Is Science Fiction Becoming Respectable ?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Jarrox2

unread,
Jan 9, 2005, 10:52:13 PM1/9/05
to
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.

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."


http://www.citypaper.com/special/story.asp?id=6691

htn963

unread,
Jan 9, 2005, 11:32:14 PM1/9/05
to
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.)

--
Ht

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jan 9, 2005, 11:56:36 PM1/9/05
to

"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

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 4:47:22 PM1/10/05
to
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,
rather than simply inventing something completely idiotic and calling
it a science fiction concept.
-Rich

trotsky

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 5:41:51 PM1/10/05
to
RichA wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 5:59:03 PM1/10/05
to

"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

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 6:05:17 PM1/10/05
to
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> skrev i en meddelelse
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

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 6:42:57 PM1/10/05
to

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

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 10:00:05 PM1/10/05
to
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?


> 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

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 10:04:33 PM1/10/05
to


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

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 10:23:30 PM1/10/05
to


Good job, Rich--you have inadvertently aligned yourself with
Tolkienites. Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

Wendy Chatley Green

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 10:40:18 PM1/10/05
to
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>

--
Wendy (saying "hi" from misc.writing)
Chatley Green

--
Wendy Chatley Green

Tar-Elenion

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 10:58:57 PM1/10/05
to
In article <ViHEd.590$IV5.85@attbi_s54>, gms...@email.com says...

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

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 11:05:21 PM1/10/05
to
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

>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

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 11:45:42 PM1/10/05
to
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.

RichA

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:32:49 AM1/11/05
to

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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:33:39 AM1/11/05
to
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:00:05 GMT, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

>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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:35:44 AM1/11/05
to

Ok. Your mother drank HEAVILY before you were born.
-Rich

Gene Ward Smith

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 1:15:00 AM1/11/05
to

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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 1:56:26 AM1/11/05
to
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.


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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 3:49:07 AM1/11/05
to
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...)

--
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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 5:20:31 AM1/11/05
to
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
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


trotsky

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 7:49:07 AM1/11/05
to


The Bible! This is too great! Rich, how many times can you screw the
pooch in one thread?


trotsky

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 7:50:07 AM1/11/05
to
Wendy Chatley Green wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 7:52:09 AM1/11/05
to


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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 7:53:54 AM1/11/05
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 7:57:48 AM1/11/05
to


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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 7:58:17 AM1/11/05
to


Cosine!


trotsky

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 7:59:18 AM1/11/05
to


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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 8:00:51 AM1/11/05
to
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.

trotsky

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 8:02:23 AM1/11/05
to


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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 8:10:26 AM1/11/05
to
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. 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.


trotsky

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 8:13:01 AM1/11/05
to
Errol Cavit wrote:
> "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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 8:28:23 AM1/11/05
to
In article <5cm6u09req9n4h8e7...@news.rcn.com>,


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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 8:50:56 AM1/11/05
to

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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 9:22:12 AM1/11/05
to
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.

trotsky

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 9:30:08 AM1/11/05
to


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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 9:45:05 AM1/11/05
to
trotsky wrote:

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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 9:59:08 AM1/11/05
to
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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 10:58:43 AM1/11/05
to
M. Schilling wrote:

******
"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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 11:25:36 AM1/11/05
to
trotsky goes:

>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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:01:19 PM1/11/05
to
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".
--
AH


rrh...@acme.com

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:18:00 PM1/11/05
to

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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:31:09 PM1/11/05
to
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.
<snip>


"To Cleave Unto..."


Never Heard/Read that before?


TBerk

Jette Goldie

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:35:23 PM1/11/05
to

"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.

--
Jette
Never bet on Star Trek trivia if your opponent speaks Klingon.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb
je...@blueyonder.co.uk


Jette Goldie

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:35:22 PM1/11/05
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:XZPEd.992$EG1.140@attbi_s53...

Exactly *which* college are you a graduate of? Technical college?

Jette Goldie

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:35:22 PM1/11/05
to

"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.


--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/


T

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:42:37 PM1/11/05
to
Alan Hope wrote:
> trotsky goes:
>
<snip>

>
>>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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:43:38 PM1/11/05
to
trotsky wrote:

> 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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:57:01 PM1/11/05
to

"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 ...

>
>
>> 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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 12:59:57 PM1/11/05
to

"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.

That's what Dr. Crippen thought, anyway.


Alan Hope

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 1:13:28 PM1/11/05
to
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.

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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 2:26:56 PM1/11/05
to

"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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 2:47:34 PM1/11/05
to
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 2:56:58 PM1/11/05
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message

news:76QEd.1120$eT5.1045@attbi_s51...

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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 5:16:25 PM1/11/05
to
rrh...@acme.com wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 5:18:20 PM1/11/05
to


No, and to be frank, I've never heard of a word being it's own antonym
before, either. You?

trotsky

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 5:19:13 PM1/11/05
to
Jette Goldie wrote:
> "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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 5:21:14 PM1/11/05
to
Jette Goldie wrote:
> "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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 5:20:40 PM1/11/05
to


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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 5:22:56 PM1/11/05
to


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

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 5:25:37 PM1/11/05