The next meeting of the Robert A. Heinlein Reading Group will be held on 
the following topic, at the following dates, times, and in the following 
place.

      Topic:  Word Mastery (and More on Love) by the Grandmaster
      Dates and Times:  Thursday, February 24, 2005, from 9 PM to
                        midnight, ET, and 
                        Saturday, February 26, 2005, from 5 to 8 PM, ET
      Place:   "Heinlein Readers Group chat" on AIM

      Reading Recommended: Time Enough for Love (mandatory), and 
                Stranger in a Strange Land (mandatory)

      Chat Room Moderator: "agplusone," i.e., me.

That's understandable. They're both large books, full of characters, themes, ideas, and social criticism of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

They each also fail to fit into the neat category of SF novel; SIASL is a mammoth satire -- a point that flew right past the heads of many of the would be flower children of the 1960s who made it a favorite and best seller of the times -- and TEFL is a much-misunderstood form of written fiction that defies today's conventions for fiction. It is known as an "anatomy," a form disused today because of its complexity, but taking its name from Robert Burton's _Anatomy of Melancholy_ (first edition 1621). Readers critical of TEFL in 1973 concluded Robert Heinlein wasn't dealing from a "full deck" anymore when they read it -- they were wrong, he was dealing from a deck having more than the mere 52 cards they were used playing with. In any event, it appears as a pastiche of barely connected stories and fragments; but a not very close or hard reading reveal the stories are interconnected in more than merely being the tales of an "old man," about his ramblings through the ages.

SIASL and TEFL also have a direct connection with the theme we just 'finished' in our discussion of Glory Road and the "Most Mammoth Hoax in History." Stranger is, among other things, a satire of 20th century western viewpoints of sex and love; and TEFL is an examination of "love" from as many perspectives as there are "barely connected stories and fragments" in the anatomy Robert Heinlein wrote it to be.

We've plenty time enough to read, more than a month, nearly forty days in fact, enough to flood the land with rain; and plenty of time to dig your copies "out of storage."

If, after you look through your boxes, you find you need a new copy of TEFL, you may use this link to order one:

http://tinyurl.com/5va8j

If you need a new copy of the 1991 uncut edition of SIASL, use this link:

http://tinyurl.com/3oc2x

Both those links will give the Heinlein Society a few pennies in referral fees.

But there's one more thing: TEFL begins with one of the most famous lines in SF history:

"As the door of the suite dilated, the man seated staring glumly out the 
window looked around, 'Who the hell are you?'"
                     -- Prelude, chapter I, page 23, Putnam hard cover

We've been asked to do a couple panels this year, at a con over Easter which is working on the theme of word usage, on his mastery with words in SF written by Robert Heinlein. What we discuss will help make our panels remarkable and entertaining.

We've found that the more discussion we generate by posts and replies before the actual chat meeting, the better the chats can be. Please don't hesitate to comment, reply, and raise other issues on the discussion of the theme of sexuality, and related themes of marriage, divorce, etc., raised by the stories _Stranger in a Strange Land_, _Time Enough for Love_ and other Heinlein writings. If you see something in these stories you think unusual or noteworthy in word usage, comment on that as well. The more comments, the better.

I'm looking forward to seeing you on February 24th, and in these pre-meeting posts.

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

David M. Silver wrote:

  < snip >

> But there's one more thing: TEFL begins with one of the most famous 
> lines in SF history: 
> 
> "As the door of the suite dilated, the man seated staring glumly out the 
> window looked around, 'Who the hell are you?'"
>                      -- Prelude, chapter I, page 23, Putnam hard cover
> 
> "Door ... dilated"? We're not in Kansas, Toto. This must be that 
> new-fangled world of 'scientifiction' that we've heard about. 

The 'first appearance' of the line you cite is at the beginning of 'Beyond this Horizon':

<quote> He punched the door with a code combination, and awaited 
face check. It came promptly; the door dilated, and a voice inside 
said, "Come in, Felix." <end quote>

He starts this work with a verbal echo of what you (and others) rightly call 'one of the most famous lines in SF history.' Do you think it's a valid position (after reading and re-reading the book) to suggest that the Old Man is doing this in order to provide a verbal 'signal' foreshadowing that there's 'something else' (beyond a story) that he's planning for us? Perhaps, since it recalls an earlier time in his work, he's suggesting he's about to re-visit or re-construe some previous position(s).

Rufe

>Perhaps, since it recalls an 
>earlier time in his work, he's suggesting he's about to re-visit or 
>re-construe some previous position(s).

At a guess, IWFNE had passed over a lot of peoples' heads -- and I mean a LOT. He may have felt it necessary to use a 2x4. It's been known to happen.

Bill

> Dr. Rufo
> 
> >Perhaps, since it recalls an 
> >earlier time in his work, he's suggesting he's about to re-visit or 
> >re-construe some previous position(s).
> 
> He may have been positioning himself -- that line is so often quoted as the
> paradigmatic example of sf exposition, and in particular as the kind of thing
> RAH taught his colleagues about the technique of science fiction.  This huge
> roman a tiroirs had a lot to teach people -- though they apparently were no
> longer interested (or maybe _as_ interested).  
> 

> At a guess, IWFNE had passed over a lot of peoples' heads -- and I mean a LOT. 
> He may have felt it necessary to use a 2x4.  It's been known to happen.
> Bill

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

David Silver

>what were the missed points in IWFNE that Heinlein 
>felt he now had to go back and use a 2 x 4 to drive home, Bill?

Bill

> David M. Silver wrote:
> 
>   < snip >
> 
> > But there's one more thing: TEFL begins with one of the most famous 
> > lines in SF history: 
> > 
> > "As the door of the suite dilated, the man seated staring glumly out the 
> > window looked around, 'Who the hell are you?'"
> >                      -- Prelude, chapter I, page 23, Putnam hard cover
> > 
> > "Door ... dilated"? We're not in Kansas, Toto. This must be that 
> > new-fangled world of 'scientifiction' that we've heard about. 
> 
> For the sake of throwing in the first stone, David:
> 	It should be noted that the line you've quoted above is an example 
> of RAH 'filing the serial numbers' off his own (earlier) work.
> 
> The 'first appearance' of the line you cite is at the beginning of 
> 'Beyond this Horizon':
> <quote> He punched the door with a code combination, and awaited 
> face check. It came promptly; the door dilated, and a voice inside 
> said, "Come in, Felix." <end quote>
> 

[What's the word count on the two versions this one, btw, Bill? Aren't we getting into a retrospective category for Nippon 2007 that wasn't awarded with the revised 1957 ((C)1958) version as we did with _"If This Goes On ..."_? Loncon I in London, UK, seems to have awarded only three, for professional and fan magazines. Neither novel, nor novella, nor novelette, seem to have been awarded. Of course, _The Stars My Destination_ by Alfred Bester, came to press that year.]

> Is there, perhaps, another motive (motif) present?
> 

> He starts this work with a verbal echo of what you (and others) 
> rightly call 'one of the most famous lines in SF history.' Do you 
> think it's a valid position (after reading and re-reading the book) 
> to suggest that the Old Man is doing this in order to provide a 
> verbal 'signal' foreshadowing that there's 'something else' (beyond 
> a story) that he's planning for us? Perhaps, since it recalls an 
> earlier time in his work, he's suggesting he's about to re-visit or 
> re-construe some previous position(s).
> 
> Rufe

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

> [What's the word count on the two versions this one, btw, Bill? Aren't 
>we getting into a retrospective category for Nippon 2007 that wasn't 
>awarded with the revised 1957 ((C)1958) version as we did with _"If This 
>Goes On ..."_? 

Bill

> David M. Silver wrote:
> 
>   < snip >
> 
> > But there's one more thing: TEFL begins with one of the most famous 
> > lines in SF history: 
> > 
> > "As the door of the suite dilated, the man seated staring glumly out 
> > the 
> > window looked around, 'Who the hell are you?'"
> >                      -- Prelude, chapter I, page 23, Putnam hard cover
> > 
> > "Door ... dilated"? We're not in Kansas, Toto. This must be that 
> > new-fangled world of 'scientifiction' that we've heard about. 
> 

Mr. Spock strode off the bridge, logical as ever, and the prop man missed his cue. Nimoy walked straight into the closed door, and the next sight was of a whimpering Vulcan clutching his nose.

> > David M. Silver wrote:
> > 
> >   < snip >
> > 
> > > But there's one more thing: TEFL begins with one of the most famous 
> > > lines in SF history: 
> > > 
> > > "As the door of the suite dilated, the man seated staring glumly out 
> > > the 
> > > window looked around, 'Who the hell are you?'"
> > >                      -- Prelude, chapter I, page 23, Putnam hard cover
> > > 
> > > "Door ... dilated"? We're not in Kansas, Toto. This must be that 
> > > new-fangled world of 'scientifiction' that we've heard about. 
> > 
> Apropos of doors dilating or otherwise opening automatically, there's a 
> lovely blooper from the original Star Trek series. Apparently, while the 
> "automatic" sliding doors wouldn't raise an eyebrow today, they were 
> actually manual and operated by a prop man.
> 
> Mr. Spock strode off the bridge, logical as ever, and the prop man 
> missed his cue. Nimoy walked straight into the closed door, and the next 
> sight was of a whimpering Vulcan clutching his nose.

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

> We've been asked to do a couple panels this year, at a con over Easter 
> which is working on the theme of word usage, on his mastery with words 
> in SF written by Robert Heinlein. What we discuss will help make our 
> panels remarkable and entertaining. 

Reading the first few chapters of _Stranger in a Strange Land_ with a view to seeing how the author uses and works with the problems of language can be enlightening.

The story opens in "chapter i" from the speaking voice of the omniscient annalist, the narrator-researcher's voice, relating the cold, dry history of man's first expedition to Mars; but with a point of view and tone that sparkles at times: E.g., "The institute stiffly offered to return its one dollar fee. In the meantime, a computer programmer whose name is not recorded had the machines hunt ... "; and "Captain Michael Brant ... seems to have had an inside track ... someone who was willing to look up for him the names of female volunteers who might (with him) complete a crew, and then pair his name with these and run trial problems through the machine to determine whether or not a possible combination would be acceptable. This would account for his ... proposing marriage to ... a horse-faced spinster semantician nine years his senior."

It's almost a BBC or PBS or NPR television or radio special speaking to us, narrated in near perfect grammar by one of those trusted, reassuringly familiar voices they use.

Then, in "chapter iii" we get the "fly-on-the-wall" narrator's voice watching the secret meeting of government ministers with the ship's captain who returns Valentine Michael Smith to earth. All the nuanced wrinkles of politicians among themselves show show up to the fly's multiple eyes, to be recorded and described to us by his voice; and all the smoothing oil of Minister Douglas' avuncular, politician's voice is fully projected over the speakers in our mind as he lubricates and finesses a dispute between members of his cabinet over how soon the scientists get turned loose on the Man from Mars. I read it aloud to myself this time: and forgive me, I kept using a certain deep voice for Douglas and wanting to add a point or two: "... it would take a million dollars. I know where we could get a million dollars. But, that would be .... wrong."

Enough of that fun. The second scene in chapter iii begins the other kind of fun -- the problems of linguistics, or semantics as Heinlein probably thought of them. An alien sits in a hospital room, exhausted by high gravity that crushes him and, in successive scenes, tries to cope with sounds uttered by his newly-nested with forms of mankind that have only imprecise referents to his mind.

This is the first major problem of semantics and linguistics that faces this fondling raised by aliens.

"Good morning. How do you feel?"

Michael was raised by Martians. Mowgli by wolves. And another, E.R. Burroughs' Tarzan by great apes. Compare what is done here by these three writers: Heinlein, Kipling and Burroughs. The problem is understanding an alien language.

It's been a long time since I've read _Tarzan of the Apes_, but iirc the young orphaned Lord Greystoke learns ape-speak quickly enough from Kala, who adopts and nurses him -- language at his mother's breast so to speak, but about age eight or ten or so spends much time in the abandoned cabin of his true parents associating letters that he calls "bugs" and their combinations: words in primers he finds, with pictures in those primers which look like him ("boy") or things he understands. He slowly learns to read these "bugs" as he calls the letters, and can write by about age twelve. He doesn't know how to utter the words and concepts he learns to read, however. That's pretty much it for his language education until John Clayton, Esmeralda and Jane show up.

In _The Jungle Book_, in "Tiger-Tiger!" when Mowgli leaves the pack and joins the village, Kipling doesn't spend anything close to the time spent on the problem by Burroughs. Mowgli, who speaks the languages of the pack also from the breast of his adopted wolf mother, and is able to communicate with wolf, bear, panther, snake and tiger, as well as other jungle animals, on very little instruction (from Messua, his to-be-human-mother) is soon able to speak sufficiently well to humans he has joined. He observes to himself that "What is the good of a man if he does not understand man's talk? Now I am silly and dumb as a man would be in the jungle. I must speak their talk." She simply points at objects, utters their names, and Mowgli learns. In about a paragraph.

Pretty slick for both Burrough's and Kipling's orphans. Not so convincing, however, to anyone past the age of eight.

The problem is a bit more difficult than that. Consider the problem with Valentine Michael that begins with this utterance:

"Feel like food?"

What do you think, as you read the first part of SIASL, about Heinlein's handling of the language problem, as well as his use of language in displaying his writing skills?

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

> In article <ag.plusone-2F079E.01231016012005@individual.net>,
>  "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:

(snip)

> The problem is a bit more difficult than that. Consider the problem
> with Valentine Michael that begins with this utterance:
> 
> "Feel like food?"
> 
> What do you think, as you read the first part of SIASL, about
> Heinlein's handling of the language problem, as well as his use of
> language in displaying his writing skills?
> 

Now to the main point. The underlying key to understanding what language is about is that it is totally driven by 'culture', (whatever that means). Thus Michael is trying to grasp, at this point, a new culture totally filtered by his existing culture as expressed by his existing language. Now, a different culture, even one that is related to ones own by derivation from a common source, can be partially absorbed as one learns a new language in an academic sense, but that has its limitations, he will only be able to really absorb the new culture as a combination of learning more or the new language, building the relationships between the new concepts in his new 'linguistic map', and experiencing the culture directly.

Of course, this, I think, is probably self evident to most readers, and is a major sub-theme of the entire book. So I guess that I haven't said anything new.

-- 
For anyone in the neighborhood, join me at Chattacon,
Jan 21,22,23 in Chattanooga.
I'll be working the Blood Drive.

> In article <ag.plusone-2F079E.01231016012005@individual.net>,
>  "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:

(snip)

> What do you think, as you read the first part of SIASL, about Heinlein's 
> handling of the language problem, as well as his use of language in 
> displaying his writing skills?
> 

This work complements what I posted previously in that that post dealt with 'Culture and Language' whereas this article will probably deal mostly with Thought and Language, two different, but related subjects.

What I have noted so far is outlined in the following:

=========================================================
Costello said urgently, "Mr. Harvey--"
"Yes?"
"Do you know *why* the speech of the dragon people is called 'true 
speech'?"
"Uh, why no, not exactly."
"Because it *is* true speech. See here--I've studied comparative 
semantics--the whistling talk does not even contain a symbol for the 
concept of falsehood. and *what a person doe not have symbols for he can't 
think about*! Ask him *in his own speech*. If he answers at all, you can 
believe him.

{What do you think? Is this true or not true? How could it be proven or disproven?}

Notes:

[1] Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was the name given posthumously to Whorf's 'Principle of Linguistic Relativity'. According to at least one linguist, http://www.enformy.com/dma-Chap7.htm who urges his readers to actually read Whorf, considers that Whorf himself, unlike what von Humboldt, von Herder and Sapir may have believed, never held this extreme view, but insisted on the duality of thought and language, that both influenced the other, rather than being as it has been described, "a 'prisonhouse' view of language in which one's thinking and behavior is completely and utterly shaped by one's language." Discounting this, however, one must take into account that the 1950s publication of Whorf's book, _Language, Thought and Action_ was possibly Heinlein's introduction to the concept and he would seem to have certainly gotten the impression that the 'strong version' was what Whorf was advocating.

For me it is interesting to note a parallel between what happened to Whorf's reputation and that of Heinlein. When the followers of Chomsky began to take over linguistics from the former anthropological/structuralist linquists, they began to downplay Whorf, and even worse. to denigrate him because he didn't fit their worldview, in many cases, without having read what he had written but depending on the works of other like-minded critics for their inspiration, much like what Heinlein has had to endure with the attacks on 'Starship Troopers'.

[2] {More quotes to go here}

[3] "Good. Mike, I cannot lift even one ash tray without touching it,"
Smith looked startled. "You cannot?"
"No. Can you teach me??
"Yes, Jubal. You---" Smith stopped speaking, looked embarrassed. 
"I again have not words. I am sorry. But I will read and I will read and I 
will read, until I find the words. Then I will teach my brother."
"Don't set your heart on it."
"Beg pardon?"
"Mike, don't be disappointed if you do not ind the right words. You may not 
find them in the English language."
Smith considered this quite a long time. "Then I will teach my brother the 
language of my nest."

{That's it for the moment. I just started thinking about this after reading 120 or so pages, so I am in process of re-reading them and making appropriate notes as I go. More to come, I hope.}

{I am also tentatively thinking about a companion paper sometime down the road dealing with the other part of this thread, i.e. Heinlein's use of words etc.}

Ok, people, let be about it. Even if you don't care for my approach, y'all ought to be able to say something about the 'usage' aspect.

As a prime for the pump, I'll throw out this infamous quote which was made on this newsgroup a few years back.

"Then, he's not an anarchist at all. He's not even a revolutionary. He's a 
self-appointed societal superego, a sublime moralist, a judge without a 
bench other than the one he erects for himself and looks down his nose at 
the rest of the world. He's old Bob: **lotsa words that look pretty but 
don't always hold water**[Emphasis mine]."
-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined the Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice

On 19 Jan 2005 18:33:37 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> to write:

(snippage)

>In this exchange, Heinlein appears to be asserting the 'strong version' of 
>the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[1], namely, that thought is not possible without 
>symbols. And some passages in SIASL seem to reflect this also[2].

-Chris Zakes Texas

A properly balanced sword is the most versatile weapon for close 
quarters ever devised… A sword never jams, never has to be reloaded, 
it is always ready.

	-Oscar Gordon in "Glory Road" by Robert Heinlein

> On 19 Jan 2005 18:33:37 GMT,  an orbital mind-control laser caused
> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> to write:

(snip)

> 
> FWIW, he says something similar in "Gulf". In the scene where Joe is
> studying telepathy with the Homo Novis group, the one time he *does*
> achieve a reasonalbe telepathic link, his first comment is "It comes
> out as words!" or something to that effect, and his teacher explains
> that you have to have concepts before you can have coherent thoughts.
> 

Since Michael *knew*(memorized) the definitions of many words, but understood few, it could be argued that this would seem to go against the *strong version* of SWH. However, we have to take into account that he *already* had a language, Martian, and his 'grokking' of English was a process of mapping his thoughts, (in Martian), into English. The fact that Jubal said that there might 'not be words in English' would again support the 'strong version'.

This aspect of the 'strong version' basically says that some things said in one language simply cannot be translated into another. I seem to recall that Jubal says something like this again further down the line when talking to Mahmoud about Arabic. Personally, I tend to think that, to an extent, this is true in that there are often no 'simple' one-to-one translations, but that one-to-many translations can be made which can them be 'coded' into a new symbol or neologism.

This is most conspicuously shown by the word 'grok' itself. Nowhere does Heinlein give this an explicit definition except in its most basic origin of 'to drink', but every reader comes to 'grok' the concept through its use and contexts. True, every reader probably has a slightly different definition/connotation for the term, but every reader could probably apply 'to understand/to comprehend' and other related English words to his definition.

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined the Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice

> As a prime for the pump, I'll throw out this infamous quote which was made
> on this newsgroup a few years back.
>
> "Then, he's not an anarchist at all. He's not even a revolutionary. He's a
> self-appointed societal superego, a sublime moralist, a judge without a
> bench other than the one he erects for himself and looks down his nose at
> the rest of the world. He's old Bob: **lotsa words that look pretty but
> don't always hold water**[Emphasis mine]."
> --
> David Wright

In addition to trying to address the hoax (non)issue, I questioned the premise since it seemed to me to be more than quite a stretch to ask a reader to swallow it. It's like saying there's no "employment" or "employers" anywhere but on Earth. It's unfathomable that in the fictional 20 universes, nobody'd ever considered doing something else with his/her body than toil at an assembly line. Here, the premise, I contend, is similarly flawed because the examples used are such things as the levitation of objects and the notion that it's possible to have language without lies.

What was it Anne said when Jubal asked about the color of the neighbor's house? Did she say, "It's white on this side, boss"(?) Did she say, "It appears to be white on this side, boss"(?) Did she say, "It appears to me to be mostly white on this side, boss"(?) Or, was it, "Its apparent, predominant color, as of this date and time, is what I've been made to understand most people of ordinary perception, were they so similarly situated as I, would articulate to be 'white'; however, there exist not only differences among the perceptions of people but influences on the object scrutinized to the extent that you may receive just as reliable report that such 'color' is another, boss"(?) If Jill glanced over to see for herself and her mind registered, "beige," did Anne lie? Would Jill think Anne had lied? Isn't one of the possibilities that Anne had made an intentional misrepresentation, for whatever reason?

If dragons speaking in their own language tell it like it is and other dragons have a different recollection of the event, what's the dragon term that explains and quantifies that difference under all circumstances? No dragon's ever lied for any reason? If that's the case, no dragon's ever told the truth since there can't be any truth without something with which to compare it.

As for levitation, I would decline to flatter the notion by its discussion. I'm pissed off ever since Uri Geller stayed over that one night. Sure, he got Mickey's hands moving again but there wasn't a teaspoon in the house worth a damn.

In short, I don't think that working from fantastic examples can yield credible analytical outcomes. It's like the old adage that bad facts make bad law.

None of this is intended to discount that the phenomenologists may be onto something, prematurely and inadvertently, in their rambling examinations of thought and language and I grudgingly admit that playing around with anecdotal phenomena is more fun than the sterile ivory tower of behaviorism where I'd like it to be studied.

It's old Bob, though. Always looking for credible answers and blowing right by the fact that there are too many steps being skipped, padding that in the styrofoam peanuts of wise-sounding, ad hoc homily and sending it FedEx out to the masses. You gotta admire a guy who can make a living that way.

LNC

> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in news:ag.plusone-
> DE1F22.06570017012005@individual.net:

(snip)

Costello said urgently, "Mr. Harvey--"
"Yes?"
"Do you know *why* the speech of the dragon people is called 'true speech'?"
"Uh, why no, not exactly."
"Because it *is* true speech. See here--I've studied comparative 
semantics--the whistling talk does not even contain a symbol for the 
concept of falsehood. and *what a person doe not have symbols for he
can't think about*! Ask him *in his own speech*. If he answers at all,
you can believe him.
> 
> In this exchange, Heinlein appears to be asserting the 'strong
> version' of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[1], namely, that thought is not
> possible without symbols. And some passages in SIASL seem to reflect
> this also[2]. And this is even more emphasized by the whole concept
> that by learning and using Martian, the humans could learn to do
> things, telekinesis, etc,  that could not be done in English because
> there were no words for it[3]. 
> 

It is not yet clear to me whether or not Whorf himself was influenced directly by Korzybski, although I suspect it likely as S&S was very popular at the time Whorf was writing. I have his book on order from inter-library loan so I'll be able to find out for myself, I hope. Interestingly, Korzybski and Whorf were educated as engineers, as was Heinlein, which, I believe, could account for some of the resonance between the three.

BTW, S.I. Hayakawa, who played a role in "Over The Rainbow"(?) in _Expanded Universe_ was a popularizer of Korzybski, but according to a number of critics distorted his views.

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice!

> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote in
> news:Xns95E389F13AE72nokvamli@130.133.1.4: 
> 
>> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in news:ag.plusone-
>> DE1F22.06570017012005@individual.net:
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Costello said urgently, "Mr. Harvey--"
> "Yes?"
> "Do you know *why* the speech of the dragon people is called 'true speech'?"
> "Uh, why no, not exactly."
> "Because it *is* true speech. See here--I've studied comparative 
> semantics--the whistling talk does not even contain a symbol for the 
> concept of falsehood. and *what a person doe not have symbols for he
> can't think about*! Ask him *in his own speech*. If he answers at all,
> you can believe him.
>> 
> 

With respect to the main topic of this thread. he is able to subtly comment on the degraded state of the slave through his few examples of the speech that he is taught. "This one" is always used in place of "I" and the masters are always referenced in the third person. It is stated that terms exist which are always used "down" from master to slave and "up" from slave to master. Similar in spirit, if not in degree, to the use of 'thou' in a number of IE languages as it was once in English, and the different verbal ending in Russian used by females as opposed to males.

Heinlein is great in throwing out the subtle hints that cannabalism is practiced long before he actually brings it out in the open. Look for them yourself the next time you read it.

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice!

> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote in
> news:Xns95EB9C5236681nokvamli@130.133.1.4: 
> 
> > "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote in
> > news:Xns95E389F13AE72nokvamli@130.133.1.4: 
> > 
> >> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in news:ag.plusone-
> >> DE1F22.06570017012005@individual.net:
> > 
> > (snip)
> > 
> > Costello said urgently, "Mr. Harvey--"
> > "Yes?"
> > "Do you know *why* the speech of the dragon people is called 'true speech'?"
> > "Uh, why no, not exactly."
> > "Because it *is* true speech. See here--I've studied comparative 
> > semantics--the whistling talk does not even contain a symbol for the 
> > concept of falsehood. and *what a person doe not have symbols for he
> > can't think about*! Ask him *in his own speech*. If he answers at all,
> > you can believe him.
> >> 
> > 
> 
> I found another reflection of this in _Farnham's Freehold_. Ponse 
> speaking to Hugh made some comment, (I forget exactly what at the 
> moment), and then he said, "If I were speaking in protocol mode, you 
> wouldn't have been able to doubt that. I cannot lie". 

> 
> With respect to the main topic of this thread. he is able to subtly 
> comment on the degraded state of the slave through his few examples of 
> the speech that he is taught. "This one" is always used in place of "I" 
> and the masters are always referenced in the third person. It is stated 
> that terms exist which are always used "down" from master to slave and 
> "up" from slave to master. Similar in spirit, if not in degree, to the 
> use of 'thou' in a number of IE languages as it was once in English, and 
> the different verbal ending in Russian used by females as opposed to 
> males.

he way "status" is used in Japanese, however, is, within the culture, less offensive than something of slave versus master. When one goes to the Confucian influence on State Shinto, one sees that the culture is built of obligations up and down. In commercial and other negotiations, the exchange of personal business cards is essential, because it helps establish the relative ranks of people in the various delegations. Amusingly, the more information on the card, the lower status. A card that reads "Tanaka Hiro, Assistant Design Engineer, 3rd section, 2nd Division, Automotive Department, Toyota Motors" is low status. The Emperor's card, however, simply reads "Akihito."

Again, please accept that my Japanese isn't really conversational, although I understand more than I can speak. Nevertheless, even with that small amount, I find I behave differently in a Japanese context. While I don't know enough Japanese to think in it, I can very easily accept the comment of native speakers that the status modifiers make social interaction much easier. Aside from the status modifiers, much of Japanese is relatively imprecise literally, requiring very high context for proper interpretation. In daily living, that imprecision allows great avoidance of embarrassment. Nonverbal mechanisms also are very important in the overall communications process -- I was surprised when I started sensing the messages in grunts and pauses.

> 
> Heinlein is great in throwing out the subtle hints that cannabalism is 
> practiced long before he actually brings it out in the open. Look for 
> them yourself the next time you read it.

> In article <Xns95EC55873BFBEnokvamli@130.133.1.4>, "David Wright Sr." 
> <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote:
> 

(snip)

>> I found another reflection of this in _Farnham's Freehold_. Ponse 
>> speaking to Hugh made some comment, (I forget exactly what at the 
>> moment), and then he said, "If I were speaking in protocol mode, you 
>> wouldn't have been able to doubt that. I cannot lie". 
> 
> Did Heinlein ever comment on George Orwell?  Another excellent example
> along these lines is with the explicit idea of NewSpeak in _1984_.

>> 
>> With respect to the main topic of this thread. he is able to subtly 
>> comment on the degraded state of the slave through his few examples
>> of the speech that he is taught. "This one" is always used in place
>> of "I" and the masters are always referenced in the third person. It
>> is stated that terms exist which are always used "down" from master
>> to slave and "up" from slave to master. Similar in spirit, if not in
>> degree, to the use of 'thou' in a number of IE languages as it was
>> once in English, and the different verbal ending in Russian used by
>> females as opposed to males. 
> 
> Japanese, of course, goes far further in the use of honorifics, 
> different words for the same concept based on one's status (or gender,
> or age...) as well as various nonverbal communications such as the
> types and order of bowing.  I've heard Americans in a quickie course
> on Japanese say they don't want to bother with the honorifics, and,
> while my Japanese is very limited, you simply are not speaking
> intelligible Japanese without them.
> 
> The way "status" is used in Japanese, however, is, within the culture,
> less offensive than something of slave versus master. When one goes to
> the Confucian influence on State Shinto, one sees that the culture is 
> built of obligations up and down.  In commercial and other
> negotiations, the exchange of personal business cards is essential,
> because it helps establish the relative ranks of people in the various
> delegations. Amusingly, the more information on the card, the lower
> status.  A card that reads "Tanaka Hiro, Assistant Design Engineer,
> 3rd section, 2nd Division, Automotive Department, Toyota Motors" is
> low status. The Emperor's card, however, simply reads "Akihito."

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice!

> I am reminded of Thorby, who until he had picked up all of the 2,000 odd 
> terms relating to kinship aboard Sisu, was afraid to say anything for 
> fear of insulting his new kinfolk.

> In article <Xns95EC7B0B3B343nokvamli@130.133.1.4>, "David Wright Sr." 
> <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote:
> 
>> I am reminded of Thorby, who until he had picked up all of the 2,000
>> odd terms relating to kinship aboard Sisu, was afraid to say anything
>> for fear of insulting his new kinfolk. 
> 
> I can believe it. "Insulting" is especially appropriate with respect
> to Japanese, as some linguists say that most of the forms used as
> "thank you" have an underlying tone of resentment that "you force me
> to have an obligation of honor to you."
> 

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice!

> In article <Xns95EC55873BFBEnokvamli@130.133.1.4>, "David Wright Sr."

> <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote:
>
> > "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote in
> > news:Xns95EB9C5236681nokvamli@130.133.1.4:
> >
> > > "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote in
> > > news:Xns95E389F13AE72nokvamli@130.133.1.4:
> > >
> > >> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in news:ag.plusone-
> > >> DE1F22.06570017012005@individual.net:
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > Costello said urgently, "Mr. Harvey--"
> > > "Yes?"
> > > "Do you know *why* the speech of the dragon people is called 'true
> > > speech'?"
> > > "Uh, why no, not exactly."
> > > "Because it *is* true speech. See here--I've studied comparative
> > > semantics--the whistling talk does not even contain a symbol for the
> > > concept of falsehood. and *what a person doe not have symbols for he
> > > can't think about*! Ask him *in his own speech*. If he answers at all,
> > > you can believe him.
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > I found another reflection of this in _Farnham's Freehold_. Ponse
> > speaking to Hugh made some comment, (I forget exactly what at the
> > moment), and then he said, "If I were speaking in protocol mode, you
> > wouldn't have been able to doubt that. I cannot lie".
>
> Did Heinlein ever comment on George Orwell?  Another excellent example
> along these lines is with the explicit idea of NewSpeak in _1984_.
> >
> > With respect to the main topic of this thread. he is able to subtly

> > comment on the degraded state of the slave through his few examples of
> > the speech that he is taught. "This one" is always used in place of "I"
> > and the masters are always referenced in the third person. It is stated
> > that terms exist which are always used "down" from master to slave and
> > "up" from slave to master. Similar in spirit, if not in degree, to the
> > use of 'thou' in a number of IE languages as it was once in English, and
> > the different verbal ending in Russian used by females as opposed to
> > males.
>
> Japanese, of course, goes far further in the use of honorifics,
> different words for the same concept based on one's status (or gender,
> or age...) as well as various nonverbal communications such as the types
> and order of bowing.  I've heard Americans in a quickie course on
> Japanese say they don't want to bother with the honorifics, and, while
> my Japanese is very limited, you simply are not speaking intelligible

> Japanese without them.
>
> The way "status" is used in Japanese, however, is, within the culture,
> less offensive than something of slave versus master.

Will in New Haven

> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> > In article <Xns95EC55873BFBEnokvamli@130.133.1.4>, "David Wright Sr."

> >
> > The way "status" is used in Japanese, however, is, within the
> culture,
> > less offensive than something of slave versus master.
> 
> Very much a matter of opinion. The treatment of women is especially
> offensive, imo. Also, one word: Ainu.
> 

Literally, that means "honorable tea", but, again in my limited listening understanding, the use of female forms of speech seemed not to have a connotation of inferiority, but no more than women having higher-pitched voices. Again, this is in Japan, being aware of body language and postures of respect.

There is no question about the glass ceiling being far lower, the routine acceptance of violent pornography (emphasis on the violent), or truly bizarre things like "sexual harassment hostess bars."

Add Koreans and burakumin to the list with the Ainu.

> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote in
> news:Xns95E389F13AE72nokvamli@130.133.1.4: 
> 
> 
>>"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in news:ag.plusone-
>>DE1F22.06570017012005@individual.net:
> 
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Costello said urgently, "Mr. Harvey--"
> "Yes?"
> "Do you know *why* the speech of the dragon people is called 'true 
> speech'?"
> "Uh, why no, not exactly."
> "Because it *is* true speech. See here--I've studied comparative 
> semantics--the whistling talk does not even contain a symbol for the 
> concept of falsehood. and *what a person doe not have symbols for he
> can't think about*! Ask him *in his own speech*. If he answers at all,
> you can believe him.
> 
>>In this exchange, Heinlein appears to be asserting the 'strong
>>version' of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[1], namely, that thought is not
>>possible without symbols. And some passages in SIASL seem to reflect
>>this also[2]. And this is even more emphasized by the whole concept
>>that by learning and using Martian, the humans could learn to do
>>things, telekinesis, etc,  that could not be done in English because
>>there were no words for it[3]. 
>>
> 
> 
> Well, after doing a lot of research, I find that Heinlein's ideas on
> this subject actually did come from Korzybski, although from what I have
> recently read about him, I find it difficult to believe that K was as
> dogmatic about this as Heinlein suggests in the quoted passage. (I
> admit, I am reading secondary sources. I last read _Science and Sanity_
> more than 40 years ago. I plan on re-reading it after I've gone through
> a couple of other books). 
> 
> It is not yet clear to me whether or not Whorf himself was influenced 
> directly by Korzybski, although I suspect it likely as S&S was very popular 
> at the time Whorf was writing. I have his book on order from inter-library 
> loan so I'll be able to find out for myself, I hope. Interestingly, 
> Korzybski and Whorf were educated as engineers, as was Heinlein, which, I 
> believe, could account for some of the resonance between the three.
> 
> BTW, S.I. Hayakawa, who played a role in "Over The Rainbow"(?) in _Expanded 
> Universe_ was a popularizer of Korzybski, but according to a number of 
> critics distorted his views.
> 

"The language was soft and beautiful--purposely designed that way. Three 
centuries ago, the Unity's founders created a private language...partly 
to separate themselves from the Technocracy, partly as social 
engineering. The structures of language influence the structures of 
thought: not simplistically, but subtly. The way you're trained to speak 
predisposes you to patterns in the way you think. It isn't that you're 
incapable of thinking in other ways; it's just that you find some 
thoughts easier to articulate than others. Also, growing children hear 
more talk about easy-to-express topics than topics the language makes 
difficult. Inevitably, this affects their social and intellectual 
development--some thoughts are "normal" while others aren't. By 
constructing a new language with a certain philosophical slant, the 
Unity had tried to make it harder for people to be bad citizens."

Norm

--
To reply, change domain to an adult feline.

> David Wright Sr. wrote:
> 
>> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns95E389F13AE72nokvamli@130.133.1.4: 
>> 

(snip)
> 
> For what it's worth, here's another author on the idea of language 
> controlling thought patterns: this is from _Radiant_ by James Alan
> Gardner. 
> 
> "The language was soft and beautiful--purposely designed that way.
> Three centuries ago, the Unity's founders created a private
> language...partly to separate themselves from the Technocracy, partly
> as social engineering. The structures of language influence the
> structures of thought: not simplistically, but subtly. The way you're
> trained to speak predisposes you to patterns in the way you think. It
> isn't that you're incapable of thinking in other ways; it's just that
> you find some thoughts easier to articulate than others. Also, growing
> children hear more talk about easy-to-express topics than topics the
> language makes difficult. Inevitably, this affects their social and
> intellectual development--some thoughts are "normal" while others
> aren't. By constructing a new language with a certain philosophical
> slant, the Unity had tried to make it harder for people to be bad
> citizens." 
> 
> A somewhat less restrictive rule than "Dragon speech" but similar and 
> with some "explanation" of how it "works".
> 
> Norm
> 

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice!

:David Wright Sr. wrote:
:
:> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@alltel.net> wrote in
:> news:Xns95E389F13AE72nokvamli@130.133.1.4: 
:> 
:>>"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in news:ag.plusone-
:>>DE1F22.06570017012005@individual.net:
:> 
:> Costello said urgently, "Mr. Harvey--"
:> "Yes?"
:> "Do you know *why* the speech of the dragon people is called 'true speech'?"
:> "Uh, why no, not exactly."
:> "Because it *is* true speech. See here--I've studied comparative 
:> semantics--the whistling talk does not even contain a symbol for the 
:> concept of falsehood. and *what a person doe not have symbols for he
:> can't think about*! Ask him *in his own speech*. If he answers at all,
:> you can believe him.
:> 
:>>In this exchange, Heinlein appears to be asserting the 'strong
:>>version' of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[1], namely, that thought is not
:>>possible without symbols. And some passages in SIASL seem to reflect
:>>this also[2]. And this is even more emphasized by the whole concept
:>>that by learning and using Martian, the humans could learn to do
:>>things, telekinesis, etc,  that could not be done in English because
:>>there were no words for it[3]. 
:> 
:> Well, after doing a lot of research, I find that Heinlein's ideas on
:> this subject actually did come from Korzybski, although from what I have
:> recently read about him, I find it difficult to believe that K was as
:> dogmatic about this as Heinlein suggests in the quoted passage. (I
:> admit, I am reading secondary sources. I last read _Science and Sanity_
:> more than 40 years ago. I plan on re-reading it after I've gone through
:> a couple of other books). 
:> 
:> It is not yet clear to me whether or not Whorf himself was influenced 
:> directly by Korzybski, although I suspect it likely as S&S was very popular 
:> at the time Whorf was writing. I have his book on order from inter-library 
:> loan so I'll be able to find out for myself, I hope. Interestingly, 
:> Korzybski and Whorf were educated as engineers, as was Heinlein, which, I 
:> believe, could account for some of the resonance between the three.
:> 
:> BTW, S.I. Hayakawa, who played a role in "Over The Rainbow"(?) in _Expanded 
:> Universe_ was a popularizer of Korzybski, but according to a number of 
:> critics distorted his views.
:
:For what it's worth, here's another author on the idea of language 
:controlling thought patterns: this is from _Radiant_ by James Alan Gardner.
:
:"The language was soft and beautiful--purposely designed that way. Three 
:centuries ago, the Unity's founders created a private language...partly 
:to separate themselves from the Technocracy, partly as social 
:engineering. The structures of language influence the structures of 
:thought: not simplistically, but subtly. The way you're trained to speak 
:predisposes you to patterns in the way you think. It isn't that you're 
:incapable of thinking in other ways; it's just that you find some 
:thoughts easier to articulate than others. Also, growing children hear 
:more talk about easy-to-express topics than topics the language makes 
:difficult. Inevitably, this affects their social and intellectual 
:development--some thoughts are "normal" while others aren't. By 
:constructing a new language with a certain philosophical slant, the 
:Unity had tried to make it harder for people to be bad citizens."
:
:A somewhat less restrictive rule than "Dragon speech" but similar and 
:with some "explanation" of how it "works".

Another example of this sort of thinking is Jack Vance's "The Languages of Pao", where social engineering is undertaken by artificially mandating languages for various segments of Paonese society.

(snip)

> We've been asked to do a couple panels this year, at a con over Easter 
> which is working on the theme of word usage, on his mastery with words 
> in SF written by Robert Heinlein. What we discuss will help make our 
> panels remarkable and entertaining. 
> 
> 

During all of this, I had a number of very good conversations with some Heinlein fans of both recent and very long-term standing. In the course of one of these conversations, the mention of Heinlein's use of new words he coined or words which he made prominent came up. The most obvious, of course, was 'grok'[1].

'tanstaafl'[2] was also mentioned.

So, I got to thinking. What other words or phrases can you think of that he coined or emphasized.

'the door dilated' has already been mentioned. 'fraki' popped out at me last evening as I was reading _Citizen_. Also from _Citizen_[3], does anyone know what a 'griva pusher' is?

What else can you recall?

One further item. In doing more reading for my hoped-for paper on Heinlein's linguistics, I re-read the section in "Gulf" dealing with "Speed Talk". Interestingly, I found there that Heinlein talked about and attributed the notion of 'no thought without symbols' not to Sapir-Whorf, but to Korzybski[4].

Notes:

[1]The question of how to pronounce both 'Heinlein' and 'grok' was part of separate discussions. I said 'Hine-Len' with emphasis on the first syllable. The other person said 'Hen-Line' with emphasis on the second. As for 'grok', I have always pronounced it as rhyming with 'broke', but most people, I understand, do pronounce it as rhyming with 'clock'. This would be the normal pronunciation for an English word, but heck, it was a Martian word, so there!

[2]According to some sources[Google is your friend], the phrase 'There's no such thing as a free lunch' was widely used by economist Milton Friedman in the 1930s as well as being quoted in Latin by Fiorello La Guardia.

[3]I just had to do this. Slightly on-topic to this thread. In honor of the 'Jeopardy' style questions of a few days(weeks?) ago. I offer this "Answer" from _Citizen_

A: "seven..possibly puzzle out a few more"
Q: ????

[4] A name which I have always pronounced 'kor- zib -ski', but which, supposedly, is properly pronounced 'kah-zhib-ski'

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice!

< snip >

> [2]According to some sources[Google is your friend], the phrase
> 'There's no such thing as a free lunch' was widely used by
> economist Milton Friedman in the 1930s as well as being quoted in
> Latin by Fiorello La Guardia.

David:
	RE: TANSTAAFL
	I did a fast Google and at
		http://johnquiggin.com/index.php?p=287

	1. 	Although Friedman and Robert Heinlein usually share the credit 
			for this acronym, Tyler Cowen points out that it should actually go 
			to Alvin Hansen, America’s most prominent early advocate of 
			Keynesianism, and someone whom the average person with a TANSTAAFL 
			bumper sticker might be surprised to find they agreed.
			Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 2, 2004 at 08:01 AM in Economics

	2. 		In his mail page of 20 - 26 May, 2002, Jerry Pournelle writes:
			"TANSTAAFL was my father's, transmitted from me to Robert Heinlein
			and used by him, as acknowledged in letters both to me and to
			reviewers."

Comment by P.M.Lawrence 23/7/2004 @ 9:22 pm

	3. Further links led to "The Origins of TANSTAAFL" at
	
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/05/the_origins_of_.html
	which provides:
	"There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch." I used to think that 
	originated with Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Many 
	others credit Milton Friedman. But read the real story. A San 
	Francisco newspaper is the earliest known source. And Professor 
	Alvin Hansen, preceding Friedman, wrote of TINSTAAFL, which is 
	simply TANSTAAFL with better grammar.

Sadly, my "break" is over so I pass this on for your (or someone else's) further delectation and exploration.

Caveat: Internet content is worth what it costs you.

Pax,

Rufe

> Alvin Hansen, preceding Friedman, wrote of TINSTAAFL, which is 
> simply TANSTAAFL with better grammar.
> 

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice!

> And Professor
> Alvin Hansen, preceding Friedman, wrote of TINSTAAFL, which is
> simply TANSTAAFL with better grammar.

LNC

> "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:gZeJd.4695$r27.3182@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> And Professor
>> Alvin Hansen, preceding Friedman, wrote of TINSTAAFL, which is
>> simply TANSTAAFL with better grammar.
>
> Not really. The former may have the appeal of better grammar but it's the
> opposite of the latter since the colloquial opposite of "is" is "ain't." 
> Had
> Bill Withers known this and corrected "Ain't No Sunshine When She's Gone,"
> to convey the semantically accurate sentiment, he'd have lost a million
> seller. Similarly, "Ain't No Woman Like the One I Got," is not a 
> compliment,
> whether or not she has the power to make the sun come up each morning and
> the birds sing harmony.
>
> LNC
>
>

:-[ )

> So,if what you're saying is ain't is a negative (and I'll agree it can't be
> a positive)... then TANSTAAFL states there *is* such a thing as a free
> lunch. " Ain't no sunshine " means there is lots of sunshine, and "Ain't No
> Woman Like the One I Got," states that every woman is exactly the same as
> her. Doesn't a double negative make a positive? That's a rule I was taught.
> :-[ )

Just wait for somebody to claim this is another Heinlein, postmortem giggle from the grave. Interestingly, nobody's said anything about the "free lunch" part of TANSTAAFL and I know beyond a certainty that the individual memories here do not go back further than about 1925, and that's plenty before signs in taverns offering "free lunches" that were only free as long as you kept buying the liquor the establishments required be purchased to wash down the "free" fare.

LNC

> "Big_Fella" <madmoore@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Z0BJd.29$y_4.1313@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
>
>> So,if what you're saying is ain't is a negative (and I'll agree it can't be
>> a positive)... then TANSTAAFL states there *is* such a thing as a free
>> lunch. " Ain't no sunshine " means there is lots of sunshine, and "Ain't No
>> Woman Like the One I Got," states that every woman is exactly the same as
>> her. Doesn't a double negative make a positive? That's a rule I was taught.
>> :-[ )
>
> I think you just said you're in agreement with me. If there ain't no such
> thing then there is such a thing. (As a side note, I wouldn't agree that if
> there ain't no sunshine it doesn't mean there's lots; just that there's
> some. Also, just because there ain't no woman like the one I got it doesn't
> make them all like the one I, arguendo, do have.)
>
> Just wait for somebody to claim this is another Heinlein, postmortem giggle
> from the grave. Interestingly, nobody's said anything about the "free lunch"
> part of TANSTAAFL and I know beyond a certainty that the individual memories
> here do not go back further than about 1925, and that's plenty before signs
> in taverns offering "free lunches" that were only free as long as you kept
> buying the liquor the establishments required be purchased to wash down the
> "free" fare.
>
> LNC
>
>

-- 

Hope I die before I get old.
(Pete Townshend)
Ta.
:-[ ) 

> Interestingly, nobody's said anything about the
> "free lunch" part of TANSTAAFL and I know beyond a certainty that the
> individual memories here do not go back further than about 1925, and
> that's plenty before signs in taverns offering "free lunches" that were
> only free as long as you kept buying the liquor the establishments
> required be purchased to wash down the "free" fare.

-- 
Pete LaGrange

> "LNC" <reilloc@sbcglobalspam.net> wrote in message
> news:4TiJd.24031$iC4.10220@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:gZeJd.4695$r27.3182@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >> And Professor
> >> Alvin Hansen, preceding Friedman, wrote of TINSTAAFL, which is
> >> simply TANSTAAFL with better grammar.
> >
> > Not really. The former may have the appeal of better grammar but it's the
> > opposite of the latter since the colloquial opposite of "is" is "ain't."
> > Had
> > Bill Withers known this and corrected "Ain't No Sunshine When She's Gone,"
> > to convey the semantically accurate sentiment, he'd have lost a million
> > seller. Similarly, "Ain't No Woman Like the One I Got," is not a compliment,
> > whether or not she has the power to make the sun come up each morning and
> > the birds sing harmony.
> >
> > LNC
> >
> >
> So,if what you're saying is ain't is a negative (and I'll agree it can't be
> a positive)... then TANSTAAFL states there *is* such a thing as a free
> lunch. " Ain't no sunshine " means there is lots of sunshine, and "Ain't No
> Woman Like the One I Got," states that every woman is exactly the same as
> her. Doesn't a double negative make a positive? That's a rule I was taught.
> :-[ )

Will in New Haven

--

"Broken windows and empty hallways
A pale dead moon in the sky streaked with gray
Human kindness is overflowing
And i think it's going to rain today."
Randy Newman - "I Think it's Going to Rain Today"

That "rule" is an artificial product of people applying logical analysis to living language. "Ain't no woman like the one I got" was understood by every listener with a cultural affinity with the speaker as a supreme compliment. TANSTAAFL means that there isn't any free lunch. It may be wrong but that is what it means. (Bob Cottrel's corrallary "but there IS the lunch that someone else has paid for" has a great deal going for it) While the double negative is certainly incorrect as a logical expression and could cause some confusion in a naive listener, it is part of the language as spoken by actual people. It is slippery, imperfect and impervious to the dictates of academia. And it ain't going nowhere.

Will in New Haven

--

"I think I'll find a pair of eyes tonight, to fall into
and maybe strike a deal
Your body for my soul, fair swap
`cause cheap is how I feel "
Cowboy Junkies - "Cheap is How I Feel"

> That "rule" is an artificial product of people applying logical
> analysis to living language.

> "Ain't no woman like the one I got" was
> understood by every listener with a cultural affinity with the speaker
> as a supreme compliment.

> TANSTAAFL means that there isn't any free
> lunch. It may be wrong but that is what it means.

> (Bob Cottrel's
> corrallary "but there IS the lunch that someone else has paid for" has
> a great deal going for it) While the double negative is certainly
> incorrect as a logical expression and could cause some confusion in a
> naive listener, it is part of the language as spoken by actual people.

> It is slippery, imperfect and impervious to the dictates of academia.
> And it ain't going nowhere.

LNC

> <willreich_77@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106722329.354761.231320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > That "rule" is an artificial product of people applying logical
> > analysis to living language.
>
> What rule? That (-1) + (-1) = -2? Not plus not equals is? It's not
> unwarranted, hardly inconsistent, here, where the overarching theme is the
> elevation of a body of fiction to the status of moral code through pedantic
> interpretation to exact mathematical precision and require it, no?

>
> > "Ain't no woman like the one I got" was
> > understood by every listener with a cultural affinity with the speaker
> > as a supreme compliment.
>
> Granted. Pop culture overlooks both the double negative at the beginning of
> the "sentence" and the use of the apparent past tense at its end to hear,
> "There is no woman such as she who is mine," instead of concluding that such
> women are a dime a dozen but "mine's" no longer "mine." Whether the 
> assertion is intended to be complimentary and, in fact, transcends any other
> praise are matters of opinion. In the case of the "no woman" like the one
> you've "got," for example, she might merely roll her eyes and wonder, if you
> believe that to be the case, why your actions consist of awkward attempts to
> communicate the sentiment confusingly.

>
> > TANSTAAFL means that there isn't any free
> > lunch. It may be wrong but that is what it means.
>
> Ain't no doubt about it, the construct having appeared in TMIAHM, where the
> catapult used to batter Earth made use of the free launch of the gravity
> well, notwithstanding. Where the unabashed position of the revolution's
> organizers focused on the gullibility of the masses' willingness to believe
> the contrary of "ain't no," notwithstanding. It doesn't not mean whatever
> it's not misused to accomplish, yes?
>
> > (Bob Cottrel's
> > corrallary "but there IS the lunch that someone else has paid for" has
> > a great deal going for it) While the double negative is certainly
> > incorrect as a logical expression and could cause some confusion in a
> > naive listener, it is part of the language as spoken by actual people.
>
> When actual people sit down to order the affairs of all of them and reduce
> their agreement to agreed language, don't look for the product to read,
> "thou shalt not never steal noway, notime, nohow." Look for the seeker of a
> free lunch to argue common, unspoken agreement that "ain't no" means "ain't"
> when he's caught with somebody else's sandwich between his teeth and that
> that's not theft.

> > It is slippery, imperfect and impervious to the dictates of academia.
> > And it ain't going nowhere.
>
> Yeah, it's, like, stayin' alive. Whether you're a lover or whether you're a
> mother, you are, you know, dontcha?

Will in New Haven

--

"I didn't know that other guy was a cop
I guess I didn't care,
Sometimes you gotta act like you got a pair."
Slaid Cleaves - "Drinkin' Days" off Wishbones

<willreich_77@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1106722329.354761.231320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> That "rule" is an artificial product of people applying logical
> analysis to living language. "Ain't no woman like the one I got" was
> understood by every listener with a cultural affinity with the speaker
> as a supreme compliment. TANSTAAFL means that there isn't any free
> lunch. It may be wrong but that is what it means. (Bob Cottrel's
> corrallary "but there IS the lunch that someone else has paid for" has
> a great deal going for it) While the double negative is certainly
> incorrect as a logical expression and could cause some confusion in a
> naive listener, it is part of the language as spoken by actual people.
> It is slippery, imperfect and impervious to the dictates of academia.
> And it ain't going nowhere.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
> "I think I'll find a pair of eyes tonight, to fall into
> and maybe strike a deal
> Your body for my soul, fair swap
> `cause cheap is how I feel "
> Cowboy Junkies - "Cheap is How I Feel"
>

       < snipped >
> 
> So, I got to thinking. What other words or phrases can you think of that he 
> coined or emphasized.
> 
> 'the door dilated' has already been mentioned. 'fraki' popped out at me 
> last evening as I was reading _Citizen_. Also from _Citizen_[3], does 
> anyone know what a 'griva pusher' is?
> 
> What else can you recall?

       < snipped >
> 
> Notes:
> 
> [1]The question of how to pronounce both 'Heinlein' and 'grok' was part of 
> separate discussions. I said 'Hine-Len' with emphasis on the first 
> syllable. The other person said 'Hen-Line' with emphasis on the second. As 
> for 'grok', I have always pronounced it as rhyming with 'broke', but most 
> people, I understand, do pronounce it as rhyming with 'clock'. This would 
> be the normal pronunciation for an English word, but heck, it was a Martian 
> word, so there!
>  
Since I have some German in my background, I've always thought the name 
should be pronounced Hine-line with both halves rhyming with "mine". 
Does the name come from German?
> 
       < snipped >

--
To reply, change domain to an adult feline.

(snip)

>> What else can you recall?
> 
> While not exactly a term "coined" by Heinlein, Waldo (meaning a remote
> control manipulator) certainly derives from his work.
> 

I'll see you and raise you a 'refresher'.

>        < snipped >
>> 
>> Notes:
>> 
>> [1]The question of how to pronounce both 'Heinlein' and 'grok' was
>> part of separate discussions. I said 'Hine-Len' with emphasis on the
>> first syllable. The other person said 'Hen-Line' with emphasis on the
>> second. As for 'grok', I have always pronounced it as rhyming with
>> 'broke', but most people, I understand, do pronounce it as rhyming
>> with 'clock'. This would be the normal pronunciation for an English
>> word, but heck, it was a Martian word, so there!
>>  
> Since I have some German in my background, I've always thought the
> name should be pronounced Hine-line with both halves rhyming with
> "mine". Does the name come from German?
>> 

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice!

>>Since I have some German in my background, I've always thought the
>>name should be pronounced Hine-line with both halves rhyming with
>>"mine". Does the name come from German?
>>
> 
> Yes, it's a German name, and to tell the truth, I sometimes pronounce it 
> that way in spite of what I said earlier.

Rufe

: FWIW, the librarian who handed me HSS-WT pronounced it "Hine-len" 
: and I've typically done so. In the face of superior information, 
: (Dave Silver, Bill Patterson, Dr. Jerry Pournelle) I have attempted 
: to alter that. Any alteration is neither apparent nor consistent.

For those who are wondering why,
What we call SF ain't sci fi,
There's a very fine line
Between Robert Heinlein,
And 'Son of the Two Headed Fly'.

-Chris

-- 
==========================================================
Chris Candreva  -- chris@westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816
WestNet Internet Services of Westchester
http://www.westnet.com/

> Norman Bullen <norm@BlackKittenAssociates.com.INVALID> wrote in
> news:RjiJd.4982$r27.4266@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

<snipt>

>> Since I have some German in my background, I've always thought the
>> name should be pronounced Hine-line with both halves rhyming with
>> "mine". Does the name come from German?
>>>
>
> Yes, it's a German name, and to tell the truth, I sometimes pronounce it
> that in spite of what I said earlier.

> -- 
> David Wright
> If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
> The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
> registrations and fund raising up to $15,000
> Make your new membership count twice!

-- 

Hope I die before I get old.
(Pete Townshend)
Ta.
:-[ ) 

 Since I have some German in my background, I've always thought the name
> should be pronounced Hine-line with both halves rhyming with "mine".
> Does the name come from German?

NW

:"Norman Bullen"
:> Since I have some German in my background, I've always thought the name
:> should be pronounced Hine-line with both halves rhyming with "mine".
:> Does the name come from German?
:
:I have a copy of an AIM conversation with Ginny in which she states that
:your pronunciation is the correct one.

> "Nuclear Waste" <myhandle@mchsi.com> wrote:
> 
>:"Norman Bullen"
>:> Since I have some German in my background, I've always thought the
>:> name should be pronounced Hine-line with both halves rhyming with
>:> "mine". Does the name come from German?
>:
>:I have a copy of an AIM conversation with Ginny in which she states
>:that your pronunciation is the correct one. 
> 
> Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that, since that's how I've always
> said it.  It never even occurred to me that there was any question
> about this.  German 'ei' sounds as 'eye'.
> 

However, despite what I do when I speak German, I usually use English pronunciation when using foreign derived words in English. Actually, that's not quite true. I do it with German, but not with Russian and Martian. That's probably because my learning Russian concentrated more on speaking than did the German. Now as to why I do that with Martian, I haven't the foggiest. ;-)>

-- 
David Wright
If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 
Make your new membership count twice!

On any given day, TEFL is liable to be my favorite (at least on a day when CotG is not) RAH. I shall endeavor to be there.

I was thinking of SIASL recently and realized that if one wanted (or was incapable of better) to be superficial, that SIASL can look like a very hoary cliche.

A young man, raised in, errr, "an all boys boarding school", discovers girls. He's young, he's intelligent, he's good-looking, he's famous, he's rich; he's eager to please and has an air of "needing mothering" --something many women find attractive, particularly in young men who are rich, famous, etc. Discovering "vive le difference!" rocks his world. He begins to shtup everyone in sight, aided materially by the factors above. Being intelligent, and a rationalizing human, he comes up with an elaborate code of morals that not only makes it okay for him to shtup everything in site, but indeed makes it a moral imperative that he do so. His meglomania grows, his "real" moral sense (whatever the hell that means --Yahweh probably to blame tho in this analysis) is still hiding down deep and in conflict with his actual behavior eventually drives him to martyrdom to resolve his conflicts.

I wonder how many readers never got past that kind of analysis?

>On any given day, TEFL is liable to be my favorite (at least on a day when 
>CotG is not) RAH. I shall endeavor to be there.
>
>I was thinking of SIASL recently and realized that if one wanted (or was 
>incapable of better) to be superficial, that SIASL can look like a very 
>hoary cliche.
>
>A young man, raised in, errr, "an all boys boarding school", discovers 
>girls. He's young, he's intelligent, he's good-looking, he's famous, he's 
>rich; he's eager to please and has an air of "needing mothering" --something 
>many women find attractive, particularly in young men who are rich, famous, 
>etc.  Discovering "vive le difference!" rocks his world. He begins to shtup 
>everyone in sight, aided materially by the factors above. Being intelligent, 
>and a rationalizing human, he comes up with an elaborate code of morals that 
>not only makes it okay for him to shtup everything in site, but indeed makes 
>it a moral imperative that he do so. His meglomania grows, his "real" moral 
>sense (whatever the hell that means --Yahweh probably to blame tho in this 
>analysis) is still hiding down deep and in conflict with his actual behavior 
>eventually drives him to martyrdom to resolve his conflicts.
>
>I wonder how many readers never got past that kind of analysis? 
>

-- 
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

> On any given day, TEFL is liable to be my favorite (at least on a day when
> CotG is not) RAH. I shall endeavor to be there.
>
> I was thinking of SIASL recently and realized that if one wanted (or was
> incapable of better) to be superficial, that SIASL can look like a very
> hoary cliche.
>
> A young man, raised in, errr, "an all boys boarding school", discovers
> girls. He's young, he's intelligent, he's good-looking, he's famous, he's
> rich; he's eager to please and has an air of "needing mothering" --something
> many women find attractive, particularly in young men who are rich, famous,
> etc.  Discovering "vive le difference!" rocks his world. He begins to shtup
> everyone in sight, aided materially by the factors above. Being intelligent,
> and a rationalizing human, he comes up with an elaborate code of morals that
> not only makes it okay for him to shtup everything in site, but indeed makes
> it a moral imperative that he do so. His meglomania grows, his "real" moral
> sense (whatever the hell that means --Yahweh probably to blame tho in this 
> analysis) is still hiding down deep and in conflict with his actual behavior
> eventually drives him to martyrdom to resolve his conflicts.
>
> I wonder how many readers never got past that kind of analysis?

Oh, that onlybegottensonthatwhosoverbelievethinhimshallnotperishbutshallhaveeverlasti nglife cutesiness. Quelle conceit sommes nous. Isn't it time for a new story? Sure, this one can be done over and over and over again and still sell but where's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity," Heinlein style? That is, Walden III?

LNC

Given the publication date of TEFL (1973), the part near the end where he decides to join up for WWI is very fascinating to me. He knows it is futile as a war, in fact counterproductive, and that the only thing he can accomplish is get his ass shot off for no reason at all (it is, after all, in the "past" and he isn't going to change anything). Yet he goes anyway --not for duty (he had none), not for conviction, not to make a difference. Just to preserve the respect of people dear to him. I have to think RAH was making a commentary on both the Vietnam war (comparing it to WWI from a 'tell me again what we're going to accomplish here?' pov) and why men fight.

>
> Given the publication date of TEFL (1973), the part near the end where he
> decides to join up for WWI is very fascinating to me. He knows it is futile
> as a war, in fact counterproductive, and that the only thing he can
> accomplish is get his ass shot off for no reason at all (it is, after all,
> in the "past" and he isn't going to change anything). Yet he goes
> anyway --not for duty (he had none), not for conviction, not to make a
> difference. Just to preserve the respect of people dear to him.

> I have to think RAH was making a commentary on both the Vietnam war (comparing it to
> WWI from a 'tell me again what we're going to accomplish here?' pov) and why
> men fight.

Why do men fight? You mean soldiers in wars? Isn't it because they're told to do so? Why are wars started? I think that transcends the capacity of a work of fiction to glibly explain it all.

LNC

>"Geo Rule" <georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote in message
>news:J4CdnUg2btKVhGrcRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>
>> Given the publication date of TEFL (1973), the part near the end where he
>> decides to join up for WWI is very fascinating to me. He knows it is
>futile
>> as a war, in fact counterproductive, and that the only thing he can
>> accomplish is get his ass shot off for no reason at all (it is, after all,
>> in the "past" and he isn't going to change anything). Yet he goes
>> anyway --not for duty (he had none), not for conviction, not to make a
>> difference. Just to preserve the respect of people dear to him.
>
>This disregards the getting-in-mom's-pants motivation. Yes, it sounds nobler
>but that's its only virtue. After all, it's not possible to contend that LL
>didn't know that was going to happen since LL has never existed but RAH
>wrote him right where he wanted him to go.

While you're at it, I suggest you re-read the last few pages in chapter III of "Da Capo" as well, and explain how LL's reaction there matches with your claim of "getting-in-mom's-pants motivation."

-Chris Zakes
	Texas

Life isn't fair. Anyone who tells you different is either 
selling something or trying to get your vote.

> "Geo Rule" <georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote in message
> news:J4CdnUg2btKVhGrcRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>
>> Given the publication date of TEFL (1973), the part near the end where he
>> decides to join up for WWI is very fascinating to me. He knows it is futile
>> as a war, in fact counterproductive, and that the only thing he