1 2 3 4 5
Which the great man rarely used,

Never, not once, in Ulysses , right?

I don't recall any, and when I looked yesterday to try to verify there aren't any, I could find nary a one.

Charles Riggs
Never, not once, in Ulysses , right?

I don't recall any, and when I looked yesterday to try to verify there aren't any, I could find nary a one.

Jeez, Charles, you went through the whole book to see if there were any semi-colons in it? I went for a simpler approach: I trusted that Joyce knew how to punctuate, a trust that I am sure you will agree is well-founded.
PB
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Thus spake Padraig Breathnach:
I don't recall any, and when I looked yesterday to try to verify there aren't any, I could find nary a one.

Jeez, Charles, you went through the whole book to see if there were any semi-colons in it? I went for a simpler approach: I trusted that Joyce knew how to punctuate, a trust that I am sure you will agree is well-founded.

Bloody Hell! The bloke couldn't spell, let alone punctuate. Thank the Lord for philologists and editors, that's what I say; they saved Joyce from himself.

Simon R. Hughes
Thus spake Padraig Breathnach:

Jeez, Charles, you went through the whole book to see ... trust that I am sure you will agree is well-founded.

Number one I'd be a Poor Rig if I weren't a speedreader when I want to be, and number two there is nothing wrong with semicolons.
Bloody Hell! The bloke couldn't spell, let alone punctuate. Thank the Lord for philologists and editors, that's what I say; they saved Joyce from himself.

I think you rather missed one of the major reasons why the great man wrote Finnegans Wake, if you say he "couldn't" spell. Holy ***, man, to know how to not spell as well as he did, one has to be a speller among all time great spellers as, of course, he was. Knowing 14 languages with some proficiency added to his, and our, fun with interesting and unique, yet intelligible once the time is spent, spellings.
By the way, the Gablers of this world are totally unnecessary for the enjoyment and appreciation of Ulysses , although I do have Hans Walter's edition, the one he's so bloody proud of, the pedantic pissant.

Charles Riggs
Thus spake Charles Riggs:

So it was printer's errors only that rendered the first edition of Ulysses incomprehensible? Spelling errors, typos, editorial gaffes, the works. 'Twas a complete and utter balls-up, 'twas.
By the way, the Gablers of this world are totally unnecessary for the enjoyment and appreciation of Ulysses , although I do have Hans Walter's edition, the one he's so bloody proud of, the pedantic pissant.

Simon R. Hughes
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
After a lot of deliberation and more drink than is good for me, the commission has finally come up with ... hope of reaching the starting line? I sincerely hope not. Let us orchestrate a bold new beginning. More bollocks, please.

OK, here's some:
Andreski on Parsons.
Source: Andreski 1972:62."Though hardly novel, {Parsons'} account might be of use to newcomers to comparative historical studies, were it provided in a succinct and clear manner instead of being wrapped up in pompous and nebulous phraseology; as, for instance, on page 56, where (to find out that in ancient Egypt the common people were liable to be conscripted for work) we have to read the following passage: 'For those whose roles primarily involved the performance of services, as distinguished from the assumption of leadership responsibility, the main pattern seems to have been a response to the leadership's invoking obligations that were concomitants of the status of membership in the societal community and various of its segmental units.

The closest modern analogy is the military service performed by an ordinary citizen, except that the leader of the Egyptian bureaucracy did not need a special emergency to invoke legitimate obligations.'"
Talcott Parsons and obscure language.
Source: Andreski 1972:60.
"The prime example of obscurity is, of course, Talcott Parsons, as can well be seen even in a book which is less burdened by this vice than his other works: namely, 'Societies: evolutionary and comparative perspectives'... Sometimes the author's insensitivity to the meanings of words and his lack of feeling for logic prompt him to make statements which are not merely platitudinous but plainly silly, as when he writes on page 30, 'In the realm of action, the gene has been replaced by the symbol as the basic structural element.' As if we could be here at all if our genes had been replaced by symbols, or as if our capacity to use symbols did not depend on the nature of our genes. After all, worms cannot speak and crocodiles cannot write."

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
I sincerely hope not. Let us orchestrate a bold new beginning. More bollocks, please.

OK, here's some: Andreski on Parsons. Source: Andreski 1972:62. "Though hardly novel, {Parsons'} account might be of use to newcomers to comparative historical studies, were it provided

Talcott Parsons and obscure language. Source: Andreski 1972:60. "The prime example of obscurity is, of course, Talcott Parsons, as can well be seen even in a book which is less

I don't think those qualify. The quotations are - even if bollocks - more or less comprehensible, and none of the constituent sentences is very long.
That is not to deny that Talcott Parsons himself might have talked or written bollocks. I confess (TP has his own entry in Encarta, so he must be someone that everyone ought to know about) that I had never heard of him before your post. Google-searches with terms like (Talcott-Parsons bollocks), (Talcott-Parsons crap) and (Talcott-Parsons buckminster) are instructive, qualitatively if not quantitatively. For example, one of those searches turns up a long treatise by a wizard or something on 'Post-Structuralism and Modern Magick', so if guilt by association counts for anything, Talcott Parsons is very guilty indeed.

And 'Talcott Parsons' is an anagram of both 'contralto spats' and 'contrasts plato', which must prove something.
But, in themselves, your offerings prove nothing, I'm afraid.

(By the way, 'Buckminster Fuller' is an anagram of 'tumblerful snicker'.)

Mickwick
http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/advanced.html
is your finder
OK, here's some: Andreski on Parsons. Source: Andreski 1972:62. "Though ... use to newcomers to comparative historical studies, were it provided

Talcott Parsons and obscure language. Source: Andreski 1972:60. "The prime ... well be seen even in a book which is less

I don't think those qualify. The quotations are - even if bollocks - more or less comprehensible, and none of the constituent sentences is very long.

But, in themselves, your offerings prove nothing, I'm afraid.

They weren't intended to prove anything. They were simply examples of wordy opaqueness.
I didn't respond to your first query, because they weren't the worst, nor the longest. But when you asked for more bollocks, I tried to oblige.

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
I don't think those qualify. The quotations are - even ... comprehensible, and none of the constituent sentences is very long.

But, in themselves, your offerings prove nothing, I'm afraid.

They weren't intended to prove anything.

Sorry. I don't know how that 'prove nothing' crept in there. I meant 'your offerings aren't valid'.
They were simply examples of wordy opaqueness. I didn't respond to your first query, because they weren't the worst, nor the longest. But when you asked for more bollocks, I tried to oblige.

You did, and I thank you.
I messed up in several ways. I asked for bollocks when what I really meant was windy bollocks; and later, when rejecting your offerings as examples of (windy) bollocks, I again failed to distinguish between bollocks and windy bollocks. And then I said that your offerings didn't prove anything when I hadn't asked for anything to be proved. Sorry about that.
I imagine that you intended only the quoted matter in the first offering to be taken as an example of wordy opaqueness. Andreski discusses wordy opaqueness in both offerings but his own writing is clear and concise in both; and in the second offering the TP quote is only eighteen words long, too brief to be deemed wordy - although I suppose eighteen words that carried no meaning at all might count as wordiness. It's difficult to tell how meaningful they are without the context. Andreski certainly thinks they are total bollocks but it would perhaps be unfair to take his word for it.
Anyway, Talcott Parsons on labour conscription in Ancient Egypt:

'For those whose roles primarily involved the performance of services, as distinguished from the assumption of leadership responsibility, the main pattern seems to have been a response to the leadership's invoking obligations that were concomitants of the status of membership in the societal community and various of its segmental units. The closest modern analogy is the military service performed by an ordinary citizen, except that the leader of the Egyptian bureaucracy did not need a special emergency to invoke legitimate obligations.'

Yep! That first sentence is wordily opaque alright.

(Incidentally, does the whole of the first offering (snipped) count as a single sentence? It includes a two-sentence quotation (above). Honest question, as Polar used to say.)

Mickwick,
the universally concerned intellectual optic of integrity
Show more