Is Science Fiction Becoming Respectable ?
Jarrox2
Taking Sci-Fi Seriously
Michelle Gienow
Jeff Young, in Starship Troopers gear at August's World Science
Fiction Convention in Baltimore, is one of the fans who keep sci-fi
writers in business, but some scribes feel ghettoized by their genre's
spacey image.
By Scott Carlson
Ask literature and creative-writing instructor John Flynn to name some
of his favorite classic books. You'll hear a few of the usual
suspects: Finnegans Wake, The Great Gatsby. You'll also hear some
lesser-known titles--A Canticle for Leibowitz, Last and First Men, The
Demolished Man, Childhood's End. And the authors? Sure, Arthur C.
Clarke sounds familiar, but Olaf Stapledon? Alfred Bester? Walter M.
Miller Jr.?
Clearly, Flynn's love of literature extends outside the Modern
Library. His writing class at Towson University focuses on science
fiction, and he draws his reading lists from that genre's often
derided or just plain ignored writers. Despite sci-fi's pop-culture
ubiquity and occasional blips of respectability among the literati,
the genre has never quite shaken its blue-collar roots and pulpy
origins. Mainstream-media attention tends to focus on the guy in the
rubber Spock ears and the stereotypical fan's harrowing fashion sense.
Much of the audience, generation after generation, is in its teens.
Even the most philosophical science fiction is first and foremost
escapist, and the stuff that isn't highbrow can be very lowbrow. The
genre is home to many of the literary world's biggest bores,
schlockmeisters, panderers, and con artists--which can make it all the
tougher, while standing before your local bookstore's science-fiction
wall, to discern the work of some of the least-known great authors of
the 20th century.
Welcome to John Flynn's world. He's been devouring science fiction
since before he was a teenager. Like most science-fiction fans, Flynn
knows that most folks see his favorite subject, his hobby, his social
circle, and his writing as "kids' stuff." Outsiders point to--and
often sneer at--stories with spaceships, rayguns, and campy trappings.
Flynn's more interested in "speculative fiction," known among fans as
SF--it's science fiction's more serious face. SF includes genre
classics such as Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, James Blish's A Case
of Conscience, and The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick. But
Flynn argues that the SF tag also belongs on many works considered to
be part of the canon, such as Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, George
Orwell's 1984, and H.G. Wells' The Time Machine.
"I see the prejudice [in academia] in terms of what is real literature
and what is trash literature," Flynn says. "It took me many years to
get my science-fiction course going, simply because they saw what I
was offering as less than real literature--something that was less
than what you would expect of a university.
"I tell all my students who take my science-fiction writing course,
'Before you come into this class, you have to be good writers first,
and then you can start writing science fiction.' There's this
preconceived notion that if you can't write, maybe you can write
sci-fi. And so when you go into Borders, clearly H.G. Wells and Jules
Verne and all of these greats belong in 'literature,' but I would
argue that [science-fiction] greats like Harlan Ellison and Ray
Bradbury belong there as well."
Flynn started his course to "pay forward" the kind of support he got
from SF greats Damon Knight and Kate Wilhelm when he was writing in
college. Flynn tries to steer his students away from sci-fi clichés
and the ubiquitous "novelizations" of movies and television programs
such as Star Trek, Highlander, and Xena, Warrior Princess. In the
three semesters the course has been offered, five students have
published stories. For those who haven't gotten that far, Flynn has
created an online anthology for students' work, Nexus (www.towson.
edu/~flynn/Welcome. html).
Flynn's students are chasing SF legends like Joe Haldeman, who got his
start writing science fiction in a college creative-writing class in
1967. Drafted later that year, he went to Vietnam as a combat
engineer. After leaving the Army in 1970, he began work on the
novellas that would become The Forever War, his allegorical SF
treatment of the Vietnam conflict. The Forever War centered on a group
of free-loving futuristic soldiers sent to a distant galaxy to fight
an unknown and unseen enemy. When they return home hundreds of years
later (thanks to relativity, several Earth years are just a day to
them), they can't reconnect with their changed world.
Haldeman is a good example of what SF is and isn't about. It's not so
much about questions such as, "What gadgets would we need to live on
Mars?," although SF does address such issues. For writers such as
Haldeman, SF is more about addressing human issues--in The Forever
War, for example, the effects of sex and violence on the psyche. Most
SF classics address weighty topics: Frank Herbert's Dune (1965) had
ecological themes; Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness
(1969) examined sexuality and gender in its treatment of a race of
hermaphrodites; Thomas M. Disch's 334 (1972) looked at the
not-so-distant future of urban life--crowded, grimy, and hopeless.
When it comes to technological advances, Haldeman says, "we're not
good at predicting the future. I don't think that's what our job is.
We're basically here to explain the present." For The Forever War, he
says, "I sort of put a new spin on The Red Badge of Courage and set it
in outer space."
The Forever War won the Hugo and Nebula awards, science fiction's
literary crowns. In his recent SF analysis The Dreams Our Stuff is
Made Of, Disch contends that The Forever War "deserved a Pulitzer, for
it is to the Vietnam War what Catch-22 was to World War II, the
definitive, bleakly comic satire."
Yet Haldeman remains virtually unknown outside SF circles. "All of the
people who set the standards for literature generally think of science
fiction as a harmless type of entertainment," he says. "And once it
becomes serious enough to be regarded as academically accessible--like
[Kurt Vonnegut's] Slaughterhouse-Five or anything that's remotely
feminist or politically acceptable--they're not science-fiction
writers anymore. They're feminist writers or homosexual writers or
Hispanic writers who happen to use the tropes of science fiction. If
they're smart, they'll take advantage of that, 'cause their advances
will go up, they'll stay in print. Whereas if they stay as
science-fiction writers they'll suffer the slings and arrows that the
rest of us put up with."
Still, science fiction has treated Haldeman well. He says he hasn't
had to worry about money since he started writing. Although many SF
writers struggle to get published and earn a living through their
writing, Tor Books editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden agrees Haldeman's
security isn't unusual. What's known as "category SF" might be smaller
and less respected than mainstream literature, but the genre has a
dedicated core of readers.
"On the one hand, being sold as category SF offers a level of
reliability that just isn't there for an ambitious but otherwise
unknown mainstream writer," Nielsen Hayden says. "On the other, if
you're published in fantasy and science fiction, it's unlikely that
you're ever going to get the top levels of literary respect--you're
unlikely to be short-listed for a Pulitzer."
Of course, the respectability of category SF's ingenuity and foresight
doesn't mean the larger genre doesn't encompass its share of dreck:
adolescent books with busty female warriors on the cover; clunky,
preachy novels about nuclear holocausts; and, in the corresponding
fantasy genre, "yet another unreadable trilogy about elves," as SF
writer and academic Samuel R. Delany recently put it.
The junk food includes the multimedia tie-ins, upon which the
science-fiction industry is growing more reliant. While pop sci-fi is
more popular than ever--just look at the budgets and revenues of
Independence Day and anything in the Star Trek universe--serious
science-fiction book sales are stagnant. Publishers are increasingly
turning to serial novelizations of movies, comic books, and television
shows. About half of science fiction's 1,000 titles last year were
serial- or media-related.
Flynn, Haldeman, and many SF fans worry that the glut of tie-ins will
clutter the science-fiction shelves or dumb down the audience, which
would edge out more original work. Others argue that the tie-ins bring
in money, support new writers (who often write tie-ins for a large
advance and low return), and support the costs of publishing original
work. It was the topic of a heated panel discussion at the World
Science Fiction Convention held in Baltimore last August, and the
controversy came up in many other panels.
Still, Nielsen Hayden says, even in its golden age science fiction
always had an eye on the bottom line and a fan base for the bottom of
the field. "The people who were buying excellent science fiction by
Theodore Sturgeon and Robert A. Heinlein were also buying Captain
Future [pulp] magazines and comic books," he says. What's encouraging
is that science fiction's style and language is increasingly
appropriated by mainstream literary lions such as Gore Vidal, Norman
Mailer, John Updike, Margaret Atwood, Martin Amis, Doris Lessing, and
David Foster Wallace. That doesn't necessarily mean science fiction is
finally going to get the respect the fans might think it deserves,
Nielsen Hayden notes. "That simply means that a popular, intelligent
audience for serious fiction will have the furniture and tropes of
science fiction kicking around in their heads, and you can use them to
tell stories," he says.
And that means science fiction is creating a future for itself outside
of its ghetto. "When I was reading it back in the '60s, I was the odd
man out," Flynn says. "Now it's the cool thing to do. It has permeated
the culture in so many ways.
"I think the reason why it has conquered is because it is the
literature of ideas, and it's ideas that shape our tomorrows. Science
fiction has always been about looking forward. The world has caught up
to science fiction, not the other way around."
htn963
(And the part in the article about Haldeman's _Forever War_ being
to the Vietnam war what _Catch-22_ is to WWII is absurd.)
--
Ht
Mike Schilling
"htn963" <htn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1105331534....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> No, and thank God for that.
>
> (And the part in the article about Haldeman's _Forever War_ being
> to the Vietnam war what _Catch-22_ is to WWII is absurd.)
Particularly since Catct-22 wasn't really about WWII; it used a WWII bomber
squadron Italy as a setting simply because Heller had served in one.
RichA
>Gold Futures
>
>Taking Sci-Fi Seriously
>
>
>Michelle Gienow
>
>Jeff Young, in Starship Troopers gear at August's World Science
>Fiction Convention in Baltimore, is one of the fans who keep sci-fi
>writers in business, but some scribes feel ghettoized by their genre's
>spacey image.
I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
rather than simply inventing something completely idiotic and calling
it a science fiction concept.
-Rich
trotsky
> On 9 Jan 2005 19:52:13 -0800, jarro...@hotmail.com (Jarrox2) wrote:
>
>
>>Gold Futures
>>
>>Taking Sci-Fi Seriously
>>
>>
>>Michelle Gienow
>>
>>Jeff Young, in Starship Troopers gear at August's World Science
>>Fiction Convention in Baltimore, is one of the fans who keep sci-fi
>>writers in business, but some scribes feel ghettoized by their genre's
>>spacey image.
>
>
> I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
> person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
> science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
> should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not
know what the fuck you are talking about again?
Mike Schilling
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
> RichA wrote:
>>
>> I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
>> person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
>> science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
>> should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
>
>
> By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not know
> what the fuck you are talking about again?
"Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to", it
always means the latter. See
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
suggesting that you're not one. On the other hand, your command of
idiomatic English is flawless, suggesting the opposite. (Well, almost
flawless; that should be "do you mean", not "you mean", but that could be a
simple typo.) So, if you don't mind my asking, which is it?
Raven
news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
> RichA wrote:
> > I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
> > person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
> > science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
> > should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
> By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not
> know what the fuck you are talking about again?
From Appendix A (v), "The Return of the King":
And she stood then as still as a white tree, looking into the West, and
at last she said: "I will cleave to you, Dúnadan, and turn from the
Twilight. Yet there lies the land of my people and the long home of all my
kin." She loved her father dearly.
This is Arwen telling Aragorn that yes, she will wed him, knowing that
this marriage will not only be for life, but also for after-life.
(And now you can perhaps guess which of the NGs *I'm* posting from.)
Voron.
Christopher Kreuzer
Ooh! This is fun! Using Tolkien to teach English vocab...
Some Elven-vocab with word elements meaning 'cleave':
Angrist
Calacirya
Cirth
Cirith
Cirdan
Tar-Ciryatan
Ciryon
Orcrist
Crissaegrim
Imladris
Sangahyando (Throng-cleaver)
"They were led by Angamaite and Sangahyando, the great-grandsons of
Castamir." (LotR, Appendix A [I, iv])
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
trotsky
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
>
>>RichA wrote:
>
>
>>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
>>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
>>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
>>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
>>
>>
>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not know
>>what the fuck you are talking about again?
>
>
> "Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to", it
> always means the latter. See
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>
> I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
*opposite* meanings? Why?
> suggesting that you're not one. On the other hand, your command of
> idiomatic English is flawless, suggesting the opposite. (Well, almost
> flawless; that should be "do you mean", not "you mean", but that could be a
> simple typo.) So, if you don't mind my asking, which is it?
It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English" that
I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as such.
trotsky
I see. The only Tolkien I've read was "The Silmarillion". This is
interesting, though: the subject line is about science fiction, which
tends to be "modern" in style, and yet Rich managed to used verbiage
that seems at home in rhetoric that is the exact opposite, Tolkien's. I
still think an explanation is in order.
trotsky
Good job, Rich--you have inadvertently aligned yourself with
Tolkienites. Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.
Wendy Chatley Green
:It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
:I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
You've also never been married in a traditional Christian
ceremony (or weren't paying attention.)
Sample Ceremony #7 <http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2461>
--
Wendy (saying "hi" from misc.writing)
Chatley Green
--
Wendy Chatley Green
Tar-Elenion
Try any number of passages from the Bible, starting with Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to
his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
http://bible.cc/genesis/2-24.htm
--
Tar-Elenion
He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Josh Hill
>Mike Schilling wrote:
>> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
>>>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
>>>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
>>>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
>>>
>>>
>>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not know
>>>what the fuck you are talking about again?
>>
>>
>> "Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to", it
>> always means the latter. See
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>>
>> I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
>
>
>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
>*opposite* meanings? Why?
Perhaps because it does?
>> suggesting that you're not one. On the other hand, your command of
>> idiomatic English is flawless, suggesting the opposite. (Well, almost
>> flawless; that should be "do you mean", not "you mean", but that could be a
>> simple typo.) So, if you don't mind my asking, which is it?
>
>
>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
>speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English" that
>I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as such.
It's fairly commonplace.
--
Josh
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
>*opposite* meanings? Why?
>
>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
>speech.
So you've never read the King James Bible or the Book of Common
Prayer, or listened to any traditional preachers discussing marriage?
Saying that a man shall "cleave to" his wife is common in all three.
RichA
cleave; Pronunciation Key (klv)
intr.v. cleaved, cleav·ing, cleaves
1. To adhere, cling, or stick fast.
2. To be faithful: cleave to one's principles.
RichA
>Mike Schilling wrote:
>> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
>>>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
>>>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
>>>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
>>>
>>>
>>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not know
>>>what the fuck you are talking about again?
>>
>>
>> "Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to", it
>> always means the latter. See
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>>
>> I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
>
>
>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
>*opposite* meanings? Why?
Tangent alert.
RichA
Ok. Your mother drank HEAVILY before you were born.
-Rich
Robert A. Woodward
RichA <no...@none.com> wrote:
My dictionary claims that they are two different words (IIRC, they
would thus be hetronyms). The slight difference in pronunciation
that existed in Anglo-Saxon has disappeared.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw
Gene Ward Smith
trotsky wrote:
> I see. The only Tolkien I've read was "The Silmarillion". This is
> interesting, though: the subject line is about science fiction, which
> tends to be "modern" in style, and yet Rich managed to used verbiage
> that seems at home in rhetoric that is the exact opposite, Tolkien's.
I
> still think an explanation is in order.
You cleave asunder your favorite phrases, and he can cleave to his.
Mark ye well that never the shall twain meet, for that seems not meet,
nor wholesome to their place.
the softrat
>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
Your reading must have been limited to Spiderman Comix. Try reading
the book with all the begats.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
What you have to do is take the bull by the teeth.
Mike Van Pelt
>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
>speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English" that
>I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as such.
The climactic scene in "Silas Marner", where the young woman he
has raised from infancy says she will "cleave to" him as long
as he lives. (I haven't read that one since high school, some
thirtymumble years ago...)
--
Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the moon, | Mike Van Pelt
and that's a very dubious and disappointing honor. | mvp.at.calweb.com
It's been far too long. -- Gene Cernan | KE6BVH
Errol Cavit
news:5cm6u09req9n4h8e7...@news.rcn.com...
You think that not having done any of those things recently enough to
remember unusual word usage is unlikely? I don't know if I ever read the
KJV, and if I did I doubt I could recall every bit of 'out-of-place' word
usage now. I don't think I've heard any traditional marriage vows as an
adult. That usage was totally unfamiliar to me.
Not that this excuses the insulting response to the original 'cleave to'
comment.
--
Errol Cavit | errol...@hotmail.com
Our birth and death are likened to / Each daily morn and eve.
And seasons too, their annual round; / Why should we weep and grieve?
from "Transition", Herbert Cavit 1916 - 2004
JAXAshby
words (from the Bible?).
cleave, and ravel are two self antinyms I am aware of in English. Probably,
there are more.
trotsky
The Bible! This is too great! Rich, how many times can you screw the
pooch in one thread?
trotsky
> For some inexplicable reasons, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
> :It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
> :I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
>
> You've also never been married in a traditional Christian
> ceremony (or weren't paying attention.)
>
> Sample Ceremony #7 <http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2461>
Married! Is that where Rich got it from! I'm laughing out loud now!
trotsky
Yeah, sure, in the Bible and Christian marriage ceremonies. Can you
come up with even one example that's even vaguely modern, and didn't I
already ask this fucking question?
trotsky
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
>>*opposite* meanings? Why?
>>
>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
>>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>>definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
>>speech.
>
>
> So you've never read the King James Bible or the Book of Common
> Prayer, or listened to any traditional preachers discussing marriage?
No, but I've never had a gun to my head, either.
> Saying that a man shall "cleave to" his wife is common in all three.
Thanks, Religious Ed.
trotsky
Not good enough, Rich. I'm still waiting for a single example used in
modern day speech. By "modern day" I mean not Tolkien and not King
James related. If you want to fess up and tell us one or both of these
were your influences for saying such a thing I'm all ears. This oughtta
be good.
trotsky
Cosine!
trotsky
That's besides the point, Rich. The onus is on you, and so far you've
shown yourself to be an anus rather than showing us an onus. Sorry.
trotsky
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
>
>
> Your reading must have been limited to Spiderman Comix. Try reading
> the book with all the begats.
Yeah, I've seen where religious zealots have gotten this country.
Interesting, though, that you would accuse a "fancypants intellectual"
of only reading Spiderman. I think you've got your two sides confused,
ratty.
trotsky
That's very clever, Eugene. What exactly transpires when one "cleaves
asunder" his favorite phrases, or does one have to spend some quality
time with a water pipe to get this?
trotsky
> In article <ViHEd.590$IV5.85@attbi_s54>, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Mike Schilling wrote:
>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
>>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>>definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
>>speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English" that
>>I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as such.
>
>
> The climactic scene in "Silas Marner", where the young woman he
> has raised from infancy says she will "cleave to" him as long
> as he lives. (I haven't read that one since high school, some
> thirtymumble years ago...)
The scorecard: The King James Bible, J.R.R. Tolkien, "Silas Marner" as
brought to us by Ms. George Eliot in 1861, and some raving Usenet
goofball named "RichA". This is the thing that amazes me about Usenet:
somebody (me, in this case) makes a valid point that "cleave to" is
archaic (although in this particular post I was still thinking it might
be a British thing), and ten other posters, like lemmings, all line up
to chime in opposition so they can be COMPLETELY WRONG. It's not like
there's a little grey area here, as if "cleave to" is occasionally used
in modern speech; from the examples here it is NEVER used in modern
speech, and yet the Usenet lemmings are perfectly willing to speak up
and ring in with horseshit examples that prove themselves wrong.
Amazing. I'm sure somewhere a sociologist can draw some conclusions
about the whole thing.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:58:17 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>>
>> Tangent alert.
>
>Cosine!
>
What a bunch of squares!
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
trotsky
> "Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
> news:5cm6u09req9n4h8e7...@news.rcn.com...
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
>>>*opposite* meanings? Why?
>>>
>>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>>>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
>>>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>>>definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
>>>speech.
>>
>>So you've never read the King James Bible or the Book of Common
>>Prayer, or listened to any traditional preachers discussing marriage?
>>
>>Saying that a man shall "cleave to" his wife is common in all three.
>>
>
>
> You think that not having done any of those things recently enough to
> remember unusual word usage is unlikely? I don't know if I ever read the
> KJV, and if I did I doubt I could recall every bit of 'out-of-place' word
> usage now. I don't think I've heard any traditional marriage vows as an
> adult. That usage was totally unfamiliar to me.
> Not that this excuses the insulting response to the original 'cleave to'
> comment.
Thanks for being the one sane one in the bunch. And if you were to
understand "RichA's" posting history you would probably say I was being
to mild. Just a few posts ago, for example, he was saying in the
current films newsgroup that he'd like to see Tim Robbins burnt to
cinders. Rich is, in fact, mentally ill, but won't tell us what he's
been diagnosed with.
Michael Alan Chary
Those are examples of normal human speech?
--
In memoriam Ray Charles, 1918-2004. Hear Brother Ray sing "America:"
http://www.symbolicproductions.com/America/flash/flash.html
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
John Ashby
Leaping off a cliff I say that google give me:
http://www.hispanicheritage.com/faith/mexicancatholic_08_02.htm
I discounted pages clearly using the KJV usage.
There's a nice Times of India page as well.
john
Joyce Choiniere
saw it used in a sentence that it shouldn't be used in a sentence
because your to lazy to look it up.
trotsky
No, Joyce, I'm saying about ten posters have had the opportunity to
provide a single example of "cleave to" used in any modern writing, and
thus far a big fat zero has been returned. Would you describe yourself
as a lemming?
Joyce Choiniere
Rich used it in a sentence on 1/11/05 (modern use). Only you didn't get
the meaning. And only because it was used in a sentence refuting your
original point. To obscure the fact that your original point was weak
you start an argument about the use of a phrase. You sir are an Idiot.
trotsky
> trotsky wrote:
>
>>> So what your saying is because you never used it in a sentence and
>>> never saw it used in a sentence that it shouldn't be used in a
>>> sentence because your to lazy to look it up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, Joyce, I'm saying about ten posters have had the opportunity to
>> provide a single example of "cleave to" used in any modern writing,
>> and thus far a big fat zero has been returned. Would you describe
>> yourself as a lemming?
>>
> Rich used it in a sentence on 1/11/05 (modern use). Only you didn't get
> the meaning. And only because it was used in a sentence refuting your
> original point. To obscure the fact that your original point was weak
> you start an argument about the use of a phrase. You sir are an Idiot.
Ah yes, ranDom capitalization, a sure sign of functional illiteracy.
htn963
******
"htn963" <htn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1105331534....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> No, and thank God for that.
> (And the part in the article about Haldeman's _Forever War_ being
> to the Vietnam war what _Catch-22_ is to WWII is absurd.)
Particularly since Catct-22 wasn't really about WWII; it used a WWII
bomber
squadron Italy as a setting simply because Heller had served in one.
******
_Catch-22_, in any case, has more de facto claims to being a good
novel about WWII than _Forever War_ being a good novel about the
Vietnam War. Unless by a big stretch of the imagination, the Haldeman
fanboys considered the aliens to be Vietnamese.* Just because a writer
uses his past experience and angst as source materials for his work
doesn't mean he's written the definite work about that past experience
and angst.
<And WTF does the majority of posts in so many threads devoted to
a nitpicking irrelevancies that had nothing to do with the main topic
to begin with. >
*Were 2 million civilian aliens killed in the book too? Hmm...
--
Ht
Alan Hope
>Mike Schilling wrote:
>> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
>>>RichA wrote:
>>>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
>>>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
>>>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
>>>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
>>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not know
>>>what the fuck you are talking about again?
>> "Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to", it
>> always means the latter. See
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>> I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
>*opposite* meanings? Why?
Because it's a word that can have two opposite meanings, and so is
very remarkable.
>> suggesting that you're not one. On the other hand, your command of
>> idiomatic English is flawless, suggesting the opposite. (Well, almost
>> flawless; that should be "do you mean", not "you mean", but that could be a
>> simple typo.) So, if you don't mind my asking, which is it?
>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
Never had your tongue cleave to the roof of your mouth, then. Lucky
you. See Ezekiel 3:26.
>I would
>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
>speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English" that
>I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as such.
Just because they're not part of everyday speech doesn't invalidate
their use. This search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cleave+to%22&btnG=Google+Search
gives more than 100K results. "cleave unto" gives 39,000. So the
phrase is out there.
It would have been more gracious to say, "Gosh, that's a new one on
me, how interesting, learn something new every day, eh?" instead of
being an asshole and trying to change the English language
retrospectively to cover your ignorance.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Can you
>come up with even one example that's even vaguely modern, and didn't I
>already ask this fucking question?
What difference does it make whether it's modern? You've a pretty
limited viewpoint for an "avid reader".
--
AH
rrh...@acme.com
That was my thought. His argument seems to be that this use of 'cleave
to' is wrong because he isn't familiar with it. In other words, others
should adjust their writing downward to accommodate his ignorance.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Richard R. Hershberger
T
<snip>
>
> It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
> I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
"To Cleave Unto..."
Never Heard/Read that before?
TBerk
Jette Goldie
"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:u2u6u05r0002o5jra...@4ax.com...
> >I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
>
> the book with all the begats.
>
Or just something with a bit of literary history.
--
Jette
Never bet on Star Trek trivia if your opponent speaks Klingon.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
Jette Goldie
Exactly *which* college are you a graduate of? Technical college?
Jette Goldie
> Mike Schilling wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
> >
> >>RichA wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
> >>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
> >>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
> >>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
> >>
> >>
> >>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not
know
> >>what the fuck you are talking about again?
> >
> >
> > "Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to",
it
> > always means the latter. See
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
> >
> > I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
>
>
> Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
> *opposite* meanings? Why?
>
Because he's a native English speaker.......... It's hardly the only
example of the idiosyncrasies of English.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
T
> trotsky goes:
>
>
>>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
>>*opposite* meanings? Why?
>
>
> Because it's a word that can have two opposite meanings, and so is
> very remarkable.
>
Look. It has ONE meaning.
"To Cleave Unto" means to cut away from THEM and stick with Me (or whom
ever).
Think CLEAVER, a cutting implement.
Now; Is Science Fiction Becoming Respectable ?
TBerk
Towse
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
>>
>>> RichA wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
>>>> person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
>>>> science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
>>>> should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
>>>
>>> By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not
>>> know what the fuck you are talking about again?
>>
>> "Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to",
>> it always means the latter. See
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>>
>> I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
>
> Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
> *opposite* meanings? Why?
'Sakes, there are entire Web sites devoted to words with two *opposite*
meanings. "Cleave" is one of the ubiquitous examples.
<http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html>
>> suggesting that you're not one. On the other hand, your command of
>> idiomatic English is flawless, suggesting the opposite. (Well, almost
>> flawless; that should be "do you mean", not "you mean", but that could
>> be a simple typo.) So, if you don't mind my asking, which is it?
>
> It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
> I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
> have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
> definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
> speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English" that
> I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as such.
http://www.google.com/search?q="cleave to"
results: ~ 111,000
Take out any instances of "The Honorable Van Cleave to Speak at ..." and
all those pesky dictionary instances and you'll still be left with a
couple examples.
--
Sal (additional greetings from misc.writing)
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
Mike Schilling
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
>>>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
>>>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
>>>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
>>>
>>>
>>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not know
>>>what the fuck you are talking about again?
>>
>>
>> "Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to", it
>> always means the latter. See
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>>
>> I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
>
>
> Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
> *opposite* meanings? Why?
Because I expect native English speakers to be fluent in English. Silly of
me, perhaps ...
>
>
>> suggesting that you're not one. On the other hand, your command of
>> idiomatic English is flawless, suggesting the opposite. (Well, almost
>> flawless; that should be "do you mean", not "you mean", but that could be
>> a simple typo.) So, if you don't mind my asking, which is it?
>
>
> It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and I've
> never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would have to
> say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary definition,
> where those two words are used together in normal humans' speech. Now,
> this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English" that I've never heard
> of, but again, I would like to see it used as such.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cleave+to%22 gives 111,000 hits.
Choose your favorites.
Mike Schilling
>>*opposite* meanings? Why?
>>
>>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
>>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>>definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
>>speech.
>
> Prayer, or listened to any traditional preachers discussing marriage?
>
> Saying that a man shall "cleave to" his wife is common in all three.
That's what Dr. Crippen thought, anyway.
Alan Hope
>This is the thing that amazes me about Usenet:
>somebody (me, in this case) makes a valid point that "cleave to" is
>archaic (although in this particular post I was still thinking it might
>be a British thing), and ten other posters, like lemmings, all line up
>to chime in opposition so they can be COMPLETELY WRONG.
You didn't make the point that it was archaic. You took a pot-shot
which showed you were utterly unaware the word had two meanings. The
archaic point came later, as an attempt to repair your damaged arse.
The meaning you were aware of, incidentally, is just as archaic (apart
from one medical term) as the one you didn't know about. So there goes
your whole position.
--
AH
DAA
"Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message
news:u7UEd.8455$GG1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ViHEd.590$IV5.85@attbi_s54...
> > Mike Schilling wrote:
> > > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
> > >
> > >>RichA wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
> > >>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
> > >>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
> > >>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not
> know
> > >>what the fuck you are talking about again?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to",
> it
> > > always means the latter. See
> > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
> > >
> > > I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
> >
> >
> > Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
> > *opposite* meanings? Why?
> >
>
> Because he's a native English speaker.......... It's hardly the only
> example of the idiosyncrasies of English.
I'm not a particulary avid reader by this groups standards, have never read
the bible, read Tolkien once 25 years ago and am familiar, though just
barely, with both meanings of cleave. The turn of this thread boggles the
mind. Have our ego's become so fragile that we now attack each other for
having a larger vocabulary.
Just admit you over-reacted take from this experience a new expanded
understanding of cleave and move on.
Zero
news:a6v7u01c7utsua6hr...@4ax.com...
> trotsky goes:
> >Mike Schilling wrote:
> >> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just
> >>>not know what the fuck you are talking about again?
>
> >> "Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere".
> >> When used with "to", it always means the latter.
> >> See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>
> >> I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
>
> >Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has
> >two *opposite* meanings? Why?
>
> Because it's a word that can have two opposite meanings, and
> so is very remarkable.
and here i thought that sarcasm had made that so of most words
(by default).
momma mia. dis' English, she is so' a complicated.
Dave Shipley
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:76QEd.1120$eT5.1045@attbi_s51...
> the softrat wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
> >>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
> >
> >
> > Your reading must have been limited to Spiderman Comix. Try reading
> > the book with all the begats.
>
>
> Yeah, I've seen where religious zealots have gotten this country.
> Interesting, though, that you would accuse a "fancypants intellectual"
> of only reading Spiderman. I think you've got your two sides confused,
> ratty.
I don't think one has to be 'religious' or a 'zealot' to read the Bible. In
fact, given the relevance of the Judeo-Christian mythos to Western
literature and culture, I'd consider it to be an interesting and useful read
for anyone.
--
Dave Shipley
------------------------------------------------------------
The end of the human era
------------------------------------------------------------
trotsky
> Alan Hope wrote:
>
>>trotsky goes:
>>
>>
>>>Can you
>>>come up with even one example that's even vaguely modern, and didn't
>
> I
>
>>>already ask this fucking question?
>>
>>What difference does it make whether it's modern? You've a pretty
>>limited viewpoint for an "avid reader".
>
>
> That was my thought. His argument seems to be that this use of 'cleave
> to' is wrong
How is using a word in the English language "wrong"? These lemmings be
getting obstreperous.
because he isn't familiar with it. In other words, others
> should adjust their writing downward to accommodate his ignorance.
> Thanks, but no thanks.
Kewl, you can fuck off now. Lemming.
trotsky
No, and to be frank, I've never heard of a word being it's own antonym
before, either. You?
trotsky
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ViHEd.590$IV5.85@attbi_s54...
>
>>Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
>>>
>>>
>>>>RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
>>>>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
>>>>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
>>>>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not
>
> know
>
>>>>what the fuck you are talking about again?
>>>
>>>
>>>"Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to",
>
> it
>
>>>always means the latter. See
>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>>>
>>>I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
>>
>>
>>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
>>*opposite* meanings? Why?
>>
>
>
> Because he's a native English speaker.......... It's hardly the only
> example of the idiosyncrasies of English.
Yeah--the running theme here is that you lemmings are *very* short on
examples.
trotsky
> "the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:u2u6u05r0002o5jra...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>>>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
>>
>>Your reading must have been limited to Spiderman Comix. Try reading
>>the book with all the begats.
>>
>
>
>
> Or just something with a bit of literary history.
Yep, we're still at zero examples.
trotsky
Why, are you going to give us motherfucking examples of colleges whose
curricula teach "cleave to" as a part of modern speech? Do tell.
Did I mention that you remind me of a lemming?
trotsky
Wow, are you saying there are a couple of examples in the ten or twenty
billion documents Google has access to? Now we're on to something!
trotsky
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ViHEd.590$IV5.85@attbi_s54...
>
>>Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
>>>
>>>
>>>>RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the average
>>>>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant of
>>>>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to fantasy)
>>>>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind science,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just not know
>>>>what the fuck you are talking about again?
>>>
>>>
>>>"Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with "to", it
>>>always means the latter. See
>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>>>
>>>I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know that,
>>
>>
>>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has two
>>*opposite* meanings? Why?
>
>
> Because I expect native English speakers to be fluent in English. Silly of
> me, perhaps ...
Now I'm getting perturbed. You're claiming that those fluent in English
are privy to words that are their own antonyms? I'm claim that you are
a liar, and a human piece of garbage for claiming such a thing.
>>>suggesting that you're not one. On the other hand, your command of
>>>idiomatic English is flawless, suggesting the opposite. (Well, almost
>>>flawless; that should be "do you mean", not "you mean", but that could be
>>>a simple typo.) So, if you don't mind my asking, which is it?
>>
>>
>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and I've
>>never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would have to
>>say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary definition,
>>where those two words are used together in normal humans' speech. Now,
>>this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English" that I've never heard
>>of, but again, I would like to see it used as such.
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cleave+to%22 gives 111,000 hits.
> Choose your favorites.
I think you're knowledge of Boolean searches needs a little work, dude.
For Christ's fucking sake, why is it that since Bush has been in
office people think it's cool to be fucking stupid?
trotsky
> trotsky goes:
>
>
>>This is the thing that amazes me about Usenet:
>>somebody (me, in this case) makes a valid point that "cleave to" is
>>archaic (although in this particular post I was still thinking it might
>>be a British thing), and ten other posters, like lemmings, all line up
>>to chime in opposition so they can be COMPLETELY WRONG.
>
>
> You didn't make the point that it was archaic. You took a pot-shot
> which showed you were utterly unaware the word had two meanings. The
> archaic point came later, as an attempt to repair your damaged arse.
You mean the FACTS came later, as the POINT was being discussed. There
was no fucking TIME LIMIT for this, you stupid bastard. Look, I've
tried to be as patient as possible with you lemmings, but I have to say
that if you're argument is that I haven't spent enough time curled up
with a King James Bible, I would have to conclude that that's your way
of saying that I'm not a loser. Now, I do like Tolkien, although I've
only read one of his works, but his writing is deliberately fashioned in
an antiquated way, so again, from a normal, conversational, 20th/21st
century context, "cleave to" just isn't happening. In fact, every one
that is saying it is is an asshole, because I claim to a man or woman
not one of you has every used it in a sentence. And no, Bible study
doesn't count.
> The meaning you were aware of, incidentally, is just as archaic (apart
> from one medical term) as the one you didn't know about. So there goes
> your whole position.
Whatever you say, lemming.
trotsky
Not good enough, sorry. Could you please tell us in what context you
became cognizant of the meaning of "cleave to"?
David E. Siegel
trotsky wrote:
> Josh Hill wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>RichA wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the
average
> >>>>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant
of
> >>>>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to
fantasy)
> >>>>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind
science,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just
not know
> >>>>what the fuck you are talking about again?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with
"to", it
> >>>always means the latter. See
> >>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
> >>>
> >>>I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know
that,
> >>
> >>
> >>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has
two
> >>*opposite* meanings? Why?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>suggesting that you're not one. On the other hand, your command
of
> >>>idiomatic English is flawless, suggesting the opposite. (Well,
almost
> >>>flawless; that should be "do you mean", not "you mean", but that
could be a
> >>>simple typo.) So, if you don't mind my asking, which is it?
> >>
> >>
> >>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader,
and
> >>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I
would
> >>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
> >>definition, where those two words are used together in normal
humans'
> >>speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English"
that
> >>I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as
such.
> >
> >
>
>
> Yeah, sure, in the Bible and Christian marriage ceremonies. Can you
> come up with even one example that's even vaguely modern, and didn't
I
> already ask this fucking question?
This usage is now rather rare, nd usually does contain an implicit
reference to biblicial language. The Tolkien usage quotes in this
thread is clearly in a section where a reffreence to the King James
language is intended.
For the matter of that "Cleve" as a verb in the senese of sever or chop
is also rather rare -- just how many "modern" examples can you provide
of that usage either? My understanding is that these were origianlly
two different words with simialr sounds, that eventually were spelled
in the same way.
But the use of biblical or otherwise rare, or even archaic language is
a perfectly valid part of english, that is one reason why it is a
flexable, complex, and rich language. This is certianly part of "normal
humans' speech" although it may not be paer of modal speech, that is,
the very most common speech forms. But then, most of english isn't
modal in that sense. Certianly much of, say Gene Wolfe or Jack Vance
(to bring in SF references) is not on everyone's lips, yet it is
perfectly valid standard english.
Just admit that this is a perfectly valid usage you didn't know about,
because it is now somwhat rare.
-DES
trotsky
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:76QEd.1120$eT5.1045@attbi_s51...
>
>>the softrat wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>>>>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your reading must have been limited to Spiderman Comix. Try reading
>>>the book with all the begats.
>>
>>
>>Yeah, I've seen where religious zealots have gotten this country.
>>Interesting, though, that you would accuse a "fancypants intellectual"
>>of only reading Spiderman. I think you've got your two sides confused,
>>ratty.
>
>
> I don't think one has to be 'religious' or a 'zealot' to read the Bible.
Good God, what happened to your brain, man? Where did I ever say that?
I was specifically referring to people that have "gotten the country
somewhere", which, not surprisingly, refers to the Bush administration.
In
> fact, given the relevance of the Judeo-Christian mythos to Western
> literature and culture, I'd consider it to be an interesting and useful read
> for anyone.
Greek mythology is a lot more interesting.
David E. Siegel
trotsky wrote:
> Josh Hill wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mike Schilling wrote:
> >>
> >>>"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
and
would
> >>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
> >>definition, where those two words are used together in normal
humans'
> >>speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English"
that
> >>I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as
such.
> >
> >
> > It's fairly commonplace.
>
>
> Yeah, sure, in the Bible and Christian marriage ceremonies. Can you
> come up with even one example that's even vaguely modern, and didn't
I
> already ask this fucking question?
Here are a few uses, of variyng date, found on the net. Explicit quotes
from the bible (in both chriatian and jewish contexts) have been
excluded, there were many such quoptes and references.
-DES
-----------
[From a letter to George Washington
<http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/marriage/gwpcustis.html>]
Recollect the saying of the wise man, "That there is a time for all
things" and sure I am it is not a time for you to think of forming a
serious attachment of this kind, and particular attentions without,
this would be [dishonourable]and might involve a [consequence] of wch
you are not aware. In forming a connection, which is to be binding for
life, many considerations, besides the mere gratification of the
passions, and of more durability, are essential to happiness. These, in
a boy of your age, all yield to the latter; which, when endulged, too
often fleets away, and when it is too late, the others occur with
sorrow & repentance. Among other considerations nothing is more
desirable than to be connected with an irreproachable family--But As I
am willing to believe the report is groundless, and that you have not
forgotten so soon the admonition I have so often given you; and the
exhortation at parting, to forsake all things & cleve to your Books,
until a regular & proper system of education is completed; not merely
such an one as you may be content with, but such as your Tutors and
friends, better judges than yourself shall prescribe.
----
[from http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/h/hawtho09.html]
The device of a Hawthorn bush was chosen by Henry VII because a small
crown from the helmet of Richard III was discovered hanging on it after
the battle of Bosworth, hence the saying, 'Cleve to thy Crown though it
hangs on a bush.'
----
"'The people cleave to Rahul'"
[Headline in The times of India for 12 jan 2005.
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/971325.cms>]
---
"We Cleave to it"
See <http://www.soxaholix.com/tp/2004/04/we_cleave_to_it.html>
---
"May My Tongue Cleave to My Mouth: An Oath of Fealty
-----
Mexicans No Longer Cleave To Catholic Doctrine
MEXICO CITY _ She's delivered desperately wanted babies, and helped
many families through sickness and crisis.
In Mexico, the brown-skinned Virgin of Guadalupe is considered so
unconditionally loving that even gay activists have marched to her
shrine to pray for society to accept them.
[Cox News Service: See
<http://www.hispanicheritage.com/faith/mexicancatholic_08_02.htm>]
---
<http://www.yourdictionary.com/wotd/wotd.pl?date=2004-12-24>
Etymology: The reason this particular verb has two antagonistic
meanings is that it is, in fact, two different verbs. The first is from
Old English clifian, Middle English clevien, akin to Old High German
kleben "to stick." The second is from Old English cleofan, Middle
English cleven, akin to Old Norse kljufa "to split," Latin glubere "to
peel," and Greek glyphein "to carve" (as in hieroglyphics "sacred
carvings").
-Dr. Language, YourDictionary.com
------
1864
"EARTH'S CHILDREN CLEAVE TO EARTH"
by William Cullen Bryant
EARTH'S CHILDREN CLEAVE TO EARTH -
Earth's children cleave to Earth- her frail
Decaying children dread decay.
Yon wreath of mist that leaves the vale
And lessens in the morning ray-
[See
<http://www.4literature.net/William_Cullen_Bryant/Earth_s_Children_Cleave_to_Earth/>]
-----
Weeds and Wild Things - CLEAVE to me on-ly wi-ith thy spi-ines....
Home > Applied sciences > Agriculture, animal husbandry, conservation >
Hunting, fishing, conservation
Author: Barbara Hall
Published on: June 2, 2000
[See <http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/631/40936>]
-----
The cleave Command
The cleave command amalgamates concurrent data tokens in two or more
spines into a single data spine. In effect, cleave does the opposite of
rend. By way of example, cleave can be used to transform the following:
....
[See <http://dactyl.som.ohio-state.edu/Humdrum/guide26.html>]
-----
The names change, the circumstances vary, but the tragedy remains the
same: Up to half of the marriages in America eventually end in divorce.
Why? One Christian leader states: "All of my counseling in marriage and
family problems can be categorized on the basis of these three
situations: failure to truly leave the parents; failure to cleave to
the one partner; or failure to develop a unified relationship."
[2003 article on christian marriage See
<http://www.marriageintimacy.com/two-shall-become-one.htm>]
-----
One philosopher goes shirtless; another bookless; a third, only
half-clad, says, "Bread have I none, yet still I cleave to REASON." For
my part, I too have no fruit of my learning, and yet cleave to her.
-- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus --
------
OUT OF THE LABYRINTH
Cleave to the landscape, wide, quotidian
& painterly in detail. Looking down
You see it has split its meridian.
Cleave to cloud cover, disappear, disown
the inborn birthright of your gravity.
Looking up you see the lodestar has flown.
Cleave to the seascape; imprisoning sea
breaks whomever escapes its element-
You leave the labyrinth, taking the key.
Cleave to the sunspot, wither & repent
beneath its caustic, continous pulse.
Believe in the brazen experiment.
[The New Formalist: a journal of innovative formal poetry]
<http://www.newformalist.com/2/alexander2.html>
----
That the infinite and eternal are hidden from us means that we are
confronted, almost exclusively, with limitation and restriction
allowing us to doubt the imminence (or at least the accessibility) of
the infinite and the eternal. Limitation and restriction render us
physically vulnerable to deprivation, misadventure, disease, aging and
death making it almost impossible to believe that infinite abundance is
lurking within "finite" matter. Thus, we tend to cleave to the physical
for our survival and for our fragile sense of security. We tend to
erroneously seek the infinite, if at all, in the transcendent, above,
rather than in the manifest, below.
["Project Mind" See <http://www.projectmind.org/quiz.html>]
the softrat
<gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
> I'm still waiting for a single example used in
>modern day speech. By "modern day" I mean not Tolkien and not King
>James related. If you want to fess up and tell us one or both of these
>were your influences for saying such a thing I'm all ears. This oughtta
>be good.
>
Sorry, 'trotsky' (sic). They just don't use that kind of vocabulary in
graphic novels. However some speakers of *real* English do not limit
their choice of words to the last five minutes of TV.
Wes thu hal!
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Visualize using your turn signal.
the softrat
>
>Yeah, I've seen where religious zealots have gotten this country.
>Interesting, though, that you would accuse a "fancypants intellectual"
>of only reading Spiderman. I think you've got your two sides confused,
>ratty.
Excuse me? Nowhere did I ever confuse you with a 'fancypants
intellectual'. (It *is* amazing what passes for an education these
days.) How much did it cost you to buy that 'degree'?
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Multi-culturalism: One culture being forced to be tolerant of
the intolerance of other cultures.
Wendy Chatley Green
:RichA wrote:
:> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:41:51 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
:> cleave; Pronunciation Key (klv)
:> intr.v. cleaved, cleav·ing, cleaves
:>
:> 1. To adhere, cling, or stick fast.
:> 2. To be faithful: cleave to one's principles.
:
:
:Not good enough, Rich. I'm still waiting for a single example used in
:modern day speech. By "modern day" I mean not Tolkien and not King
:James related. If you want to fess up and tell us one or both of these
:were your influences for saying such a thing I'm all ears. This oughtta
:be good.
:
Google is your friend:
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/971325.cms
See headline of article, which is dated "Sunday, December 26,
2004 03:46:54 PM".
--
Wendy Chatley Green
Gene Ward Smith
trotsky wrote:
> Not good enough, Rich. I'm still waiting for a single example used
in
> modern day speech. By "modern day" I mean not Tolkien and not King
> James related. If you want to fess up and tell us one or both of
these
> were your influences for saying such a thing I'm all ears. This
oughtta
> be good.
Try headlines:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/971325.cms
http://www.hispanicheritage.com/faith/mexicancatholic_08_02.htm
the softrat
>
>"To Cleave Unto" means to cut away from THEM and stick with Me (or whom
>ever).
>
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
God? I'm no God! God has MERCY!
TT Arvind
> Yep, we're still at zero examples.
The phrase "cleave to" is not in colloquial usage, but it is not
uncommon in literary usage. The diglossia between 'normal' and
'literary' English is sharper than people often think.
I don't know why I bother, but a search on google for:
"cleave to" -bible -christian -god -van -torah -jewish
(which filters out the majority of the religious writings and personal
names, though some still sneak through) produces about 17,100 hits. A
quick glance at the first 30 shows that they are mostly modern and, with
two or three exceptions, not bible quotes. Instead, they use the phrase
either:
- in a literary context, in poems or songs:
http://www.alstewart.com/lyrics/cleavetome.htm
http://www.callihan.com/poems/jewels/jewel14.htm
http://www.newformalist.com/2/alexander2.html
http://www.geocities.com/~poetryrepairs/mm/05/059.html
- or jocularly, as in this piece from an Indian newspaper:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-971325,curpg-2.cms
or the title of this cartoon:
http://www.soxaholix.com/tp/2004/04/we_cleave_to_it.html
or the title of this article:
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/631/40936
This seems to me like the phrase is still in current use, even if it
does not form a part of the everyday language. I would expect a person
who claims to use the language with some degree of skill to know the
phrase, but I would not expect the same of a normal native speaker.
However, one who is himself not sufficiently skilled in the language
should not be so hasty to criticise another's usage.
--
Arvind
Grau, treuer Freund, ist alle Theorie,
und grün des Lebens goldener Baum
- Goethe
hielan' laddie
(in article <1105485223....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
I predict that he will ignore this, as he has ignored previous similar
examples.
He's a troll. Killfile him and drive on.
Dave Hansen
>Alan Hope wrote:
>> trotsky goes:
>>
>>
>>>Can you
>>>come up with even one example that's even vaguely modern, and didn't I
>>>already ask this fucking question?
>>
>>
>> What difference does it make whether it's modern? You've a pretty
>> limited viewpoint for an "avid reader".
>
>
>You're lying, unless you think marriage vows and the King James version
>of the Bible counts for something.
>
How about Emerson?
"If you are noble, I will love you; if you are not, I will not hurt
you and myself by hypocritical attentions. If you are true, but not in
the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my
own." -- from "Self Reliance."
All due regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> "May My Tongue Cleave to My Mouth: An Oath of Fealty
That's the other Tolkien use of cleave in that sense:
"Frodo was stricken dumb. He felt his tongue cleave to his mouth, and
his heart labouring. His sword broke and fell out of his shaking hand."
(Flight to the Ford)
Mike Schilling
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cleave+to%22 gives 111,000 hits.
>> Choose your favorites.
>
>
> I think you're knowledge of Boolean searches needs a little work, dude.
> For Christ's fucking sake, why is it that since Bush has been in office
> people think it's cool to be fucking stupid?
I'll humor you once more, though I can't think of a good reason to.
What do you think that search does? Click on it. What does it actually do?
Are you going to admit being wrong this time?
Christopher Kreuzer
> Joyce Choiniere wrote:
>> trotsky wrote:
>>
>>> Joyce Choiniere wrote:
>
>>>> So what your saying is because you never used it in a sentence and
>>>> never saw it used in a sentence that it shouldn't be used in a
>>>> sentence because your to lazy to look it up.
[BTW, if you wanted to nitpick literacy: try the above sentences.]
>>> No, Joyce, I'm saying about ten posters have had the opportunity to
>>> provide a single example of "cleave to" used in any modern writing,
>>> and thus far a big fat zero has been returned. Would you describe
>>> yourself as a lemming?
>>>
>> Rich used it in a sentence on 1/11/05 (modern use). Only you didn't
>> get the meaning. And only because it was used in a sentence
>> refuting your original point. To obscure the fact that your
>> original point was weak you start an argument about the use of a
>> phrase. You sir are an Idiot.
Non-random capitalization.
> Ah yes, ranDom capitalization, a sure sign of functional illiteracy.
Random capitalization.
I rest my case.
Christopher Kreuzer
> RichA <no...@none.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> cleave; Pronunciation Key (klv)
>> intr.v. cleaved, cleav·ing, cleaves
>>
>> 1. To adhere, cling, or stick fast.
>> 2. To be faithful: cleave to one's principles.
This seems to omit the cleave (to chop up) definition.
> My dictionary claims that they are two different words (IIRC, they
> would thus be hetronyms). The slight difference in pronunciation
> that existed in Anglo-Saxon has disappeared.
I was only aware of the meaning of cleave from reading Tolkien. From the
context I gathered that it meant to stick to the thing you are cleaving
to, but I always thought that it meant this in the sense that you are
cleaving _from_ everything else. A bit like contracting this statement:
"I will cleave from them to you" ---> "I will cleave to you".
But the hetronyms bit is interesting. Never knew that. Another post in
the thread mentioned "meet" having two different meanings: "to meet
someone", and "this is meet" (good - or something similar). I guess that
is another hetronym, though again I construed it as a contraction from
"this is well-met" to "this is meet".
Any other examples?
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Flame of the West
> Google is your friend:
>
> <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/971325.cms
>
> See headline of article, which is dated "Sunday, December 26,
> 2004 03:46:54 PM".
HAHAHAHA!
Trotsky, you dumb ass. You write a nasty little note,
complete with four-letter obscenity, making fun of
someone who turns out to be using the word "cleave"
in a perfectly acceptable way. Then you claim that
you should not have been expected to know that usage
(even though it is used in two of the biggest selling
books in history) because no one ever uses it today.
And yet The Times of India used it in a headline not
two weeks ago! You'd better slink away in silence;
you've been exposed on this one, O Avid Reader.
-- FotW
Mike Schilling
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LGZEd.8750$GG1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> But the hetronyms bit is interesting. Never knew that. Another post in
> the thread mentioned "meet" having two different meanings: "to meet
> someone", and "this is meet" (good - or something similar). I guess that
> is another hetronym, though again I construed it as a contraction from
> "this is well-met" to "this is meet".
>
> Any other examples?
Ass meaning donkey and ass meaning rear end.
Christopher Kreuzer
[cleave]
> The meaning you were aware of, incidentally, is just as archaic (apart
> from one medical term) as the one you didn't know about. So there goes
> your whole position.
What's the medical term? Do you mean the biochemical term and
crystallography term, such as enzymes cleaving proteins and the cleavage
plane of a crystal? These make the cleave (to cut) meaning not as
archaic as the cleave (to stick to) meaning, IMO.
Though those are technical meanings. The computer software command term
where cleave meant to join two things was completely new to me.
Christopher Kreuzer
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:42:37 GMT, T <tb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> "To Cleave Unto" means to cut away from THEM and stick with Me (or
>> whom ever).
>>
> Nope.
It's a reasonable conjecture.
Can anyone give the history of the two words?
[to cleave - to cut; to cleave to - to stick to]
Christopher Kreuzer
[cleave]
>> Because it's a word that can have two opposite meanings, and
>> so is very remarkable.
>
> and here i thought that sarcasm had made that so of most words
> (by default).
>
> momma mia. dis' English, she is so' a complicated.
What? Like something being "pretty ugly"? :-)
Towse
> I was only aware of the meaning of cleave from reading Tolkien. From the
> context I gathered that it meant to stick to the thing you are cleaving
> to, but I always thought that it meant this in the sense that you are
> cleaving _from_ everything else. A bit like contracting this statement:
> "I will cleave from them to you" ---> "I will cleave to you".
>
> But the hetronyms bit is interesting. Never knew that. Another post in
> the thread mentioned "meet" having two different meanings: "to meet
> someone", and "this is meet" (good - or something similar). I guess that
> is another hetronym, though again I construed it as a contraction from
> "this is well-met" to "this is meet".
>
> Any other examples?
Heteronyms not only have the same spelling and different meanings, they
also have different pronunciations. [1]
For words that have opposite meanings, check out
<http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html> which includes
Cleave: To adhere tightly vs. To cut apart
Clip: to attach vs. to cut off
Dust: To remove dust vs. To apply dust (as in fingerprinting)
Fast: Moving rapidly vs. Unable to move ("I was held fast to my bed.")
[...]
[1]het·er·o·nym (hĕt'ər-ə-nĭm') n.
One of two or more words that have identical spellings but different
meanings and pronunciations, such as row (a series of objects arranged
in a line), pronounced (rō), and row (a fight), pronounced (rou).
[Back-formation from HETERONYMOUS.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition Copyright © 2003
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
Dave Shipley
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:2zYEd.1381$IV5.1342@attbi_s54...
> Dave Shipley wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:76QEd.1120$eT5.1045@attbi_s51...
> >
> >>the softrat wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
> >>>>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Your reading must have been limited to Spiderman Comix. Try reading
> >>>the book with all the begats.
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, I've seen where religious zealots have gotten this country.
> >>Interesting, though, that you would accuse a "fancypants intellectual"
> >>of only reading Spiderman. I think you've got your two sides confused,
> >>ratty.
> >
> >
> > I don't think one has to be 'religious' or a 'zealot' to read the Bible.
>
>
> Good God, what happened to your brain, man? Where did I ever say that?
> I was specifically referring to people that have "gotten the country
> somewhere", which, not surprisingly, refers to the Bush administration.
Nor did I suggest that you did. However, you made your comment about people
that have 'gotten this country' somewhere in response to a suggestion that
you read the 'book with all the begats'. Me, I'm a secular humanist, but
there's a Bible on my bookshelf, along with plenty of other mythological
works.
>
>
> In
> > fact, given the relevance of the Judeo-Christian mythos to Western
> > literature and culture, I'd consider it to be an interesting and useful
read
> > for anyone.
>
> Greek mythology is a lot more interesting.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree; I've always had a soft spot for the messy
polytheistic religions peopled with very 'human' gods. That said though, the
Bible does inform a great deal of western creative thought and it's
certainly helpful to have a good understanding of it.
Perhaps the greater level of religion in the US makes the issue a more
divisive one?
Best wishes,
--
Dave Shipley
------------------------------------------------------------
Son I'm thirty; I only went with your mother 'cos she's dirty
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schilling
Like a double positive making a negative.
What's that, you say it never does?
Yeah. Right.
Bill Anderson
If you enter "cleave etymology" without the quotes in Google, you get
this link:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cleave
And if all those abbreviations make your head hurt, you can find a key here:
http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php
And I'll bet that with a little digging, you can find even more info on
the subject. Happy researching!
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
RichA
>Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> In article <ViHEd.590$IV5.85@attbi_s54>, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>>>I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life. I would
>>>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>>>definition, where those two words are used together in normal humans'
>>>speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English" that
>>>I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as such.
>>
>>
>> The climactic scene in "Silas Marner", where the young woman he
>> has raised from infancy says she will "cleave to" him as long
>> as he lives. (I haven't read that one since high school, some
>> thirtymumble years ago...)
>
>
>The scorecard: The King James Bible, J.R.R. Tolkien, "Silas Marner" as
>brought to us by Ms. George Eliot in 1861, and some raving Usenet
>goofball named "RichA". This is the thing that amazes me about Usenet:
>somebody (me, in this case) makes a valid point that "cleave to" is
>archaic (although in this particular post I was still thinking it might
>be a British thing), and ten other posters, like lemmings, all line up
>to chime in opposition so they can be COMPLETELY WRONG.
Do you have a book listing the expiration dates of words in the
English language?
-Rich
RichA
He'd more willingly admit to molesting children.
-Rich
T
> T wrote:
>
>> trotsky wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader, and
>>> I've never heard or read the phrase "cleave to" in my life.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "To Cleave Unto..."
>>
>>
>> Never Heard/Read that before?
>
>
>
> No, and to be frank, I've never heard of a word being it's own antonym
> before, either. You?
>
Actually it was a bad description. It doesn't mean one thing and the
opposite at the same time.
What it means seems that way due to the fact that the thing being
'cleaved', or cut, is then expected to leave that original group and
join the new group.
Classic example is getting married were you 'cleave unto' each other.
You yourself aren't getting cut into bits, but you do 'cut away' from
your old ties and establish new ones w/ your spouse.
I would much rather be talking about Science Fiction though.
TBerk
T
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:42:37 GMT, T <tb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>"To Cleave Unto" means to cut away from THEM and stick with Me (or whom
>>ever).
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> the softrat
Want to expand on your "Nope" a bit?
Why isn't that correct?
TBerk
trotsky
> trotsky wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
>
> wrote:>>>>>news:PwDEd.119$OF5.77@attbi_s52...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>RichA wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't care what mainstream Hollywood or the media or the
>
> average
>
>>>>>>>person thinks about scifi, because most of them are dog-ignorant
>
> of
>
>>>>>>>science and it shows, everyday. But, scifi (as opposed to
>
> fantasy)
>
>>>>>>>should at least try to cleave to the basic theories behind
>
> science,
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>By "cleave to", you mean "chop into little bits", or do you just
>
> not know
>
>>>>>>what the fuck you are talking about again?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Cleave" means both "to split" and "to adhere". When used with
>
> "to", it
>
>>>>>always means the latter. See
>>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cleave .
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm curious, now. I'd expect a native English speaker to know
>
> that,
>
>>>>
>>>>Wait, you'd expect a native English speaker to know that a word has
>
> two
>
>>>>*opposite* meanings? Why?
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps because it does?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>suggesting that you're not one. On the other hand, your command
>
> of
>
>>>>>idiomatic English is flawless, suggesting the opposite. (Well,
>
> almost
>
>>>>>flawless; that should be "do you mean", not "you mean", but that
>
> could be a
>
>>>>>simple typo.) So, if you don't mind my asking, which is it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's this: I'm 42 years old, a college graduate, an avid reader,
>
> and
>
>
> would
>
>>>>have to say the onus is on you to show me, other than a dictionary
>>>>definition, where those two words are used together in normal
>
> humans'
>
>>>>speech. Now, this may be an idiom used in the "Queen's English"
>
> that
>
>>>>I've never heard of, but again, I would like to see it used as
>
> such.
>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yeah, sure, in the Bible and Christian marriage ceremonies. Can you
>>come up with even one example that's even vaguely modern, and didn't
>
> I
>
>>already ask this fucking question?
>
>
> reference to biblicial language. The Tolkien usage quotes in this
> thread is clearly in a section where a reffreence to the King James
> language is intended.
Lets see: "...quotes is..." Which learning disability do you have?
Some form of dyslexia, perhaps?
Anyway, from what I can glean from the above sentences, I think I agree.
> For the matter of that "Cleve"
By "Cleve" I assume you mean "cleave".
as a verb in the senese of sever or chop
> is also rather rare -- just how many "modern" examples can you provide
> of that usage either? My understanding is that these were origianlly
> two different words with simialr sounds, that eventually were spelled
> in the same way.
How about "cleavage" as a word that is used in common, modern day speech:
cleavage
n 1: the state of being split or cleft 2: the breaking of a chemical
bond in a molecule resulting in smaller molecules 3: (embryology) the
repeated division of a fertilised ovum [syn: segmentation] 4: the line
formed by a groove between two parts (especially the separation between
a woman's breasts)
Here we find two things: cleavage, as I commonly know it, is definition
#4. Note that they use the word "separation" in the definition, and in
fact, every single meaning of cleavage uses the *splitting* definition
of cleave--none of them use the "cleave to" definition.
> But the use of biblical or otherwise rare, or even archaic language is
> a perfectly valid part of english, that is one reason why it is a
> flexable, complex, and rich language. This is certianly part of "normal
> humans' speech" although it may not be paer of modal speech, that is,
> the very most common speech forms. But then, most of english isn't
> modal in that sense. Certianly much of, say Gene Wolfe or Jack Vance
> (to bring in SF references) is not on everyone's lips, yet it is
> perfectly valid standard english.
Okay, now I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone.
> Just admit that this is a perfectly valid usage you didn't know about,
> because it is now somwhat rare.
In the immortal words of Daryl Hall, "I can't go for that."
trotsky
> from the bible (in both chriatian and jewish contexts) have been
> excluded, there were many such quoptes and references.
>
> -DES
> -----------
>
> [From a letter to George Washington
> <http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/marriage/gwpcustis.html>]
>
> Recollect the saying of the wise man, "That there is a time for all
> things" and sure I am it is not a time for you to think of forming a
> serious attachment of this kind, and particular attentions without,
> this would be [dishonourable]and might involve a [consequence] of wch
> you are not aware. In forming a connection, which is to be binding for
> life, many considerations, besides the mere gratification of the
> passions, and of more durability, are essential to happiness. These, in
> a boy of your age, all yield to the latter; which, when endulged, too
> often fleets away, and when it is too late, the others occur with
> sorrow & repentance. Among other considerations nothing is more
> desirable than to be connected with an irreproachable family--But As I
> am willing to believe the report is groundless, and that you have not
> forgotten so soon the admonition I have so often given you; and the
> exhortation at parting, to forsake all things & cleve to your Books,
> until a regular & proper system of education is completed; not merely
> such an one as you may be content with, but such as your Tutors and
> friends, better judges than yourself shall prescribe.
>
> ----
> [from http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/h/hawtho09.html]
>
> The device of a Hawthorn bush was chosen by Henry VII because a small
> crown from the helmet of Richard III was discovered hanging on it after
> the battle of Bosworth, hence the saying, 'Cleve to thy Crown though it
> hangs on a bush.'
>
> ----
> "'The people cleave to Rahul'"
> [Headline in The times of India for 12 jan 2005.
> <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/971325.cms>]
>
>
> ---
> "We Cleave to it"
> See <http://www.soxaholix.com/tp/2004/04/we_cleave_to_it.html>
>
> ---
>
> "May My Tongue Cleave to My Mouth: An Oath of Fealty
>
>
> -----
>
> Mexicans No Longer Cleave To Catholic Doctrine
>
> MEXICO CITY _ She's delivered desperately wanted babies, and helped
> many families through sickness and crisis.
> In Mexico, the brown-skinned Virgin of Guadalupe is considered so
> unconditionally loving that even gay activists have marched to her
> shrine to pray for society to accept them.
>
> [Cox News Service: See
> <http://www.hispanicheritage.com/faith/mexicancatholic_08_02.htm>]
>
> ---
>
>
> <http://www.yourdictionary.com/wotd/wotd.pl?date=2004-12-24>
>
> Etymology: The reason this particular verb has two antagonistic
> meanings is that it is, in fact, two different verbs. The first is from
> Old English clifian, Middle English clevien, akin to Old High German
> kleben "to stick." The second is from Old English cleofan, Middle
> English cleven, akin to Old Norse kljufa "to split," Latin glubere "to
> peel," and Greek glyphein "to carve" (as in hieroglyphics "sacred
> carvings").
>
> -Dr. Language, YourDictionary.com
>
> ------
> 1864
>
> "EARTH'S CHILDREN CLEAVE TO EARTH"
>
> by William Cullen Bryant
>
> EARTH'S CHILDREN CLEAVE TO EARTH -
>
> Earth's children cleave to Earth- her frail
>
> Decaying children dread decay.
>
> Yon wreath of mist that leaves the vale
>
> And lessens in the morning ray-
>
> [See
> <http://www.4literature.net/William_Cullen_Bryant/Earth_s_Children_Cleave_to_Earth/>]
>
> -----
>
> Weeds and Wild Things - CLEAVE to me on-ly wi-ith thy spi-ines....
> Home > Applied sciences > Agriculture, animal husbandry, conservation >
> Hunting, fishing, conservation
>
>
> Author: Barbara Hall
> Published on: June 2, 2000
>
> [See <http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/631/40936>]
>
> -----
> The cleave Command
>
> The cleave command amalgamates concurrent data tokens in two or more
> spines into a single data spine. In effect, cleave does the opposite of
> rend. By way of example, cleave can be used to transform the following:
>
> ....
>
> [See <http://dactyl.som.ohio-state.edu/Humdrum/guide26.html>]
>
> -----
> The names change, the circumstances vary, but the tragedy remains the
> same: Up to half of the marriages in America eventually end in divorce.
> Why? One Christian leader states: "All of my counseling in marriage and
> family problems can be categorized on the basis of these three
> situations: failure to truly leave the parents; failure to cleave to
> the one partner; or failure to develop a unified relationship."
>
> [2003 article on christian marriage See
> <http://www.marriageintimacy.com/two-shall-become-one.htm>]
>
> -----
> One philosopher goes shirtless; another bookless; a third, only
> half-clad, says, "Bread have I none, yet still I cleave to REASON." For
> my part, I too have no fruit of my learning, and yet cleave to her.
>
> -- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus --
>
>
> ------
>
> OUT OF THE LABYRINTH
> Cleave to the landscape, wide, quotidian
> & painterly in detail. Looking down
> You see it has split its meridian.
>
> Cleave to cloud cover, disappear, disown
> the inborn birthright of your gravity.
> Looking up you see the lodestar has flown.
>
> Cleave to the seascape; imprisoning sea
> breaks whomever escapes its element-
> You leave the labyrinth, taking the key.
>
> Cleave to the sunspot, wither & repent
> beneath its caustic, continous pulse.
> Believe in the brazen experiment.
>
> [The New Formalist: a journal of innovative formal poetry]
>
> <http://www.newformalist.com/2/alexander2.html>
>
> ----
>
> That the infinite and eternal are hidden from us means that we are
> confronted, almost exclusively, with limitation and restriction
> allowing us to doubt the imminence (or at least the accessibility) of
> the infinite and the eternal. Limitation and restriction render us
> physically vulnerable to deprivation, misadventure, disease, aging and
> death making it almost impossible to believe that infinite abundance is
> lurking within "finite" matter. Thus, we tend to cleave to the physical
> for our survival and for our fragile sense of security. We tend to
> erroneously seek the infinite, if at all, in the transcendent, above,
> rather than in the manifest, below.
> ["Project Mind" See <http://www.projectmind.org/quiz.html>]
You can beat a dead horse all you want, David, but you're just making my
case for me.
trotsky
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:00:51 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, I've seen where religious zealots have gotten this country.
>>Interesting, though, that you would accuse a "fancypants intellectual"
>>of only reading Spiderman. I think you've got your two sides confused,
>>ratty.
>
>
> intellectual'. (It *is* amazing what passes for an education these
> days.) How much did it cost you to buy that 'degree'?
Perhaps you didn't understand the reference: George W. Bush, aka the
President of the United States, looks at people that read books as
"fancypants intellectuals." I guess since it wasn't an archaic
reference it didn't get through.
trotsky
> For some inexplicable reasons, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
> :RichA wrote:
> :> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:41:51 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> :> cleave; Pronunciation Key (klv)
> :> intr.v. cleaved, cleav·ing, cleaves
> :> :> 1. To adhere, cling, or stick fast.
> :> 2. To be faithful: cleave to one's principles.
> :
> :Not good enough, Rich. I'm still waiting for a single example used in
> :James related. If you want to fess up and tell us one or both of these
> :were your influences for saying such a thing I'm all ears. This oughtta
> :be good.
> Google is your friend:
>
> <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/971325.cms
>
> See headline of article, which is dated "Sunday, December 26,
> 2004 03:46:54 PM".
Thank God we're looking to native Hindi speakers to show us how to use
English. How many of you lemmings are out there?
trotsky
> trotsky wrote:
>
>
>>Not good enough, Rich. I'm still waiting for a single example used
>
> in
>
>>modern day speech. By "modern day" I mean not Tolkien and not King
>>James related. If you want to fess up and tell us one or both of
>
> these
>
>>were your influences for saying such a thing I'm all ears. This
>
> oughtta
>
>>be good.
>
>
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/971325.cms
> http://www.hispanicheritage.com/faith/mexicancatholic_08_02.htm
This is too funny! Indians and Hispanics are showing us how to use the
English language.