moral terror

[Paul A. O'Gorman]

Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could explain the exact meaning of the phrase
'moral terror'. It was used in the movie 'Apocalypse Now'.

Thanks,
Paul.

[Steve Hayes]

The state of having the hell scared out of one.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Pat Durkin]

"Paul A. O'Gorman" <p...@sue.its.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:akk0le$69j$1...@sue.its.caltech.edu...

It has to have some figurative interpretation, I think, unless you can
find some objective definition in a dictionary someplace.

In my view, 'moral terror' takes on a feeling of fear for one's soul,
fear of loss of courage, fear that one is making a horrible mistake,
extreme guilt.

But I haven't seen the movie. Is there a discussion or mood in the film
that gives more context?

An afterthought: Are you sure you aren't hearing 'mortal terror'?

[Paul A. O'Gorman]

"Pat Durkin" <p...@hotmail.com> writes:

>In my view, 'moral terror' takes on a feeling of fear for one's soul,
>fear of loss of courage, fear that one is making a horrible mistake,
>extreme guilt.

>But I haven't seen the movie. Is there a discussion or mood in the film
>that gives more context?

I have quoted more of the speech Kurtz makes below. Fear for one's soul,
morality in wartime etc. are indeed themes in the movie.

This is a central speech in the movie, but I could never put into words what
I thought 'moral terror' meant. The above explanation is the best I've heard,
BTW this movie is definitely worth checking out - the recent redux version
has the advantage of excellent coloring.

>An afterthought: Are you sure you aren't hearing 'mortal terror'?

I think it was moral terror. Using google I can find the same quotation with
'moral terror' and 'mortal terror'. However, after listening to a sound clip
from the movie at http://film.tierranet.com/films/a.now/sounds.html it is
indeed 'moral terror'. This is a very slow download, there is a copy
at www.galcit.caltech.edu/~pog/kurtz.wav.

Cheers,
Paul.

KURTZ:

"I've seen horrors...horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call
me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that...But
you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is
necessary to those who do not know what horror means.
Horror. Horror has a face...And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and
moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared.
They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces...Seems
a thousand centuries ago...We went into a camp to innoculate the children.
We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old
man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went
back there and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm. There
they were in a pile...A pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried...
I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I
wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want
to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a
diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought:
My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect,
genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were
stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not
monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who fought with
their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with
love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that. If I had ten
divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You
have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to
utilize their primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...
without judgement...without judgement. Because it's judgement that
defeats us. "

[Paul A. O'Gorman]

roman...@GoFor21.com (Roman Yikle) writes:

>I think it was "mortal", not "moral", that Marlin Brando as Colonel Kurtz
>actually said, or at least was meant to say. The dictionary I have uses

It is possible that he was meant to say 'mortal', but said 'moral' instead.
The phrase 'mortal' terror would certainly make sense in context.

-Paul.

[Mike Lyle]

haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<3d6db0ea...@news.saix.net>...

> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:24:46 +0000 (UTC), p...@sue.its.caltech.edu (Paul A.
> O'Gorman) wrote:
>
> >I was wondering if anyone could explain the exact meaning of the phrase
> >'moral terror'. It was used in the movie 'Apocalypse Now'.
>
> The state of having the hell scared out of one.

This is difficult. Going back to Conrad, in *Heart of Darkness* (p 159
of my undated Blackwood edn of *Youth and Two Other Stories* so
probably about 20-25 pages before the end of HofD in most editions)
the narrator, Marlow, says:

"The fact is I was completely unnerved by a sheer blank fright, pure
abstract terror, unconnected with any distinct shape of physical
danger. What made this emotion so overpowering was -- how shall I
define it? -- the moral shock I had received, as if something
altogether monstrous, intolerable to thought and odious to the soul,
had been thrust upon me unexpectedly."

I think Coppola may well have had this passage, or key words from it,
somewhere in his mind. I'm not entirely convinced it means anything
more than just "terror"(i.e., Steve may be right), but if this is the
feeling referred to, it's clearly "moral" as opposed to "physical"
rather than "moral" as opposed to "immoral".

I wonder, too, if "moral terror" may be hinting at "moral" as in
"moral tales": a terror which has a beneficial effect from some point
of view.

Perhaps there's a connection with the naval and military view of "good
morale", the state of mind in which your bosses want you to be? (Also
in a colonial context, Kipling in *Kim* has "Whisky was demoralizing
the Ao-Chung man" when the latter had started being rude about white
men.)

I now can't help noticing that right at the beginning of the story
there's a passing mention of the ships *Erebus and Terror*.

Does any of this chime with what you've been thinking?

Mike.

[Pat Durkin]

"Paul A. O'Gorman" <p...@inky.its.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:aklnf6$t99$1...@inky.its.caltech.edu...

My goodness! He is describing the suicide bombers, al Qaeda. How
timely for this day and age!

[Christopher Green]

"Pat Durkin" <p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<umsc224...@corp.supernews.com>...

It could be a mis-hearing; I can't recall, myself. But "Apocalypse
Now" is not far removed from its ancestor, "Heart of Darkness", and
the latter could be used to make a pretty good case that there is such
a thing as "moral terror" in the sense you give to it.

--
Chris Green

[nickar...@gmail.com]

Very late reply, but "moral terror" as Kurtz defines it probably means the realization one has that there is no inherent good or evil in the world, that it's just a place filled with things and events that occur to those things. The movie and novella have nihilistic themes throughout so this is probably what Kurtz meant by moral terror, the terror of realizing that there is no morality.

[cbem...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 9:24:46 PM UTC-5, Paul A. O'Gorman wrote:

Imagine a hypothetical situation in which exact force must be matched with equal or greater shock and awe.

Historical examples would be when the British and Czars were competing for control of Afghanistan. A British officer quelled an uprising by executing the rebels and leaving them in a grave with pork carcasses. While many of the acts of sharia prevented their conscience from affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a pig did.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 12:28:27 AM UTC-4, cbem...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 9:24:46 PM UTC-5, Paul A. O'Gorman wrote:

> > I was wondering if anyone could explain the exact meaning of the phrase
> > 'moral terror'. It was used in the movie 'Apocalypse Now'.
>

> Imagine a hypothetical situation in which exact force must be matched with equal or greater shock and awe.
>
> Historical examples would be when the British and Czars were competing for control of Afghanistan. A British officer quelled an uprising by executing the rebels and leaving them in a grave with pork carcasses. While many of the acts of sharia prevented their conscience from affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a pig did.

There's something wrong with the last sentence there.

Aside from having no connection with the question it supposedly answers.

[Sam Plusnet]

Anyone who digs up a 16 year old post simply to insult Muslims is not
likely to worry over small details.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter T. Daniels]

Did it somehow do that? The incoherence of the sentence makes it hard to
discern what its intent was, but it seems the officers come off worse
than the victims in the incident.

The thread was previously revived on August 13, without issue.

[bebe...@aol.com]

Le samedi 20 octobre 2018 21:11:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 2:56:00 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > On 20-Oct-18 6:28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 12:28:27 AM UTC-4, cbem...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 9:24:46 PM UTC-5, Paul A. O'Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > >>> I was wondering if anyone could explain the exact meaning of the phrase
> > >>> 'moral terror'. It was used in the movie 'Apocalypse Now'.
> > >>
> > >> Imagine a hypothetical situation in which exact force must be matched with equal or greater shock and awe.
> > >>
> > >> Historical examples would be when the British and Czars were competing for control of Afghanistan. A British officer quelled an uprising by executing the rebels and leaving them in a grave with pork carcasses. While many of the acts of sharia prevented their conscience from affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a pig did.
> > >
> > > There's something wrong with the last sentence there.
> > >
> > > Aside from having no connection with the question it supposedly answers.
> > >
> > Anyone who digs up a 16 year old post simply to insult Muslims is not
> > likely to worry over small details.
>
> Did it somehow do that? The incoherence of the sentence makes it hard to
> discern what its intent was,

Hmmm, "... the threat of hell due to touching a pig did _affect them_" is pretty implicit.

[David Kleinecke]

Urban legend alert - I heard the Muslims and pigs
story told about Pershing in the Philippines.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Even if that were what the sentence says (it isn't), how does that make
the sentence insulting to Muslims?

What it says is "the threat of hell due to touching a pig did prevent their conscience from affecting them," which doesn't make sense either.

[Madhu]

* "Peter T. Daniels" <28c71abc-03d8-4678...@googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:28:40 -0700 (PDT):

>> Historical examples would be when the British and Czars were
>> competing for control of Afghanistan. A British officer quelled an
>> uprising by executing the rebels and leaving them in a grave with
>> pork carcasses. While many of the acts of sharia prevented their
>> conscience from affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a
>> pig did.
>
> There's something wrong with the last sentence there.

A comma after `them' doesn't fix it for you?

> Aside from having no connection with the question it supposedly
> answers.

The officer engaged in moral terrorism (since contact with a pig carcase
has the same hell-bound-consequences as immorality) .02

[Madhu]

* David Kleinecke <d60e70ba-7a0f-4f5e...@googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:37:44 -0700 (PDT):

> Urban legend alert - I heard the Muslims and pigs story told about
> Pershing in the Philippines.

The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 was spurred by rumours that the british
officers were supplying the Indian soldiers with cartridges which were
wrapped in dead-pig fat. fact check on aisle nine.

According to leviticus, handling an unclean animal like the pig does not
cause any ritual impurity, but contact with the carcase of the same
animal renders one unclean. The regulations on corpses would seem to
breed a moral terror of contact with corpses. (?)

[bebe...@aol.com]

Le dimanche 21 octobre 2018 06:22:18 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> > Le samedi 20 octobre 2018 21:11:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 2:56:00 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > > > On 20-Oct-18 6:28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 12:28:27 AM UTC-4, cbem...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> On Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 9:24:46 PM UTC-5, Paul A. O'Gorman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>> I was wondering if anyone could explain the exact meaning of the phrase
> > > > >>> 'moral terror'. It was used in the movie 'Apocalypse Now'.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Imagine a hypothetical situation in which exact force must be matched with equal or greater shock and awe.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Historical examples would be when the British and Czars were competing for control of Afghanistan. A British officer quelled an uprising by executing the rebels and leaving them in a grave with pork carcasses. While many of the acts of sharia prevented their conscience from affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a pig did.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's something wrong with the last sentence there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aside from having no connection with the question it supposedly answers.
> > > > >
> > > > Anyone who digs up a 16 year old post simply to insult Muslims is not
> > > > likely to worry over small details.
> > >
> > > Did it somehow do that? The incoherence of the sentence makes it hard to
> > > discern what its intent was,
> >
> > Hmmm, "... the threat of hell due to touching a pig did _affect them_" is pretty implicit.
>
> Even if that were what the sentence says (it isn't), how does that make
> the sentence insulting to Muslims?

Only in one's vivid imagination is the sentence insulting to Muslims.

>
> What it says is "the threat of hell due to touching a pig did prevent their conscience from affecting them," which doesn't make sense either.

That makes no sense at all, as the complete sentence would go:

"While many of the acts of sharia prevented their conscience from

affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a pig did prevent
their conscience from affecting them."

The construction with "While" expresses concession, whereas there's
no opposition between the two parts of the sentence, as in both cases,
their conscience is "prevented from affecting them" - hence a total
non sequitur.

Concretely, what my interpretation implies is that sharia doesn't
prevent Muslims from committing acts that their conscience reprobates,
but the prospect of touching a pig and thereby going to hell does, so
that the "moral terror" is used as a weapon - which does make sense.

[Madhu]

* bebe...@aol.com <3af670a0-a5b7-424b...@googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Sun, 21 Oct 2018 07:06:07 -0700 (PDT):

Ah, I read the sentence differently. Possibly I was wrong.

"While many of the acts of sharia prevented their conscience from
affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a pig did."

I undertsood that as saying:

When their conscience is affected they do not rebel. (under the threat
of hell)

When their conscience is not affected they rebel with impunity (because
the sharia makes them immune to their conscience)

I admit it is an unusual usage of the word "conscience" - which here
implies an impulse to act contrary to what is demanded by the religion
(Sharia) i.e. to rebel, but I believe this was what was intended by the
author of the sentence and I didn't think twice about it when reading
it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 7:43:06 AM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
> * "Peter T. Daniels" <28c71abc-03d8-4678...@googlegroups.com> :
> Wrote on Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:28:40 -0700 (PDT):

> >> Historical examples would be when the British and Czars were
> >> competing for control of Afghanistan. A British officer quelled an
> >> uprising by executing the rebels and leaving them in a grave with
> >> pork carcasses. While many of the acts of sharia prevented their
> >> conscience from affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a
> >> pig did.
> >
> > There's something wrong with the last sentence there.
>
> A comma after `them' doesn't fix it for you?

Of course not. I read it just that way without any comma.

> > Aside from having no connection with the question it supposedly
> > answers.
>
> The officer engaged in moral terrorism (since contact with a pig carcase
> has the same hell-bound-consequences as immorality) .02

I do wish you hadn't deleted my question -- and had answered it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 7:52:43 AM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
> * David Kleinecke <d60e70ba-7a0f-4f5e...@googlegroups.com> :
> Wrote on Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:37:44 -0700 (PDT):

> > Urban legend alert - I heard the Muslims and pigs story told about
> > Pershing in the Philippines.
>
> The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 was spurred by rumours that the british
> officers were supplying the Indian soldiers with cartridges which were
> wrapped in dead-pig fat. fact check on aisle nine.

?? As opposed to live-pig fat ???????

> According to leviticus, handling an unclean animal like the pig does not
> cause any ritual impurity, but contact with the carcase of the same
> animal renders one unclean. The regulations on corpses would seem to
> breed a moral terror of contact with corpses. (?)

Um, so what? Muslims are not bound by Jewish ritual law!

Nor is "halal" remotely like "kosher."

Well, they're _remotely_ alike in that both include dietary restrictions.

[Tak To]

This is a resend.

On 10/21/2018 10:06 AM, bebe...@aol.com wrote:> Le dimanche 21 octobre 2018

06:22:18 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Le samedi 20 octobre 2018 21:11:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 2:56:00 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> On 20-Oct-18 6:28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>>>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 12:28:27 AM UTC-4, cbem...@gmail..com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 28, 2002 at 9:24:46 PM UTC-5, Paul A. O'Gorman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was wondering if anyone could explain the exact meaning of the phrase
>>>>>>>> 'moral terror'. It was used in the movie 'Apocalypse Now'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imagine a hypothetical situation in which exact force must be matched
with equal or greater shock and awe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Historical examples would be when the British and Czars were competing
for control of Afghanistan. A British officer quelled an uprising by executing
the rebels and leaving them in a grave with pork carcasses. While many of the
acts of sharia prevented their conscience from affecting them the threat of hell
due to touching a pig did.
>>>>>>

[...]

[PTD:]

>> What it says is "the threat of hell due to touching a pig did prevent their
conscience from affecting them," which doesn't make sense either.
>
> That makes no sense at all, as the complete sentence would go:
>
> "While many of the acts of sharia prevented their conscience from
> affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a pig did prevent
> their conscience from affecting them."
>
> The construction with "While" expresses concession, whereas there's
> no opposition between the two parts of the sentence, as in both cases,
> their conscience is "prevented from affecting them" - hence a total
> non sequitur.
>
> Concretely, what my interpretation implies is that sharia doesn't
> prevent Muslims from committing acts that their conscience reprobates,
> but the prospect of touching a pig and thereby going to hell does, so
> that the "moral terror" is used as a weapon - which does make sense.

I have the opposite interpretation. To wit, while the sharia
managed to *suppress* their innate moral repugnance (and allowed
them to exact "an eye for an eye"), their swinophobia[1] broke
hold of the suppression, allowing their innate moral repugnance
to affect their ability (to repay in kind).

[1] ObAUE: is there a better word for it?

In other words, a "not" was missing from the end of the original
sentence. ("While many of the acts of sharia prevented their
conscience from affecting them[,] the threat of hell due to touching
a pig did [not]".) It was a case of losing track of negations
in a long sentence.

Not that this example necessarily fits the kind of moral terrors
described by Colonel Kurtz. Or that the swinophobia is actually
part of the sharia.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 1:47:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> them to exact "an eye for an eye"), their swinophobia[1] broke
>

> [1] ObAUE: is there a better word for it?

In that a Greek root might be better for attaching to -phobia. Swine/sow
is Germanic, akin to Latin sus, Greek hys.

[bebe...@aol.com]

Actually, though not identical, your interpretation is akin to mine.

>
> [1] ObAUE: is there a better word for it?
>
> In other words, a "not" was missing from the end of the original
> sentence. ("While many of the acts of sharia prevented their
> conscience from affecting them[,] the threat of hell due to touching
> a pig did [not]".) It was a case of losing track of negations
> in a long sentence.

We're saying roughly the same thing, because your "did not" means
"did not prevent from affecting them" and my "did" means "did affect
them" - only, you add a negation to make the sentence click when I
just interpret it as poor writing.

[Tak To]

I know, but "swinophobia" already exists according to
UrbanDictionary.

Words of mixed roots like "meritocracy" seem to have survived
and become respectable.

[Tak To]

On 10/21/2018 3:08 PM, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 octobre 2018 19:47:00 UTC+2, Tak To a écrit :
>> This is a resend.
>>
>> On 10/21/2018 10:06 AM, bebe...@aol.com wrote:> Le dimanche 21 octobre 2018
>> 06:22:18 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:15:43 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>> Le samedi 20 octobre 2018 21:11:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>>>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 2:56:00 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20-Oct-18 6:28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Both you and I thought it as poor writing. Upon rereading
your message, I agree that ours interpretations are not the
opposite of each other. I was confused by the fact that you
kept the word "prevent" but negated both the verb and the
the object ("prevent ... qualm" -> "not prevent ... no-qualm").

[Madhu]

* "Peter T. Daniels" <d8303621-0736-418c...@googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Sun, 21 Oct 2018 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT):

> On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 7:43:06 AM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
>> * "Peter T. Daniels" <28c71abc-03d8-4678...@googlegroups.com> :
>> Wrote on Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:28:40 -0700 (PDT):
>
>> >> Historical examples would be when the British and Czars were
>> >> competing for control of Afghanistan. A British officer quelled an
>> >> uprising by executing the rebels and leaving them in a grave with
>> >> pork carcasses. While many of the acts of sharia prevented their
>> >> conscience from affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a
>> >> pig did.

While many of the acts of sharia prevented their conscience from
affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a pig did.

When their conscience is not affected




>> >

>> > There's something wrong with the last sentence there.
>>
>> A comma after `them' doesn't fix it for you?
>
> Of course not. I read it just that way without any comma.
>
>> > Aside from having no connection with the question it supposedly
>> > answers.
>>
>> The officer engaged in moral terrorism (since contact with a pig carcase
>> has the same hell-bound-consequences as immorality) .02
>
> I do wish you hadn't deleted my question -- and had answered it.

[AFAICS I only deleted the original reference to Apocalypse Now, and
preserved your text. The last .02 sentence was my attempt at an answer
to your comment]

I should have given up digging in this thread by now, But if this
sentence is viewed as a form of "double ellipsis", that makes my other
post (interpreting "conscience") a complete mess.

While many of the acts of sharia [*did not* not] prevent their

conscience from affecting them the threat of hell due to touching a pig

*did* [not prevent their conscience from affecting them.]

[bebe...@aol.com]

? That's a bit convoluted. Wouldn't it be more judicious to just assume
that the sentence was written sloppily and the author actually used "did"
implying "affect", i.e. just following their idea and not realizing that,
syntactically, "did" should refer to "prevent" in the sentence? This type
of careless mistake is pretty common.

[Richard Yates]

There must be a variant of Hanlon's Razor that fits here:

Never attribute to design that which is adequately explained by
sloppiness.

[Quinn C]

* Tak To:

> On 10/21/2018 2:23 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 1:47:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>>
>>> them to exact "an eye for an eye"), their swinophobia[1] broke
>>>
>>> [1] ObAUE: is there a better word for it?
>>
>> In that a Greek root might be better for attaching to -phobia. Swine/sow
>> is Germanic, akin to Latin sus, Greek hys.
>
> I know, but "swinophobia" already exists according to
> UrbanDictionary.
>
> Words of mixed roots like "meritocracy" seem to have survived
> and become respectable.

Meseems Latin/Greek hybrids (automobile, television) are more
respectable than Germanic/Greek ones (say, "fishology".)

A Greek root gives choirophobia, but it's not widely used. The
above-mentioned "hys" could allow non-standard "hyshysteria".

--
Novels and romances ... when habitually indulged in, exert a
disastrous influence on the nervous system, sufficient to explain
that frequency of hysteria and nervous disease which we find
among the highest classes. -- E.J. Tilt

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Tak To:
> > On 10/21/2018 2:23 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 1:47:00 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:

> >>> them to exact "an eye for an eye"), their swinophobia[1] broke
> >>> [1] ObAUE: is there a better word for it?
> >> In that a Greek root might be better for attaching to -phobia. Swine/sow
> >> is Germanic, akin to Latin sus, Greek hys.
> > I know, but "swinophobia" already exists according to
> > UrbanDictionary.
> > Words of mixed roots like "meritocracy" seem to have survived
> > and become respectable.

Well, survived.

> Meseems Latin/Greek hybrids (automobile, television) are more
> respectable than Germanic/Greek ones (say, "fishology".)
>
> A Greek root gives choirophobia, but it's not widely used. The
> above-mentioned "hys" could allow non-standard "hyshysteria".

Something to do with sows' wombs?

[Quinn C]

* bebe...@aol.com:

That's what I thought. Something to the effect of "While their
conscience didn't affect them (acts of sharia preventing it), that
other thing did."

--
Some things are taken away from you, some you leave behind-and
some you carry with you, world without end.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.31