From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Feb 15 19:37:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 16 Feb 2002 03:37:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 74211 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 03:37:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2002 03:37:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 03:37:18 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.77]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020216033716.QEBX8848.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:37:16 +0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:36:10 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77248971 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > But this is a story that the narrator is not a part of. There is no > > identifiable or discernible narrator at all. In other words, "in the > > context of the story" there is no narrator. > > Well, the text I am working with is the John Godfrey Saxe version > (http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html and elsewhere). > The final verse, labeled "Moral", is: > > So oft in theologic wars, > The disputants, I ween, > Rail on in utter ignorance > Of what each other mean, > And prate about an Elephant > Not one of them has seen! > > Now unless you think that this is direct address by the *poet*, > I submit that it is direct address by the *narrator*, and establishes > the existence of such an entity. and in the next message: > > I understand this argument, but unless the omniscient narrator is > > subjectivized (so that we perceive a narratorial point of view), > > I dispute that every tale implies a teller. > > I quite agree. See previous posting. Okay, we agree. Possibly entirely without warrant, I had supposed that Xod was talking about the archetype of the fable rather than about any specific telling of it. If it was the poem quoted above that was being discussed then I retract everything I said & repent of having wasted your time! --And.