't say "I hit my opponent with my sword" is simply that the sword part is inferred from context, not that it wouldn't suddenly exist as an object separate from "me". So justifying "tools are part of 'I'" from linguistics doesn't feel very natural.
The car example is much better. When driving, the car becomes part of the body. Physicality of the body isn't important: when playing a virtual rally game, the body is partly virtual. What's important is the tool aspect: do I control it directly and voluntarily, or do I need to act on it indirectly.
> What's important is the tool aspect: do I control it directly and voluntarily, or do I need to act on it indirectly.
Exactly.
> The reason you don't say "I hit my opponent with my sword" is simply that the sword part is inferred from context, not that it wouldn't suddenly exist as an object separate from "me".
I very much disagree. I'm guessing you're not very familiar with swordplay. With experience, swords absolutely do become an extension of you, just like any tool.
The equivalent in driving is to say that when an experienced driver says "Oh shoot, I almost hit someone", that they really mean "with my car" but that they don't say it simply because it's implied by context. I think that's false. I think very experienced drivers don't specify "with my car" because they're in fact not experiencing the car as separate from themselves.
That said, a NEW driver might ALSO say "Oh shoot, I almost hit someone" and they very much WOULD mean to imply "with my car". But I think that's because they still feel the car as an external thing they're trying to learn to control.
I'm guessing that's what you're running into when imagining the sword situation.
I have a junior national champion title in épée, from very long time ago ;) so maybe I'm partially reflecting back to that time, but mainly my point was to not give too much weight to particular linguistic expressions (syntax, almost) as opposed to more general phenomenology. I'm not completely disagreeing either: "Me-ness" or "toolness" is definitely a spectrum, and the book used to flip a switch and vehicle body while driving are in the opposite ends of it.
Especially things that are done using a single tool in hand; the tool is typically omitted (or included in the verb: shoot, weave, etc.) in verbal expressions but this doesn't need to mean the same as the feeling of being one with the tool. Saying something isn't the same as feeling it.
I'd compare the feeling of hitting the opponent with the sword to hitting an archery target with an arrow, or hitting the target when shooting a rifle. Probably in that order on the spectrum, but close by. I'm not the arrow, much less the bullet. While aiming I don't think of the arrow or the bullet as an object; it's all part of the act of shooting. But scoring a hit with the sword definitely isn't as controlled or automatic as typing on the keyboard or parking the car.
As for hitting someone "with the car", perhaps an experienced driver would say that, too, since the car hitting something already implies it went out of control, and hence detached from "my" voluntary control -___-