The Katharine maid

Roy C. Lackey · 29 Oct 2006, 04:30 · from 2006-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: rclackey at stic.net (Roy C. Lackey)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:30:48 -0500
Subject: (urth) The Katharine maid
Message-ID: <004001c6fb13$06732e40$623ec6d8 at rclackey.stic.net>

Tim Walters quoted and wrote:
>> The dictionary citations both of you have given support my reading.
>
>No, they don't. Nathan Spears' citation ("Two children borne by her
>earlier") is exactly analogous to Wolfe's clause ("the Severian of
>bone and flesh borne by Catherine in a cell..."),

The complete cited sentence was: "Two children borne by her earlier were
already grown." The presence of the verb "were", following "borne", changes
the sentence structure, making the analogy flawed. But it doesn't really
matter. If Wolfe intended "borne by" to mean "given birth by", then it
violates sanctioned usage. If he intended it to mean "carried by" (referring
to a pregnant woman), it doesn't. Either way, as I have previously
indicated, the implication is that Catherine seems to have been pregnant and
in a cell. It follows that Severian was most likely born in a cell, which
means that my theory that he wasn't is probably wrong.

-Roy

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net