A furious debate is raging in the annals of the distinguished publication Proceedings in Syntactical Taxonomy (hereafter PiST). Naturally enough I have been invited, if not cajoled into providing some illumination and final settlement of a knotty problem and I am content to provide readers of these pages with a limited but sufficiently adequate brief preview. (For the full rendition please see the upcoming PiST Vol LXVI, 4, 2009).
The divergence in opinion hinges on the neonym 'weblog' and its' even more disturbing abbreviation 'blog'. (regular readers will be keenly aware of my visceral aversion to the latter).
In the red corner sit the linguistic evolutionists led by Stieglitz and (to a more ambiguous extent) Cohn. Their argument will be familiar to most educated readers but suffice it to say that they view language as organic and evolving. Hence words emerge and, through the etymological selection (or otherwise) of users, employed and eventually discarded as no longer fit for purpose. They claim that such tendencies have been noted since the eminent Dr Johnson first mooted the possibility in the 17th century and point to the stark number of words listed in his path finding dictionary that are no longer in 'common' usage.
In the case of 'weblog' they note the emergence of the 'world-wide web' and the concomitant arising of personal reflections such as these very pages. The elision between 'web' and 'log' is seen as a natural adaptation to technological imperatives and the need to categorise and thus distinguish types of website. Hence 'weblog' erupts upon the scene as a 'natural convenience' in taxonomic innovation and its widespread acceptance and adoption 'proves' its evolutionary success. This term, then, will endure until such a time as the linguistic landscape 'selects' other mutations to prosper and eventually 'replace' it. This somewhat determinist view even hints that the emergence of such terms is inevitable as the environment selects and discards with dispassion. There is nothing we can do. One might even contemplate the 'Selfish Meme', if you will excuse a brief detour into jollity (with apologies to Professor Dawkins).
In the blue corner sit the neo-traditionalists and a loose umbrella group of schismatic orthodoxists, led in no small way by Shriver and von Unterfeld, with a tentative nod to Grelm. Here, the emergence of this term is seen as an etymological failure of pre-existing words to capture the zeitgeist with its endless thirst for novelty. So 'memory lapse' blinds us to perfectly adequate pre-terminous synonyms while 'pop culture' (and its ghastly insistence for predigested stripped-down simplicity) invents a disturbing neology of increasing vacuity and trite content.
Such tendencies inevitably ignore the rich and complex ancestry of ancient and current terminology, conflating Graeco-Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Normandic and even Low Dutch predeterminants, thus dangerously diluting the 'pedigree' of our language into an eclectic rag-bag devoid of historicity. Such neologisms should therefore be dismissed out of hand, and an urgent search be mounted to reclaim ancient syntax for a worthy restoration into everyday usage, once acceptance has been agreed and approved by notable experts. We must not permit 'language creep' to be driven by unfettered multimedia, such as the hideous yet omnipresent MTV. The purity of the language must be preserved at all costs before we descend into a guttural pit of chaos and adumbrate anarchy, no less. A rigorously bold camp, methinks at length.
Of course these limited 'thumbnail' sketches do scant justice to the textual complexity of these two positions (if positions they are) yet suffice it to say that few would quibble with my overarching proximity to such entrenched and polarised views.
So now let us hurry without further ado to my ruling that should unite all linguists under a common banner and permit a thorough remedial review of current emergent trends. Should this become known as "Hegenious' Law" then I shall piously and humbly accept the distinction. That, dear reader, is entirely up to you in the efficacy of your lobbying of the appropriate authorities.
While I am inherently drawn towards the propriety of the conservative camp (as I prefer to call them) the claims of the evolutionists bear some small merit. However, where both camps fail is their common neglect of the crucial concepts of verbal aesthetics and onomatopoeia.
I am sure that all fastidious logodaedali will recoil in horror at the sheer ugliness of the word Weblog. It really is ghastly, and its appalling cousin Blog triply so. Web-log, the silent hyphen screaming in embarrassment at its inclusion, the terminal 'g' tortured out of position by its conjunction to 'bl', a co-proximity never before ventured without grief (see Katana & Hooting on this for further insight). We must reject such dire malignancies out of pure aesthetic duty. It is simply as crucial as that.
Add to this the critical onomatopoeic dimension then we have terms that inexorably sound like the bubbling of some frightful primeval tar pit. If you will excuse an illuminating levity, "Blog, Bloop, Blog, Gloop, Weblog" they go, emitting noxious connotations not totally dissimilar to the toxic gases associated with such distressing morasses. And with similar results, poisoning the streams of language with noisome derivatives that scandalise the screeds of old. The 3 Witches of Macbeth and even the Bard of Avon himself would stand aghast.
Hence all 'new' terms must satisfy the dual tests of aesthetic and onomatopoeic sensitivity. Nothing else will do.
Thus my bold approach in no small measure synthesises the salient and beneficial aspects of both protagonists positions into an indisputable way forward. I do not stand, Canute-like, against the rising tide of new terminology, I only insist that it is monitored and controlled under a set of stringent criteria.
In urging the immediate execution and obliteration of the terms Weblog and Blog I even go so far as to tentatively suggest a viable replacement, namely Personal Ruminations In Cyberspace (or PRIC, for the acronymically-minded). This most suitable neologism shows robust etymological roots with a notable bow to the vitality of Anglo-Saxon semantics of royalty, together with a lineage dating back to Beowulf, if not beyond. In implicitly critiquing the evolutionist stance I find myself pioneering an adaptation of Intelligent Design, but with the crucial distinction that the Deity delegates the development of language to a panel of highly-educated and intelligent people, such as those who gather around campfires of enlightenment in the deep dark forest of ignorance. (Such as this PRIC).
Of course this short sketch fails to cover the full complexity of my compelling exegesis (see PiST Op Cit), but, suffice it to say that by posting here I have unleashed a verbal revolution of the most far-reaching consequences that shall be reverently discussed down the centuries. Only due modesty prevents me from adding more.
I am in no small measure content to accept that you have banished me from your BLOG. However I do in a very real sense feel that some measure of mutual reciprocity should be enacted whereby you should get the fuck out of my BLOG and don't come back. OK PRIC?
ReplyDeleteThe duality between aestheticism and onomatopoeia is so bold that I must reflect somewhat further before responding at length in due course. A stunning development would be my initial tentative finding, though I must consult further.
ReplyDeleteBut excuse me if I remark on the frolicsome nature of this post with its rather witty humor. Indeed I am driven to speculate whether a small Amontillado sherry was consumed during its formulation?
Early days, but after several careful re-reads I find myself leaning towards concurrence. What is urgently required is a rich cornucopia of neonyms that should be summarily abolished under your twin tests; a blacklist if you will.
ReplyDeleteI give example with an exchange that is so shockingly offensive that it is worth quoting in full. I was discussing a photographic art montage with a learned colleague via e-mail when he suddenly said "Can you jpeg them to me?". I was stunned to the core.
Not only is 'jpeg' aesthetically vile and onomatopoeically redolent with fish markets, but to use it as a transitive verb is totally beyond the pale. Perhaps you touch upon this latter atrocity in the full article, we will have to wait with bated breath to see. In the meantime I suggest we compile other excrescences for deletion forthwith.
While I find myself in broad agreement with the grand sweep of your piece and the (mature) comments that follow I really take great exception with one particular point. I have the most severe reservations over your advocacy of the term PRIC with its undoubtedly phallocratic and sexist overtones and really must insist that some revision takes place on this critical point. I also note your stubborn refusal to construct a valid Green focus but perhaps in this case such a move may be seen as obfuscatory and elliptic. I shall ponder this and report back in due course.
ReplyDeleteAdd this to your blacklist. I am totally affronted by the term 'gargle'. There really cannot be a more offensive word.
ReplyDeleteJ'accuse.
ReplyDeleteThere is more than the whiff of plagiarism about this article. Consider the work of Kramlitz & Snell (1972): substitute Sensitivity for Aesthetics and Sound Structure for Onomatopoeia and you've got the same essential argument.
Respond or stand condemned.
To Ms Bristle: I am not inconsiderably incandescant with fury at this scurrilous and spurious accusation. It is perfectly well established that Kramlitz and Snell (1973 not 1972) addressed Dravidian irregular adverbs in terms of Sanskrit phonemes and tonal euphony. There is no resemblance whatsoever between their particular ethnographic approach and my generalised hypermodern textuality. To even hint at plagiarism is a grave transgression that betrays inept scholarship and a severe if not mischievous lapse of judgement. You must withdraw this calumny forthwith or I fear that I will not be responsible for the dire consequences.
ReplyDeleteI will return to the valid and respectful points raised by other contributors once my blood pressure moderates to tolerable levels.
Hegenious 27.10.09
Oh dear, I find myself in a flurry of palpitation. There is no way I can permit myself to be associated with plagiarism, however tangentially, therefore I must withdraw from this discourse post haste.
ReplyDeleteAs an author who will cheerfully plagiarise any source, let me be the first to welcome hegenious to our fold.
ReplyDeleteOur eminent colleague, Dr Felicity P Bristle, has drawn our attention to your publication and raised her strong suspicions concerning a possible plagiarism of our earlier work. Upon careful scrutiny we are forced to draw the same conclusion, indeed there are clear passages where Dravidian adverbs are simply deleted and your technospeak inserted, word for word.
ReplyDeleteWe feel that we have little alternative but to raise the matter with the editorial board of PiST and demand an immediate retraction of your upcoming piece and invite your apology together with the usual claim for damages. In order to preserve our reputation we feel that taking these steps may go some way toward avoiding expensive, time-consuming and stressful litigation.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
ReplyDeleteHee! Hee! Hee!
I smell a rat. Kramlitz died of heart failure in 1989 after presenting his paper on irregular sanskrit gerundives in Goteborg. Snell vanished in 1991 after the catastrophe of the ill-fated Kandalini expedition to decode Pushtun punctuation. These tragic events are well documented. I suspect malice in the form of a 'sting'.
ReplyDeleteTo Hegenious: I am in no way associated with the offensive message purporting to be from two eminent but (apparently) deceased senior academics. I may be correct in suspecting that this is the work of the rather juvenile contributors whom you seem to attract.
ReplyDeleteSo my challenge still stands on the central charge of plagiarism. I find your rebuttal unconvincing and weak. You must robustly respond at the level of adequacy. Until then.... J'accuse.
A most turbulent critic, relentless. Yet I do feel that the author should mount a more rigorous rebuttal. This would go some way to assuage the tremors of doubt felt by those who look to these pages for moral guidance.
ReplyDeleteAm intrigued by the concept of "(apparently) deceased senior academics". Surely they are either deceased or not? Is it so difficult to distinguish in these cases? Mind you, I know of many academics who continued to publish posthumously so maybe death is not quite the final curtain in academia that it is in other realms. Though possibly that was due to the diligence of secretaries and colleagues collating extant papers and rendering them publishable post mortem. We may never know.
20:20, only one month after Kramlitz presented his paper on irregular sanskrit gerundives, a PhD student in Heidelberg, name of Manfred Bogussovicz, exposed Kramlitz as a fraud. The seven examples cited in the paper were plainly invented by the author; any mediocre graduate in comparative syntactical archaeotaxonomy would have had his suspicions. As you probably know, the search for irregular gerundives in extant Sanskrit texts has now fallen into disfavour. The exciting field now is the stochastic analysis of sequential texts in search of a meta-grammar underlying the known derivational paradigms; should this be found and substantiated, and repeated in other languages, we may have the beginnings of a new and profound linguistic cladistics.
ReplyDeleteShed 5 raises some interesting points, but I find myself deeply enmired in the concept of "(apparently) dead senior academics" raised by O'Leary.
ReplyDeleteThis could be intensely problematic. I am aware of many academics who have been absent for such lengthy periods that is most difficult to perform periodic scans for life signs to ensure continued tenure. In addition many others, while ostensibly present, rarely if ever leave their armchairs in the senior common room unless called for lunch. What, exactly, is their ontological status? Living or otherwise? How can we be sure?
In the particular case under discussion we may safely assume that Kramlitz, having publicly endured a fatal heart attack, is in fact undoubtedly decesased. (Whether the posthumous assault of Bogussovicz was a contributing factor remains a moot point). But in the latter case we learn that Snell "vanished" in the field in 1991 leaving a much more slippery conundrum. While some may argue that a 18 year period of vanishment constitutes a prima facie case for extinction it is by no means proven. To give an example, it is certainly not impossible that Snell was in fact taken hostage by radical schismatic semioticians or other factional linguists.
To continue the scenario, we may speculate that the hostage-takers made such outrageous demands to the Powers That Be concerning the acceptance of their views into the published mainstream that the whole affair was sensibly 'hushed up' until such a time that some consensus or orthodoxy appeared in the literature. Better that Snell remain officially "vanished" than give way to blackmail and extortion. I wonder if some daring researcher would be bold enough to check the payroll records at his seat of learning to ascertain whether he is still in receipt of his monthly stipend? Fascinating.
I feel that it is encumbent upon us to clarify once and for all the status of the Apparently Dead and thus open up entirely new vistas of the academic hierarchy and career progression.
I have conducted a thorough literature search of the material concerned and have found not a whiff of the dreaded plagiarism. I therefore refute utterly the accusation levelled to Ms Bristle and apologise to the distinguished author that I ever for a moment doubted him. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
ReplyDeleteAm unable to find the reference to the doubtlessly interesting piece by Bogussovicz. Could Shed Five please post? I am deeply drawn towards stochastics and metagrammar so your guidance would be deeply appreciated.
Curious that Shed Five should fail to point out that Bogussovicz was in turn denounced by Konmann & Troll, 2 cunning linguists from the university of Skamveldt.
ReplyDeleteGood grief. I really thought I was in the company of scholars of such calibre as would be familiar with the exposure, in Perspectives in Crypto-Semiotics, of the scoundrels Konmann & Troll as a cell of anti-Semiotic activists. Their account of Bogussovicz's perfectly sound work was itself a piece of mischief, intended only to disrupt the progress of important studies in meta-grammar. A full account of the whole affair, with profuse references, can be found in Guessing, I.J. and Wrong, J.P. (eds), 1997, Towards a Greater Opacity in Academic Prolixity: Sesquipedalianism As A Career Choice.
ReplyDeleteFor an instant I quavered at the edge of unreason with the accusation levelled by Bristle. Who among us has never feared the possibility of unintended or coincidental plagiarism, the greatest human rights atrocity imaginable. And then my mighty processing power kicked into life and I realised that my article had been subjected to the most rigorous peer-review by the PiST editorial board leaving no possibility of accidental duplicationism. The expert readers picked up on very minor points with quite admirable pedantry but, after lengthy and detailed correspondence, I was able to force them to see my exegesis as whole and valid, subject to the most trivial amendments. Even I must concede the odd sop to allow publication!
ReplyDeleteNow that the spectre of plagiarism has been rightly exorcised from my own totally unbesmirched reputation, I will turn to the very considerable points raised in this high-level debating forum.
The idea of a blacklist of undesirable terms is of course very attractive. I myself am willing to be the lead author on the eventual monograph but due to the pressures of prestige I must ask others to do the work. I look forward to your submission.
The debate over the whereabouts of Kramlitz and Snell is of course one of the 'hot potatoes' in linguistic circles. While Kramlitz is irrevocably deceased (I was forced to decline reading the eulogy since I was attending a crucial symposium in Santiago) it has been suggested that the cause of his heart attack was the specious argument raised by a floor speaker that Sanskrit irregular gerundives, under the oppressive weight of a ghastly modernity, were actually becoming more regular! Since Kramlitz had devoted his life to proving otherwise it is quite unsurprising that his heart gave out.
The whereabouts of Snell are still clouded with controversy. I have even heard it whispered on 'the circuit' that, heavily bearded and disguised, he still attends conferences where he will engage in the most vigorous and eccentric 'heckling' of participants before being forcibly ejected by the door stewards. I do not wish to be drawn on this as to focus on the personal rather than the published word is but a short step from the mindless celebrity-obsessed trivia that so burdens us today.So you will get no 'tittle-tattle' from my lips; for this, seek elsewhere if you please.
Let us all be grateful that the frightful Schismatics have been purged from academic circles. Their methodologies bordered on terrorism and I would not be in the least surprised if they stooped to hostage-taking. At last that threat is removed.
Like other contributors I do not see that an encounter with the Grim Reaper should necessarily have the same terminal consequences for senior academics as it normally does for practitioners of the more menial professions. Are we not here keeping the spirit of Kramlitz alive? As O'Leary points out, posthumous publishing is not only possible but even viable. And, as Klonky rightly notes, we can never actually be totally sure that respected academics have in fact died when their actual status may be far more problematic and subject to debate.
I am quite unaware of the work of Bogussovicz, Konmann & Troll et al as they fall beyond the sphere of my own considerable area of expertise. Although I am sure that these journeymen produce work that is all very worthy, I am afraid that I find these 'developments' in stochastics etc irredemiably dull with more than the smack of tedium about them. First-rate intellects will always seek stimulation and enlightenment elsewhere and such has been my path.
Under my leadership the diverse threads in this rich tapestry of debate have now been synthesised if not summarised, with my own definitive ruling in each case. Now, let the debate continue!
Like our distinguished host, I am not given to the creeping malaise of unverified gossip. But information reaching my ears from unimpeachable sources suggests that the purge of the Schismatics may not have been as thorough as our kind-hearted host implies.
ReplyDeleteI learn that the Schismatics fractured and went underground, forming virulent anti-semiotic sleeper cells waiting for the call to reactivate. Now that is happening under a broad grouping of militant neo-Schismatic fellow travellers with the overall aim of nothing less than the transcendance and abolition of linguistics itself. Each cell member only knows fellow cell members and orders are received from untraceable unknown hierophants. Thus, even if one cell is penetrated and compromised, the line of command and broader nexus of the grouping may not be discovered.
Consider the evidence. Only at linguistic conferences have metal scanners and distressingly intrusive x-ray searches recently greeted eminent participants. Can you imagine such technological intrusions at low-level disciplinary gatherings e.g mathematics or geology? Can we expect militant anti-semiotic fanatics to infiltrate symposia wearing suicide vests? Will they stop at nothing?
Let us now review the question raised from the floor that killed the good Dr Kramlitz. In making the outrageous claim that, despite all the evidence, sanskrit irregular gerundives were in fact conforming to a new regularity, this question posed a precison strike to the very heart of current lingusitics, and literally to the frail heart of Kramlitz himself. It was pure linguisticide, simple as that, performed by a primed and planted militant whose only function was to ask the question. Who was this questioner? Why was he never apprehended nor appear in any of the official photographs? In the heat and confusion falling Kramlitz's collapse on stage, he simply melted back into the obscurity of his cell awaiting further orders.
We are sleepwalking to disaster if we choose to ignore the rising tide of evidence that the neo-Schismatics are active again. The future of our discipline now depends on the watchfulness and vigilance of true devotees and the determination to stamp out neo-Schismatic deviationism wherever it arises, no matter how subtle and innocent its garb may be. They may dress like sheep, sound like sheep, but underneath lies the ravening wolf.
Following Shed 5 I placed the order for the reference he cites with some sense of excitement - a totally undiscovered gem it seemed!
ReplyDeleteImagine my horror and embarrassment when my purveyor of bespoke texts, after an exhaustive search, was placed in the extremely awkward position of informing me that no such text has ever existed! A disaster of hideous proportions leaving my reputation in tatters.
Gentlemen: the neo-schismatics are not only active but here on this very site, spreading their extremist calumnies and terrorist disinformation. This Shed 5 is clearly one such one and must be purged forthwith. Exposed, there is no telling what desperate measures he may resort to.
Dear lugubrious has suffered a direct hit but at least escaped with his life, as the following cautionary tale will tell.
ReplyDeleteLast year I was priveleged to fly to a conference seated next to Professor Dr Dr Dr Ernst von Pumpf, newly elected President of the prestigious Westphalian Academy of Advanced Etymology and a legend for his work on the Romanian subjunctive. von Pumpf was highly agitated when I set next to him, nervously scanning me and asking barbed questions about my career record. Of course I was eager to question him on Transylvanian subclauses but I could not shake him from his suspicious stance.
After a glass or two of surprisingly agreeable Chablis he began to relax somewhat and then narrated the most extraordinary tale. He felt that his recent election as President had been rigged by the shadowy Ablative Absolutist Tendency as a prelude to some catastrophic trap in which he would inevitably be forced to stand down to avoid the damage caused to his high office. I tried to assuage his fears but he was really quite inconsolable.
I put this incident down to the ramblings of an extremely elderly gentleman until the shocking incident of his death 6 months ago. It has never been fully established that the drunken callgirl was actually driving the fatal combine harvester that scattered von Pumpfs remains over 3 fields, but mud sticks and the Academy was forced to review its election procedures. So it should come as no surprise that the newly enthroned President emerged to be Dr Nettl, author of Ablatives in the Graeco-Roman Heritage. I feel that nothing more needs to be said.
The emergent evidence for schismatic infiltration, while circumstantial, is certainly compelling. I believe in no small measure that I would be failing in my duty if I did not take urgent action in expelling all miscreants.
ReplyDeleteThe case against Shed 5 is proven beyond doubt. His earlier posts were immature and only under pressure of debate did he reveal his schismatic roots. The heretic Ms Bristle, likewise, flings bootless accusations without one jot or scintilla of evidence - the true hallmark of the extremist linguo-fanatic. (Besides, when did we ever admit persons of the female persuasion into these hallowed portals?) The dubious Dr Delbo D. Desperado is utterly unknown and I may have grounds to suspect that his tortuous phrase 'cunning linguists' is nothing less than a deeply coded activation signal for other depraved militants to arise and assault our bastion of probity.
Better to be safe than sorry, I therefore expel all 3 discredited malcontents from this PRIC with the clear admonition that return shall arouse the usual severe ostracism.
Brother Shed, Sister Bristle, our cover is blown. Let us detonate our suicide belts in the name of the invincible and inevitable victory of the Provisonal Apostrophist Faction (Marxist-Leninist)
ReplyDeleteI don't hold with all these fancy languages. I've read my Bible, and if plain English is good enough for the Lord Jesus Christ then it's good enough for me.
ReplyDeleteThat's right. Plain Bible talk's enough for decent folks. Marian's burning bush, David smiting Esau hip & thigh with the assbone of a kangaroo, Paul getting suffering children to come on to him, and Jesus up-ending the moneylenders in the Temple Bar before making his speech about taking stone tablets: all good advice for American youngsters, & the reason why you don't see the girls in them provocative Gurkhas like you do in places like Iranistan. Good to see a God-fearin' man on these pages.
ReplyDeleteI simply fail to understand your aversion to so-called schismatics. The academic endeavour has always been based upon robust disagreement and debate, not to mention devious chicanery and manoeuvres for advancement. Your obvious wish to purge dissent censors the debate and curtails the advancement of knowledge. Or is linguistics somehow immune to all this: have you reached the end of the search for knowledge where all is now discovered and universally accepted?
ReplyDeleteSyftet med dagen är att diskutera och debattera Svensk Fotbolls kommersiella förutsättningar och viktiga framtidsfrågor samt nätverka i mötet mellan intressenter kring svensk fotboll
ReplyDeleteThe spectacular success of this PRIC (note how my neonym slips so easily into the comfort zone of useage) forces me to work on a Saturday when I normally spend a leisurely time perusing and correcting advanced journals. The new points raised here are simply too pressing to neglect.
ReplyDeleteThe crushing defeat of the Desperado-Bristlist Faction has not yet deterred the incursions of the Shed person. This shall be addressed shortly when some technical personage arrives to modify the 'settings' of this PRIC. I do not see why we should endure the ravings of these disturbists, and I am grateful to lugubrious for suggesting the notion of a 'blacklist'.
The Reverend Repomankovitz seems sadly confused. The original scripts of the Bible were of course written in Aramaic and translated into a host of languages, including English. It is enchanting to note that the language survives largely intact in several Syriac communities and I suggest the Reverend conducts the fieldwork for a doubtless fascinating PhD there, as any normal person would do. He must of course cite my inspiration in the foreword.
Schismaticus Minge raises points of such centrality to these debates that I simply must clarify his calamitous misapprehension. Of course we welcome heated debate in the halls of linguistics but it must above all be dignified and cognisant of higher authority. We simply cannot tolerate these faddist 'hot-heads' with their disturbingly noisy protests and clangorous rumbunctiousness. Instead, we prefer to proceed with polite circumspection like the gentlemen that we are, never upsetting our 'betters' and always paying homage to the established Greats (for example,see above where Klonky shows due deference at all times to the superior von Pumpf, and all allusions to Kramlitz and even Snell are accorded with due reverence). This, sir, is the way we conduct ourselves and we will not be distracted by siren distractions from 'younger' scholars who deem themselves in possession of some small knowledge. They simply must learn their place in the scheme of things.
The comment by Fundinmental is enigmatic in the extreme. Written in current Swedish, I sketch a ready translation below:
"The aim of the day is to discuss and debate the Swedish Soccer commercial conditions and key issues for the future, and networking in the meeting between stakeholders about Swedish football."
This comment can only be seen as tangential at best to our ongoing debate unless some coded inference may be drawn. I simply cannot see how the points raised constitute 'key issues for the future', unless one has an interest in the plebeian game and its vile commercialism. Perhaps others may be able to shed light on this deepest mystery, and I shall myself ponder it at length.
And now I retire to my study.
I must protest in the strongest possible terms. Your suppression of legimate dissident voices is tantamount to tyranny which, as history show, will only end in failure. Sic semper tyranis.
ReplyDeleteTo take a most pertinent case in point, the Green movement has arisen over the last 15-20 years to form a globally dominant paradigm in the teeth of reactionary vested interests, and has spread commentary into a host of diverse fields unified only by its core values. While our presence in lingusitics is (as yet) minimal we have made major inroads into related areas such as literature. The celebrated NEC list, banning those texts considered Not Ecologically Correct, is at the cutting edge of literary reform. No matter how they tried to silence us, with history on our side we would inevitably succeed in banning unaccpetable texts e.g. MacBeth with its pointless slaughter of Dunsinane Woods.
Now matter how authoritarian you become, you will never extinguish the flame of radicalism and you should reconsider your position before new masters crack new whips.
Footie!!! Yeah!!! Now we're cookin' with gas.
ReplyDeleteLet the schismatics air their views, provide their evidence and then destroy their arguments with superior logic
ReplyDeleteA code is in operation here. Krakkin Kunz has the initials KK. Do we suspect Klan involvement? Of course not. The initials KK have only been used once before, by KK Downing, one of the twin lead guitarists with Satanic heavy metal rock band Judas Priest. Judas was paid for his false testimony, then killed himself when he found out that his idol was a man of straw anyway. The meaning of this intervention must therefore be clear.Those who see it will take to heart the warning, or face the consequences. The anti-Semiotics have laid a false trail, exposed the more naive schismatics, and undermined everything this blessed forum stands for. It's time for the real pedants to make a stand.
ReplyDeleteShed is in some way correct.
ReplyDeleteAll these comments on Minge, Kuntz and cunning linguists leave a bad taste. Fishy implications redound. What is needed is a lubrication of syntax followed by thrusting penetrative analysis leading to a seminal climax of interpretation.
D'Elberto is of course correct, a salutory correction. All we have to do is rely upon our powers of deduction and analysis: then the schismatics will never cause their mischief on this PRIC.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, when nervous panic spreads and schismatics sense advantage, we should all revisit the sagacity of D'Elberto. I am much comforted.
ReplyDeleteLugubrious is exposed!
ReplyDelete"...revisit sagacity..." indeed. This is a flimsy cryptolog of "Saga City", a.k.a. Rejkjavik. Spotted it yet? Two "k"s again! He and Krakkin Kunz are our very own 21st century schismatic men.
Case closed. Heggers, it's up to you to do the right thing & remove these fiends.
While I remain unacquainted with Kuntz and Minge, I am inclined to visit this site for my daily PRIC. So imagine my horror to find myself accused of schismatism by a proven schismatic! It is the dreaded double negative, whereby a negative accuses a positive of negativity and thus renders all negative. Oh dear. I am so shaken that I must retire post haste and take my medication.
ReplyDeleteThere is something deeply troubling and suspicious about this whole correspondence and I cannot quite put my finger upon it. Fear not lugubrious, we know that you are aligned with the Forces of Light and no amount of schismatic dust-kicking will obscure the fact. Let us wait, clarity will come with patience, and truth will out in the end. They can never win, they will not win.
ReplyDeleteNot so fast, dear colleagues. Let drop your guard for an instant and the fiendish splittists will strike in a fatal instant. These Minges and Kuntz will stop at nothing to distract and ensnare distinguished gentlemen. They are the crack in your armour, the hairy cleft on the mountainside that so deceives the intrepid climber who seeks the path to erection. Eternal vagilance at all times.
ReplyDeleteMister D'Elberto, your post could have been taken verbatim from the liner notes of a CD. Renowned ska outfit Bartholin Gland & the Natural Lubricants made but one single, the notorious Dip Yer Soldier (So Many Trenches Mix), c/w Blue Dolphin Blues (Groovy Vibe Mix). Perhaps you are familiar with these tunes?
ReplyDelete