Originally Posted by Fantômas
I see. In that case, feel free to ignore the constraints of the English language. What a burden that must be.
Like atonal and serial music ... language is subconsciously powerful when not confined (Joyce's demanding works and Breton are simple examples). In regards to that point, the English language is feral and compelling when not constricted, I rather have imagination and innovation as a basis of cerebral evolution rather than froth on ancient and bland systems that, funny enough, can be altered when censured and opposed ... How about that?
Indeed. A purposive use then. Again, I applaud you for your courage to operate outside what must be unnecessary boundaries of language for you. Of course, I understood your purposive approach in the first place. I apologise for expecting proper syntax - again I realise that you have no need for such devices.
Devices, Devices, Devices .... I'll use them when I feel so, not when you want them to ... I am the composer of my structure and if you find it difficult to 'get it' then live with it by overlooking. I never question ones approach to semantics and so forth ... I have my thing and you’ve got your text-book “school of suppressed ideas” and so on.
I believe you should explain what type of creative purpose a phrase like "it don't have to explain" means. I throroughly enjoyed your subsequent use of "mild and primitive" as the aformentioned phrase is decidedly "Tarzanian" or, more appropriately, "Flintstonian".
First and foremost, my apology with that ("it don't have to explain") as my intent was meant to state "I don't have to explain", it is a fair mistyping on my part, and I apologise.
This is going to be deep, so bear with me: "mild and primitive"
is a personal notion that I constructed, it suggests that as long as there is an unconscious fear to certain discordant concepts or thoughts, then there is no such thing as absolute freedom. It is simply the 'Dionysian-and-Apollonian' concept that Nietzsche was fond off and I reconstructed it into that particular expression, so from the Greek Gods to a simple English idiom ... as a matter of fact, I've written a serial music piece with that exact same phrase -- it was an extension of my musical idea describing suppressed systems who are inherently "primitive" (impulsive) yet via indoctrination and programming by societal pattern is toned-down or "mild" (prepared).
I can expand with this perception if you like, but it will be deeply boring for others and, obviously, I will go off-topic as well.
Right. I alluded to this above. I'd just like to point out that your attempt to use Cartesian language in a manner that ignores simple rules of syntax is indeed provoking. Provoking, in terms of laughter, of course. At least you achieved your purpose, albeit inadvertently.
As you were.
Hmm ... This is not a test of wit nor the test of syntax rectification, but a test on perception, and I realised your perception of my use of the phrase was based on ‘misreading’, I have utilised this technique not just the least of times but many to mention and it is nothing new ...
Oh by the way, let me expand just once: [,vis-a-vis,] - the commas are the exact written-word manifestation of disjointing, therefore this: -- ,[vis-à-vis], -- is how it should be constructed but for the sake of syntax, fluidity is essential, one might misread, and if you happen to be Chomsky, Sontag or Hitchens for that matter, you would certainly get my use of the phrase at that particular time. But, clearly by what you have asserted (without the brute punch of Swift-esque satire, I might add), I am afraid you are too archaic to understand that man-fabricated structures of ‘theoretical’ linguistics and systems evolve rather than go back into ancient ennui and banality -- You will not realise it, and it is plainly because you have a preconception to uphold.
This is not a neologism-like concept in my part but deconstructing and consciously re-constructing on a very contextual basis, I am aware and deliberate unlike any individual who strays into deliberate automatism while typing, therefore, your point is inconsistent with my line of reasoning, but in regards to text-book cliché and "proper syntax", your argument is valid and correct.
Therefore, you don't have to pretend you are the education system of linguistics, subtly chastising me with systems I am aware of and as a result, I blatantly re-assert as 'banal'.
P.S. Speaking of Chomsky, he's completed a work titled, Cartesian Linguistics
. You might be interested.
If you are intrigued; you can PM me, for I do not want to go off-topic; hence, I'll be reading from ya'.