--- Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> En réponse à Jan van Steenbergen
> <ijzeren_jan@...>:
> please explain me how to
> talk about Sherlock Holmes without referring once to
> stuff from one of the
> books where he appears :) .
Easy. Always when I am trying to figure something out,
or to reconstruct something, my brother calls me
"Sherlock" :)))
> I agree, and that's why I'm a bit suspicious about
> your definition. A good definition of the
> word "fictional" should at least make it possible to
> get a definable grey zone between definable other
> zones. IMO your definition doesn't offer that.
My definition is not really a definition. It is rather
the sum of everything that remains when you leave the
rest out. So: fiction is all but non-fiction.
I think this problem applied to most definitions.
> > The same way we distinguish between "a book of
> > fiction" and "a fictional book", we ought to
> > distinguish between "a fictional language" and (a
> > language of fiction?)
> That wouldn't be bad I think. At least, it
> emphasizes the fact that the language, though used
> for fiction purposes, exists as much as the book in
> which the story is written (and which therefore onlu
> serves for fiction purposes :)) ).
Sure. You can also use the French language for fiction
purposes, after all ;)
So we agree!
> Christophe.
Jan
=====
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought,
wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that
happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great
comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." --- J.
Michael Straczynski
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com