NABOKV-L post 0014395, Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:52:07 +0000

Re: Soliloquies, American writers, Greek Gods
On 14/12/06 16:16, "jansymello" <jansy@AETERN.US> quoted VN (Bend Sinister):

> All those who are because they do not think, thus refuting Cartesianism.

Not so fast! Lest we put Des Cartes before De Horse! If you take ŒC (cogito)
ergo S (sum)¹ as simple IMPLICATION (³Œthinking¹ implies Œbeing¹²) written
as C -> S, we can rephrase VN¹s proposition as ³Œbeing¹ because
Œnot-thinking,¹² written as S <- ~C or ~C -> S. [read Œ~¹ as logical
negation.] Alas, ~C -> S does NOT refute C -> S!! There¹s no LOGICAL
contradiction. Both Œthinking¹ and Œnon-thinking¹ can imply Œbeing.¹
I¹ve just checked by kicking a nearby BRICK (but I¹m mixing my

Re-Anglo-Saxon: Charles protests far too much and without due process,
methinks, against the use of the old term OLD ENGLISH to describe the
vernacular Germanic language[s] prevalent in Anglo-Saxon England between
about 600 --1100 CE. OLD ENGLISH is a useful description, used [usually OE
suffices!] by the very scholars devoted to its study. Its chief merit is to
offer the rough taxonomy: Old, Middle, and Modern manifestations of our
noble tongue (to which one can add ad lib subdivisions such as Late-Middle
and Early-Modern). A cute in-house variant is the OE adjective* ENGLISC
(pronounced ENglish not INglish). All languages are Œbundles of dialects¹ so
naming them is far from trivial. Many tribes just don¹t understand the
question ³What language are you speaking?² (rendered in their own language,
of course!)

* We can be grateful that modern English has shed considerable OE
grammatical baggage. OE adjectives decline with singular/plural, 3 genders,
4 or 5 cases (Nom, Acc, Gen, Dat, possibly Instr) each with weak and strong
variants ‹ a total of 43 inflections to learn! Now down to one! Russian and
Lithuanian, e.g., have not been so lucky!

Stan Kelly-Bootle.

Search the archive:
Contact the Editors:,
Visit Zembla:
View Nabokv-L policies: