writing style of Gulliver's Travel
Xah Lee
Their notions relating to the duties of parents and children differ
extremely from ours. For, since the conjunction of male and female is
founded upon the great law of nature, in order to propagate and
continue the species, the Lilliputians will needs have it, that men and
women are joined together, like other animals, by the motives of
concupiscence; and that their tenderness towards their young proceeds
from the like natural principle: for which reason they will never allow
that a child is under any obligation to his father for begetting him,
or to his mother for bringing him into the world; which, considering
the miseries of human life, was neither a benefit in itself, nor
intended so by his parents, whose thoughts, in their love encounters,
were otherwise employed. Upon these, and the like reasonings, their
opinion is, that parents are the last of all others to be trusted with
the education of their own children; and therefore they have in every
town public nurseries, where all parents, except cottagers and
labourers, are obliged to send their infants of both sexes to be reared
and educated, when they come to the age of twenty moons, at which time
they are supposed to have some rudiments of docility. These schools are
of several kinds, suited to different qualities, and both sexes. They
have certain professors well skilled in preparing children for such a
condition of life as befits the rank of their parents, and their own
capacities, as well as inclinations. I shall first say something of the
male nurseries, and then of the female.
full text:
http://xahlee.org/p/Gullivers_Travels/gt1ch06.html
--------------
the writing style is quite particular. For instance, there's profuse
break of sentences. e.g.
“Upon these, and the like reasonings, their opinion is, that parents
are the last of all others to be trusted with the education of their
own children;...”
This logic style of breaking of sentences is consistent throughout, at
least the first 6 or so chapters i've read.
Also note: “for which reason they will never allow that a child _is_
under any obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother
for bringing him into the world;”
whence did the “is” came from? was it a online transcript typo?
another example of peculiarity:
“... the Lilliputians will needs have it, ...”
Finally, my question is, how odd is the styled used in Gulliver's
Travel? I'm sure any oddity so perceived by modern readers is
compounded by tide of English. But does this writing style outstanding
at all at the time it was published?
Troy Steadman
"whence????"
Xah Lee you are ruining your English! Many languages look backwards to
a "pure" form that once existed, English doesn't, it is moving rapidly
forward and leaving "whence" and Gullivers Travel and its quirks and
mannerisms and even its vocabulary far behind.
As to the "is" I can't see any problem with it: "they will never allow"
is an obsolete way of saying "they will never accept".
Alan Jones
"Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote in message
news:1123575717.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>From Gulliver's Travel:
Their notions relating to the duties of parents and children differ
extremely from ours. For, since the conjunction of male and female is
founded upon the great law of nature, in order to propagate and
continue the species, the Lilliputians will needs have it, that men and
women are joined together, like other animals, by the motives of
concupiscence; and that their tenderness towards their young proceeds
from the like natural principle: for which reason they will never allow
that a child is under any obligation to his father for begetting him,
or to his mother for bringing him into the world; which, considering
the miseries of human life, was neither a benefit in itself, nor
intended so by his parents, whose thoughts, in their love encounters,
were otherwise employed. [...]
--------------
the writing style is quite particular. For instance, there's profuse
break of sentences. e.g.
"Upon these, and the like reasonings, their opinion is, that parents
are the last of all others to be trusted with the education of their
own children;..."
This logic style of breaking of sentences is consistent throughout, at
least the first 6 or so chapters i've read.
Also note: "for which reason they will never allow that a child _is_
under any obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother
for bringing him into the world;"
whence did the "is" came from? was it a online transcript typo?
another example of peculiarity:
"... the Lilliputians will needs have it, ..."
Finally, my question is, how odd is the styled used in Gulliver's
Travel? I'm sure any oddity so perceived by modern readers is
compounded by tide of English. But does this writing style outstanding
at all at the time it was published?
In his own time Swift 's style was recognised as exceptionally correct and
clear, perhaps even too simple and straightforward, and indeed he prided
himself that it was so -- quite the opposite of being "odd". That was almost
300 years ago.
You need to remember that this passage, and inked the whole of "Gulliver's
Travels", is supposed to be written by Lemuel Gulliver himself, not by
Swift. The length of the sentence quoted above is not meant as a model. Even
so, the ideas flow quite naturally and I don't think any of it seems odd to
an English or American reader who is used to reading older literature.
On your specific points:
The many commas are correctly used, but a modern writer would use fewer.
It's a matter of taste.
I don't know why you find the "is" strange. It would still be needed in a
modernised version: "They will never accept that a child is under any
obligation to his father".
Alan Jones
Jim Lawton
snip
>Also note: “for which reason they will never allow that a child _is_
>under any obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother
>for bringing him into the world;”
>whence did the “is” came from? was it a online transcript typo?
Compare :-
The child is under an obligation.
They don't agree that the child is under an obligation.
Is it right for a child to be under an obligation to his parents?
--
Jim
"a single species has come to dominate ...
reproducing at bacterial levels, almost as an
infectious plague envelops its host"
http://tinyurl.com/c88xs
J. W. Love
> >From Gulliver's Travel:
Are you referring to the book popularly called "Gulliver's Travels"?
(The pluralizing S is not unimportant in English.) The title that Swift
gave to it is _Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World._
> the writing style is quite particular.
No, it isn't. Swift's writing is a standard to which all other writing
may be compared.
> For instance, there's profuse break of sentences. e.g. "Upon
> these, and the like reasonings, their opinion is, that parents
> are the last of all others to be trusted with the education of
> their own children;..."
If by "break of sentences" you mean the use of a comma: yes, writers
would usually omit the third comma nowadays, possibly because the
rhythm of the language has changed. Swift's commas transcribe a
hesitation in the flow of words, and commas remain available to do so.
> This logic style of breaking of sentences is consistent throughout,
Yes, Swift is consistent, but his deployment of commas has little to do
with "logic": commas (and all punctuation marks) are devices by which
we record the rhythms & intonations we want readers to hear.
> Also note: "for which reason they will never allow that a child _is_
> under any obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother
> for bringing him into the world;"
> whence did the "is" came from? was it a online transcript typo?
I don't know about the accuracy of the transcript, but standard English
requires _is_ there. Are you suggesting that the correct word is _be_?
or what?
> another example of peculiarity:
> "... the Lilliputians will needs have it, ..."
It isn't peculiar: it's a commonly understood English idiom.
> Finally, my question is, how odd is the styled used in Gulliver's
> Travel[s]?
It isn't odd at all.
> I'm sure any oddity so perceived by modern readers is compounded by
> tide of English. But does this writing style outstanding at all at
> the time it was published?
"But was this writing style outstanding at all at the time it was
published?"
It was, and remains, outstanding. It's the model, the pattern, the
paragon, of good English prose: "Is there an abstract entity, an
absolute or 'pure' prose style, to which all styles approximate, or
against which all styles are judged? . . . We can ask ourselves, if
only for amusement, which among our prose writers come nearest to this
indefinite ideal. Take this test only: of how many writers, in the
search for an appropriate and representative passage, could we trust to
the offering of any page we opened at? Obviously, only of the
consistently good and the consistently bad. But which writer can we
claim to be consistently himself and consistently good? I have had some
experience in the 'dipping audit' which I have applied to English prose
writers during the preparation of this work, and only about three or
four names occur to me as possible. There is Berkeley, there is Swift,
there is Sterne, there is Southey, and, if modern examples must be
quoted, there is W. H. Hudson and Bernard Shaw. . . . Swift is the only
one of these prose writers in whom we may confidently expect no organic
and inevitable lapses. The prose style of Swift is unique, an
irrefrangible instrument of clear, animated, animating[,] and effective
thought. English prose has perhaps attained here and there a nobler
profundity, and here and there a subtler complexity; but never has it
maintained such a constant level of inspired expression" (Herbert Read,
_English Prose Style,_ xii-xiii).
Read adds: "Swift's greatness consists in this fact, more than in
anything else, that however widely his vision might extend, however
deep his insight, his mode of expression remained simple, and single,
and clearly comprehensible" (p. 107).
Steve Hayes
>the writing style is quite particular. For instance, there's profuse
>break of sentences. e.g.
>“Upon these, and the like reasonings, their opinion is, that parents
>are the last of all others to be trusted with the education of their
>own children;...”
>This logic style of breaking of sentences is consistent throughout, at
>least the first 6 or so chapters i've read.
>
>Also note: “for which reason they will never allow that a child _is_
>under any obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother
>for bringing him into the world;”
>whence did the “is” came from? was it a online transcript typo?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Without the "is" the sentence would
make no sense.
I am under an obligation
Thou aret under an obligation
he, she or it _is_ under an oblication.
"I an obligation" would make no sense at all.
>another example of peculiarity:
>“... the Lilliputians will needs have it, ...”
Not peculiar to Swift. It's an idiom used by other authors as well. It sounds
a bit formal nowadays, but probably wasn't in Swift's day.
>Finally, my question is, how odd is the styled used in Gulliver's
>Travel? I'm sure any oddity so perceived by modern readers is
>compounded by tide of English. But does this writing style outstanding
>at all at the time it was published?
See above. Swift's style is characterised by heavy irony, as in the passage
you quoted.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
A.J.Barlow
out except for the excellence of his execution. The modern ear has become
acclimated to movies and television, so the more formal delivery may, at
times, seem . . . halting. In the passage you cite, only the last comma
("...their opinion is, that parents...") would be considered out of place in
modern formal prose. For popular prose, however, an editor might strike some
punctuation that, although technically correct, might make the work less
acceptable to the intended audience.
Andy
http://www.PleasantMountPress.com
"Upon these, and the like reasonings, their opinion is, that parents
are the last of all others to be trusted with the education of their
own children;..."
"Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote in message
news:1123575717.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>From Gulliver's Travel:
full text:
http://xahlee.org/p/Gullivers_Travels/gt1ch06.html
--------------
Xah
x...@xahlee.org
? http://xahlee.org/
Don Phillipson
news:1123575717.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> my question is, how odd is the styled used in Gulliver's
> Travel? I'm sure any oddity so perceived by modern readers is
> compounded by tide of English. But does this writing style outstanding
> at all at the time it was published?
Swift (1667-1745) was in his lifetime esteemed as
one of the master stylists (and for centuries afterwards,
cf. Herbert Read, English Prose Style, 1957.) His prose
style was more colloquial than that of later 18th century
"Augustan" writers e.g. Johnson. You find differences
of this type between other pairs of writers in other
centuries, e.g. George Orwell and Herbert Read himself.
This is normal in the history of English literature:
authors admire various (differing) models but no first-
rank author slavishly imitates any other. Swift is
generally recognized as a first-rank author.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>Finally, my question is, how odd is the styled used in Gulliver's
>Travel? I'm sure any oddity so perceived by modern readers is
>compounded by tide of English. But does this writing style outstanding
>at all at the time it was published?
Both the language and the style are of the eighteenth century,
which is when it was written. The language has changed slightly
and the style more rapidly. It must look even further afield
to you because English is not your native language.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Don Phillipson
news:11fha2h...@corp.supernews.com...
> Compared to other writers of that era, I do not believe Swift would stand
> out except for the excellence of his execution.
This seems exceptionally banal. Except when chained to the
academic mill, we read authors dead for 250 years for their
"excellence" and for nothing else.
> The modern ear has become
> acclimated to movies and television, so the more formal delivery may, at
> times, seem . . . halting. In the passage you cite, only the last comma
> ("...their opinion is, that parents...") would be considered out of place
in
> modern formal prose.
1. Many writers used before 1950 many more commas than we
find today. But this seldom delays experienced readers.
2. The classical tradition was that it was worth becoming
experienced, and the best way to do this was to read widely,
first from the list of "classical" authors (which includes Swift),
and then intensively the works of authors the reader spontaneously
enjoys. No earlier generation supposed it was right for the
reader's eye to be adapted solely to the sort of prose being
written today, and therefore impeded by other styles.
> For popular prose, however, an editor might strike some
> punctuation that, although technically correct, might make the work less
> acceptable to the intended audience.
This begs the question. Swift was writing "popular prose"
in 1720 (and the reader who assumes otherwise is starting
on the wrong foot.)
Nobody supposes that any reader can take up any book
(say Chaucer or Thomas Browne or Johnson) and get out
of it at first sight no less than he gets from John Ludlum.
But that was why we went to school, to train the eye and
brain in familiarity with a variety of historic styles, so we
could later read Jefferson or Burke as intelligently as
their contemporaries did, and perhaps with the same pleasure.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<troyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>"whence????"
>
>Xah Lee you are ruining your English! Many languages look backwards to
>a "pure" form that once existed, English doesn't, it is moving rapidly
>forward and leaving "whence" and Gullivers Travel and its quirks and
>mannerisms and even its vocabulary far behind.
I, for one, regret the loss of those useful words "whence" and
"whither." They provided clarity and concision.
--
Read the new Ethshar novel online! http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html
Gene Ward Smith
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> I, for one, regret the loss of those useful words "whence" and
> "whither." They provided clarity and concision.
What would your editor do if you used them?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
I _have_ used them, when appropriate. The editor hasn't changed them,
so far as I've ever noticed. (I admit it's not something I've kept a
particularly careful watch on.)
Wayne Throop
: I, for one, regret the loss of those useful words "whence" and
: "whither." They provided clarity and concision.
Wait a minute... "I for one" is supposed to be followed by something
about overlords or masters or something! And I for one welcome our new
vocabulary overlords.
"Where did they go?"
"From whence they came, lad. From whence they came."
"Can't you ever just say `I don't know'?"
--- Ray Ray and Monroe, in The Life and Times of Juniper Lee,
"With a Little Help from My Elf" episode
( and I can't seem to verify that Kath Souce did
Ashley's voice in "Take my Life, Please", but she
sounds suspiciously like Ray Ray, in terms of cadence
and ... vowel shaping. Or something. But I digress. )
( FWIW, I really like Juniper's threats to her opponents. Eg, for
a giant worm/snake like creature, "Yo! Inchworm! You're about
five seconds away from being fish food!". )
"You want to be me? You want to be the Te Xuan Ze?
Fine. Abbra Cadabra, you're the Te Xuan Ze.
Knock yourself out."
"Wait... can you do that?"
"Don't know don't care best of luck to ya."
--- Juniper hands her job over to Ashley
( Which illustrates another thing I like about Juniper; she's irritable.
In a creative sort of way. But I digress again. )
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Mike Schilling
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:8gphf1p73eokfo8c4...@news.rcn.com...
> On 9 Aug 2005 01:33:43 -0700, "Troy Steadman"
> <troyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"whence????"
>>
>>Xah Lee you are ruining your English! Many languages look backwards to
>>a "pure" form that once existed, English doesn't, it is moving rapidly
>>forward and leaving "whence" and Gullivers Travel and its quirks and
>>mannerisms and even its vocabulary far behind.
>
> I, for one, regret the loss of those useful words "whence" and
> "whither." They provided clarity and concision.
They make it harder to learn German, though, since "woher" and "wohin" mean
the opposite of what you'd expect.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
>news:8gphf1p73eokfo8c4...@news.rcn.com...
>> On 9 Aug 2005 01:33:43 -0700, "Troy Steadman"
>> <troyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>"whence????"
>>>
>>>Xah Lee you are ruining your English! Many languages look backwards to
>>>a "pure" form that once existed, English doesn't, it is moving rapidly
>>>forward and leaving "whence" and Gullivers Travel and its quirks and
>>>mannerisms and even its vocabulary far behind.
>>
>> I, for one, regret the loss of those useful words "whence" and
>> "whither." They provided clarity and concision.
Along with hither/hence, thither/thence.
I can still remember my high school American History teacher, who
gave us dittoed outlines with amusing comments every week, and
one week being down with flu just sent in the outline and told us
what to read while the substitute sat in to maintain the peace.
At the end of the week he sent in another: "Feeling a little
better, about to get hence and back to the classroom."
>They make it harder to learn German, though, since "woher" and "wohin" mean
>the opposite of what you'd expect.
Not the opposite. Though "-ither" and "her-" look as if they
might possibly be cognates. It's a different way of cutting up
the universe.
English "-ither," "-ence" refer to motion to or from
(respectively) a place. German "her-," "hin-" refer to motion to
or from (respectively) the speaker. Thus "hither/hence" map to
"herein/hinaus", for example, only when the speaker is "here/hier."
(Which of course he frequently is.)
Dr. Dave
> On 9 Aug 2005 01:33:43 -0700, "Troy Steadman"
> <troyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"whence????"
> >
> >Xah Lee you are ruining your English! Many languages look backwards to
> >a "pure" form that once existed, English doesn't, it is moving rapidly
> >forward and leaving "whence" and Gullivers Travel and its quirks and
> >mannerisms and even its vocabulary far behind.
>
> I, for one, regret the loss of those useful words "whence" and
> "whither." They provided clarity and concision.
I agree.
Unfortunately, most people who try to use them these days (including
the OP) incorrectly try to use 'from' and 'whence' at the same time,
which is redundant and incorrect.
The set of directional motion prepositions (hither, thither, whither,
hence, thence, whence) were a nice feature of English as she were
spoke. 'Yon', too, for that matter.
David Tate
Dr. Dave
>
> "Where did they go?"
> "From whence they came, lad. From whence they came."
> "Can't you ever just say `I don't know'?"
>
> --- Ray Ray and Monroe, in The Life and Times of Juniper Lee,
> "With a Little Help from My Elf" episode
Bzzzt. Usage foul. (Or is it actually grammar this time?)
Should have been either "Whence they came", or "From where they came"
(or more likely "Wherever they came from"). Whence = "from where".
"From whence" is just as wrong as "Toward hence".
David Tate
Wayne Throop
: Bzzzt. Usage foul. (Or is it actually grammar this time?)
: Should have been either "Whence they came", or "From where they came"
: (or more likely "Wherever they came from"). Whence = "from where".
: "From whence" is just as wrong as "Toward hence".
FWIW, out of 2 million google hits for "whence",
a half-million are for "from whence".
See also http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fro2.htm
Gene Ward Smith
Dr. Dave wrote:
> Should have been either "Whence they came", or "From where they came"
> (or more likely "Wherever they came from"). Whence = "from where".
> "From whence" is just as wrong as "Toward hence".
Bosh. It's straight out of the King James: "I will lift up mine eyes
unto the hills, from whence cometh my help" plus other less famous
examples in the King James and elsewhere.
Dorothy J Heydt
we have to live with it.
I'm reminded of a Spanish professor I had once who would talk
about similar quarrels among Spanish grammarians, called the
"loistas" and the "leistas". The first lot would say "'Lo' is the
direct pronoun, 'le' is the indirect pronoun, and should not be
used as a direct pronoun." The second lot would say "Who makes
the language? the people. The people say 'le'; 'le' is correct."
I can remember him rattling that off at least once a week.
Dr. Dave
I will concede the long history and ubiquity, without conceding the
authority. Even the editors of the Authorized Version made some
regrettable choices.
Both forms are used, and one of them is redundant. If you don't mind
steak with au jus gravy, feel free to use the redundant one.
David Tate, who "could care less".
Gene Ward Smith
Dr. Dave wrote:
> I will concede the long history and ubiquity, without conceding the
> authority. Even the editors of the Authorized Version made some
> regrettable choices.
If even the Authorized Version isn't authorzied, what would be? Where
if anywhere do we find the touchstone of correctness--Johnson's
Dictionary?
> Both forms are used, and one of them is redundant. If you don't mind
> steak with au jus gravy, feel free to use the redundant one.
I don't think only the hoi polloi say "from whence" or eat au jus
gravy.
> David Tate, who "could care less".
Me too.
how...@brazee.net
On 9-Aug-2005, "Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:
> the writing style is quite particular. For instance, there's profuse
> break of sentences. e.g.
Peculiar patterns are not at all uncommon in satire.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Xah Lee wrote:
>> whence did the “is” came from? was it a online transcript typo?
>
>"whence????"
>
>Xah Lee you are ruining your English! Many languages look backwards to
>a "pure" form that once existed, English doesn't, it is moving rapidly
>forward and leaving "whence" and Gullivers Travel and its quirks and
>mannerisms and even its vocabulary far behind.
?The problem is not the "whence", but the use of "whence" with "come from",
which is redundant, because "whence" means "where from".
So it should have read "Where did it come from?"
"Whence" has its uses, but not in that sentence.
Robert Bannister
We've done this before at AUE. It is likely that "whence" is the correct
case ending after "from" in older English. Whether this is true or not,
is irrelevant because "from whence", despite its apparent tautology, is
the standard English phrase and has been used by a large number of
respected writers.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Lieblich
>
> On 9 Aug 2005 01:33:43 -0700, "Troy Steadman" <troyst...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Xah Lee wrote:
>
> >> whence did the “is” came from? was it a online transcript typo?
> >
> >"whence????"
> >
> >Xah Lee you are ruining your English! Many languages look backwards to
> >a "pure" form that once existed, English doesn't, it is moving rapidly
> >forward and leaving "whence" and Gullivers Travel and its quirks and
> >mannerisms and even its vocabulary far behind.
>
> ?The problem is not the "whence", but the use of "whence" with "come from",
> which is redundant, because "whence" means "where from".
>
> So it should have read "Where did it come from?"
>
> "Whence" has its uses, but not in that sentence.
How about "Whence came it?"
--
Bob Lieblich
Hence at once
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> Dr. Dave wrote:
>
>>Both forms are used, and one of them is redundant. If you don't mind
>>steak with au jus gravy, feel free to use the redundant one.
>
> I don't think only the hoi polloi say "from whence" or eat au jus
> gravy.
>
Careful, careful, or he'll be after you for the redundancy of "the
hoi poloi".
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Batman: What's yellow and writes?
Robin: A ballpoint banana.
Batman: Exactly!
-Batman the Movie
Dr. Dave
Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Dr. Dave wrote:
>
> > I will concede the long history and ubiquity, without conceding the
> > authority. Even the editors of the Authorized Version made some
> > regrettable choices.
>
> If even the Authorized Version isn't authorzied, what would be?
It's Authorized, but not Infallible, being after all a Protestant
creation.
> Where
> if anywhere do we find the touchstone of correctness--Johnson's
> Dictionary?
As it happens, Johnson railed against "from whence", calling it
'vicious'. Not that I think Johnson's opinions (though massively
entertaining) should count very much, either.
> > Both forms are used, and one of them is redundant. If you don't mind
> > steak with au jus gravy, feel free to use the redundant one.
>
> I don't think only the hoi polloi say "from whence" or eat au jus
> gravy.
Oh, I think eating steak with au jus gravy pretty is pretty clearly
indicative of polloiness. (Or is that chicken fried steak?)
> > David Tate, who "could care less".
>
> Me too.
How nicely ambiguous. Well done!
David Tate
Dr. Dave
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Gene Ward Smith
> declared:
> > Dr. Dave wrote:
> >
> >>Both forms are used, and one of them is redundant. If you don't mind
> >>steak with au jus gravy, feel free to use the redundant one.
> >
> > I don't think only the hoi polloi say "from whence" or eat au jus
> > gravy.
>
> Careful, careful, or he'll be after you for the redundancy of "the
> hoi poloi".
Give Gene the credit he's due; it was a deliberate poke.
David Tate
Gene Ward Smith
Dr. Dave wrote:
> Give Gene the credit he's due; it was a deliberate poke.
My poker face gives me away again.
Steve Hayes
>: "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
>: Bzzzt. Usage foul. (Or is it actually grammar this time?)
>: Should have been either "Whence they came", or "From where they came"
>: (or more likely "Wherever they came from"). Whence = "from where".
>: "From whence" is just as wrong as "Toward hence".
>
>FWIW, out of 2 million google hits for "whence",
>a half-million are for "from whence".
It's not quite as simple as that. There are instances where "from whence" is
OK, but not in the one used by the OP.
I don't know whether you can Google to find the incidence of misuse of words
ending in -eth as well, but it might be interesting to see.
x...@xahlee.org
“for which reason they will never allow that a child is under any
obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother for
bringing him into the world;”
oh, this writing is styled in such a way of nigh imparsibility.
the “allow that” should be “allow the notion that”. But the
whole thing is written in a confounded way.
Better: for this reason, they will not accept the notion that a child
is under any obligation to his parents for begetting him.
more better with logicality: Because of this reason, they will not
accept the following notion: children are begotten by parents,
therefore they should oblige their parents.
i like Swift's writing style fine, but i find it quite undeserved of
the praises as have excerpted in this thread. Believe me, to write
clearly, the first thing is to think clearly. This is far more
important than anything else. Secondarily, get rid of big words and use
short sentences. I don't know his era of writings, but i can see that
his writings can in fact be improved in the aspect of readability. The
above is one example. I can only believe that Swift did not intent his
writings to be of a style optimized for clarity. Perhaps later wanna-be
writers and critics proclaimed such color for their own good.
Xah
x...@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
J. W. Love wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>
> > >From Gulliver's Travel:
>
> Are you referring to the book popularly called "Gulliver's Travels"?
> (The pluralizing S is not unimportant in English.) The title that Swift
> gave to it is _Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World._
>
> > the writing style is quite particular.
>
> No, it isn't. Swift's writing is a standard to which all other writing
> may be compared.
>
> > For instance, there's profuse break of sentences. e.g. "Upon
> > these, and the like reasonings, their opinion is, that parents
> > are the last of all others to be trusted with the education of
> > their own children;..."
>
> If by "break of sentences" you mean the use of a comma: yes, writers
> would usually omit the third comma nowadays, possibly because the
> rhythm of the language has changed. Swift's commas transcribe a
> hesitation in the flow of words, and commas remain available to do so.
>
> > This logic style of breaking of sentences is consistent throughout,
>
> Yes, Swift is consistent, but his deployment of commas has little to do
> with "logic": commas (and all punctuation marks) are devices by which
> we record the rhythms & intonations we want readers to hear.
>
> > Also note: "for which reason they will never allow that a child _is_
> > under any obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother
> > for bringing him into the world;"
> > whence did the "is" came from? was it a online transcript typo?
>
> I don't know about the accuracy of the transcript, but standard English
> requires _is_ there. Are you suggesting that the correct word is _be_?
> or what?
>
> > another example of peculiarity:
> > "... the Lilliputians will needs have it, ..."
>
> It isn't peculiar: it's a commonly understood English idiom.
>
> > Finally, my question is, how odd is the styled used in Gulliver's
> > Travel[s]?
>
> It isn't odd at all.
>
> > I'm sure any oddity so perceived by modern readers is compounded by
> > tide of English. But does this writing style outstanding at all at
> > the time it was published?
>
> "But was this writing style outstanding at all at the time it was
> published?"
>
> It was, and remains, outstanding. It's the model, the pattern, the
> paragon, of good English prose: "Is there an abstract entity, an
> absolute or 'pure' prose style, to which all styles approximate, or
> against which all styles are judged? . . . We can ask ourselves, if
> only for amusement, which among our prose writers come nearest to this
> indefinite ideal. Take this test only: of how many writers, in the
> search for an appropriate and representative passage, could we trust to
> the offering of any page we opened at? Obviously, only of the
> consistently good and the consistently bad. But which writer can we
> claim to be consistently himself and consistently good? I have had some
> experience in the 'dipping audit' which I have applied to English prose
> writers during the preparation of this work, and only about three or
> four names occur to me as possible. There is Berkeley, there is Swift,
> there is Sterne, there is Southey, and, if modern examples must be
> quoted, there is W. H. Hudson and Bernard Shaw. . . . Swift is the only
> one of these prose writers in whom we may confidently expect no organic
> and inevitable lapses. The prose style of Swift is unique, an
> irrefrangible instrument of clear, animated, animating[,] and effective
> thought. English prose has perhaps attained here and there a nobler
> profundity, and here and there a subtler complexity; but never has it
> maintained such a constant level of inspired expression" (Herbert Read,
> _English Prose Style,_ xii-xiii).
>
> Read adds: "Swift's greatness consists in this fact, more than in
> anything else, that however widely his vision might extend, however
> deep his insight, his mode of expression remained simple, and single,
> and clearly comprehensible" (p. 107).
Xah Lee
And here it may, perhaps, divert the curious reader, to give some
account of my domestics, and my manner of living in this country,
during a residence of nine months, and thirteen days. Having a head
mechanically turned, and being likewise forced by necessity, I had made
for myself a table and chair convenient enough, out of the largest
trees in the royal park. Two hundred sempstresses were employed to make
me shirts, and linen for my bed and table, all of the strongest and
coarsest kind they could get; which, however, they were forced to quilt
together in several folds, for the thickest was some degrees finer than
lawn. Their linen is usually three inches wide, and three feet make a
piece. The sempstresses took my measure as I lay on the ground, one
standing at my neck, and another at my mid-leg, with a strong cord
extended, that each held by the end, while a third measured the length
of the cord with a rule of an inch long. Then they measured my right
thumb, and desired no more; for by a mathematical computation, that
twice round the thumb is once round the wrist, and so on to the neck
and the waist, and by the help of my old shirt, which I displayed on
the ground before them for a pattern, they fitted me exactly. Three
hundred tailors were employed in the same manner to make me clothes;
but they had another contrivance for taking my measure. I kneeled down,
and they raised a ladder from the ground to my neck; upon this ladder
one of them mounted, and let fall a plumb-line from my collar to the
floor, which just answered the length of my coat: but my waist and arms
I measured myself. When my clothes were finished, which was done in my
house (for the largest of theirs would not have been able to hold
them), they looked like the patch-work made by the ladies in England,
only that mine were all of a colour.
---
what a tiresome, fat, piece of satire, with its drudging irrelevant
meticulousness. Who cares for these fictitious adornments except
children. And this chapter 6 of Lilliput (
http://xahlee.org/p/Gullivers_Travels/gt1ch06.html), a mockery that
meanders. One's not sure just what is his precise point unless one is
intimate with a narrow place and time of his own.
Steve Hayes
Indeed.
But what is in dispute here is the "Whence does it come from" construction,
which *still* looks tautological.
Steve Hayes
That might do.
CDB
"Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote in message
news:1123665467.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
from Gulliver's Travels:
[snipped]
--
what a tiresome, fat, piece of satire, with its drudging irrelevant
meticulousness. Who cares for these fictitious adornments except
children. And this chapter 6 of Lilliput[], a mockery that
meanders. One's not sure just what is his precise point unless one is
intimate with a narrow place and time of his own.
You are cursing borrowed tools.
Gerry Quinn
x...@xahlee.org says...
> from Gulliver's Travels:
> “for which reason they will never allow that a child is under any
> obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother for
> oh, this writing is styled in such a way of nigh imparsibility.
>
> whole thing is written in a confounded way.
"allow that" is good English. It doesn't really mean "allow the notion
that", which has implications of censoring others. It is better
understood as "agree that".
(Example: "I will allow that Britney is attractive but nevertheless I
prefer Kylie")
The sentence is quite clear IMO.
- Gerry Quinn
Dr. Dave
>
> i like Swift's writing style fine, but i find it quite undeserved of
> the praises as have excerpted in this thread. Believe me, to write
> clearly, the first thing is to think clearly. This is far more
> important than anything else.
The needle on my (old, analog) ironimeter just wrapped itself around
the peg.
> Secondarily, get rid of big words and use
> short sentences. I don't know his era of writings, but i can see that
> his writings can in fact be improved in the aspect of readability.
His readers were not in so big a hurry as you are. This does not
necessarily reflect poorly on them.
> I can only believe that Swift did not intent his
> writings to be of a style optimized for clarity.
No kidding. VCR manuals should be optimized for clarity; for other
kinds of writing, clarity may or may not be among the most important
goals.
Do you complain of Monet, that he didn't optimize his paintings of
water lilies for 'clarity'?
David Tate
Alan Jones
<x...@xahlee.org> wrote in message
news:1123664565.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
****************************
from Gulliver's Travels:
"for which reason they will never allow that a child is under any
obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother for
bringing him into the world;"
oh, this writing is styled in such a way of nigh imparsibility.
the "allow that" should be "allow the notion that". But the
whole thing is written in a confounded way.
Better: for this reason, they will not accept the notion that a child
is under any obligation to his parents for begetting him.
more better with logicality: Because of this reason, they will not
accept the following notion: children are begotten by parents,
therefore they should oblige their parents.
i like Swift's writing style fine, but i find it quite undeserved of
the praises as have excerpted in this thread. Believe me, to write
clearly, the first thing is to think clearly. This is far more
important than anything else. Secondarily, get rid of big words and use
short sentences. I don't know his era of writings, but i can see that
his writings can in fact be improved in the aspect of readability. The
above is one example. I can only believe that Swift did not intent his
writings to be of a style optimized for clarity. Perhaps later wanna-be
writers and critics proclaimed such color for their own good.
*****************************
"I can only believe that Swift did not inten[d] his
writings to be of a style optimized for clarity."
But this was indeed his intention, and most British or American readers
consider that he fulfilled it admirably. Of the many excellent writers from
our literary past, he is perhaps the one whose style is least distracting.
Occasionally a word is used in a slightly unfamiliar way (as is "allow"
here) but that's hardly enough to cause a reader to stumble.
I simply don't understand why you find the sentence you quote "nigh
imparsible". The "for which reason" conjunctive construction is still used,
and is a standard linking version of "and for this reason"
There is no possibility that "his writings can ... be improved". They are
what they are, whether you like them or not. As well say the 'Mona Lisa' or
a Beethoven symphony can be "improved". Your (forgive me) clumsy attempts
at re-writing lose the nicely-balanced rhythm and (your last version)
present the material in a different order. What we then have is not Swift at
all. Swift's accomplishment in this book is not setting out a few basic
ideas but the complex organisation of characters and plot and description
towards a devastating conclusion in Gulliver's gradual realization of what a
beast, or worse than beast, he is - as are all human beings. Have you read
the whole book, I wonder?
You seem to value "clarity" above all. Most of us would agree if facts and
ideas are being presented as in court or in an academic thesis. But in a
work of creative fiction what matters much more is suggestion, hint, even
obscurity, through which some kind of truth about human nature and the human
condition may gradually emerge. Swift's long passages of what you think
childish detail are there to create a world that doesn't exist with such
realism that we think Captain Gulliver really went to Lilliput. I hope you
noticed how his childlike wonder at what he saw and experienced gradually
turns sour in Brobdingnag and later, where the detail is more sparing and
more significant. As a parallel, and from a great admirer of Swift, I
suggest you look at the early part of Orwell's "Animal Farm" where in the
early days of liberation the animals work together in the fields. Without
this idyllic scene, so richly detailed, the bitter ending would lose much of
its effect.
As to "long words", you must allow an artist to choose his or her own
colours. Some writing, especially in Swift's own time and a little later,
does seem verbally too rich for modern tastes (Dr Samuel Johnson comes to
mind); some writers like to elaborate sentences until they lose themselves
in a tangle of thought and feeling (try William Faulkner or Henry James).
You can't insist that all writers, especially novelists and poets, shall
confine themselves to the verbal equivalent of a monochrome geometrical
figure of instantly perceived simplicity. In English, perhaps more than in
most languages, the writer's art lies partly in deliberate ambiguity and
suggestiveness. But Swift, though you don't yet realise it, is not that kind
of artist: he really is the acme of lucidity. Has anyone yet, in reply to
you, suggested otherwise?
Alan Jones
Pat Durkin
"for which reason they will never allow that a child is under any
obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother for
bringing him into the world;"
oh, this writing is styled in such a way of nigh imparsibility.
I would replace "allow that a child is" with "admit. . ."
Another option is to replace "allow" with "permit" (since allow has both
meanings).
While there are different nuances, the use of "permit" would require a
subjunctive--be. Thus, since Swift didn't use subjunctive mode, I assume he
intended the declarative--is.
You find it difficult to parse 18th C English usage in modern terms, but
you are attempting an anachronistic exercise. Have you sought out the kind
of textbook used by Swift to learn composition?
r.r...@thevine.net
<ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <1123664565.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>x...@xahlee.org says...
>> from Gulliver's Travels:
>> “for which reason they will never allow that a child is under any
>> obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother for
>> bringing him into the world;�€?
>>
>> oh, this writing is styled in such a way of nigh imparsibility.
>>
>> the “allow that�€? should be “allow the notion that�€?. But the
>> whole thing is written in a confounded way.
>
>"allow that" is good English. It doesn't really mean "allow the notion
>that", which has implications of censoring others. It is better
>understood as "agree that".
>
>(Example: "I will allow that Britney is attractive but nevertheless I
>prefer Kylie")
>
>The sentence is quite clear IMO.
I think that part of OP's problem may be that it is written in a style
that has shifted slightly from our current-day English, and English is
not the OP's native tongue. So, if Xah learned that certain words
have certain meanings, and sentences are structured a certain way,
some of Swift is going to throw him. I run into this problem in
crossword puzzles sometimes, where I am looking at a word in a clue in
a certain way, and when I see the answer I think "oh yeah... I was
think "lead - the verb" not " lead - the noun"... that's why I
couldn't get that one!"
Which is not to say that Swift wrote badly, at all. Just that reading
things in a tongue not your own makes for more work. I remember
reading Brecht and Kafka in my German classes, and stumbling
occasionally when I came across a word that I was unfamiliar with
because it wasn't always easy to pick up what the author meant from
the surrounding context.
Rebecca
Alan Jones
"Pat Durkin" <durk...@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:3MoKe.3862$zr1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>><x...@xahlee.org> wrote in message
>>news:1123664565.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> from Gulliver's Travels:>
>>"for which reason they will never allow that a child is under any
>>obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother for
>>bringing him into the world;"
>> oh, this writing is styled in such a way of nigh imparsibility.
[...]
> You find it difficult to parse 18th C English usage in modern terms, but
> you are attempting an anachronistic exercise. Have you sought out the
> kind
> of textbook used by Swift to learn composition?
I don't suppose that Swift was ever systematically taught English
composition, or indeed English grammar, except to the extent that it might
have been necessary to his classical studies. The grammar taught in his
grammar school would have been that of Latin and probably Greek.
Alan Jones
Josh Hill
Swift is lampooning the meticulously detailed descriptions in the
travel tales of the time. Compare for example that passage in Gulliver
with this one, from Robinson Crusoe:
"The next day, in searching the woods, I found a tree of that wood, or
like it, which in the Brazils they call the iron-tree, for its
exceeding hardness. Of this, with great labour, and almost spoiling my
axe, I cut a piece, and brought it home, too, with difficulty enough,
for it was exceeding heavy. The excessive hardness of the wood, and my
having no other way, made me a long while upon this machine, for I
worked it effectually by little and little into the form of a shovel
or spade; the handle exactly shaped like ours in England, only that
the board part having no iron shod upon it at bottom, it would not
last me so long; however, it served well enough for the uses which I
had occasion to put it to; but never was a shovel, I believe, made
after that fashion, or so long in making.
"I was still deficient, for I wanted a basket or a wheelbarrow. A
basket I could not make by any means, having no such things as twigs
that would bend to make wicker-ware-at least, none yet found out; and
as to a wheelbarrow, I fancied I could make all but the wheel; but
that I had no notion of; neither did I know how to go about it;
besides, I had no possible way to make the iron gudgeons for the
spindle or axis of the wheel to run in; so I gave it over, and so, for
carrying away the earth which I dug out of the cave, I made me a thing
like a hod which the labourers carry mortar in when they serve the
bricklayers. This was not so difficult to me as the making the shovel:
and yet this and the shovel, and the attempt which I made in vain to
make a wheelbarrow, took me up no less than four days-I mean always
excepting my morning walk with my gun, which I seldom failed, and very
seldom failed also bringing home something fit to eat."
>And this chapter 6 of Lilliput (
>http://xahlee.org/p/Gullivers_Travels/gt1ch06.html), a mockery that
>meanders. One's not sure just what is his precise point unless one is
>intimate with a narrow place and time of his own.
I don't think you can draw conclusions on the basis of one chapter of
Gulliver's Travels. The overarching themes and the almost mathematical
structure of the book become more apparent as the story progresses.
And while any book is to some extent of its time and place, it seems
to me that Gulliver's Travels is about as universal a book as I've
ever read, in that most of the foibles of behavior that he mocks
apply, in one form or another, to men in general.
--
Josh
"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically
a media creation. I've never done anything. I've
worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But
that's not the kind of profile you have to have
to get elected to public office." - George W. Bush
Pat Durkin
"Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_2pKe.4942$3N4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
My point, though not put nearly as clearly as Swift would have put it.
Josh Hill
>from Gulliver's Travels:
>“for which reason they will never allow that a child is under any
>obligation to his father for begetting him, or to his mother for
>bringing him into the world;”
>
>oh, this writing is styled in such a way of nigh imparsibility.
>
>the “allow that” should be “allow the notion that”. But the
>whole thing is written in a confounded way.
You're getting hung up on an archaism: "allow" in this context means
"accept." Swift's readers would have found the usage ordinary and most
modern English-speaking readers will recognize it even though it's no
longer in common use.
>Better: for this reason, they will not accept the notion that a child
>is under any obligation to his parents for begetting him.
>
>more better with logicality: Because of this reason, they will not
>accept the following notion: children are begotten by parents,
>therefore they should oblige their parents.
>
>i like Swift's writing style fine, but i find it quite undeserved of
>the praises as have excerpted in this thread. Believe me, to write
>clearly, the first thing is to think clearly. This is far more
>important than anything else. Secondarily, get rid of big words and use
>short sentences. I don't know his era of writings, but i can see that
>his writings can in fact be improved in the aspect of readability. The
>above is one example. I can only believe that Swift did not intent his
>writings to be of a style optimized for clarity. Perhaps later wanna-be
>writers and critics proclaimed such color for their own good.
Swift's thought was lucid and his writing would have seemed perfectly
ordinary -- apart from its excellence -- to a reader of the time.
Short sentences and short words weren't the stylistic norm in English
until the end of the 19th century.
When reading Swift, the modern reader has to accommodate himself to
the more sophisticated sentence structures and to some minor archaisms
in word order and choice, but the words Swift uses are for the most
part commonplace. I don't think that the educated English-speaking
reader would find himself reaching for the dictionary very often when
reading Swift for the first time as he would when reading Shakespeare
-- this despite the fact that only 125 years separate Swift from
Shakespeare, whereas 275 years separate us from Swift. But , bottom
line, 275 years is a long time.
R H Draney
>
>Swift is lampooning the meticulously detailed descriptions in the
>travel tales of the time. Compare for example that passage in Gulliver
>with this one, from Robinson Crusoe:
<snip excerpt>
And you're mistaken if you think that isn't done any more...check out Umberto
Eco's "The Name of the Rose" some time...he thinks nothing of stopping in the
middle of a complicated and exciting murder investigation to blow three pages
describing the carvings on a door....
Eco and Swift actually have a great deal in common in terms of writing
style...every time I look at the samples from "Gulliver" in this thread what
leaps out at me is that he's writing in a "scholarly" or "academic" fashion....r
Stephen Hayes
Dr. Dave wrote in a message to All:
DD> From: "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
DD> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Dr. Dave wrote:
>
> > I will concede the long history and ubiquity, without conceding the
> > authority. Even the editors of the Authorized Version made some
> > regrettable choices.
>
> If even the Authorized Version isn't authorzied, what would be?
DD> It's Authorized, but not Infallible, being after all a Protestant
DD> creation.
And republicans can ignore it, since it was authorized by a monarch.
--
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.fmlynet.org
Peter Duncanson
<Stephen.Hayesp...@fmlynet.org> wrote:
>FamilyNet Newsgate
>
>Dr. Dave wrote in a message to All:
>
> DD> From: "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
>
>
> DD> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> Dr. Dave wrote:
>>
>> > I will concede the long history and ubiquity, without conceding the
>> > authority. Even the editors of the Authorized Version made some
>> > regrettable choices.
>>
>> If even the Authorized Version isn't authorzied, what would be?
>
> DD> It's Authorized, but not Infallible, being after all a Protestant
> DD> creation.
>
>And republicans can ignore it, since it was authorized by a monarch.
An inspired by another monarch (God/Allah/Whoever).
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e)
Stephen Hayes
Peter Duncanson wrote in a message to Peter Duncanson:
PD> From: Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net>
PD> On Tue, 10 Aug 2005 09:24:38 , "Stephen Hayes"
PD> <Stephen.Hayesp...@fmlynet.org> wrote:
>Dr. Dave wrote in a message to All:
>
> DD> From: "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
> DD> It's Authorized, but not Infallible, being after all a Protestant
> DD> creation.
>And republicans can ignore it, since it was authorized by a monarch.
PD> An inspired by another monarch (God/Allah/Whoever).
No, the Authorized Version was an English translation, not Arabic, and the main
ou was known as "the LORD".
mark
Stephen Hayes (Stephen.Hayesp...@fmlynet.org) was heard to
remark...
> Peter Duncanson wrote in a message to Peter Duncanson:
> PD> From: Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net>
> PD> On Tue, 10 Aug 2005 09:24:38 , "Stephen Hayes"
> PD> <Stephen.Hayesp...@fmlynet.org> wrote:
> >Dr. Dave wrote in a message to All:
> > DD> From: "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
> > DD> It's Authorized, but not Infallible, being after all a Protestant
> > DD> creation.
>
> >And republicans can ignore it, since it was authorized by a monarch.
>
> PD> An inspired by another monarch (God/Allah/Whoever).
>
> No, the Authorized Version was an English translation, not Arabic, and the main
> ou was known as "the LORD".
<Thumps head on desk. Hard. />
--
My housekeeper regarded him with jaundice in her eye;
She did not want a colony of hippotami;
She borrowed a machine-gun from her soldier-nephew, Percy,
And showed my hippopotamus no hippopotamercy.
- Patrick Barrington, "I Had a Hippopotamus"
Simon Slavin
<ds%Je.40515$FG3....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> In his own time Swift 's style was recognised as exceptionally correct
> and clear, perhaps even too simple and straightforward, and indeed he
> prided himself that it was so -- quite the opposite of being "odd".
> That was almost 300 years ago.
Two things I want to point out:
English has changed a huge amount over the last 300 years. Xah Lee's
name suggests to me that he's Chinese. Written Chinese has changed
a little over the last 300 years, but hardly at all in comparison with
written English.
Then other point is that Gulliver's Travel is a joke. People can
understand this point but miss its implications. What Swift did is
to relate ridiculous events in extremely formal language, as if you
were going to explain how to boil an egg in the formal language you'd
use to explain how to constuct a fission power plant.
Swift did the same thing in _A Modest Proposal_. It's a joke that's
still used today to make a point. But you have to stick to the
formal style perfectly if it's going to be funny. Swift was a master
of the English of his day and used it very precisely: he wrote English
as formal as possible in order to make the contrast with the events he
describe all the more ridiculous. But Swift's English is nothing like
the English we use now.
Simon.
--
Using pre-release version of newsreader.
Please tell me if it does weird things.
Robert Bannister
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:13:03 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Dr. Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Where did they go?"
>>>> "From whence they came, lad. From whence they came."
>>>> "Can't you ever just say `I don't know'?"
>>>>
>>>> --- Ray Ray and Monroe, in The Life and Times of Juniper Lee,
>>>> "With a Little Help from My Elf" episode
>>>
>>>
>>>Bzzzt. Usage foul. (Or is it actually grammar this time?)
>>>
>>>Should have been either "Whence they came", or "From where they came"
>>>(or more likely "Wherever they came from"). Whence = "from where".
>>>"From whence" is just as wrong as "Toward hence".
>>
>>We've done this before at AUE. It is likely that "whence" is the correct
>>case ending after "from" in older English. Whether this is true or not,
>>is irrelevant because "from whence", despite its apparent tautology, is
>>the standard English phrase and has been used by a large number of
>>respected writers.
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> But what is in dispute here is the "Whence does it come from" construction,
> which *still* looks tautological.
I agree with that. It's like "Whom did you give it to?" compared with
"To whom did you give it?" - I would use "Who" in the former.
--
Rob Bannister
Mike Schilling
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
news:3m2cvvF...@individual.net...
>> But what is in dispute here is the "Whence does it come from"
>> construction,
>> which *still* looks tautological.
>
> I agree with that. It's like "Whom did you give it to?" compared with "To
> whom did you give it?" - I would use "Who" in the former.
No, there's nothing tautological (or incorrect) about "Whom did you give it
to?", and "Who did you give it to?" is wrong (though probably standard there
days.) The one that irritates me is "The reason I did is because Y."
Steve Hayes
<slavins.delete....@hearsay.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 09/08/2005, Alan Jones wrote in message
><ds%Je.40515$FG3....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
>> In his own time Swift 's style was recognised as exceptionally correct
>> and clear, perhaps even too simple and straightforward, and indeed he
>> prided himself that it was so -- quite the opposite of being "odd".
>> That was almost 300 years ago.
>
>Two things I want to point out:
>
>English has changed a huge amount over the last 300 years. Xah Lee's
>name suggests to me that he's Chinese. Written Chinese has changed
>a little over the last 300 years, but hardly at all in comparison with
>written English.
But have you tried *spoken* Chinese?
I tried to pick up a couple of phrases of Chinese when I had occasion to visit
ships in port with Chinese crews. They seemed to speak entirely different
languages. Their shrines looked similar, though some had ikons of the Purple
Planet and others of Chairman Mao.
So here's a question for Xah Lee:
What is the English translation of Bun Mui?
Xah Lee
Steve Hayes wrote:
> So here's a question for Xah Lee:
>
> What is the English translation of Bun Mui?
not sure what is that.
what's the contetx?
Stephen Hayes
mark wrote in a message to All:
m> From: mark <m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au>
m> <Thumps head on desk. Hard. />
So what has Dobby done now?
--
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.familynet-international.org
Steve Hayes
>
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> So here's a question for Xah Lee:
>>
>> What is the English translation of Bun Mui?
>
>not sure what is that.
>
>what's the contetx?
Someone used to post in here and sined their name "bun mui"
I wondered if it was Chinese.
Peter Huebner
>
> English "-ither," "-ence" refer to motion to or from
> (respectively) a place. German "her-," "hin-" refer to motion to
> or from (respectively) the speaker. Thus "hither/hence" map to
> "herein/hinaus", for example, only when the speaker is "here/hier."
> (Which of course he frequently is.)
>
Not quite right, w.r.t. German.
hin- is towards a locality (irrespective of origin of movement)
but NOT coincident with location of the speaker
her- is towards the speaker
weg- is away-from current locality of moving object/person (and often,
or usually, but not necessarily the speaker)
there are also
[da]von-
fort-
which are similar to weg- with local(dialect) and/or slight semantic
differences.
hinaus is a concatenation of hin and [dr]aussen (towards and outside)
which can be shortened again to 'raus' (also used as imperative:'get
out!')
The frame of reference is different, as you said.
cheers, -Peter
Robert Bannister
> hinaus is a concatenation of hin and [dr]aussen (towards and outside)
> which can be shortened again to 'raus' (also used as imperative:'get
> out!')
In fact, " 'raus" is the weird one, since it is a contraction of
"heraus", not of "hinaus". I do not see the connection with "aussen" or
"draussen (= da + aussen)": "aus" is a verb "prefix" that works more or
less the same way as our phrasal verbs (eg to go out, to take out).
Normally, "hin" or "her" is added, but the addition is not absolutely
necessary.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Huebner
> Peter Huebner wrote:
>
>
> > hinaus is a concatenation of hin and [dr]aussen (towards and outside)
> > which can be shortened again to 'raus' (also used as imperative:'get
> > out!')
>
> In fact, " 'raus" is the weird one, since it is a contraction of
> "heraus", not of "hinaus".
No, that is absolutely not the case. Actually, coming to think of it, I
can figure a sentence where 'raus' can be heraus, but that would entail
the speaker being on the outside -- 'Komm raus!' == "come out of there
[and to me]!" Other that that it always means 'from the inside to the
outside'.
The whole hin and her business is darn confusing because usually 'hin'
indicates direction towards a location, often independent of the
speaker's location, whereas 'her' always references the speaker's
location, as in 'towards me'. Go figure. I taught German as a second
language for a few years and some people just find it very hard to come
to grips with. (I find it easy to use, but hard to define an exact
grammatical rule/description <g>).
> I do not see the connection with "aussen" or
> "draussen (= da + aussen)": "aus" is a verb "prefix" that works more or
> less the same way as our phrasal verbs (eg to go out, to take out).
'draussen' is a straight conversion: 'outside'. Same concept and usage.
"aus" is a preposition denoting origin/location. "Ich komme aus
Vietnam" == "I am Vietnamese" OR "I am coming from Vietnam"(travel)
"Er kommt aus dem Versteck" == 'he comes[is coming] out of hiding'.
((German rarely uses the continuous, but uses present tense. The usage
of the continuous in English tends to confuse the heck out of Germans)).
(apologies to all who find this way off-topic)
-P.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> But Swift's English is nothing like the English we use now.
Ah Simon. I beg to differ. Swift's English is, admittedly,
somewhat different than what we use today, but it is certainly
an exaggeration to say that it is "nothing like" the English
we use now. I have, for instance, been known to give parts of
my lectures in a somewhat Swiftian style.
Charles
Robert Bannister
Because of the off-topicness, I wanted to email you, but your address
looks suss.
"Aus" is most certainly not a preposition in this usage. It is part of
the verb. "Auskommen" is not a normal 'going' verb, but "ausgehen" is,
even although it will usually come out as "hinausgehen" or
"herausgehen". Would you say that "ein" is a preposition in "eingehen"?
Would you be able to say "Ich komme heraus Vietnam"? Of course not,
although I suppose you could say "Er kam aus dem Zimmer heraus".
--
Rob Bannister
Richard Bollard
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 12 Aug 2005 05:33:58 -0700, "Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> So here's a question for Xah Lee:
>>>
>>> What is the English translation of Bun Mui?
>>
>>not sure what is that.
>>
>>what's the contetx?
>
>Someone used to post in here and sined their name "bun mui"
>
>I wondered if it was Chinese.
It means young girl (or something like it) in IIRC Malay.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Richard Bollard
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 12 Aug 2005 05:33:58 -0700, "Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> So here's a question for Xah Lee:
>>>
>>> What is the English translation of Bun Mui?
>>
>>not sure what is that.
>>
>>what's the contetx?
>
>Someone used to post in here and sined their name "bun mui"
>
>I wondered if it was Chinese.
I should have googled first.
http://www.ciaonet.org/book/chin/glossary.html
Claims it is Cantonese for a Philipino girl-slave/servant. That sounds
about right.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:25:14 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 12 Aug 2005 05:33:58 -0700, "Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> So here's a question for Xah Lee:
>>>>
>>>> What is the English translation of Bun Mui?
>>>
>>>not sure what is that.
>>>
>>>what's the contetx?
>>
>>Someone used to post in here and sined their name "bun mui"
>>
>>I wondered if it was Chinese.
>
>I should have googled first.
>
>http://www.ciaonet.org/book/chin/glossary.html
>
>Claims it is Cantonese for a Philipino girl-slave/servant. That sounds
>about right.
Comments?
Xah Lee
basically each phoneme in Chinese has 4 tones, and the tones are a
variabtions in pitch.
in Romanized Chinese, i.e. Chinese in Latin alphabets, e.g. Bun Mui,
often the tone marks are missing. (or, tone distinction are entirely
missing in the Romanization system used, e.g. Wade-Giles) When the tone
mark is not present, each word/phoneme (e.g. Bun) can be any of the
possible 4 tones, and each sound often has many characters
corresponding to it too. (and each charater often have multiple
meanings) Therefore, without any context, it is near impossible to
decipher transliterated Chinese in alphabets without tone marks. Tone
marks, context, longer sentences all help.
Of course, complicating the issue is when it might be a local dialect.
When such a romanization has meaning, it is often a already parts of
well-known English in particular localities. e.g. kowtow, kung-fu, gung
ho. With the context of that web page, i'm guessing Bui Mei is the case
here. Bun Mei does looks Catonese. Bui can stand for White (白bai2),
and Mei can be sister/girl (妹mei4). So Bun Mui can mean Causasian
Girl as a nick name. This is just a guess. It might be whatever.
oh, it just occured to me another possibility that it be
白bai2眉mei2, where the 眉 means eyebrow. It is the white-haired
sage fung-fu character in the pop movie Kill Bill.
Bun can also mean stupid 笨ben4 and mei can be 美mei3 (American).
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:41:38 +1000, Richard Bollard <rich...@spamt.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:25:14 +0200, Steve Hayes
> ><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 12 Aug 2005 05:33:58 -0700, "Xah Lee" <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Steve Hayes wrote:
> >>>> So here's a question for Xah Lee:
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the English translation of Bun Mui?
> >>>
> >>>not sure what is that.
> >>>
> >>>what's the contetx?
> >>
> >>Someone used to post in here and sined their name "bun mui"
> >>
> >>I wondered if it was Chinese.
> >
> >I should have googled first.
> >
> >http://www.ciaonet.org/book/chin/glossary.html
> >
> >Claims it is Cantonese for a Philipino girl-slave/servant. That sounds
> >about right.
>
> Comments?
I do believe that a prior attempt at translation led to the conclusion
that the likeliest meaning was "little sister," with perhaps a
metaphorical tinge to the usage. But my Cantonese is no better than
my Mandarin, and my Mandarin is nonexistent, so I have nothing but
memory to rely on.
--
Bob Lieblich
And where is Big Brother?
jugosien
Her Chinese name, by a wild guess based on the pronounciation, might be "the
youngest sister" or " ten thousand roses".
Jugo
"Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net>
???????:430138DD...@verizon.net...