Puns Lost in Translation
Hauke Reddmann
I'm from Germany. Still, most on the market is translated
from English. I could now start to bitch about outsourced
lectors and...but my question deals with good old times :-)
I laughed my backside off as a kid to "The Space Willies"
by Eric Frank Russell. The Eustachius called by the
Fatschbumdidelzong...The enemy having a Macke...the angry
"Merse Faplap! Amasch!" call of the soldiers...you see,
I remember all nonsense words as if it were yesterday.
But chance is great that they sounded as different as
the original and the translated Jabberwocky. Can somebody
here list the relevant passages from the original?
Another howler (evolution producing quadratic fishsticks :-)
was "Worlds Apart" by Richard Cowper. Here the nonsense
parts would interest me too, especially the "Nirgendhweim"
("Netherhwome" maybe?) signifying utter cosmic melancholy.
THX,
--
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 fc3...@uni-hamburg.de
Leierklang und ein flammendes Inferno grüßen dich
auf das Allerzärtlichste
Anthony Nance
> Hi,
> I'm from Germany. Still, most on the market is translated
> from English. I could now start to bitch about outsourced
> lectors and...but my question deals with good old times :-)
>
> I laughed my backside off as a kid to "The Space Willies"
> by Eric Frank Russell. The Eustachius called by the
> Fatschbumdidelzong...The enemy having a Macke...the angry
> "Merse Faplap! Amasch!" call of the soldiers...you see,
> I remember all nonsense words as if it were yesterday.
> But chance is great that they sounded as different as
> the original and the translated Jabberwocky. Can somebody
> here list the relevant passages from the original?
I hope this helps some:
- The only named Eustace I can find is John Leeming's
Eustace Phenackertiban.
- I don't know enough German, especially in the context of
possible puns, to know what Macke may be related to in
the English text.
- In the English text, "Merse, faplap! Amash!" appears in a
few places. In fact, "Amash!" appears in several places.
Tony
Joel Polowin
> Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
> > I laughed my backside off as a kid to "The Space Willies"
> > by Eric Frank Russell. The Eustachius called by the
> > Fatschbumdidelzong...The enemy having a Macke...the angry
> > "Merse Faplap! Amasch!" call of the soldiers...you see,
> > I remember all nonsense words as if it were yesterday.
> > But chance is great that they sounded as different as
> > the original and the translated Jabberwocky. Can somebody
> > here list the relevant passages from the original?
>
> I hope this helps some:
> - The only named Eustace I can find is John Leeming's
> Eustace Phenackertiban.
There are the Eustachian tubes, of course (they connect
the pharynx to the middle ear). And Eustace Scrubb
of the Narnia stories.
Dorothy J Heydt
Joel Polowin <jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 9:17 am, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>> Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>> > I laughed my backside off as a kid to "The Space Willies"
>> > by Eric Frank Russell. The Eustachius called by the
>> > Fatschbumdidelzong...
OK, in the original the calling-gadget (which was, of course, a
fake) was called a bopamagilvie, which is a less common word for
a thing whose proper name you either don't know or don't remember.
Other examples: thingamajig, doo-hickey, whatchamacallit (which
is a cut-down version of what-you-may-call-it), or even gadget.
Another such word, which I know only from Russell's story of the
same way, is allamagoosa.
The enemy having a Macke...
OK, Leeming has already made his captors believe that each and
every human is accompanied by an invisible Eustace. He then
tells them that the Lathians, the dominant race of the alien
alliance, have Willies. Now, Willy is a diminutive for William,
in English as in German. But "to have the willies" is an idiom
for being frightened, nervous. Finally, in British English (and
Russell was British), "willy" is also a slang term for the
membrum virile. Probably John Campbell, who published the
original story "Plus X," and his puritanical assistant, Katherine
Tarrant, didn't know that, or they would've edited it out
somehow.
the angry
>> > "Merse Faplap! Amasch!" call of the soldiers...you see,
>> > I remember all nonsense words as if it were yesterday.
Those are untranslated. They're bits of the aliens' own
language.
>> > But chance is great that they sounded as different as
>> > the original and the translated Jabberwocky. Can somebody
>> > here list the relevant passages from the original?
>>
>> I hope this helps some:
>> - The only named Eustace I can find is John Leeming's
>> Eustace Phenackertiban.
But, you'll recall, another Terran, prisoner on another planet,
is interrogated about Eustaces, and whether the Lathians have the
Willies, and catches on quickly enough (says Russell) to earn a
space medal.
>
>There are the Eustachian tubes, of course (they connect
>the pharynx to the middle ear),
Because someone named Eustace discovered or at least identified
them.
> And Eustace Scrubb
Eustace is a personal name, originally Greek, meaning "fruitful"
in that language. It was relatively common in England in, say,
the nineteenth century. By the mid-twentieth, C. S. Lewis could
begin a children's novel by saying, "Once there was a boy named
Eustace Clarence Scrubb," [that is, he had two personal names
that were old-fashioned and sure to be mocked by his schoolmates]
"and he almost deserved it," [because he was a very unpleasant
child till he had spent some time in Narnia.]
Also writing in the mid-twentieth century ["Plus X" was published
in 1956), Russell chose a name for his imaginary symbiote that
sounded silly.
If you find anything else in Russell that needs translating or
interpreting or whatever, let us know.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Brian M. Scott
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:Lon44...@kithrup.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <9dd94963-59d6-436b...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Joel Polowin <jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jul 20, 9:17 am, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>>> Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>>> > I laughed my backside off as a kid to "The Space Willies"
>>> > by Eric Frank Russell. The Eustachius called by the
>>> > Fatschbumdidelzong...
[...]
> The enemy having a Macke...
> OK, Leeming has already made his captors believe that each and
> every human is accompanied by an invisible Eustace. He then
> tells them that the Lathians, the dominant race of the alien
> alliance, have Willies. Now, Willy is a diminutive for William,
> in English as in German. But "to have the willies" is an idiom
> for being frightened, nervous.
A <Macke> is a flaw, defect, quirk, kink, etc., and <eine
Macke haben> (of a person) is to be nuts, a bit odd, or a
few bricks shy of a load.
It's not a perfect match, but it's not bad.
[...]
Brian
Jerry Brown
Not to mention:
"What is the third duty of a scanner?"
"To use the wire of Eustace Cranch only with care, only with
moderation"
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Anthony Nance
Oh, surely. My comments are confined to within the text of TSW.
I.e., John Leeming is a character in TSW, there are Eustaces
everywhere in TSW ("Eustace" is a noun), and the only Eustace
I could find in TSW with a name was John's own Eustace, named
Phenackertiban.
Tony
Dorothy J Heydt
Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>Joel Polowin <jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 9:17 am, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>>> Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>>> > I laughed my backside off as a kid to "The Space Willies"
>>> > by Eric Frank Russell. The Eustachius called by the
>>> > Fatschbumdidelzong...The enemy having a Macke...the angry
>>> > "Merse Faplap! Amasch!" call of the soldiers...you see,
>>> > I remember all nonsense words as if it were yesterday.
>>> > But chance is great that they sounded as different as
>>> > the original and the translated Jabberwocky. Can somebody
>>> > here list the relevant passages from the original?
>>>
>>> I hope this helps some:
>>> - The only named Eustace I can find is John Leeming's
>>> Eustace Phenackertiban.
Do you mean you've never encountered a person named Eustace in
real life? Not surprising. The name has gone way out of
fashion.
>>
>> There are the Eustachian tubes, of course (they connect
>> the pharynx to the middle ear). And Eustace Scrubb
>> of the Narnia stories.
>
>
>Oh, surely. My comments are confined to within the text of TSW.
>I.e., John Leeming is a character in TSW, there are Eustaces
>everywhere in TSW ("Eustace" is a noun), and the only Eustace
>I could find in TSW with a name was John's own Eustace, named
>Phenackertiban.
Leeming says his own Eustace is called Eustace Phenakertiban; he
says every other Terran has a Eustace too, but doesn't give their
names. The other Terran prisoner, being quick on the draw, says
he has a Eustace too, but doesn't give it a name.
Anthony Nance
> In article <j099vh$rpv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Joel Polowin <jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 9:17 am, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>>>> Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>> > I laughed my backside off as a kid to "The Space Willies"
>>>> > by Eric Frank Russell. The Eustachius called by the
>>>> > Fatschbumdidelzong...The enemy having a Macke...the angry
>>>> > "Merse Faplap! Amasch!" call of the soldiers...you see,
>>>> > I remember all nonsense words as if it were yesterday.
>>>> > But chance is great that they sounded as different as
>>>> > the original and the translated Jabberwocky. Can somebody
>>>> > here list the relevant passages from the original?
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps some:
>>>> - The only named Eustace I can find is John Leeming's
>>>> Eustace Phenackertiban.
>
> Do you mean you've never encountered a person named Eustace in
> real life? Not surprising. The name has gone way out of
> fashion.
Careful - that's me you're quoting, and it's the exact bit
I clarified with the "Oh, surely..." paragraph below, the
clarification being that "The only named Eustace I can find..."
specifically refers to the text of TSW alone.
Or more simply, I'd have saved myself some trouble if I wrote
the above as "The only named Eustace I can find in the text
of TSW is John Leeming's...."
>>>
>>> There are the Eustachian tubes, of course (they connect
>>> the pharynx to the middle ear). And Eustace Scrubb
>>> of the Narnia stories.
>>
>>
>>Oh, surely. My comments are confined to within the text of TSW.
>>I.e., John Leeming is a character in TSW, there are Eustaces
>>everywhere in TSW ("Eustace" is a noun), and the only Eustace
>>I could find in TSW with a name was John's own Eustace, named
>>Phenackertiban.
>
> Leeming says his own Eustace is called Eustace Phenakertiban; he
> says every other Terran has a Eustace too, but doesn't give their
> names. The other Terran prisoner, being quick on the draw, says
> he has a Eustace too, but doesn't give it a name.
Yes.
Dorothy J Heydt
Kay Shapero
b.s...@csuohio.edu says...
>
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:21:59 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
> <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:Lon44...@kithrup.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > In article <9dd94963-59d6-436b...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > Joel Polowin <jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> >>> > I laughed my backside off as a kid to "The Space Willies"
> >>> > by Eric Frank Russell. The Eustachius called by the
> >>> > Fatschbumdidelzong...
>
> [...]
>
> > The enemy having a Macke...
>
> > OK, Leeming has already made his captors believe that each and
> > every human is accompanied by an invisible Eustace. He then
> > tells them that the Lathians, the dominant race of the alien
> > alliance, have Willies. Now, Willy is a diminutive for William,
> > in English as in German. But "to have the willies" is an idiom
> > for being frightened, nervous.
>
> A <Macke> is a flaw, defect, quirk, kink, etc., and <eine
> Macke haben> (of a person) is to be nuts, a bit odd, or a
> few bricks shy of a load.
>
> It's not a perfect match, but it's not bad.
>
IIRC, this comes into the story during the above incident, when he also
tells his captors that the term for a species with invisible partners is
"Nut", so along with asking if the Lathans have the Willies they might
also ask if they are Nuts. :)
--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Address munged, to email use kay at the above domain (everything after
the www.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>In article <1wg106gzsxm2a$.1pjwdwva...@40tude.net>,
>b.s...@csuohio.edu says...
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:21:59 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
>> <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:Lon44...@kithrup.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> > In article
><9dd94963-59d6-436b...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Joel Polowin <jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > I laughed my backside off as a kid to "The Space Willies"
>> >>> > by Eric Frank Russell. The Eustachius called by the
>> >>> > Fatschbumdidelzong...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > The enemy having a Macke...
>>
>> > OK, Leeming has already made his captors believe that each and
>> > every human is accompanied by an invisible Eustace. He then
>> > tells them that the Lathians, the dominant race of the alien
>> > alliance, have Willies. Now, Willy is a diminutive for William,
>> > in English as in German. But "to have the willies" is an idiom
>> > for being frightened, nervous.
>>
>> A <Macke> is a flaw, defect, quirk, kink, etc., and <eine
>> Macke haben> (of a person) is to be nuts, a bit odd, or a
>> few bricks shy of a load.
>>
>> It's not a perfect match, but it's not bad.
>>
>
>IIRC, this comes into the story during the above incident, when he also
>tells his captors that the term for a species with invisible partners is
>"Nut", so along with asking if the Lathans have the Willies they might
>also ask if they are Nuts. :)
Right. "Nuts" as an adjective meaning "crazy," in case our
German-speaking OP didn't know that one.
Hauke Reddmann
have deduced myself from the title that willies->Macke
(which is essentially the same concept in German). Eustachius
is just a random name, OK. The Fatschbumdidelzong would have
more properly named Dingsbums (=Dingbat, of course),
but that probably would have been less funny.
Oh, another thing lost in translation. The hero refers to
"using both of his heads" in the German text and then comes
up with his wacky scheme. This sounded always kinda
unmotivated and probably in English there is a standing
phrase. How does the original read?
David DeLaney
>Oh, another thing lost in translation. The hero refers to
>"using both of his heads" in the German text and then comes
>up with his wacky scheme. This sounded always kinda
>unmotivated and probably in English there is a standing
>phrase. How does the original read?
I don't know how the original reads, but in English one of those heads would
be inside his pants zipper. (And unless there's actual women in the story,
he might really be referring to the two cousins right under it instead...)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dorothy J Heydt
Hauke Reddmann <fc3...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>THX very much! Normally I'm more brilliant :-) and would
>have deduced myself from the title that willies->Macke
>(which is essentially the same concept in German). Eustachius
>is just a random name, OK. The Fatschbumdidelzong would have
>more properly named Dingsbums (=Dingbat, of course),
>but that probably would have been less funny.
>
>Oh, another thing lost in translation. The hero refers to
>"using both of his heads" in the German text and then comes
>up with his wacky scheme. This sounded always kinda
>unmotivated and probably in English there is a standing
>phrase. How does the original read?
Very close. After thinking like mad about how he's going to get
out of there, he says, "So I'll just have to use both my heads."
(momentary pause) "That's it! BOTH my heads!"
Dorothy J Heydt
David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>On 22 Jul 2011 09:04:55 GMT, Hauke Reddmann <fc3...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>>Oh, another thing lost in translation. The hero refers to
>>"using both of his heads" in the German text and then comes
>>up with his wacky scheme. This sounded always kinda
>>unmotivated and probably in English there is a standing
>>phrase. How does the original read?
>
>I don't know how the original reads, but in English one of those heads would
>be inside his pants zipper.
Not in that context. Par*tic*ularly since the original story,
"Plus X," was published in _Astounding_, whose purity of language
was jealously guarded by Campbell's assistant, Kay Tarrant. But
occasionally there would be references that completely went over
her head and got into publication.
What Dave's talking about is the term "the little head" for the
membrum virile. As in, "Don't let the little head do the
thinking; that's the big head's job." In other words, don't let
sexual desire deceive you into doing something stupid.
No, I think Russell was sort of riffing off the old proverb, "Two
heads are better than one," meaning that if you get another
person in to bounce ideas off of, you may get more and better
ideas generated than if you're working alone.
(And unless there's actual women in the story,
>he might really be referring to the two cousins right under it instead...)
No. No. Read what I said above. Using your genitals when you
need to use your brain is a BAD IDEA. Worse than losing your
hat.
Dave, I don't know how old you are. It's possible that you don't
remember a time before the mid-1960s, when a lot of barriers went
down, including rules about what words it was okay to say, and what
things it was okay to mention, in "mixed company" (that is, any
gathering that included females and/or children). Talking about
your male genitalia, either directly or indirectly, was for
all-adult-male groups ONLY. Ditto obscene words.
I miss those days, sometimes. I'm too old to be shocked, but the
stuff that used to be unfit for mixed company is BORING.
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Jul 2011 09:04:55 GMT, Hauke Reddmann <fc3...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>Oh, another thing lost in translation. The hero refers to
>>>"using both of his heads" in the German text and then comes
>>>up with his wacky scheme. This sounded always kinda
>>>unmotivated and probably in English there is a standing
>>>phrase. How does the original read?
>>
>>I don't know how the original reads, but in English one of those heads would
>>be inside his pants zipper.
>
>Not in that context. Par*tic*ularly since the original story,
>"Plus X," was published in _Astounding_, whose purity of language
>was jealously guarded by Campbell's assistant, Kay Tarrant. But
>occasionally there would be references that completely went over
>her head and got into publication.
Yep. One of which I've actually seen referenced, "the original ball-bearing
mousetrap".
>No, I think Russell was sort of riffing off the old proverb, "Two
>heads are better than one," meaning that if you get another
>person in to bounce ideas off of, you may get more and better
>ideas generated than if you're working alone.
? I haven't read the story, but unless the protagonist had an actual other
person to discuss with, that wouldn't fit at all, and my reference would.
I do realize that it brings in some sexual-type references that would have
been somewhat out of place in an older SF story ... but I honestly can't
think of anything ELSE it might have been referring to. "Two heads are better
than one" is pretty much right out...
>No. No. Read what I said above. Using your genitals when you
>need to use your brain is a BAD IDEA. Worse than losing your hat.
Yet for a lot of guys it's a Bad Idea that gets them results sometimes. And
gets them into trouble a lot of times, but they don't remember that afterwards.
>Dave, I don't know how old you are. It's possible that you don't
>remember a time before the mid-1960s,
True ... but I've read a good deal that was published decades before I was
born, when
>rules about what words it was okay to say, and what
>things it was okay to mention, in "mixed company" (that is, any
>gathering that included females and/or children). Talking about
>your male genitalia, either directly or indirectly, was for
>all-adult-male groups ONLY. Ditto obscene words.
this was still in full effect. And the above reference is ABOUT as close as
one can get to a completely clean reference while still having the reference
there...
>I miss those days, sometimes. I'm too old to be shocked, but the
>stuff that used to be unfit for mixed company is BORING.
Well, if it's done in the ordinary ways, sure. You gotta be CREATIVE.
Dave "a touch! a touch!" DeLaney
Dorothy J Heydt
David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>>On 22 Jul 2011 09:04:55 GMT, Hauke Reddmann <fc3...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>Oh, another thing lost in translation. The hero refers to
>>>>"using both of his heads" in the German text and then comes
>>>>up with his wacky scheme. This sounded always kinda
>>>>unmotivated and probably in English there is a standing
>>>>phrase. How does the original read?
>>>
>>>I don't know how the original reads, but in English one of those heads would
>>>be inside his pants zipper.
>>
>>Not in that context. Par*tic*ularly since the original story,
>>"Plus X," was published in _Astounding_, whose purity of language
>>was jealously guarded by Campbell's assistant, Kay Tarrant. But
>>occasionally there would be references that completely went over
>>her head and got into publication.
>
>Yep. One of which I've actually seen referenced, "the original ball-bearing
>mousetrap".
Uh-huh. Meaning, of course, a tomcat. A story by George O. Smith,
whose title escapes me at the moment.
Another one was Damon Knight's "Cabin Boy," in which the Captain
*was* the ship (a very large adult space-going organism), and the
cabin boy, a small juvenile of the same species, escaped the
Captain's wrath by maneuvering all around him. In other words,
he circumnavigated the skipper. Tarrant didn't catch that either.
>>No, I think Russell was sort of riffing off the old proverb, "Two
>>heads are better than one," meaning that if you get another
>>person in to bounce ideas off of, you may get more and better
>>ideas generated than if you're working alone.
>
>? I haven't read the story, but unless the protagonist had an actual other
>person to discuss with, that wouldn't fit at all, and my reference would.
>I do realize that it brings in some sexual-type references that would have
>been somewhat out of place in an older SF story ... but I honestly can't
>think of anything ELSE it might have been referring to. "Two heads are better
>than one" is pretty much right out...
>>No. No. Read what I said above. Using your genitals when you
>>need to use your brain is a BAD IDEA. Worse than losing your hat.
>
>Yet for a lot of guys it's a Bad Idea that gets them results sometimes.
It may get them laid. It may get them a punch in the nose from
the female's boyfriend/husband, or from the female herself. It
may cause them to go chasing after a female instead of a business
opportunity and wind up broke but having to pay eighteen years
worth of child support. It's a BAD IDEA.
And
>gets them into trouble a lot of times, but they don't remember that afterwards.
>
>>Dave, I don't know how old you are. It's possible that you don't
>>remember a time before the mid-1960s,
>
>True ... but I've read a good deal that was published decades before I was
>born, when
>
>>rules about what words it was okay to say, and what
>>things it was okay to mention, in "mixed company" (that is, any
>>gathering that included females and/or children). Talking about
>>your male genitalia, either directly or indirectly, was for
>>all-adult-male groups ONLY. Ditto obscene words.
>
>this was still in full effect. And the above reference is ABOUT as close as
>one can get to a completely clean reference while still having the reference
>there...
Except I completely disagree with you that there was a sexual
reference there. My gosh, man, Leeming is a prisoner of war, the
only human being (of any sex) on a planet full of aliens who ...
well, we only get to see the males, it being a military prison,
but I don't want to visualize what the females looked like.
http://www.collectorshowcase.fr/IMAGES2/AST_5606.jpg
Think about it. Would *you* want to bed him, even if he were a
her?
Robert A. Woodward
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <slrnj2kbt...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
> >Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> >>Not in that context. Par*tic*ularly since the original story,
> >>"Plus X," was published in _Astounding_, whose purity of language
> >>was jealously guarded by Campbell's assistant, Kay Tarrant. But
> >>occasionally there would be references that completely went over
> >>her head and got into publication.
> >
> >Yep. One of which I've actually seen referenced, "the original ball-bearing
> >mousetrap".
>
> Uh-huh. Meaning, of course, a tomcat. A story by George O. Smith,
> whose title escapes me at the moment.
>
> Another one was Damon Knight's "Cabin Boy," in which the Captain
> *was* the ship (a very large adult space-going organism), and the
> cabin boy, a small juvenile of the same species, escaped the
> Captain's wrath by maneuvering all around him. In other words,
> he circumnavigated the skipper. Tarrant didn't catch that either.
>
Er, "Cabin Boy" was published in Galaxy, not Astounding. Thus, Kay
Tarrant didn't see it before publication.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Dorothy J Heydt
Thank you; I sit corrected.
(Maybe she *did* see it. :) )
Brian M. Scott
<d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in
<news:slrnj2kbt...@gatekeeper.vic.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
Not really, because in context it's completely unmotivated.
You're being unreasonably literal; from 'two heads are
better than one' it's not much of a reach to 'I could use
two heads for this problem' to 'I'll have to use both of my
heads; if only I *had* a second head!', and finally to the
elliptical version in the actual story:
But he had one resource and one only. That was guile.
There was nothing else he could employ.
He let go a loud groan and complained to himself, "So
I'll have to use both my heads!"
This inane remark percolated through the innermost
recesses of his mind and began to ferment like yeast.
After a while he sat up startled, gazed at what little he
could see of the brightening sky, and said in tone
approaching a yelp, "Yes, sure, that's it - both heads!"
Brian
David Goldfarb
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>Another one was Damon Knight's "Cabin Boy," in which the Captain
>*was* the ship (a very large adult space-going organism), and the
>cabin boy, a small juvenile of the same species, escaped the
>Captain's wrath by maneuvering all around him. In other words,
>he circumnavigated the skipper. Tarrant didn't catch that either.
Largely because it was published in _Galaxy_ rather than _Astounding_.
--
David Goldfarb |"Think of me as a brief electromagnetic anomaly
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | who told you some true things for your own good."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Day of the Dead"
Hauke Reddmann
> Not really, because in context it's completely unmotivated.
> You're being unreasonably literal; from 'two heads are
> better than one' it's not much of a reach to 'I could use
> two heads for this problem' to 'I'll have to use both of my
> heads; if only I *had* a second head!', and finally to the
> elliptical version in the actual story:
> But he had one resource and one only. That was guile.
> There was nothing else he could employ.
>
> He let go a loud groan and complained to himself, "So
> I'll have to use both my heads!"
>
> This inane remark percolated through the innermost
> recesses of his mind and began to ferment like yeast.
> After a while he sat up startled, gazed at what little he
> could see of the brightening sky, and said in tone
> approaching a yelp, "Yes, sure, that's it - both heads!"
OK, definitely TOO elliptic for a German youth :-)
(We do have similar proverbs like "Four eyes see more than
two", but EFR could have elaborated a bit along the above line
of reasoning, since I now STILL find it a bit elliptic.
And while my spoken English is lousy and my written so-so,
my understanding is so good that I use to backtranslate mangled
Xanth puns into English on the fly :-)
Howard Brazee
Heydt) wrote:
>Another one was Damon Knight's "Cabin Boy," in which the Captain
>*was* the ship (a very large adult space-going organism), and the
>cabin boy, a small juvenile of the same species, escaped the
>Captain's wrath by maneuvering all around him. In other words,
>he circumnavigated the skipper. Tarrant didn't catch that either.
I still haven't caught it.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
David DeLaney
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>Another one was Damon Knight's "Cabin Boy," in which the Captain
>>*was* the ship (a very large adult space-going organism), and the
>>cabin boy, a small juvenile of the same species, escaped the
>>Captain's wrath by maneuvering all around him. In other words,
>>he circumnavigated the skipper. Tarrant didn't catch that either.
>
>I still haven't caught it.
circumnavigated -> circumscribed, which then echoes against the last few
lines of a raunchy sailor's song about a different cabin boy - spoiler-char
for those who are reading at work:
"he filled his ass
with broken glass
and circumcised the skipper!"
Dave
David DeLaney
All right, I Surrender Dorothy, because in-context it doesn't make any
sense at all to me, plus it's described as 'inane'. So I withdraw my
interpretation.
Dave
Dorothy J Heydt
Hauke Reddmann <fc3...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>> Not really, because in context it's completely unmotivated.
>> You're being unreasonably literal; from 'two heads are
>> better than one' it's not much of a reach to 'I could use
>> two heads for this problem' to 'I'll have to use both of my
>> heads; if only I *had* a second head!', and finally to the
>> elliptical version in the actual story:
>
>> But he had one resource and one only. That was guile.
>> There was nothing else he could employ.
>>
>> He let go a loud groan and complained to himself, "So
>> I'll have to use both my heads!"
>>
>> This inane remark percolated through the innermost
>> recesses of his mind and began to ferment like yeast.
>> After a while he sat up startled, gazed at what little he
>> could see of the brightening sky, and said in tone
>> approaching a yelp, "Yes, sure, that's it - both heads!"
>
>OK, definitely TOO elliptic for a German youth :-)
>(We do have similar proverbs like "Four eyes see more than
>two", but EFR could have elaborated a bit along the above line
>of reasoning, since I now STILL find it a bit elliptic.
Well, I daresay he had no idea that the book based on the story
was going to be translated into German. At the time of writing
the story, he probably had no idea it was going to be developed
into a short novel.
Dorothy J Heydt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 05:25:32 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>Another one was Damon Knight's "Cabin Boy," in which the Captain
>>*was* the ship (a very large adult space-going organism), and the
>>cabin boy, a small juvenile of the same species, escaped the
>>Captain's wrath by maneuvering all around him. In other words,
>>he circumnavigated the skipper. Tarrant didn't catch that either.
>
>I still haven't caught it.
>
its first line, "Aboard the Good Ship Venus." In one verse, the
cabin boy is described as having "stuffed his ass with broken
glass and circumcized the skipper."
Howard Brazee
DeLaney) wrote:
>>>Another one was Damon Knight's "Cabin Boy," in which the Captain
>>>*was* the ship (a very large adult space-going organism), and the
>>>cabin boy, a small juvenile of the same species, escaped the
>>>Captain's wrath by maneuvering all around him. In other words,
>>>he circumnavigated the skipper. Tarrant didn't catch that either.
>>
>>I still haven't caught it.
>
>circumnavigated -> circumscribed, which then echoes against the last few
>lines of a raunchy sailor's song about a different cabin boy - spoiler-char
>for those who are reading at work:
Going from "in other words he circumnavigated" to circumscribed still
doesn't get us far enough. If we have to go past 3 degrees of
separation to get a dirty joke, we are 3 degrees too far.
Dorothy J Heydt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 06:33:06 -0400, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
>DeLaney) wrote:
>
>>>>Another one was Damon Knight's "Cabin Boy," in which the Captain
>>>>*was* the ship (a very large adult space-going organism), and the
>>>>cabin boy, a small juvenile of the same species, escaped the
>>>>Captain's wrath by maneuvering all around him. In other words,
>>>>he circumnavigated the skipper. Tarrant didn't catch that either.
>>>
>>>I still haven't caught it.
>>
>>circumnavigated -> circumscribed, which then echoes against the last few
>>lines of a raunchy sailor's song about a different cabin boy - spoiler-char
>>for those who are reading at work:
>
>Going from "in other words he circumnavigated" to circumscribed still
>doesn't get us far enough. If we have to go past 3 degrees of
>separation to get a dirty joke, we are 3 degrees too far.
Oh, I don't think we need to go through "circumscribed" at all.
Now, mind you, the first time I read "Cabin Boy" I didn't get it
at all, because it was 1951 and I was nine years old. Later,
much later, like in the early seventies after I was married, I
got hold of an Oscar Brand LP in a plain brown wrapper (no kidding)
that contained the song with its original language in all its
sleazy glory. "Oh. THAT'S what Knight meant."
You just have to be familiar with both ends of the pun; no
intermediate "circumscribed" required.
P. Taine
Well, Dorothy my love, I'm a bit older than you, and I can well remember (as
early as 1952) mixed groups happily singing "The Good Ship Venus" and "The
Bastard King of England", as well as other songs of similar content.
This was, first, in Cambridge MA, and somewhat later in Madison Wisconsin. Of
course this these sessions were in university settings, so perhaps that makes a
difference.
P. Taine
Howard Brazee
Heydt) wrote:
>>Going from "in other words he circumnavigated" to circumscribed still
>>doesn't get us far enough. If we have to go past 3 degrees of
>>separation to get a dirty joke, we are 3 degrees too far.
>
>Oh, I don't think we need to go through "circumscribed" at all.
>Now, mind you, the first time I read "Cabin Boy" I didn't get it
>at all, because it was 1951 and I was nine years old. Later,
>much later, like in the early seventies after I was married, I
>got hold of an Oscar Brand LP in a plain brown wrapper (no kidding)
>that contained the song with its original language in all its
>sleazy glory. "Oh. THAT'S what Knight meant."
>
>You just have to be familiar with both ends of the pun; no
>intermediate "circumscribed" required.
OK, it's only one and a half steps separated from being a pun. Somehow
we need to get from an implied circumscribed to circumcised, which I
suppose requires a different accent from what I have.
Dorothy J Heydt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:39:08 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>>Going from "in other words he circumnavigated" to circumscribed still
>>>doesn't get us far enough. If we have to go past 3 degrees of
>>>separation to get a dirty joke, we are 3 degrees too far.
>>
>>Oh, I don't think we need to go through "circumscribed" at all.
>>Now, mind you, the first time I read "Cabin Boy" I didn't get it
>>at all, because it was 1951 and I was nine years old. Later,
>>much later, like in the early seventies after I was married, I
>>got hold of an Oscar Brand LP in a plain brown wrapper (no kidding)
>>that contained the song with its original language in all its
>>sleazy glory. "Oh. THAT'S what Knight meant."
>>
>>You just have to be familiar with both ends of the pun; no
>>intermediate "circumscribed" required.
>
>OK, it's only one and a half steps separated from being a pun. Somehow
>we need to get from an implied circumscribed to circumcised, which I
>suppose requires a different accent from what I have.
No we don't! We go directly from "circumnavigated" to
"circumcised", which sound exactly alike for the first two
syllables, which is close enough.
(At least, once one knows both words and the second reference,
which I didn't in 1951.)
Dorothy J Heydt
I'm sure you can. Not on records, though, I bet.
>
>This was, first, in Cambridge MA, and somewhat later in Madison Wisconsin. Of
>course this these sessions were in university settings, so perhaps that makes a
>difference.
I bet they were all-male groups, too.
Kurt Busiek
Did "mixed company" become "on records" while we weren't looking?
>> This was, first, in Cambridge MA, and somewhat later in Madison Wisconsin. Of
>> course this these sessions were in university settings, so perhaps that makes a
>> difference.
>
> I bet they were all-male groups, too.
You bet that the mixed groups he mentions were all-male?
Dorothy, your memories of the pre-Sixties seem very Hays-Code-approved,
but that does not mean your experiences were universal. My parents and
my wife's parents both had experiences that do not match up with your
insistence that the world (or at least America) was homogenous in its
tastes, mores and actions.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
P. Taine
You would lose. Note that, above I specified "mixed groups". But then, MIT
co-eds, a la 1952, and U of Wisconsin grand students a la 1957, may have been
made of sterner stuff.
P. Taine
Actually, the first two LPs of "Bawdy Songs and Backroom Ballads" came out in
1949, and numbers 3 and 4 in 1950.
Howard Brazee
Heydt) wrote:
>>OK, it's only one and a half steps separated from being a pun. Somehow
>>we need to get from an implied circumscribed to circumcised, which I
>>suppose requires a different accent from what I have.
>
>No we don't! We go directly from "circumnavigated" to
>"circumcised", which sound exactly alike for the first two
>syllables, which is close enough.
We have very different ideas about what makes a pun. Those don't
even rhyme!
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:39:08 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>>> Going from "in other words he circumnavigated" to circumscribed still
>>> doesn't get us far enough. If we have to go past 3 degrees of
>>> separation to get a dirty joke, we are 3 degrees too far.
>>
>> Oh, I don't think we need to go through "circumscribed" at all.
>> Now, mind you, the first time I read "Cabin Boy" I didn't get it
>> at all, because it was 1951 and I was nine years old. Later,
>> much later, like in the early seventies after I was married, I
>> got hold of an Oscar Brand LP in a plain brown wrapper (no kidding)
>> that contained the song with its original language in all its
>> sleazy glory. "Oh. THAT'S what Knight meant."
>>
>> You just have to be familiar with both ends of the pun; no
>> intermediate "circumscribed" required.
>
> OK, it's only one and a half steps separated from being a pun. Somehow
> we need to get from an implied circumscribed to circumcised, which I
> suppose requires a different accent from what I have.
>
When I was 14, I had a brief period of religion. At the dinner table, I
announced to my parents that I wanted to get confirmed, but my mouth
came out with "circumcised". This certainly stopped dinner-time
conversation for a while.
(Fortunately, I had the correct 'operation' in the end, and for a short
while I was a Christian).
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:32:59 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>>> OK, it's only one and a half steps separated from being a pun. Somehow
>>> we need to get from an implied circumscribed to circumcised, which I
>>> suppose requires a different accent from what I have.
>>
>> No we don't! We go directly from "circumnavigated" to
>> "circumcised", which sound exactly alike for the first two
>> syllables, which is close enough.
>
> We have very different ideas about what makes a pun. Those don't
> even rhyme!
>
It's not a pun; it's word play.
--
Robert Bannister
Dorothy J Heydt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:32:59 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>>OK, it's only one and a half steps separated from being a pun. Somehow
>>>we need to get from an implied circumscribed to circumcised, which I
>>>suppose requires a different accent from what I have.
>>
>>No we don't! We go directly from "circumnavigated" to
>>"circumcised", which sound exactly alike for the first two
>>syllables, which is close enough.
>
>We have very different ideas about what makes a pun. Those don't
>even rhyme!
Why do they have to rhyme?
If you want some sort of poetic theory to be tied in, they *do*
alliterate.
Dorothy J Heydt
Yes, but those were severely bowdlerized. It was after putting
out several volumes of watered-down BS&BBs that Brand put
together an ad-hoc band which he called "The Road Apples" (no
clue who they were, there was a picture of them on the back of
the record jacket, all with black CENSORED-type bars across their
faces) and recorded the, I assume, original and real versions.
And put it out on an LP with a real plain brown wrapper around
it. You couldn't even see what the songs on it were until you
had bought it and removed the plain plastic wrapper around the
plain brown paper wrapper and looked at the actual case. And
that was in 1971 or maybe -2, because Hal and I were newly
married and for us, sex was still new and funny.
Howard Brazee
Heydt) wrote:
>>We have very different ideas about what makes a pun. Those don't
>>even rhyme!
>
>Why do they have to rhyme?
>
>If you want some sort of poetic theory to be tied in, they *do*
>alliterate.
I know how to get from one to the other if they are puns. Alliteration
isn't sufficient for my brain. The words don't have similar
meanings, they don't sound the same, they share some letters.
Brian M. Scott
<us...@domaine.invalid> wrote in
<news:rjdm27hnmimk9n0i4...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> But then, MIT co-eds, a la 1952, and U of Wisconsin grand
> students a la 1957, may have been made of sterner stuff.
And we were still pretty grand 12 years later!
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<how...@brazee.net> wrote in
<news:a7sm27t6l2rnr231h...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:50:37 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>>> We have very different ideas about what makes a pun.
>>> Those don't even rhyme!
>>Why do they have to rhyme?
>> If you want some sort of poetic theory to be tied in,
>> they *do* alliterate.
> I know how to get from one to the other if they are puns.
> Alliteration isn't sufficient for my brain. The words
> don't have similar meanings, they don't sound the same,
> they share some letters.
They share a large and prominent prefix that in fact *does*
give them related meanings. And no, it's not a pun; it's a
more general form of wordplay.
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:50:37 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>>We have very different ideas about what makes a pun. Those don't
>>>even rhyme!
>>
>>Why do they have to rhyme?
>>
>>If you want some sort of poetic theory to be tied in, they *do*
>>alliterate.
>
>I know how to get from one to the other if they are puns. Alliteration
>isn't sufficient for my brain.
Okay, you aren't trained for it.
I know better than to suggest you learn Old English, Old Norse,
or Old High Germanic, in which languages alliteration (and rhythm)
are the primary poetic form, but try Tolkien, who uses alliterative
verse in modern English in _LotR_.
E.g.,
"Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope's end I rode, and to heart's breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The words don't have similar
>meanings, they don't sound the same, they share some letters.
They share some *sounds.* Note that "sword" alliterates with
"sun," and "wrath" with "ruin."
David DeLaney
>> Alliteration isn't sufficient for my brain. The words
>> don't have similar meanings, they don't sound the same,
>> they share some letters.
>
>They share a large and prominent prefix that in fact *does*
>give them related meanings. And no, it's not a pun; it's a
>more general form of wordplay.
A pune, or play on words?
Dave "more general because the explanation is invariably tagged on as a
succeeding phrase?" DeLaney
Gary R. Schmidt
[SNIP...]
Good grief! To have gone from "circumnavigated/circumcised" (a classic
school-boy howler in Oz, "Matthew Flinders circumcised Australia with a
40 foot cutter", and is *ancient*[1], it probably even appears in
various Hansards around the place!) to Old English/German/Norse is
bloody well unbelievable!!
It really does show that the various
countries/states/regions/villages/hamlets that claim "English" as their
native language really are "divided by a common language."
And the lengths some will go to in order to say, "You can't get there
from here," is simply boggling!!!!
Cheers,
Gary B-)
1 - My grandmother, born in 1890, considered it unworthy of comment.
But then, she did like this joke (told it to me when I was about 9):
A pirate takes over a ship, and one of the passengers, a lady
of strong character, asks him, "Where are your Buccaneers?"
After a pause, the pirate replies, "Under me Buccanhat!"
(If you have trouble with this, read it out aloud.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>On 24/07/2011 12:42 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>[SNIP...]
>
>Good grief! To have gone from "circumnavigated/circumcised" (a classic
>school-boy howler in Oz, "Matthew Flinders circumcised Australia with a
Heh. I wonder if Damon Knight knew that, or whether he
rediscovered it independently. I don't *think* it's common in
the US; anybody know any other occurrences on this side of the
planet?
it probably even appears in
>various Hansards around the place!) to Old English/German/Norse is
>bloody well unbelievable!!
We call that "thread drift." To go in a few posts from "puns" to
"that's not a pun, it doesn't rhyme" [say what?] to "try learning
about alliteration from the following sources..." is a rather quick
thread drift, but I've seen threads drift farther and faster.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
>It really does show that the various
>countries/states/regions/villages/hamlets that claim "English" as their
>native language really are "divided by a common language."
>
>And the lengths some will go to in order to say, "You can't get there
>from here," is simply boggling!!!!
>
I don't have to go to any great length to say that. I play an
online game, _The Lord of the Rings Online_, which has a couple
of places in its virtual landscape about which that's the most
appropriate comment.
Howard Brazee
Heydt) wrote:
>>I know how to get from one to the other if they are puns. Alliteration
>>isn't sufficient for my brain.
>
>Okay, you aren't trained for it.
>
>I know better than to suggest you learn Old English, Old Norse,
>or Old High Germanic, in which languages alliteration (and rhythm)
>are the primary poetic form, but try Tolkien, who uses alliterative
>verse in modern English in _LotR_.
My time will be used elsewhere. Even retired, time is in such short
supply, and learning is slower than it used to be.
>E.g.,
>
>"Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
>I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
>To hope's end I rode, and to heart's breaking:
>Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
>
> The words don't have similar
>>meanings, they don't sound the same, they share some letters.
>
>They share some *sounds.* Note that "sword" alliterates with
>"sun," and "wrath" with "ruin."
I was a computer programmer. "Kind of, sort of, similar" doesn't
work with code. Apparently it works with some kinds of poetry - and
in Australian (and some other) slang.
erilar
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:50:37 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> >>We have very different ideas about what makes a pun. Those don't
> >>even rhyme!
> >
> >Why do they have to rhyme?
> >
> >If you want some sort of poetic theory to be tied in, they *do*
> >alliterate.
>
> I know how to get from one to the other if they are puns. Alliteration
> isn't sufficient for my brain. The words don't have similar
> meanings, they don't sound the same, they share some letters.
If you've studied enough alliterative verse, it certainly is poetry.
But most people are only familiar with the somewhat modern stuff that
rhymes. There's plenty of modern verse that doesn't, of course, and
most of what's in Shakespeare's plays doesn't, either.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Thomas Womack
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <cmdm27h4nhrenqclp...@4ax.com>,
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:32:59 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>>>OK, it's only one and a half steps separated from being a pun. Somehow
>>>>we need to get from an implied circumscribed to circumcised, which I
>>>>suppose requires a different accent from what I have.
>>>
>>>No we don't! We go directly from "circumnavigated" to
>>>"circumcised", which sound exactly alike for the first two
>>>syllables, which is close enough.
>>
>>We have very different ideas about what makes a pun. Those don't
>>even rhyme!
>
>Why do they have to rhyme?
>
>If you want some sort of poetic theory to be tied in, they *do*
>alliterate.
But they alliterate by shared prefix, which is to my mind as
unsatisfactory as the bits of medieval Latin verse that rhyme by
shared suffix:
liber scriptus proferetur,
in quo totum continetur,
unde mundum iudicetur ...
Tom
Dorothy J Heydt
Yes. It's so easy to rhyme in Latin, that in classical times you
were supposed to AVOID rhyme. You got several rhyming words in a
row so often in plain old prose (e.g. off top of head _multorum
virorum bonorum,_ "of many good men") that to have rhymes in your
poetry made it sound prosaic. Latin poetry depended on syllable
number and length.
Myself, born in the mid-twentieth century, I don't find either
alliteration by shared prefix nor rhyme by shared inflectional
ending "unsatisfactory," but that's me.
jameskuyper
> In article <g0bm271pqeplst749...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:39:08 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> >Heydt) wrote:
> >>Oh, I don't think we need to go through "circumscribed" at all.
> >>Now, mind you, the first time I read "Cabin Boy" I didn't get it
> >>at all, because it was 1951 and I was nine years old. Later,
> >>much later, like in the early seventies after I was married, I
> >>got hold of an Oscar Brand LP in a plain brown wrapper (no kidding)
> >>that contained the song with its original language in all its
> >>sleazy glory. "Oh. THAT'S what Knight meant."
> >>
> >>You just have to be familiar with both ends of the pun; no
> >>intermediate "circumscribed" required.
> >
> >OK, it's only one and a half steps separated from being a pun. Somehow
> >we need to get from an implied circumscribed to circumcised, which I
> >suppose requires a different accent from what I have.
>
> No we don't! We go directly from "circumnavigated" to
> "circumcised", which sound exactly alike for the first two
> syllables, which is close enough.
It doesn't seem so to me. It seems to me that there's dozens of words
that are more closely related to either circumnavigated or circumcised
than they are to each other. All in all, it seems a very weak
connection. And the only thing those two words have in common is the
circularity implied by the shared prefix, circularity that is entirely
lacking from the motion of the "Cabin Boy" in Damon Knight's story (at
least, there's nothing obviously circular about his motion, as you
described it in the first message on this thread to mention that
story).
So, in summary, you describe a very weak connection between the actual
motion of the Cabin Boy and the word "circumnavigated", and another
very weak connection between "circumnavigated" and "circumsized". You
postulate a final link to a rather obscure sailor's song. To me it
seems that the connection you see between the story and and the song
says more about you than it does about the story or the author's
intent.
Of course, since you did think of this connection, it's entirely
possible that the author did too; but it would take a lot of
supporting evidence from other aspects of the story, or a direct
statement by the author, to convince me of that. Even if he did say
that he intended the connection, I would still feel that he was very
unjustified in expecting people to think of such a weak connection to
an obscure song.
Howard Brazee
<james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of course, since you did think of this connection, it's entirely
>possible that the author did too; but it would take a lot of
>supporting evidence from other aspects of the story, or a direct
>statement by the author, to convince me of that. Even if he did say
>that he intended the connection, I would still feel that he was very
>unjustified in expecting people to think of such a weak connection to
>an obscure song.
Think of Isaac Asimov's "The Immortal Bard".
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:50:37 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>>> We have very different ideas about what makes a pun. Those don't
>>> even rhyme!
>>
>> Why do they have to rhyme?
>>
>> If you want some sort of poetic theory to be tied in, they *do*
>> alliterate.
>
> I know how to get from one to the other if they are puns. Alliteration
> isn't sufficient for my brain. The words don't have similar
> meanings, they don't sound the same, they share some letters.
>
You would have hated fourth century English, German or Scandinavian poetry.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
If you always think along such literal lines, you must miss a lot of humour.
--
Robert Bannister
David DeLaney
>It doesn't seem so to me. It seems to me that there's dozens of words
>that are more closely related to either circumnavigated or circumcised
>than they are to each other. All in all, it seems a very weak
>connection. And the only thing those two words have in common is the
>circularity implied by the shared prefix, circularity that is entirely
>lacking from the motion of the "Cabin Boy" in Damon Knight's story (at
>least, there's nothing obviously circular about his motion, as you
>described it in the first message on this thread to mention that story).
Except that you're missing bits - the Cabin Boy, for reasons that made sense
at the time, had to go OUTSIDE the, er, ship, and around it, and back in
again. And the ship was shaped (for other good reasons) like its inhabitants,
roughly a squashed sphere, or "oblate spheroid", and he was going around
the equator. So yeah, roughly circular.
>Of course, since you did think of this connection, it's entirely
>possible that the author did too; but it would take a lot of
>supporting evidence from other aspects of the story, or a direct
>statement by the author, to convince me of that. Even if he did say
>that he intended the connection, I would still feel that he was very
>unjustified in expecting people to think of such a weak connection to
>an obscure song.
The other absolutely damning detail, which is also a spoiler, is that the ship
in question
was ALSO the Captain; his species of starship started off small and grew quite
a lot, and carried their offspring inside them. So he really DID circumnavigate
the Skipper, in the course of running/hiding from the prank he had pulled
(which the Captain had definitely noticed, as it involved parts of his interior
nervous system).
Dave
jameskuyper
...
> If you always think along such literal lines, you must miss a lot of humour.
Perhaps; but I also get a lot of humor, and much of the humor I do get is a lot less literal than this. Also, if this particular bit of humor was typical of that which I've missed, I do believe I'm better off for having missed it.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Possibly. This was humour more by allusion than anything else. If you
don't catch the reference and get your chuckle-worth of cognitive
dissonance, explanation makes it fall flat.
Google's breaking your line lengths by the way.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Thank you for your input. Now, if you have something substantive to
bring to the discussion, kindly do. Otherwise, isn't there an
eternal flamefest that would peter out if you won't keep feeding it?
-- Cosmin Corbea, r.a.b
Robert Bannister
> In article<993rh4...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On 24/07/11 9:11 AM, Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:50:37 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> We have very different ideas about what makes a pun. Those don't
>>>>> even rhyme!
>>>>
>>>> Why do they have to rhyme?
>>>>
>>>> If you want some sort of poetic theory to be tied in, they *do*
>>>> alliterate.
>>>
>>> I know how to get from one to the other if they are puns. Alliteration
>>> isn't sufficient for my brain. The words don't have similar
>>> meanings, they don't sound the same, they share some letters.
>>
>> You would have hated fourth century English, German or Scandinavian poetry.
>
> I think I said something like that, somewhere upthread.
>
It's the time distance. I wrote this long before I saw what you wrote,
but you had written before I got to see.
--
Robert Bannister
Dorothy J Heydt
The Internet behaves like the Internet! Virtual chocolates for
everybody.
BTW, does everybody know about the DVD of Benjamin Bagby
performing about the first two-fifths of _Beowulf_ with a rotta?
Never mind if you don't speak OE; there are subtitles.
http://www.bagbybeowulf.com/index.html
David Goldfarb
jameskuyper <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of course, since you did think of this connection, it's entirely
>possible that the author did too; but it would take a lot of
>supporting evidence from other aspects of the story, or a direct
>statement by the author, to convince me of that. Even if he did say
>that he intended the connection, I would still feel that he was very
>unjustified in expecting people to think of such a weak connection to
>an obscure song.
There's also the detail that in the story, Knight named his cabin boy
"Tommy Loy", which was the same name as the cabin boy in the song.
Also, in his introduction to the story in a "best-of" collection, he
outright stated that he was referencing the song.
--
David Goldfarb |Seen on the marquee of a disused porn
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |theatre in New York City:
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "What urge will save us now that sex won't?"
jameskuyper
> In article <81c516f5-e9d4-470e...@df3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> jameskuyper <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Of course, since you did think of this connection, it's entirely
> >possible that the author did too; but it would take a lot of
> >supporting evidence from other aspects of the story, or a direct
> >statement by the author, to convince me of that. Even if he did say
> >that he intended the connection, I would still feel that he was very
> >unjustified in expecting people to think of such a weak connection to
> >an obscure song.
>
> There's also the detail that in the story, Knight named his cabin boy
> "Tommy Loy", which was the same name as the cabin boy in the song.
>
> Also, in his introduction to the story in a "best-of" collection, he
> outright stated that he was referencing the song.
You've provide both "supporting evidence" that is more than adequate,
and "a direct statement by the author", so I readily concede that the
connection was intended. I still stand by my assertion that it's too
weak a connection to justify expecting most readers to figure it out.
Of course, maybe he didn't expect them to do so.
jameskuyper
Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:27:16 -0700 (PDT), jameskuyper
> <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, July 24, 2011 8:32:41 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >...
> >> If you always think along such literal lines, you must miss a lot of humour.
> >
> >Perhaps; but I also get a lot of humor, and much of the humor I do get is a lot less literal than this. Also, if this particular bit of humor was typical of that which I've missed, I do believe I'm better off for having missed it.
>
> Possibly. This was humour more by allusion than anything else. If you
> don't catch the reference and get your chuckle-worth of cognitive
> dissonance, explanation makes it fall flat.
I have vague memories of having read precisely this story, a couple of
decades ago, If I had caught the reference, it would have made me
cringe, not laugh - which suggests that my sense of humor is very
different from yours.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<james...@gmail.com> wrote:
The surprise allusion is to the comedy drinking song, not to actually
circumsizing someone with anally-fitted broken glass.
Rule 34 is half-correct in this instance, from prior knowledge. I
don't recommend finding out which - it certainly makes me cringe.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of the
ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
-- Matt S Trout, asr
Michael Stemper
And the beat goes on ...
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
UW 1976
Joy Beeson
<james...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've provide both "supporting evidence" that is more than adequate,
> and "a direct statement by the author", so I readily concede that the
> connection was intended. I still stand by my assertion that it's too
> weak a connection to justify expecting most readers to figure it out.
> Of course, maybe he didn't expect them to do so.
He definitely expected one particular reader *not* to figure it out.
The story is better when you don't notice the easter egg.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Dorothy J Heydt
I bet he expected adult male English-speakers, who made up the
majority of SF readers, to get it.
As I think I said upthread, I didn't get the reference either
when I first read the story. At the age of nine. I still
thought it was a neat story, because of finding out at the very
end what kind of creatures the Captain and his crew were.
Way way later on, when I heard the song, I had the additional
pleasure of figuring out the pun.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of the
>ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
>with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
> -- Matt S Trout, asr
Oh, lovely. What is (or was) asr? Alt.something.something, I
assume. Please tell.
It reminds me of the tale of how Keith Lynch once caught a
night-shift operator smoking in the computer room (strengst
verboten) and using the intakes for the disk drives to "hide" her
smoke. He crawled under the false flooring, hid till she came
in, stealthily observed till she was in mid-puff, and grabbed her
ankle.
(Probably got her fired, too, but I'm not sure on that part.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 03:42:16 -0700 (PDT), jameskuyper
><james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You've provide both "supporting evidence" that is more than adequate,
>> and "a direct statement by the author", so I readily concede that the
>> connection was intended. I still stand by my assertion that it's too
>> weak a connection to justify expecting most readers to figure it out.
>> Of course, maybe he didn't expect them to do so.
>
>He definitely expected one particular reader *not* to figure it out.
Well, as has been pointed out, the story was published not in
_Astounding_ (in which case Knight would have had to worry about
Tarrant's eagle eye) but in _Galaxy_. H. L. Gold had been
through the war. I bet he knew the song. I bet he got a chuckle
out of it, too.
>
>The story is better when you don't notice the easter egg.
Until later.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <r78t279mvo7p4t73k...@4ax.com>,
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of the
>>ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
>>with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
>> -- Matt S Trout, asr
>
>Oh, lovely. What is (or was) asr? Alt.something.something, I
>assume. Please tell.
Alt.sysadmin.recovery - makes sense, neh? Being bright, articulate and
grumpy people they come out with some lovely quotes once in a while.
>It reminds me of the tale of how Keith Lynch once caught a
>night-shift operator smoking in the computer room (strengst
>verboten) and using the intakes for the disk drives to "hide" her
>smoke.
I hope this was in days before smoke particles would crash disk heads!
> He crawled under the false flooring, hid till she came
>in, stealthily observed till she was in mid-puff, and grabbed her
>ankle.
>
>(Probably got her fired, too, but I'm not sure on that part.)
*Splendid*. I rather miss Keith's presence here.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex."
-- Marvin the Martian
Dorothy J Heydt
Paul Arthur <junk+...@flowerysong.com> wrote:
>On 2011-07-26, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <r78t279mvo7p4t73k...@4ax.com>,
>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of the
>>>ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
>>>with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
>>> -- Matt S Trout, asr
>>
>> Oh, lovely. What is (or was) asr? Alt.something.something, I
>> assume. Please tell.
>
>you to find it at all.
How could I find the monastery when I'm an old married woman?
C'mon, tell.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:26:27 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <r78t279mvo7p4t73k...@4ax.com>,
>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of the
>>>ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
>>>with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
>>> -- Matt S Trout, asr
>>
>>Oh, lovely. What is (or was) asr? Alt.something.something, I
>>assume. Please tell.
>
>Alt.sysadmin.recovery - makes sense, neh? Being bright, articulate and
>grumpy people they come out with some lovely quotes once in a while.
Ah, thanks.
>
>>It reminds me of the tale of how Keith Lynch once caught a
>>night-shift operator smoking in the computer room (strengst
>>verboten) and using the intakes for the disk drives to "hide" her
>>smoke.
>
>I hope this was in days before smoke particles would crash disk heads!
No, this was back in the days when they WOULD. Hence the gravity
of the smoker's peccatum, and Keith's ingenuity in catching her
in the act.
>
>> He crawled under the false flooring, hid till she came
>>in, stealthily observed till she was in mid-puff, and grabbed her
>>ankle.
>>
>>(Probably got her fired, too, but I'm not sure on that part.)
>
>*Splendid*. I rather miss Keith's presence here.
He's still frequently seen on rasf.fandom.
Robert Bannister
> In article<996gg9...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> It's the time distance. I wrote this long before I saw what you wrote,
>> but you had written before I got to see.
>
> The Internet behaves like the Internet! Virtual chocolates for
> everybody.
>
> BTW, does everybody know about the DVD of Benjamin Bagby
> performing about the first two-fifths of _Beowulf_ with a rotta?
> Never mind if you don't speak OE; there are subtitles.
>
> http://www.bagbybeowulf.com/index.html
>
Wow! That's really something. I always thought listening to those
minstrels would be boring, but I could listen to him.
--
Robert Bannister
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>On 26/07/11 9:02 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article<996gg9...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Robert Bannister<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>> It's the time distance. I wrote this long before I saw what you wrote,
>>> but you had written before I got to see.
>>
>> The Internet behaves like the Internet! Virtual chocolates for
>> everybody.
>>
>> BTW, does everybody know about the DVD of Benjamin Bagby
>> performing about the first two-fifths of _Beowulf_ with a rotta?
>> Never mind if you don't speak OE; there are subtitles.
>>
>> http://www.bagbybeowulf.com/index.html
>>
>
>Wow! That's really something. I always thought listening to those
>minstrels would be boring, but I could listen to him.
Oh, you bet.
He performs it live, too. (He was at UC Berkeley earlier this
year.) There are supertitles. Kept us all on the edge of our
seats for two hours or however long it takes.
William December Starr
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
> I know better than to suggest you learn Old English, Old Norse, or
> Old High Germanic, in which languages alliteration (and rhythm)
> are the primary poetic form, but try Tolkien, who uses
> alliterative verse in modern English in _LotR_.
>
> E.g.,
>
> "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
> I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
> To hope's end I rode, and to heart's breaking:
> Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
What does that mean?
-- wds
William December Starr
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
> jameskuyper <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> Also, in his introduction to the story in a "best-of"
>>> collection, he outright stated that he was referencing the song.
>>
>> You've provide both "supporting evidence" that is more than
>> adequate, and "a direct statement by the author", so I readily
>> concede that the connection was intended. I still stand by my
>> assertion that it's too weak a connection to justify expecting
>> most readers to figure it out. Of course, maybe he didn't expect
>> them to do so.
>
> I bet he expected adult male English-speakers, who made up the
> majority of SF readers, to get it.
Would they be familiar with the song in question? That is, was it
a large part of adult male English-speakers' culture in 1951?
-- wds
Brian M. Scott
<wds...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:j0og5b$o60$1...@panix3.panix.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>> E.g.,
> What does that mean?
Those lines are spoken by Éomer at the Battle of the
Pelennor Fields, at a moment when all seems lost and 'he
thought to make a great shield-wall at the last, and stand,
and fight there on foot till all fell, and do deeds of song
on the fields of Pelennor, though no man should be left in
the Weset to remember the last King of the Mark'.
These staves he spoke, yet he laughed as he said
them. For once more lust of battle was on him,
and he was still unscathed, and he was young, and
he was king: the lord of a fell people. And lo! even
as he laughed at despair he looked out again on the
black ships, and he lifted up his sword to defy them.
With that much context I think that they're pretty
self-explanatory.
Brian
P. Taine
I would guess it was a large part of the 20 something english-speakers culture
in Universities at the time. And that would be a larger part of the
science-fiction readers culture. I learned it around 1952, at MIT.
jameskuyper
> In article <LoyJ6...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>
> > jameskuyper <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> concede that the connection was intended. I still stand by my
> >> assertion that it's too weak a connection to justify expecting
> >> most readers to figure it out. Of course, maybe he didn't expect
> >> them to do so.
> >
> > I bet he expected adult male English-speakers, who made up the
> > majority of SF readers, to get it.
>
> Would they be familiar with the song in question? That is, was it
> a large part of adult male English-speakers' culture in 1951?
I'd never heard of this song until it was mentioned in this thread;
but I didn't become an adult until a quarter century after the story
was written. On the other hand, I've no idea how typical my ignorance
of this song would be, even in my own generation.
jameskuyper
poetic=>literal translation, plus some background information (I
apologize in advance for any part that may come across as patronizing
- I'm not sure which parts of the above poem you don't understand.):
"Out of doubt ... to hope's end" : The speaker is leading a large
group of soldiers into battle against a much larger enemy force, the
outcome doubtful. A rational evaluation of the available evidence
suggests they they are on a suicide mission.
"out of dark": Many of the enemy's troops were photophobic, so the
enemy leader had used powerful magic to produce heavy overcast,
providing several consecutive days of darkness.
"I come singing": self-referential - this is the song he's singing.
"sword unsheathing.": they are preparing their weapons for battle. In
my opinion, it was a little early for that; they've still got quite a
while to ride before they'll actually meet the enemy and need to use
those swords.
"To hope's end": there is a small hope of a miracle happening that
will bring them victory. No matter what, that hope will end today,
either in victory or defeat, but most plausibly in defeat.
"to day's rising ... in the sun": As they approached the battle field,
for the first time in several days the overcast had gone away, and the
sun was rising. In addition to the practical tactical advantages of
having sunlight available, this is also an omen that the tide of
battle will soon be turning in their favor; but the speaker does not
realize that.
"I rode": the soldiers are pure cavalry force.
"to heart's breaking": win or lose, many good men will die in the
coming battle, leaving those who love them with broken hearts.
"Now for wrath,": this refers to the anger they feel toward the enemy.
"now for ruin": regardless of the outcome of the battle, many lives
and much property will be ruined on both sides. However, he might be
speaking only about his own side.
"and a red nightfall": this is primarily a reference to the large
amount of red blood that will be spilled by both sides before
nightfall, regardless of the final outcome. "nightfall" may also be a
metaphor for the consequences that will come if they lose the battle,
in which case this is yet another expression of doubt about the
battle's outcome.
Dorothy J Heydt
All right. The source is _The Lord of the Rings_, whereof I hope
you have heard.
The context is: the speaker is Eomer, nephew to Theoden, King of
the Rohirrim. They've come to fight for the good guys in a
foreign land, and Theoden (who was old and decrepit, but by the
help of friends recovered enough moxie to lead one last charge)
has just fallen in battle, having cut down the enemy's
standard-bearer.
Eomer is now King. He knows (he knew from the beginning) that it
was likely he and all his troops will be killed. In his culture,
to die in battle, doing deeds that will be worthy of a song, is
the best ending possible.
Of course, if he and all his followers are killed, there won't be
anyone left to sing about them. But he expresses himself in
alliterative staves, to rally his troops and lead them into their
last, great battle.
(P.S. Quite a few of them survive, including Eomer. There's
another poem a little later in the book that lists some of the
more important fallen. It's long; I won't quote it here.)
For further context, fergoshsakes get hold of _The Lord of the
Rings_ and read it.
Dorothy J Heydt
I was assuming so. If you have evidence to the contrary, tell
us.
Dorothy J Heydt
I have a perfect excuse for not having heard the song when I
first read the story. I was a nine-year-old girl.
Michael Stemper
>William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <LoyJ6...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>> > jameskuyper <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> concede that the connection was intended. I still stand by my
>> >> assertion that it's too weak a connection to justify expecting
>> >> most readers to figure it out. Of course, maybe he didn't expect
>> >> them to do so.
>> >
>> > I bet he expected adult male English-speakers, who made up the
>> > majority of SF readers, to get it.
>>
>> Would they be familiar with the song in question? That is, was it
>> a large part of adult male English-speakers' culture in 1951?
>
>I'd never heard of this song until it was mentioned in this thread;
I never heard of the song until we had an identical thread about
three years back. I first read the story in 1969 or 1970.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
COFFEE.SYS not found. Abort, Retry, Fail?
Tim McDaniel
>were supposed to AVOID rhyme. You got several rhyming words in a
>row so often in plain old prose (e.g. off top of head _multorum
>virorum bonorum,_ "of many good men") that to have rhymes in your
>poetry made it sound prosaic.
*amused snort* "I see what you did there."
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
ppint. at pplay
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) pled:
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of the
>>ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
>>with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
>> -- Matt S Trout, asr
>
>Oh, lovely. What is (or was) asr? Alt.something.something, I assume.
>Please tell.
- alt.sex.reptiles. a formerly fun (mostly) lurkplace -
then [some of] its denitzens started inventing and/or im-
posing exclusivity rules regarding topics and memberships.
systematically.
- might become tolerable (and toleratable) again someday,
if it ever recovers/ered from this/them.
- hth, hand - tdwsc!
- love, a ppint. who once, accidentally, became a power-less
manager in a workers' co-operative...
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"homeopathic compression: throw away the data and transmit the spaces;
the data to be reconstructed from the spaces by virtue of these having
remembered its shape. the only compression method more effective with
increasing original data density." - yr hmbl srppnt, 1st october 2004
James Kuyper
> William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <LotGv...@kithrup.com>,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
OK - so I should have known better to rely upon my memory. I had the
timing of this song relative to other events incorrect - but it's only
been a couple of years since the last time I read it!
I should have realized that the fatalistic tone of the poem was a hint
that it had occurred after a tragic event. I apologize for any confusion
I may have caused, and thank Dorothy for getting it right.
--
James Kuyper
Dorothy J Heydt
Oh, no thanks necessary ... I *went and got the book out of the
bookcase and copied it out.* My memory's not that hot either.
Walter Bushell
Some of us are not "dirty little nippers".
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Walter Bushell
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
I remember being connected to the song sometime after reading the story
and making the connection. The story makes little sense without the
song. Like one of the Probability Zero stories from "Analog" without the
punch line.
Speaking of punch lines; why are their no jokes about Jonestown?
Gur chapu yvarf jrer gbb ybat.
Walter Bushell
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <r78t279mvo7p4t73k...@4ax.com>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
> >My swerver room, my patch panels. By the time they figure out why none of
> >the
> >ports on their floor box work anymore I'll be done, dusted and down the pub
> >with a pint of something brewed with yeast that was smarter than they are.
> > -- Matt S Trout, asr
>
> Oh, lovely. What is (or was) asr? Alt.something.something, I
> assume. Please tell.
>
> It reminds me of the tale of how Keith Lynch once caught a
> night-shift operator smoking in the computer room (strengst
> verboten) and using the intakes for the disk drives to "hide" her
> smoke. He crawled under the false flooring, hid till she came
> in, stealthily observed till she was in mid-puff, and grabbed her
> ankle.
>
> (Probably got her fired, too, but I'm not sure on that part.)
OMG! Probably the worst place to put the smoke.
Dorothy J Heydt
Dorothy J Heydt
I betcha that's what Keith thought, too.
And, presumably, so did the IT managers.
Brian M. Scott
<james...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:j0roh7$n2v$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> I should have realized that the fatalistic tone of the
> poem was a hint that it had occurred after a tragic
> event. [...]
It didn't, really. It was declaimed at what seemed
(incorrectly, as it turned out) to be a low point *during*
the battle.
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
Eomer was about to ride into battle, expecting to die before it
was finished. That he didn't, that he survived to see the
downfall of Sauron and peace in his time, was still known only to
Eru Iluvatar.
The tragic event the song occurred after was the death of
Theoden.
Brian M. Scott
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
<news:Lp27z...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <14w3ep5xunddz$.7mssxzh...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:34:32 -0400, James Kuyper
>><james...@verizon.net> wrote in
>><news:j0roh7$n2v$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>[...]
>>> I should have realized that the fatalistic tone of the
>>> poem was a hint that it had occurred after a tragic
>>> event. [...]
>>It didn't, really. It was declaimed at what seemed
>>(incorrectly, as it turned out) to be a low point *during*
>>the battle.
> Eomer was about to ride into battle, expecting to die
> before it was finished.
I know; see my first post explaining the lines for wds.
[...]
> The tragic event the song occurred after was the death of
> Theoden.
One needn't be aware of that, however, to understand the
poem, which is why I found James' comment rather odd. The
poem really has little if anything to do with Théoden's
death.
Brian