Christopher, can you enlighten us re "epoche"? I've
looked in both my French dictionary and Webster's. The
French dictionary had nothing, while Webster's had
this spelling: "epoch," as well as "epochal."
Sorry to be so ignorant and hope the query won't be
_too_ annoying,

I also wanted to tell you of a curiosity involving
"she." It seems to have been frowned upon by a lower
middle class in New York, at least. That's where my
New York-bred mother apparently picked it up, "it"
being what was said correctively when any of us kids
said "she": "Who's she? The cat's mother?" There was
no parallel disapproval of "he," which always puzzled
me--almost as much as "the cat's mother" did. What do
you make of this?

Candice



--- MC Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Christopher, much to ponder here. Thank you. A few
> stray thoughts: In those 19th-C novels that feature
> an
> explicit reader (as in "Reader, I married him"), the
> actual reader (who could conceivably be implicit or
> explicit) must be further subsumed by a state of
> implicit _duplicity_, would you say? 
> 
> Then, thinking of the range of pronoun
> usages--including a single instance of "I"--in
> Prynne's latest, _To Pollen_, I wonder if those
> various usages are related to the several instances
> of
> "hurt." Between the two, the collection seems almost
> human (as opposed to computer-generated and/or
> otherwise programmatic). Do you have a copy of _To
> Pollen_? I could send you a photocopy, if you like.
> 
> Finally, I want to think some more about your notion
> of un/ratification and of a world that exists to be
> overheard, if I've read you correctly there(?).
> 
> Candice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Christopher Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > <snip>
> > I guess what I'm always interested in is the way
> the
> > 'I' is fictionalized
> > (always, & perhaps already) by the act of writing
> it
> > in. And split, or
> > multiplied, too. [Doug B]
> > <snip>
> > 
> > I don't think the *I* is either true or false.
> > Indeed it seems a bit quaint
> > (Cf the 'old stable ego' rejected by Lawrence) to
> > think of the verbal arts
> > as somehow exposing or hiding (as in the Amis
> > thread) the *self* of the
> > author. Poems, plays, narratives and so forth are
> > all (in different ways)
> > moments of epoche, for author and reader alike.
> The
> > text isn't a window onto
> > or a representation of the self, if only because,
> > reflecting the trouble
> > Gertrude Stein had with Oakland, there's actually
> no
> > there there. Rather it
> > comprises a set of cues towards building a mental
> > space. Along with
> > indicators of time (including verbal aspect) and
> > position (including
> > location within the discourse as a process), each
> > speaking *I* helps fix the
> > deictic centre(s) of the text and stands sovereign
> > at the centre of its own
> > *here* and *now*. Of course, within what is spoken
> > by each speaking *I* each
> > (subordinate) *I* may be advanced or postponed in
> > time, it may shift
> > location and so forth relative to the speaking
> *I*;
> > but it too stands
> > sovereign at the centre of its _own_ deictic
> > references, and so on
> > recursively.
> > 
> > As with *we* and *you*, *I* is referentially
> stable
> > relative to *he*, *she
> > and *they*, so that in nested utterances (such as
> > 'What I said was that I'd
> > already said that I'd...') the assumption is that
> > the referent is the same.
> > However, in parallel utterances (eg dialogue) or
> in
> > parataxis the parsing is
> > more permissive.
> > 
> > So plenty of scope for multiplicity in that
> respect.
> > 
> > Or so it seems to me.
> > 
> > <snip>
> > I think the "I" is also implicit in "we." [Candice
> > W]
> > <snip>
> > 
> > Yes *we* is the inclusive of *I* (not just the
> > plural) and potentially
> > includes the addressee(s) as well as the speaking
> > *I*.
> > 
> > <snip>
> > But what's really interesting is the double duty
> > borne by the so-called
> > "rhetorical you," where the self is being
> critiqued
> > more impersonally than
> > the "I" could do [Candice W]
> > <snip>
> > 
> > *You* is unique among pronouns in having neither
> > case nor a differentiated
> > plural. What interests me, and this relates to the
> > point you make, is that
> > the referent of *you* is frequently an indefinite
> > addressee. Or perhaps more
> > precisely *you* is often the familiar or intimate
> > form for an indefinite
> > addressee. That's how children seem to use it,
> > sounding oddly sententious as
> > they talk to themselves. 'You can't win' is about
> > halfway, in terms of
> > address, between 'I can't...' and 'We can't...'
> > whilst 'You generally say
> > excuse me when you fart' is probably only
> > addressable by an adult to a
> > child.
> > 
> > In the case of lyric address, two *you*s appear to
> > be involved. One ratified
> > participant (the speaker) addresses another using
> > the familiar indefinite,
> > which may or may not be explicit, creating a
> bounded
> > rhetorical space which
> > leaves the reader (the implicit *you* for whom, by
> > definition, the text is
> > in some sense intended) an _un_ratified
> participant,
> > standing just outside
> > the boundary of the discourse, radically excluded,
> > one world extinguished in
> > the moment of epoche, the other unavailable except
> > through overhearing.
> > 
> > CW
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > 'What's the point of having a language that
> > everybody knows?'
> > (Gypsy inhabitant of Barbaraville)
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never Miss an Email
> Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get
> started!
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news