JM/JA: in Russian language (and Latin, too!) one survives without overt articles, def. or indef. Likewise, copula usually omitted! Facts often exploited for comic effect. In recent ACM column, I wrote “When I lectured in Soviet Union ...” continuing to omit articles/copulas in paragraph in obvious way, and adding footnote explaining why. Nevertheless, Editor added missing “the’s,” “a’s” and “is’s” -- known in trade as “textual harassment,” or “spoiling bad joke?”
This lack or vagueness in grammatical “particularity/generality-markers” raises deep linguistic problems beyond full discussion here** Suffice it to say that Russian title for Goodman’s [T]TOSK would not normally distinguish “The Tragedy ...” from “A Tragedy ...” We just see unqualified Russian noun “Tragedy ...” Anything lost in translation? I have feeling that Russian reading of “Tragedy” in title WOULD be taken as PARTICUAR Tragedy, “the” (definitive) not “a” (one of many!) Slavophone opinion invited. When we come to V’s TRLOSK, I would suggest that there’s less ambiguity: REAL LIFE (in any language) implies THE, one-and-only, REAL LIFE (beware of Unreal imposters!)
Note, in passing, that the Folio title reads THE TRAGICAL HISTORIE OF HAMLET PRINCE OF DENMARK! No doubt here that the Bard is claiming THE REAL THING — forget all the other “Hamlets” in circulation.
This doesn’t explain why “The” has been omitted in some English bibliographies, but it might be a clue that texts have passed through Russian editorial hands?
** Real schismatic BER-LOOD has been spilt! The Koine Greek of the New Testament has a definite article (as does the Hebrew of the Torah), so can clearly declare that Jesus is THE WAY ... ; The Vulgate Latin VIA, however, can also mean A WAY (one of many). Newton’s Latin Principia suffers similar ambiguities affecting VITAL definitions: is Mass THE measure or A measure? We await news from CERN. As in all matters linguistical, CONTEXT RULES OK! All languages have the means of distinguishing “the” and “a” if they REALLY want to, even when they lack specific, up-front articles. (Basque can use “one” as “a” as in etxe bat = a house, lit. ‘house one.’) To further confuse us, in classical Greek, it’s the absence of “the” that implies “a!” Mysterioso. I believe that the Anglo-Saxon “the” evolved from the demonstrative “that?” -- the “pointing” theory of naming concrete objects.
Which brings us back to Jansy’s comment on ADAM being granted the rights to naming the animals in what Joyce called the Book of Guinnesses. A timely gift yesterday from my daughter Michele, REMARKS ON MOSAIC COSMOGONY (B W Newton [no relation], printed by Lea Wertheimer & Co, 1882 — that is, a shocked Biblical literalist’s reaction to Darwin and the new science of Geology), reminded me that earlier in the cosmic cycle, it was Jahweh who named His own emerging creations:
“And the light he called Day; and the darkness Night ... He called the firmament Heaven ...”
Quite strange, surely, since someone (presumably Jahweh) has already named the entities “light,” “darkness,” and “firmament!”
So early on in our Universe, we have the birth of language (but which language, shared by God and Adam?) and divine SYNONYMS, to boot. The craziness of literal-Genesis creationism comes out in the following answer to “How could Adam have named all the animals so quickly?”
The late Dr. Henry Morris pointed out in his Defender's Study Bible that it would have taken Adam only about five hours to name around 3000 basic kinds of animals (one every six seconds). This would have been adequate to acquaint Adam with those animals and also to show him there was none sufficiently like him to provide suitably close companionship* Adam didn't have to go out looking for those animals to name either. Genesis 2:19 says God brought them to him. And remember — God created Adam perfect, so Adam's brain would have been sharper than ours is. He could have named every major group of cattle, bird, and beast of the field in hours.
* I’m on the Welsh border where rumours of consenting bestiality persist. As they sing in Handel’s Messiah, O WE LIKE SHEEP!
PS: my morning newspaper has just arrived: THE TIMES! LA and NY can go f**k themselves. God Save THE Queen!
THE Stan Kelly-Bootle
On 15/09/2008 21:32, "jansymello" <jansy@AETERN.US> wrote:
J.A. In my Library of America edition of the book, pg. 53, the title to Goodman's biography reads The Tragedy of Sebastian Knight, with the article out front, and also lists it that way on page 49 as well [Re: The book "V" is writing...is named "The Real Life of Sebastian Knight". Mr. Goodman's biography received the title "Tragedy of Sebastian Knight."]
JM: Three distinct editions of VN's novel do not carry the article and my "Library of America" edition ( 1966), from a collection of "Novels and Memoirs 1941-1951, advised and annotated by Brian Boyd, on page 4, doesn't refer to "The Tragedy". It offers only: "Tragedy of Sebastian Knight." A proliferating oversight?