Sorry, Adrian, I think you're on the wrong track here.
Etymologically, the "-ast" in cineast is a word formation in analogy to
"enthusiast". In that sense, your understanding of the word would be the
corrupt one.
Markus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Martin" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Cineaste/Cinephile
> David, I completely disagree with you! - while taking your point about
> dictionaries, but who would want to trust them?? 'Cineaste' means
filmmaker
> and 'cinephile' means film-lover - as with all similar terms ending in
> '-phile' and '-aste'; it is only the corruption of language in its social
> use - particularly, let us be clear, in the USA! - which has scrambled
these
> terms, and we should be trying to reverse the damage, not encourage it!!!
> The fine critic Gilbert Adair wrote a piece way back in 1980 trying to
halt
> the rot on this particular abuse of French-into-American. Saying that a
> cineaste is the same as a cinephile is like saying that mise en scene is
the
> same as montage!! I actually persuaded the magazine CINEASTE (with which
> David and I are both involved) to change an article subtitle's reference
to
> D. Thomson as 'backsliding cineaste' to 'backsliding cinephile'! So there!
>
> fighting Adrian !
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
[log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|