Date: 20/05/2014 16:18:59
From: dv
ID: 533631
Subject: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made of, but could only guess. With the growth of worldken, we began to learn, and today we have a beholding of stuff and work that watching bears out, both in the workstead and in daily life.

The underlying kinds of stuff are the firststuffs, which link together in sundry ways to give rise to the rest. Formerly we knew of ninety-two firststuffs, from waterstuff, the lightest and barest, to ymirstuff, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such as aegirstuff and helstuff.

The firststuffs have their being as motes called unclefts. These are mightly small; one seedweight of waterstuff holds a tale of them like unto two followed by twenty-two naughts. Most unclefts link together to make what are called bulkbits. Thus, the waterstuff bulkbit bestands of two waterstuff unclefts, the sourstuff bulkbit of two sourstuff unclefts, and so on. (Some kinds, such as sunstuff, keep alone; others, such as iron, cling together in ices when in the fast standing; and there are yet more yokeways.) When unlike clefts link in a bulkbit, they make bindings. Thus, water is a binding of two waterstuff unclefts with one sourstuff uncleft, while a bulkbit of one of the forestuffs making up flesh may have a thousand thousand or more unclefts of these two firststuffs together with coalstuff and
chokestuff.

At first is was thought that the uncleft was a hard thing that could be split no further; hence the name. Now we know it is made up of lesser motes. There is a heavy kernel with a forward bernstonish lading, and around it one or more light motes with backward ladings. The least uncleft is that of ordinary waterstuff. Its kernel is a lone forwardladen mote called a firstbit. Outside it is a backwardladen mote called a bernstonebit. The firstbit has a heaviness about 1840-fold that of the bernstonebit. Early worldken folk thought bernstonebits swing around the kernel like the earth around the sun, but now we understand they are more like waves or clouds.

In all other unclefts are found other motes as well, about as heavy as the firstbit but with no lading, known as neitherbits. We know a kind of waterstuff with one neitherbit in the kernel along with the firstbit; another kind has two neitherbits. Both kinds are seldom.

The next greatest firststuff is sunstuff, which has two firstbits and two bernstonebits. The everyday sort also has two neitherbits in the kernel. If there are more or less, the uncleft will soon break asunder. More about this later.

The third firststuff is stonestuff, with three firstbits, three bernstonebits, and its own share of neitherbits. And so it goes, on through such everyday stuffs as coalstuff (six firstbits) or iron (26) to ones more lately found. Ymirstuff (92) was the last until men began to make some higher still.

It is the bernstonebits that link, and so their tale fastsets how a firststuff behaves and what kinds of bulkbits it can help make.

The worldken of this behaving, in all its manifold ways, is called minglingken. Minglingers have found that as the uncleftish tale of the firststuffs (that is, the tale of
firststuffs in their kernels) waxes, after a while they begin to show ownships not unlike those of others that went before them.

So, for a showdeal, stonestuff (3), glasswortstuff (11), potashstuff (19), redstuff (37), and bluegraystuff (55) can each link with only one uncleft of waterstuff, while coalstuff (6), flintstuff (14), germanstuff (22), tin (50), and lead (82) can each link with four. This is readily seen when all are set forth in what is called the roundaround board of the firststuffs.

When an uncleft or a bulkbit wins one or more bernstonebits above its own, it takes on a backward lading. When it loses one or more, it takes on a forward lading. Such a mote is called a farer, for that the drag between unlike ladings flits it. When bernstonebits flit by themselves, it may be as a bolt of lightning, a spark off some faststanding chunk, or the everyday flow of bernstoneness through wires.

Coming back to the uncleft itself, the heavier it is, the more neitherbits as well as firstbits in its kernel. Indeed, soon the tale of neitherbits is the greater. Unclefts with the same tale of firstbits but unlike tales of neitherbits are called samesteads. Thus, everyday sourstuff has eight neitherbits with
its eight firstbits, but there are also kinds with five, six, seven, nine, ten, and eleven neitherbits. A samestead is known by the tale of both kernel motes, so that we have sourstuff-13, sourstuff-14, and so on, with sourstuff-16 being by far the most found. Having the same number of bernstonebits, the samesteads of
a firststuff behave almost alike minglingly. They do show some unlikenesses, outstandingly among the heavier ones, and these can be worked to sunder samesteads from each other.

Most samesteads of every firststuff are unabiding. Their kernels break up, each at its own speed. This speed is written as the half-life, which is how long it takes half of any deal of the samestead thus to shift itself. The doing is known as lightrotting. It may happen fast or slowly, and in any of sundry ways, offhanging on the makeup of the kernel. A kernel may spit out two firstbits with two neitherbits, that is, a sunstuff kernel, thus leaping two steads back in the roundaround board and
four weights back in heaviness. It may give off a bernstonebit from a neitherbit, which thereby becomes a firstbit and thrusts the uncleft one stead up in the board while keeping the same weight. It may give off a forwardbit, which is a mote with the same weight as a bernstonebit but a forward lading, and thereby spring one stead down in the board while keeping the same weight.

Often, too, a mote is given off with neither lading nor heaviness, called the weeneitherbit. In much lightrotting, a mote of light with most short wavelength comes out as well.
For although light oftenest behaves as a wave, it can be looked on as a mote, the lightbit. We have already said by the way that a mote of stuff can behave not only as a chunk, but as a wave. Down among the unclefts, things do not happen in steady flowings, but in leaps between bestandings that are forbidden.
The knowledge-hunt of this is called lump beholding.
Nor are stuff and work unakin. Rather, they are groundwise the same, and one can be shifted into the other. The kinship between them is that work is like unto weight manifolded by the fourside of the haste of light.

By shooting motes into kernels, worldken folk have shifted samesteads of one firststuff into samesteads of another. Thus did they make ymirstuff into aegirstuff and helstuff, and they have afterward gone beyond these. The heavier firststuffs are all highly lightrottish and therefore are not found in the greenworld.

Some of the higher samesteads are splitly. That is, when a neitherbit strikes the kernel of one, as for a showdeal ymirstuff-235, it bursts into lesser kernels and free neitherbits; the latter can then split more ymirstuff-235. When this happens, weight shifts into work. It is not much of the whole, but nevertheless it is awesome.

With enough strength, lightweight unclefts can be made to togethermelt. In the sun, through a row of strikings and lightrottings, four unclefts of waterstuff in this wise become one of sunstuff. Again some weight is lost as work, and again this is greatly big when set beside the work gotten from a minglingish doing such as fire.

Today we wield both kind of uncleftish doings in weapons, and kernelish splitting gives us heat and bernstoneness. We hope to do likewise with togethermelting, which would yield an unhemmed wellspring of work for mankindish goodgain.

Soothly we live in mighty years!

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 17:22:35
From: MartinB
ID: 533655
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

It is not saying much to say that this piece is contrived.

The Germanic derived worldken is used as a substitute for the Latin derived science. The parallel word knowledge could have been used; it is possible to write with such words without sounding so strange. I have read a translation of Beowulf that did and didn’t respectively. This piece accentuates the weirdness of excluding Greek and Latin, especially from all of those 18th and 19th scientific and technological coinings.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 17:44:29
From: PM 2Ring
ID: 533672
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

MartinB said:


It is not saying much to say that this piece is contrived.

The Germanic derived worldken is used as a substitute for the Latin derived science. The parallel word knowledge could have been used; it is possible to write with such words without sounding so strange. I have read a translation of Beowulf that did and didn’t respectively. This piece accentuates the weirdness of excluding Greek and Latin, especially from all of those 18th and 19th scientific and technological coinings.

Sure, it’s contrived. I suppose it might’ve been possible to do it in a way that didn’t sound quite so strange, but I suspect that Anderson wanted to accentuate the weirdness to drive home the point of how different English could have been without the Greek, Latin & Romance language input.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncleftish_Beholding

Douglas Hofstadter, in discussing the piece in his book Le Ton beau de Marot, jocularly refers to the use of only Germanic roots for scientific pieces as “Ander-Saxon”.

:)

I first read Uncleftish Beholding several years ago, and I quite like its tone. But maybe that’s because I, like Anderson, have some Scandinavian heritage. I suspect he would’ve liked to use “Ander-Saxon” (or something like it) in some of his science fiction (eg it could work well in some of his Time Patrol stories), but his editor / publisher advised him against it.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 17:51:26
From: dv
ID: 533678
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

I suspect worldken is a bit more specific than knowledge.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 17:54:46
From: Ian
ID: 533679
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

ribl

I falolloped over and grazed my kneeclabbers.

Plart!

:)

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:00:15
From: PM 2Ring
ID: 533685
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

dv said:


I suspect worldken is a bit more specific than knowledge.

I agree. I reckon it’s a great name for science.

FWIW, “ken”, “know” and “science” presumably all have the same etymological root in Proto-Indo-European; IIRC, they are all descendants of the Sanskrit word jñāna .

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:04:57
From: PM 2Ring
ID: 533696
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Ian said:


ribl

I falolloped over and grazed my kneeclabbers.

Plart!

:)

Deep joy! That sounds like Unwinese , which often prefers Anglo-Germanic roots over Romance ones.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:13:58
From: dv
ID: 533702
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

PM 2Ring said:


dv said:

I suspect worldken is a bit more specific than knowledge.

I agree. I reckon it’s a great name for science.

FWIW, “ken”, “know” and “science” presumably all have the same etymological root in Proto-Indo-European; IIRC, they are all descendants of the Sanskrit word jñāna .

Given that Sanskrit is derived from PIE … you can hardly think that those English words are derived from Sanskrit.

Science derives from the PIE root skei- meaning cut or split. Plenty of English words are derived from this root, including shed and shit.

Knowledge comes from the PIE root gno-, as does ken and can.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:17:36
From: Ian
ID: 533705
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Ingdeebly.

Plut the ribl and the plart werb emtibley origiginny.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:19:54
From: dv
ID: 533708
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

For fun, let’s only write words from Old English today.

Or would that get tiresome?

Not straightforward, I reckon…

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:28:29
From: Ian
ID: 533709
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Wherdjaget the jñāna thing from devo?

“This might be a good time to examine the etymology of the word science, It comes from the Latin scientia, from sciens, which means having knowledge, from the present participle of scire, meaning to know, probably—and here’s where it gets exciting—akin to the Sanskrit Chyati, meaning he cuts off, and Latin scindere, to split, cleave. The dictionary tells me there’s more at shed (presumably the verb, as in dog hair, not the noun, as in a shack).

So I look up shed, which derives from the Middle English for divide, separate, from Old English scaeden, akin to High German skeiden, to separate, which brings us back to our Latin friend scindere, and from there to the Greek schizein, to split.

We are all familiar of course with the root schizein because of its famous grandchild schizophrenia (literally split mind), which is a psychotic disorder characterized by a loss of contact with the environment, illogical patterns of thinking and acting, delusions and hallucinations, and a noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life.

Science, scire, scindere, schizein, schizophrenia. A mind split into pieces.”

http://www.luminousgroup.net/2013/05/on-etymology-of-science.html

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:32:48
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 533712
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

What is PIE?

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:34:14
From: OCDC
ID: 533714
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

YUM

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:35:06
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 533715
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Peak Warming Man said:


What is PIE?

Approx 3.142?

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:35:39
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 533718
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

OCDC said:


YUM

Fair enough.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:36:46
From: OCDC
ID: 533720
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Proto-Indo-European.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:37:27
From: Michael V
ID: 533723
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Peak Warming Man said:


What is PIE?
Proto-Indo-Eureopean language.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:42:24
From: dv
ID: 533724
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Ian said:


Wherdjaget the jñāna thing from devo?

“This might be a good time to examine the etymology of the word science, It comes from the Latin scientia, from sciens, which means having knowledge, from the present participle of scire, meaning to know, probably—and here’s where it gets exciting—akin to the Sanskrit Chyati, meaning he cuts off, and Latin scindere, to split, cleave. The dictionary tells me there’s more at shed (presumably the verb, as in dog hair, not the noun, as in a shack).

So I look up shed, which derives from the Middle English for divide, separate, from Old English scaeden, akin to High German skeiden, to separate, which brings us back to our Latin friend scindere, and from there to the Greek schizein, to split.

We are all familiar of course with the root schizein because of its famous grandchild schizophrenia (literally split mind), which is a psychotic disorder characterized by a loss of contact with the environment, illogical patterns of thinking and acting, delusions and hallucinations, and a noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life.

Science, scire, scindere, schizein, schizophrenia. A mind split into pieces.”

http://www.luminousgroup.net/2013/05/on-etymology-of-science.html

Ian, you have mistaken me for PM2Ring, who suggested the jñāna thing.

You’ve presented the same etymology as I presented.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:43:14
From: dv
ID: 533725
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Actually, I think Poul may have erred by using the term germanstuff. Perhaps ironically, the term German appears to be Latin derived.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:44:35
From: wookiemeister
ID: 533727
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Schism

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:44:36
From: wookiemeister
ID: 533728
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Schism

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:46:46
From: Ian
ID: 533730
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

>>Ian, you have mistaken me for PM2Ring, who suggested the jñāna thing.

Oh. Confudiment.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 18:55:55
From: PM 2Ring
ID: 533739
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

dv said:


PM 2Ring said:

dv said:

I suspect worldken is a bit more specific than knowledge.

I agree. I reckon it’s a great name for science.

FWIW, “ken”, “know” and “science” presumably all have the same etymological root in Proto-Indo-European; IIRC, they are all descendants of the Sanskrit word jñāna .

Given that Sanskrit is derived from PIE … you can hardly think that those English words are derived from Sanskrit.

Science derives from the PIE root skei- meaning cut or split. Plenty of English words are derived from this root, including shed and shit.

Knowledge comes from the PIE root gno-, as does ken and can.

Rightio.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 20:07:27
From: MartinB
ID: 533789
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Yes, science and knowledge are not exact translations which is why I used the term parallel. You could use knowledge for science in that sentence and the shift in meaning would br real but minor, but the effect on the language would be minor. Thus a substantial amount of the effect is caused by subtle word choice.

My point ims that because most of these are explicit coinages they operate as names. No one thinks of ‘Hydrogen’ as meaning ‘waterstuff’: it is just a name.

Replacing these names with unfamiliar names both draws attention to the vocabulary shift (which is supposed to be the point) but also draws attention to the literal meanings of names, which is a quite introduced weirdness – in principle we should find the actual names equally weird, but we don’t because we’ve conventionised them.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 20:07:29
From: MartinB
ID: 533790
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Yes, science and knowledge are not exact translations which is why I used the term parallel. You could use knowledge for science in that sentence and the shift in meaning would br real but minor, but the effect on the language would be minor. Thus a substantial amount of the effect is caused by subtle word choice.

My point ims that because most of these are explicit coinages they operate as names. No one thinks of ‘Hydrogen’ as meaning ‘waterstuff’: it is just a name.

Replacing these names with unfamiliar names both draws attention to the vocabulary shift (which is supposed to be the point) but also draws attention to the literal meanings of names, which is a quite introduced weirdness – in principle we should find the actual names equally weird, but we don’t because we’ve conventionised them.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 20:07:52
From: MartinB
ID: 533791
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Sorry, DP.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 20:12:39
From: transition
ID: 533793
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

I enjoyed reading it, had to guess and build up certainty as to what was what as things went, but got the gist of things additional the literal play.

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 20:40:27
From: SCIENCE
ID: 533810
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

sigh

Reply Quote

Date: 20/05/2014 21:21:35
From: dv
ID: 533845
Subject: re: Uncleftish Beholding by Poul Anderson

Sigh is unrelated.

Reply Quote