Beauvoir & V. in a C/c atholic Man's World

[Ian Livingston]

Yeah, I think change always outpaces linguistic descriptions of it.
We're always trying to talk about what happened. Not that language is
animate and has to chase anything, but people can never talk about the
present. It is, quite literally, ineffable. And, yes, I think Stencil
sees himself everywhere, speaking as Stencil, that is. One suspects
that Stencil is always wrapped around a hollow core he is trying to
fill with words, definitions, delineations.

Sexes? Just phenomena for language to shape. I sorta like Patti
Smith's s/he, except for its limitations (e.g., him/er, hers/is, etc.)
and it doesn't really work so well in spoken English, does it?

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:36 AM, alice wellintown
<alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. Language will eventually catch up with the changes of the last
>> couple centuries. Or not.
>
> this seems to suggest that the last couple of centuries of change are
> something language either needs to chase after or is something
> language can not catch. or is it a catch 22?  the second sex, like the
> education, like the white goddess, like the golden bough...quests that
> cast a huge net, are confessions of lost faith. one suspects that this
> has something to do with stencil.
>



-- 
"liber enim librum aperit."