|
John M wrote:I believe (watch the level of my statement)
that ambiguities are no advantages and if they WERE used in the past, they
should not be saved for eternity. We should try to weed out ambiguous words, not
strengthen them into continuing ambiguities. I don't feel like 'the English
genius' to find E. words better fitting in E, but it would be advantageous (I
believe - again) to speak unambiguously rather than confirm the use
of loaded misunderstandable words - with explanations attached.
I have long ago reached the conclusion that there is no way to
remove all ambiguity from language. I used to think that it was my father's mode
of writing that was responsible for the difficulty people had understanding the
ideas but I have since found that it doesn't matter what mode you use, there
will be people who misunderstand, misinterpret, and criticise your mode. I've
also had the situation where I have been simultaneously praised and damned for
the same mode, by two different readers, and I've gotten that reaction on my
father's behalf too (told his work is crystal clear and told that it's
impossible to read)... so what are the alternatives?
I think my final judgement is to do my best to be clear and to try
at least a few times to rephrase for those who complain, but I refuse to turn
myself inside out trying to achieve something that I am pretty sure is
impossible. I won't change my father's terminology either, because I'm not
qualified and I'm not interested. I doubt it would solve the ambiguity issue; it
would generate new translation problems for any problems it
solved.
I would rather just go silent than do that; it would
be more successful in terms of not creating new ambiguities although
it would be less successful perhaps in resolving the ones generated by my
father's language modes... But it would certainly be a lot less
aggravation for me.
Judith
|