Re: No ambiguity
- From: Albert <ajv2003@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:55:01 CST
Kent Johnson wrote:
Hi Doug,
"Then what was he referring to? Far as I can see the Guardian was very
precise with language."
Precise, yes, but not necessarily strict.
--Kent
In judging Shoghi Effendi's writing style might we not be prudent
to read Ruhiyyih Khanum's account?
"From the beginning of my life with the Guardian until the end, I was almost always present when he translated or wrote his books, long letters and cables in English. There was nothing unusual in this; he liked to have someone in the room on these occasions to listen to what he was writing. His method of composition was new and fascinating to me. He wrote out loud, speaking the words as he put them down. I think this habit in English was carried over from Persian; good Persian and Arabic composition not only can be but should be chanted. One remembers the Báb revealing the Qayyúmu'l-Asmá' out loud, and Bahá'u'lláh revealing His Tablets in the same way. This was the Guardian's custom in English as well as in Persian and I believe it is because of this that even his long and involved sentences sound even more flowing and intelligible when read aloud. The length of some of these sentences was at times a cause of comment on my part; Shoghi Effendi would raise his head and look at me, with those wonderful eyes whose colour and expression changed so frequently, with a hint of defiance and rebelliousness in them - but did not shorten his sentence! I can recall only one occasion when he admitted, ruefully, that it "was a long sentence; but he still did not change it. It said what he wanted it to as he wanted it to; it was too bad it was so long. On the other hand he like to use a structure sometimes of very short sentences that followed each other once after the other like the cracks of a whip. He would call my attention to this variation in style, pointing out how each method was effective, how the combination of the two enriched the whole and achieved different ends. He was very fond of the device of alliteration, much used in oriental languages but 198 now no longer so common in English. An excellent example of his use of this is provided by this sentence reiterating words beginning with "p" from one of his cables: "Time pressing opportunity priceless potent aid providentially promised unfailing."
Shoghi Effendi's method of composition was like that of a mosaic artist at work, who creates his picture with clearly defined and separate pieces; each word had its own place and if he struck a difficult sentence he would not change it around so as to accommodate a thought that grammatically could not fit into the sentence structure but would stick to it, sometimes literally for hours, until I at least was worn out by his verbal repetition of the phrase as he battled to subjugate it and fit it in the way he wished to, typing one piece of his mosaic after another, until he had solved his problem. I seldom remember his ever abandoning a sentence and starting over in a new form. Another characteristic in his choice of words was that because of popular misuse or abuse of a thought which a word conveyed he saw no reason to abandon or shun it, but used it in its proper and exact meaning. He was not afraid to speak of "conversion" of people to the Faith, or to call them "converts"; he lauded the "missionary zeal" of pioneers in "foreign mission fields", at the same time making it plain we have no priests, no missionaries and do not proselytize.
I remember once Shoghi Effendi giving me an article to read from a British newspaper which called attention to the bureaucratic language which is developing, particularly in the United States, in which more and more words are used to convey less and less and merely produce confusion confounded. Shoghi Effendi heartily supported the article! Words were very precise instruments to him."
(Ruhiyyih Khanum, The Priceless Pearl, p. 197)
Would you still maintain he was not stricked, or precise? After all
he was the Interpreter of the Word of God and Infallibly so.
Regards,
Albert
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Douglas McAdam
- Re: No ambiguity
- References:
- No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Bill Pike
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: diamondsouled
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: diamondsouled
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Susan Maneck
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: smaneck
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Douglas McAdam
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- No ambiguity
- Prev by Date: Re: Re-Creation
- Next by Date: Re: No ambiguity
- Previous by thread: Re: No ambiguity
- Next by thread: Re: No ambiguity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading