Transcribe
Translate
Spaceways, v. 4, issue 1, whole no. 24, December 1941
21
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
SPACEWAYS 21 THE READERS ALWAYS WRITE [[in pencil to the left of title is the number 7]] Jack F Speer, 3416 Northampton N. W., Washington, D.C. types: I have noted with alarm your efforts to establish "scientific fiction" as the proper name for the literature we love. Your action in this matter seems based upon the fallacious idea that a modifier of a noun must be in adjectival form: the only objection raised to "science fiction" is that the word "science" looks like a noun, when it is actually modifying one, and is therefore in the nature of an adjective. " Well, what's wrong with that? This is the English language, thank Foo, not one of those Continental monstrosities, and there's nothing wrong with a word in the form of one part of speech being put to any use you like without a change in form. (Sometimes Imight prefer "running swiftly" to "running swift", but even the latter is OK for certain uses). Such usage, however, frequently carries a slightly different meaning from what you would have with the word in the characteristic form for a modifier, substantive, verb, or whatever use it's being put to. And that's one of the strongest arguments for "science fiction". " I'll come back to that in a minute; first let me establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that noun forms can be used as modifiers. Don't we go around saying "corn flakes" instead of "corny flakes" or "cornish flakes", which would be the adjectival possibilities? If you are going to insist on showing by the form of the word that it is a modifier, you'll have to call National Guard divisions "Nationally Guarding divisions". Yeah, and science fiction fans will have to be known as "scientifically fiction fan"--you can't stop with "scientific fiction fans"; there is a noun form modifying a noun, and an adjectival form (scientific) modifying a modifier, in which circumstances a state of adverbiality exists. Worse, "scientific fiction fans" looks like it meant fictional fans (I could say fictitious fans, but that would be making you weaker than your strongest, which is weak enuf) of a scientific nature, which, by the gospel according to St Wollheim, we aren't at all. " This is bringing me closer to my target. "Scientific fiction" to an outsider might easily convey the idea of fiction written in accordance with certain scientific principles. With "science fiction" no such mistake will be made. I regret that I have not figured this thing out or read up on it as well as I might if I applied myself, but at any rate--Putting a modifier in adverbial or adjectival form greatly restricts the possible relationships that may be understood between it and the word it modifies. On the other hand, with a noun form used, almost any reasonably simple relation, including practically all prepositions, may be understood between the second and the first of the two noun forms, limited only by the assumed imagination of the reader. Thus our proverbial Martian, with an acquaintance with the English language and its expedients, but by chance not knowing the meaning of the word "shock", might understand a "shock ray" to be a ray produced by a shock, a ray made of a material called shock, a ray invented by a guy named shock, a ray whose building was financed by the sale of shocks, a ray which produces shocks, or any of a multitude of other possible things, and the context would quickly narrow the field of applicable meanings to one or two. A "shockish"ray", on the other hand, could be little but a ray that resembled a shock, and a "shocking ray", if we except the transferred meaning of "shock" to mean "surprise", could be little else than a ray that produces shocks or does shocking. Which might be just what we meant in this case. But I have pointed out
Saving...
prev
next
SPACEWAYS 21 THE READERS ALWAYS WRITE [[in pencil to the left of title is the number 7]] Jack F Speer, 3416 Northampton N. W., Washington, D.C. types: I have noted with alarm your efforts to establish "scientific fiction" as the proper name for the literature we love. Your action in this matter seems based upon the fallacious idea that a modifier of a noun must be in adjectival form: the only objection raised to "science fiction" is that the word "science" looks like a noun, when it is actually modifying one, and is therefore in the nature of an adjective. " Well, what's wrong with that? This is the English language, thank Foo, not one of those Continental monstrosities, and there's nothing wrong with a word in the form of one part of speech being put to any use you like without a change in form. (Sometimes Imight prefer "running swiftly" to "running swift", but even the latter is OK for certain uses). Such usage, however, frequently carries a slightly different meaning from what you would have with the word in the characteristic form for a modifier, substantive, verb, or whatever use it's being put to. And that's one of the strongest arguments for "science fiction". " I'll come back to that in a minute; first let me establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that noun forms can be used as modifiers. Don't we go around saying "corn flakes" instead of "corny flakes" or "cornish flakes", which would be the adjectival possibilities? If you are going to insist on showing by the form of the word that it is a modifier, you'll have to call National Guard divisions "Nationally Guarding divisions". Yeah, and science fiction fans will have to be known as "scientifically fiction fan"--you can't stop with "scientific fiction fans"; there is a noun form modifying a noun, and an adjectival form (scientific) modifying a modifier, in which circumstances a state of adverbiality exists. Worse, "scientific fiction fans" looks like it meant fictional fans (I could say fictitious fans, but that would be making you weaker than your strongest, which is weak enuf) of a scientific nature, which, by the gospel according to St Wollheim, we aren't at all. " This is bringing me closer to my target. "Scientific fiction" to an outsider might easily convey the idea of fiction written in accordance with certain scientific principles. With "science fiction" no such mistake will be made. I regret that I have not figured this thing out or read up on it as well as I might if I applied myself, but at any rate--Putting a modifier in adverbial or adjectival form greatly restricts the possible relationships that may be understood between it and the word it modifies. On the other hand, with a noun form used, almost any reasonably simple relation, including practically all prepositions, may be understood between the second and the first of the two noun forms, limited only by the assumed imagination of the reader. Thus our proverbial Martian, with an acquaintance with the English language and its expedients, but by chance not knowing the meaning of the word "shock", might understand a "shock ray" to be a ray produced by a shock, a ray made of a material called shock, a ray invented by a guy named shock, a ray whose building was financed by the sale of shocks, a ray which produces shocks, or any of a multitude of other possible things, and the context would quickly narrow the field of applicable meanings to one or two. A "shockish"ray", on the other hand, could be little but a ray that resembled a shock, and a "shocking ray", if we except the transferred meaning of "shock" to mean "surprise", could be little else than a ray that produces shocks or does shocking. Which might be just what we meant in this case. But I have pointed out
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
