1. When I studied BUC with computer for my PhD I never read its
texts. My professor told me that I have not Phylological love to
words. But once I stumbled at one phenomenon. There was text with
fiction "stuff" in the "reportage" genre. I read it. The reason was
obvious. The text was about Inauguration of Kennedy. It was the first
time I saw that the text which is "fiction" itself appears as the
2. Last Summer I read a two-volume "The Don Juan Papers". They
proved that famous Castaneda writings were softly "not true". But they
split the problem in two parts - authenticity (A) and validity (V).
As if two dimensions of truth: X-axis and Y-axis. Castaneda lied.
There was no Don Juan etc. It was A. But the concepts he described
were true (V).
3. More simply. So that you could critisize me easier. The girls
I met often told me that I would not recognise them if they'd change
their dress. Then I realised that the girl is one thing and her dress
is smth different :-).
4. Back to our genres. I think we should tag (as our No 1 David
Lee teaches us) our texts with two dimensions (sets) of tags. One for
a text itself. David calls it register. And another set of tags for
the text membership to the genre as it appeared in the publication.
So we could be free to describe the genre pattern of specific
country, time etc. with our set of tags.
And with another set of tags we could describe the various kinds
of texts as they are. So - girls and their dresses with different set
of tags. As if X- and Y-axis. And - moreofit. It could be possible to
"catch" smth interesting on this X-Y plane. I mean comparison - which
text registers are used in which genres (which dresses girls use for
which reasons). I mean - the relationship between inner text nature
and its outer use. Instead of smashing and squeezing the matter into
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 08:35:09 MET DST