B emailed me to say that the comma in my strapline was in the wrong place - the second sentence of the telegram should read "If not duffers, won't drown"
Hmm. I replied as follows:
Ah, seeing as the original was a telegram, there wasn't any punctuation at all, so we'll have to apply logic. I have always - for the past thirty five years - understood it to mean
Sentence 1:
"I don't want to have children who are duffers, so let them go sailing: if they drown, that proves they were duffers, in which case that's no great loss" (thus implying that he doesn't think they are duffers, obviously, he's not that heartless.)
Sentence 2:
"If my assumption that they will drown if they are duffers is incorrect, then obviously duffers don't drown" i.e. I'll have to find some other way of [sorting out the wheat from the chaff].
To be quite honest, if you put the comma where you put it (and a quick Google shows that most other people put it there as well) then both sentences mean exactly the same thing. Seeing as he was sending a telegram where every word costs money, it appears unlikely that Captain Walker would just repeat himself.
I can't find my copy of the book right now, but the kids discuss it and they come to the same conclusion as I do - i.e. the first sentence is a bit harsh, so he adds the second sentence to console their mum. And seeing as Arthur Ransome wrote the telegram AND put words in the kids' mouths, that's good enough for me.
Thoughts?
OK, I'm busy today, so shall restrict myself to leaving comments elsewhere for light relief. If you have time to spare, then why not have a crack at JH's Maths At Nine?
Elevate their cause?
2 hours ago
10 comments:
BBC's news on Andrew Marr said nothing & his papers section mentioned 2 warming puff pieces (on Obama & polar bears) but not the real story.
I think it's slightly different.
Your interpretation of Sent1 is stronger than warranted by Sent1 alone, because we haven't asserted or established that drowning is proof of dufferdom: maybe every kid that sails alone ends up drowning. The strongest we can get from Sent1 alone is:
I abhor duffers. I'd rather have you drown than be duffers
which is consistent / analogous with, e.g., I really don't want a deformed child: I've been told there is a 50:50 chance that my wife is carrying a deformed child: therefore we are aborting
in other words, if there's a chance you are duffers, I'd rather have you drown
Harsh !
and probs not what he meant
BECOZ
With Sent2 and the comma as B suggests, we now see a complete and kindly logic, viz
additionally, I can assure you that non-duffers don't drown, SO letting you sail alone will provide the eugenic result I'm striving for
Incidentally when I first saw your strapline with the comma as you'd put it, I interpreted the meaning thus:
Sent2: if I don't make a point of sending duffers out to sail alone (for the purpose of following through with my policy as encapsulated in Sent1), then how else am I to see the blighters drown ?
either way they don't breed 'em like that any more !
ND, thanks.
However, I still struggle with your interpretation of the second sentence:
additionally, I can assure you that non-duffers don't drown, SO letting you sail alone will provide the eugenic result I'm striving for
If you are correct (and I am not ruling it out), then the word "if" is entirely superfluous and possibly misleading AND the second sentence would be simply "Not duffers (so) won't drown".
yes, deleting the 'if' would be to make the meaning exactly as per your last 5 words, assuring them that not only do non-duffers not drown but also that they are, in his opinion, non-duffers
which is what he probably thought: but he's putting them on their own mettle by adding the 'if' (which does make a difference to the meaning), by way of a challenge
if you chaps are confident that you are not duffers, then you needn't worry about drowning - so how confident are you then, eh?
this is truly a kindness to them: he's making it clear it's not necessarily a fatal enterprise, but also that it needs them to have their wits about them - or else it could indeed be dangerous
as well communicating his confidence in them - so much so that he is happy to let them make this decision themselves
(and preserving an air of tough, gruff ruthlessness into the bargain!)
what a man !
ND, Your possible interpretation, i.e. "if you chaps are confident that you are not duffers.." assumes that the telegram was addressed to them. It wasn't. It was addressed to their mother.
Capt Walker was a Good Dad. Good Dad's, understand risk, understand how taking risks is necessary to develop children; knew very well that his children would take more risk than they should (The War with the Amazon's) but that in the great scheme of things it mostly works out; understood Mrs Walker; knew that there was loads of local people about that would help out if necessary; probably had a fairly good idea of the competence of his children and lastly knew that trusting his children was critical to their self respect and development.
The two sentence telegramme is a very clever shorthand way of telling them all that, with or without punctuation.
I'm a middle aged dad. I know these things.
Mark, apologies, I'd forgotten there was no punctuation in the original, so that subsequently applied punctuation was aux choix. Interesting that we should have interpreted the telegram differently. I'd disagree that, with my interpretation, both halves of the telegram mean the same thing. The first half says (to me) "If our children are duffers, then they are better off drowned" and the second half "If our children are not duffers, then they won't drown anyway" which has more of a balance about it than the alternative interpretation.
Well, I'm glad you cleared that up - now I can sleep easy.
ND, B, I checked in the book yesterday, and to my shame must admit that the children also assumed the comma was where you said it was. Bugger.
not for the first time - I admire an honest man !
Post a Comment