Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
It was three weeks before her body was found.

Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
called "Words Fail Me".

She says:
"In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
sentence."

Can anyone make sense of this for me?
Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?

Further:
"To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of the
sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to invent a
new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it, is not at
the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the
English language as it is."

Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf

On 29/03/2024 10:35 p.m., Ross Clark wrote:
Sorry, folks, intended for sci.lang. But feel free to comment...

> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
> It was three weeks before her body was found.
>
> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
> called "Words Fail Me".
>
> She says:
> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
> new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
> words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
> use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
> mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
> part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
> sentence."
>
> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?
>
> Further:
> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of the
> sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to invent a
> new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it, is not at
> the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the
> English language as it is."
>
> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf

On 2024-03-29 09:35:59 +0000, Ross Clark said:

> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.

That's worthy of a Darwin Award.

> It was three weeks before her body was found.
>
> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
> called "Words Fail Me".
>
> She says:
> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
> new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
> words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
> use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
> mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
> part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
> sentence."
>
> Can anyone make sense of this for me?

I can sort of understand that, but not to the point of trying to
translate it into English.

> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?

They're the same person!
>
> Further:
> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of
> the sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to
> invent a new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it,
> is not at the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can
> do with the English language as it is."
>
> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On 2024-03-29 09:41:02 +0000, Ross Clark said:

> On 29/03/2024 10:35 p.m., Ross Clark wrote:
> Sorry, folks, intended for sci.lang.

Not a problem. After all, Virginia Woolf was a major contributor to
English usage, and most of what you say is relevant to that.

> But feel free to comment...
>
>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
>> It was three weeks before her body was found.
>>
>> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
>> called "Words Fail Me".
>>
>> She says:
>> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
>> new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
>> words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
>> use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
>> mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
>> part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
>> sentence."
>>
>> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
>> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?
>>
>> Further:
>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of
>> the sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to
>> invent a new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it,
>> is not at the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can
>> do with the English language as it is."
>>
>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On 29/03/24 20:35, Ross Clark wrote:
> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with
> stones. It was three weeks before her body was found.
>
> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
> called "Words Fail Me".
>
> She says: "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers
> could invent new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to
> invent new words...but we cannot use them because the language is
> old. You cannot use a brand new word in an old language because of
> the very obvious yet mysterious fact that a word is not a single and
> separate entity, but part of other words. It is not a word indeed
> until it is part of a sentence."
>
> Can anyone make sense of this for me? Who are the "we" and the "you"
> in that passage?

She meant "one". But the pronoun "one" was/is unfashionable, so people
paraphrase by writing "you" or "we" when they really mean "one".

I don't accept her argument, though. New words do enter the language.
True, the majority of them fall out again almost immediately, but now
and then a new word will find acceptance.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

In article <uu6226$78p3$1@dont-email.me>,
benlizro@ihug.co.nz says...
>
> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
> It was three weeks before her body was found.
>
> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
> called "Words Fail Me".
>
> She says:
> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
> new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
> words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
> use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
> mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
> part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
> sentence."
>
> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?

The listeners, everybody who communicates in words.
>
> Further:
> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of the
> sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to invent a
> new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it, is not at
> the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the
> English language as it is."
>
> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf

She was speaking in a series of radio talks broadcast by
the BBC. It's common for such speakers to directly address
the listening audience.

Janet

Le 29/03/2024 à 09:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2024-03-29 09:35:59 +0000, Ross Clark said:
>>
>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
>
> That's worthy of a Darwin Award.

Sounds a wet thing to do, right enough.

>>  It was three weeks before her body was found.
>>
>> Crystal

I'm not clear who that is.

>> quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
>> called "Words Fail Me".
>>
>> She says:
>> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could
>> invent new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent
>> new words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You
>> cannot use a brand new word in an old language because of the very
>> obvious yet mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate
>> entity, but part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is
>> part of a sentence."
>>
>> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
>
> I can sort of understand that, but not to the point of trying to
> translate it into English.
>
>> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?
>
> They're the same person!

'We' is English speakers, I think, and 'you' is the speakers of any
language that is old.

>> Further:
>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of
>> the sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to
>> invent a new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it,
>> is not at the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can
>> do with the English language as it is."
>>
>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf

Sounds like rot to me. English now is full of new words and expressions.
It's true that while some are all right, many are redundant, and some
are pretty frightful.

Other languages have more trouble with new words - French, for instance,
to pick a non-random example.

On Friday, Ross Clark pointed out that ...
> On 29/03/2024 10:35 p.m., Ross Clark wrote:
> Sorry, folks, intended for sci.lang. But feel free to comment...
>
>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones. It
>> was three weeks before her body was found.
>>
>> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series called
>> "Words Fail Me".
>>
>> She says:
>> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent new
>> words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new words...but we
>> cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot use a brand new
>> word in an old language because of the very obvious yet mysterious fact
>> that a word is not a single and separate entity, but part of other words.
>> It is not a word indeed until it is part of a sentence."
>>
>> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
>> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?

The same ... generic pronouns for users of the English language, with
Virginia Woolf in that group or speaking as a member of that group.

>> Further:
>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of the
>> sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to invent a new
>> language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it, is not at the
>> moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the English
>> language as it is."
>>
>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").

The same again, but this time with a hint that "we" is Virginia Woolf,
speaking in her role as writer. Not quite a royal "we", but a "we"
that embodies the role.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf

I don't think this is an unusual construction; I can imagine it being
used in many group situations, usually by someone with some sort of
authority within the group. The "you" seems like it gets the job of
giving instructions to the group, while the "we" is maybe the action of
the group.

I can see something like this (in form) being said at club meetings or
at seminars. "You can't just choose any book to discuss;" "We must
choose books that fit this month's topic."

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

On 29/03/24 20:35, Ross Clark wrote:

> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with
> stones. It was three weeks before her body was found.

By coincidence, it was just yesterday that our house was full of
children's songs, because of a surfeit of grandchildren. And I found
myself singing "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 2024-03-29 10:09:43 +0000, Hibou said:

> Le 29/03/2024 à 09:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>> On 2024-03-29 09:35:59 +0000, Ross Clark said:
>>>
>>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
>>
>> That's worthy of a Darwin Award.
>
> Sounds a wet thing to do, right enough.
>
>>>  It was three weeks before her body was found.
>>>
>>> Crystal
>
> I'm not clear who that is.
>
>>> quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series called
>>> "Words Fail Me".
>>>
>>> She says:
>>> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
>>> new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
>>> words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
>>> use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
>>> mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
>>> part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
>>> sentence."
>>>
>>> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
>>
>> I can sort of understand that, but not to the point of trying to
>> translate it into English.
>>
>>> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?
>>
>> They're the same person!
>
> 'We' is English speakers, I think, and 'you' is the speakers of any
> language that is old.
>
>>> Further:
>>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of
>>> the sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to
>>> invent a new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it,
>>> is not at the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can
>>> do with the English language as it is."
>>>
>>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf
>
> Sounds like rot to me. English now is full of new words and
> expressions. It's true that while some are all right, many are
> redundant, and some are pretty frightful.
>
> Other languages have more trouble with new words - French, for
> instance, to pick a non-random example.

Yes, they have to decide how to pronounce and spell them, what gender
they have, whether to make them look more French, etc. They also like
to invent new English nouns ending in -ing: parking, shampooing,
footing, standing. Spanish certainly has similar problems: once in a
university cafeteria in Tenerife I saw "croason" on the list of things
available. What on earth is a croason? I thought. It turned out to be a
croissant.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2024-03-29 10:12:27 +0000, Snidely said:

> On Friday, Ross Clark pointed out that ...
>>
>> [ … ]
>>
>>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>
> The same again, but this time with a hint that "we" is Virginia Woolf,
> speaking in her role as writer. Not quite a royal "we", but a "we"
> that embodies the role.

Maybe more an editorial we, as I believe editors are allowed to to
refer to themselves as "we". When I were a lad I learned to use "we"
for yourself you need to be the monarch, an editor or a person with a
tapeworm. In scientific papers it's very common to use "we", even if
there is only one author (though that itself has become rare. Most
papers nowadays have eight or more authors and it can be much more:
papers from CERN may have as many as 3000). In my own papers I used "I"
to refer to things I had done, but "we" if I wanted to include the
reader in the discussion.
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf
>
> I don't think this is an unusual construction; I can imagine it being
> used in many group situations, usually by someone with some sort of
> authority within the group. The "you" seems like it gets the job of
> giving instructions to the group, while the "we" is maybe the action of
> the group.
>
> I can see something like this (in form) being said at club meetings or
> at seminars. "You can't just choose any book to discuss;" "We must
> choose books that fit this month's topic."
>
> /dps

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Hibou wrote:

>>> Further:
>>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of
>>> the sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to
>>> invent a new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it,
>>> is not at the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can
>>> do with the English language as it is."
>>>
>>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf
>
> Sounds like rot to me.

To me too. A language that cannot combine new words with old ones, is
dying - except that I don't believe that such a thing is possible.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>> Other languages have more trouble with new words - French, for
>> instance, to pick a non-random example.
>
> Yes, they have to decide how to pronounce and spell them, what gender
> they have, whether to make them look more French, etc.

I wouldn't say that Danish has trouble with new words. They're actually
pouring in from English these days.

The "decisions" is just a question of waiting to see how people treat
the words. The general trend is to keep the foreign pronunciation and
inflexion for a while until the word is seen as Danish.

Recently some Latin -um-words were changed or an alternative form was
allowed:

gymnasium => gymnasie
ambulatorium => ambulatorie
medium => medie

There are two reasons:

1. The "um" seems non-Danish.
2. The definite form is e.g. "gymnasiet", so backforming "gymnasie" is
straightforward.

On the other hand "computer" looks like a lot of Danish words, so the
regular inflexion fits immediately. The pronunciation of the u is
English and won't change, for in spite of that pronunciation in
principle being un-Danish, it feels like Danish and we have it in other
words (e.g. "juice").

It's even crept into words that we do not have from English ("unik").

--
Bertel, Denmark

Peter Moylan wrote:

> I don't accept her argument, though. New words do enter the language.
> True, the majority of them fall out again almost immediately, but now
> and then a new word will find acceptance.

I don't think that a majority of new words falls out of Danish. My guess
would be fifty-fifty. The it-world has made a heap of words necessary,
but also the music scene and hip-hop culture have contributed.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 29/03/2024 10:40, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-03-29 10:09:43 +0000, Hibou said:
>
>> Le 29/03/2024 à 09:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>>> On 2024-03-29 09:35:59 +0000, Ross Clark said:
>>>>
>>>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
>>>
>>> That's worthy of a Darwin Award.
>>
>> Sounds a wet thing to do, right enough.
>>
>>>>  It was three weeks before her body was found.
>>>>
>>>> Crystal
>>
>> I'm not clear who that is.
>>
>>>> quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series called
>>>> "Words Fail Me".
>>>>
>>>> She says:
>>>> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could
>>>> invent new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent
>>>> new words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You
>>>> cannot use a brand new word in an old language because of the very
>>>> obvious yet mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate
>>>> entity, but part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is
>>>> part of a sentence."
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
>>>
>>> I can sort of understand that, but not to the point of trying to
>>> translate it into English.
>>>
>>>> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?
>>>
>>> They're the same person!
>>
>> 'We' is English speakers, I think, and 'you' is the speakers of any
>> language that is old.
>>
>>>> Further:
>>>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of
>>>> the sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to
>>>> invent a new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to
>>>> it, is not at the moment our business. Our business is to see what
>>>> we can do with the English language as it is."
>>>>
>>>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf
>>
>> Sounds like rot to me. English now is full of new words and
>> expressions. It's true that while some are all right, many are
>> redundant, and some are pretty frightful.
>>
>> Other languages have more trouble with new words - French, for
>> instance, to pick a non-random example.
>
> Yes, they have to decide how to pronounce and spell them, what gender
> they have, whether to make them look more French, etc. They also like to
> invent new English nouns ending in -ing: parking, shampooing, footing,
> standing. Spanish certainly has similar problems: once in a university
> cafeteria in Tenerife I saw "croason" on the list of things available.
> What on earth is a croason? I thought. It turned out to be a croissant.
>
>

It's a while now since I was learning a bit of Icelandic, but I recall
that foreign adoptions were deprecated there, and new Icelandic words
were coined to cover the required meanings. I don't remember most of the
examples, but 'computer' was one. Google Translate gives me 'tölvu'
(number wizard, IIRC).

--
Phil B

Ross Clark wrote:

> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
> It was three weeks before her body was found.

> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
> called "Words Fail Me".

> She says:
> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
> new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
> words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
> use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
> mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
> part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
> sentence."

> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?

> Further:
> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of the
> sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to invent a
> new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it, is not at
> the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the
> English language as it is."

> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf

A complete transcript, with a link to a recording, is at

https://www.literaturecambridge.co.uk/news/craftsmanship

I agree with what people have said about "we" and "you". As for making
sense of it, she clearly doesn't mean that you literally can't use new words
because she knew plenty that had been invented during her life--radio,
radium, fascist, airplane/aeroplane... What she's talking about, I think,
is how being a writer felt to her. (Blaming words is ironic modesty,
intensified by her conspicuous mot-justice.). Specifically, I think she's
saying that when she has a problem expressing a subtle or original idea,
the solution of inventing a word isn't available, which may give a
feeling of how difficult the problem is.

She write,

"All we can say about them [words], as we peer at them over the edge
of that deep, dark and only fitfully illuminated cavern in which they live —
the mind — all we can say about them is that they seem to like people to
think and to feel before they use them, but to think and to feel not about
them, but about something different."

Is linguistics an attempt to illuminate that cavern?

--
Jerry Friedman

Phil wrote:

> It's a while now since I was learning a bit of Icelandic, but I recall
> that foreign adoptions were deprecated there, and new Icelandic words
> were coined to cover the required meanings. I don't remember most of the
> examples, but 'computer' was one. Google Translate gives me 'tölvu'
> (number wizard, IIRC).

Around 2000 I talked with an Icelander, and she confirmed that that is
the principle. But she added that among young people the tendency was
receding and that English words crept in.

> Google Translate gives me 'tölvu' (number wizard, IIRC).

I can confirm that though I do not know neither the precise spelling nor
the pronunciation. The only Icelandic word that I can pronounce, is
"Eyjafjallajökull".

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 29-Mar-24 10:03, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 29/03/24 20:35, Ross Clark wrote:
>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with
>> stones. It was three weeks before her body was found.
>>
>> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
>> called "Words Fail Me".
>>
>> She says: "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers
>> could invent new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to
>> invent new words...but we cannot use them because the language is
>> old. You cannot use a brand new word in an old language because of
>> the very obvious yet mysterious fact that a word is not a single and
>> separate entity, but part of other words. It is not a word indeed
>> until it is part of a sentence."
>>
>> Can anyone make sense of this for me? Who are the "we" and the "you"
>> in that passage?
>
> She meant "one". But the pronoun "one" was/is unfashionable, so people
> paraphrase by writing "you" or "we" when they really mean "one".
>
> I don't accept her argument, though. New words do enter the language.
> True, the majority of them fall out again almost immediately, but now
> and then a new word will find acceptance.
>
The introduction of a new word can be supported and illuminated by that
sentence in which it is used.

'A word is only a word if it is part of a sentence' is the very thing
that enables that new coinage to be understood by the readers.

--
Sam Plusnet

Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2024-03-29 09:35:59 +0000, Ross Clark said:
>
> > Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
>
> That's worthy of a Darwin Award.

That's not what Darwin Awards are intended for,

Jan

Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> Le 29/03/2024 à 09:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> > On 2024-03-29 09:35:59 +0000, Ross Clark said:
> >>
> >> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
> >
> > That's worthy of a Darwin Award.
>
> Sounds a wet thing to do, right enough.

Right indeed.
Rivers are damp,

Jan

On Friday or thereabouts, Athel Cornish-Bowden asked ...
> On 2024-03-29 10:12:27 +0000, Snidely said:
>
>> On Friday, Ross Clark pointed out that ...
>>>
>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>>
>> The same again, but this time with a hint that "we" is Virginia Woolf,
>> speaking in her role as writer. Not quite a royal "we", but a "we" that
>> embodies the role.
>
> Maybe more an editorial we, as I believe editors are allowed to to refer to
> themselves as "we". When I were a lad I learned to use "we" for yourself you
> need to be the monarch, an editor or a person with a tapeworm. In scientific
> papers it's very common to use "we", even if there is only one author (though
> that itself has become rare. Most papers nowadays have eight or more authors
> and it can be much more: papers from CERN may have as many as 3000). In my
> own papers I used "I" to refer to things I had done, but "we" if I wanted to
> include the reader in the discussion.

Ahh, I like your input here.

>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf
>>
>> I don't think this is an unusual construction; I can imagine it being used
>> in many group situations, usually by someone with some sort of authority
>> within the group. The "you" seems like it gets the job of giving
>> instructions to the group, while the "we" is maybe the action of the group.
>>
>> I can see something like this (in form) being said at club meetings or at
>> seminars. "You can't just choose any book to discuss;" "We must choose
>> books that fit this month's topic."
>>
>> /dps

-d

--
Why would I want to be alone with my thoughts?
Have you heard some of the shit that comes out of my mouth?
-- the World Wide Web

On 29/03/2024 11:06 p.m., Janet wrote:
> In article <uu6226$78p3$1@dont-email.me>,
> benlizro@ihug.co.nz says...
>>
>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
>> It was three weeks before her body was found.
>>
>> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
>> called "Words Fail Me".
>>
>> She says:
>> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
>> new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
>> words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
>> use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
>> mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
>> part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
>> sentence."
>>
>> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
>> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?
>
> The listeners, everybody who communicates in words.
>>
>> Further:
>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of the
>> sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to invent a
>> new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it, is not at
>> the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the
>> English language as it is."
>>
>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf
>
> She was speaking in a series of radio talks broadcast by
> the BBC. It's common for such speakers to directly address
> the listening audience.
>
> Janet
>

Yes, thank you, I do understand that point of usage.

My question was meant to point out that when she says "You cannot
use..." or "we cannot use..." in the first paragraph, or "you would have
to..." in the second, it is just not true.

People can and do use new words in the way she says is impossible.
You do not have to invent a new language to use new words properly.

She states these things as if she were revealing important truths about
language in general, whereas they would seem to be purely private
difficulties.

Lo, on the 3/29/2024, Ross Clark did proclaim ...
> On 29/03/2024 11:06 p.m., Janet wrote:
>> In article <uu6226$78p3$1@dont-email.me>,
>> benlizro@ihug.co.nz says...
>>>
>>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
>>> It was three weeks before her body was found.
>>>
>>> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
>>> called "Words Fail Me".
>>>
>>> She says:
>>> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
>>> new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
>>> words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
>>> use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
>>> mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
>>> part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
>>> sentence."
>>>
>>> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
>>> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?
>>
>> The listeners, everybody who communicates in words.
>>>
>>> Further:
>>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of the
>>> sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to invent a
>>> new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it, is not at
>>> the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the
>>> English language as it is."
>>>
>>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf
>>
>> She was speaking in a series of radio talks broadcast by
>> the BBC. It's common for such speakers to directly address
>> the listening audience.
>>
>> Janet
>>
>
> Yes, thank you, I do understand that point of usage.
>
> My question was meant to point out that when she says "You cannot use..." or
> "we cannot use..." in the first paragraph, or "you would have to..." in the
> second, it is just not true.
>
> People can and do use new words in the way she says is impossible.
> You do not have to invent a new language to use new words properly.
>
> She states these things as if she were revealing important truths about
> language in general, whereas they would seem to be purely private
> difficulties.

If you were trying to suss out the private vs public distinction, or
the important truths vs internal struggle, I don't think your post was
a good start to that journey. I believe Jerry got into that direction,
but the rest of us were either following up on the obvious questions of
two pronouns that mapped to the same concept, or the low-hanging fruit
of her claims being wrong in general.

But perhaps the intended target of the OP had already set the context,
and only over here where it was orphaned was the compass needle
unsteady.

/dps

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

On 30/03/2024 2:09 p.m., Snidely wrote:
> Lo, on the 3/29/2024, Ross Clark did proclaim ...
>> On 29/03/2024 11:06 p.m., Janet wrote:
>>> In article <uu6226$78p3$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> benlizro@ihug.co.nz says...
>>>>
>>>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
>>>> It was three weeks before her body was found.
>>>>
>>>> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
>>>> called "Words Fail Me".
>>>>
>>>> She says:
>>>> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could invent
>>>> new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new
>>>> words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot
>>>> use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet
>>>> mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but
>>>> part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a
>>>> sentence."
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
>>>> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?
>>>
>>>     The listeners,  everybody who communicates in words.
>>>>
>>>> Further:
>>>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of
>>>> the
>>>> sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to invent a
>>>> new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it, is not at
>>>> the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the
>>>> English language as it is."
>>>>
>>>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf
>>>
>>>    She was speaking in a series of radio talks broadcast by
>>> the BBC. It's common for such speakers to directly address
>>> the listening audience.
>>>
>>>      Janet
>>>
>>
>> Yes, thank you, I do understand that point of usage.
>>
>> My question was meant to point out that when she says "You cannot
>> use..." or "we cannot use..." in the first paragraph, or "you would
>> have to..." in the second, it is just not true.
>>
>> People can and do use new words in the way she says is impossible.
>> You do not have to invent a new language to use new words properly.
>>
>> She states these things as if she were revealing important truths
>> about language in general, whereas they would seem to be purely
>> private difficulties.
>
> If you were trying to suss out the private vs public distinction, or the
> important truths vs internal struggle, I don't think your post was a
> good start to that journey.  I believe Jerry got into that direction,
> but the rest of us were either following up on the obvious questions of
> two pronouns that mapped to the same concept, or the low-hanging fruit
> of her claims being wrong in general.
>
> But perhaps the intended target of the OP had already set the context,
> and only over here where it was orphaned was the compass needle unsteady.
>
> /dps
>

No, I got something of the same responses there (though not as many).
Sci.lang doesn't really set a context for this. All I'm doing is passing
on the day-by-day notes in David Crystal's _A Date With Language_. Each
day, it may be somebody's birth or death date, or "International ___
Day" that somebody has invented, or something else...all intended to
have something to do with language. Crystal has one page of comment for
each day -- I post variously notes on what Crystal says and things he
quotes, my own reactions to same (as here), and bits of interesting
information from elsewhere (often Wikipedia).

On 30/03/2024 3:21 a.m., jerryfriedman wrote:
> Ross Clark wrote:
>
>> Walked into the Ouse River after filling her coat pockets with stones.
>> It was three weeks before her body was found.
>
>> Crystal quotes at length from a radio talk (29-4-1937) in a series
>> called "Words Fail Me".
>
>> She says:
>> "In the old days, when English was a new language, writers could
>> invent new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent
>> new words...but we cannot use them because the language is old. You
>> cannot use a brand new word in an old language because of the very
>> obvious yet mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate
>> entity, but part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is
>> part of a sentence."
>
>> Can anyone make sense of this for me?
>> Who are the "we" and the "you" in that passage?
>
>> Further:
>> "To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of
>> the sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to
>> invent a new language; and that, though no doubt we ahsll come to it,
>> is not at the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can
>> do with the English language as it is."
>
>> Again the "you" and the "we" (well, "our").
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf
>
> A complete transcript, with a link to a recording, is at
>
> https://www.literaturecambridge.co.uk/news/craftsmanship
>
> I agree with what people have said about "we" and "you".  As for making
> sense of it, she clearly doesn't mean that you literally can't use new
> words
> because she knew plenty that had been invented during her life--radio,
> radium, fascist, airplane/aeroplane...  What she's talking about, I think,
> is how being a writer felt to her.  (Blaming words is ironic modesty,
> intensified by her conspicuous mot-justice.). Specifically, I think she's
> saying that when she has a problem expressing a subtle or original idea,
> the solution of inventing a word isn't available, which may give a
> feeling of how difficult the problem is.

Thanks. Rather complicated but ingenious. Maybe right, for all I know.
It's a problem I often have with literary people -- why don't they say
what they mean? (But that would be so boring....)

> She write,
>
> "All we can say about them [words], as we peer at them over the edge
> of that deep, dark and only fitfully illuminated cavern in which they
> live —
> the mind — all we can say about them is that they seem to like people to
> think and to feel before they use them, but to think and to feel not about
> them, but about something different."
>
> Is linguistics an attempt to illuminate that cavern?

Not with conspicuous success, if it is.
Given the lack of enthusiasm for linguistics in places like a.u.e., I
can't see a major literary luminary such as VW taking much interest,
anyway.