Next time I'll just say "explain yourself"

matthew.malthouse · 01 Aug 2002, 10:02 · from urth-v0208.mbox · original

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: matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk
Subject: RE: (urth) Next time I'll just say "explain yourself"
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:02:01 +0100
Message-ID: <urth-v0208-1508 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0208/1508.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 31/07/2002 23:29:52 Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

>Andy Robertson quoting Josh Geller quoting...
>
>> > > Only in Orwell's 1984 (and arguably in some SF books
>> > > written since then) does this concept of total
>> > > linguistic replacement arise.
>
>> > Really?
>> >
>> > When was the last time you used the word 'nigger' in conversation?
>
>> Again, not relevant, though pithy.  Some words can be cut
>> out, but it's not the same thing as the massive restructuring
>> Orwell was diagramming
>
>No; but the much larger removal of _all_ such epithets
>from polite conversation comes a lot closer.
>
>As for granting Orwell primacy in this matter, well, that's
>pretty silly. There is a longish history of people claiming
>one way or another that the structure of language determines
>the structure of thought, or actively trying to restructure
>thought through some such "massive restructuring" of language;
>one well-known (at least in SF circles)

Is it really significant in the context of TBotNS?

Severian is convinced from his listening to Loyal's story that the ploy
doesn't work:

Folia's explanation TCotA Ch 5

 "...words that are not approved texts are without meaning for them,  If
they admitted - even to themselves - that such talk meant something, then
it would be possible for them to hear disloyal remarks and even to make
them. That would be exptremely dangerous. As long as they only understand
and quote approved texts, no one can accuse them."

This is a protective mechansim not a succesful manuipulation on the
language/thought level.

Severian comments later, Ch 11

 "Second I learned how difficult it is to eliminate the urge for
expression.  The people of Ascia were reduced to speaking only with their
masters' voice; but they had made of it a new tounge, and I had no doubt,
after hearing the Ascian, that by it he could express whatever thought he
wished."

Matthew

--=20

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