Comments on: Musing about Peccavi and Twitter and accessibility

By: JP

JP — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:47:56 +0000

Bruce, thanks for the comments. It helped me understand more about the context and about Napier per se.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:41:19 +0000

(I began this before seeing Richard’s post above.. so the first part simply expands on the key point he made.)

Such a telegram from Napier in 1842 would have been impossible. The simple fact is that the telegraph was just then being developed in England and America 9Morse’s famous demonstration came in 1844), and would not reach the subcontinent till the 1850s. And if the telegram is held to have been sent to London the problem increases since the lines connecting India & Europe were not in place till ca. 1865.

Another difficulty with the story is that Ellenborough’s ordering the taking of Sind was counter his commands and caused some consternation in Britain. (As a result the traditional vote of Thanks was delayed for two years.) Such a joke would have been most out-of-place under the circumstances.

On the other hand, the reading of the joke as a veiled criticism is plausible on the face — it explains both the wordplay and the obviously negative implications of the Latin word. (Attributing it to Napier requires reading it in as almost cynical — perhaps not outside Napier’s character, but all the less likely to be included in an official communication reporting a dubious action.)

As for Winkworth herself, I would not be surprised at her doing so, as her ability with words is well-known. She is best-known for her translation of numerous German chorales into English. These versions, which are often the “standards” in English hymnbooks, played a major role in popularizing Lutheran chorales in English-speaking churches. (FWIW, if you check, you’ll find she was indeed 17-years old at the time this letter is said to have appeared.)

By: JP

JP — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:48:12 +0000

Richard, you’re absolutely right. He may have sent a “message”, but not as a telegram.

By: Richard Watkins

Richard Watkins — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:36:43 +0000

I realise it does not affect the point you are making about language and the internet, but as someone connected with telecommunications I think you should note it was not possible to send a telegram in Sind in 1843. I think I must have been told about the “Peccavi” story at school. Last year I recounted it to someone, and as soon as I had finished, it struck me how implausible it was. Regardless of how good a classical education Napier may have had, is it likely after a bloody battle, he would have turned his brainpower to composing a one word Latin tag to let the world know of his victory, and one with a double meaning at that? Perhaps he had thought of it before and was just itching to show off his brilliant mind.

By: links for 2009-01-06 | grant watson

links for 2009-01-06 | grant watson — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:41:54 +0000

[...] Musing about Peccavi and Twitter and accessibility This ability to compress context and associate it with communication is critical. It is an example of what David Weinberger was referring to when he said “Hyperlinks subvert hierarchies”. (tags: twitter web2.0 ireland) [...]

By: Rana

Rana — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:37:31 +0000

Clearly, there has developed a distinctive “text style” within the last decade – in the same manner as the distinctive “telegraph style” of the 19th century – we all know this uses particular common abbreviations, removing vowels and replacing letters with numbers, hideous to me but obvious to many. I think the new insight here was that by incorporating certain “foreign” words into short text messages, a complete phrase can often be expressed in a single short word – in cases like “peccavi” very appropriately. And even if we don’t all get the lingo, then use of hyperlink can make the message clear to all.

By: JP

JP — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:39:12 +0000

Thanks for all your comments. Lary, Shefaly, the point I was trying to make was slightly different. In the past the *only* people to “get” the reference or pun or joke would be the in-crowd. Today the in-crowd still get that, they don’t need to climb into the hyperlink holes. If others (who would otherwise not be able to get it) chose to climb into the hyperlink holes then they can. That is the inclusion I was looking for.

@rana I think we will see more and more terms from other languages come into the language; in the same way as the Raj gave English many many terms: Shampoo, verandah, bungalow, Blighty, chokey, cushty, just to name a few…. the web and social tools will add to the language word set

Steve, the opposite is only possible when there was no limit to the number of characters or words used. Or no cost associated. Fable cables sound like they must have been sent by civil servants.

By: Steve Ellwood

Steve Ellwood — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:26:25 +0000

All related to telegram styles, I'd guess. I can remember the opposite when huge "fable cables" would arrive which attempted to fox understanding by extreme circumlocution.

By: Rana

Rana — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:04:20 +0000

When it comes to finding the most appropriate and most pithy phrase, being multilingual helps too. English is a language that typically uses a lot of auxiliary verbs and modifiers, resulting in short messages that typically have many short words. But Latin and many languages have far greater diversity of verb form, so it is much easier for one short “word” to represent the complete subject-verb-object-tense idea that requires expression. So texts I receive are increasingly littered with bad transcriptions as well as bad contractions. Tik bolechi?

By: Shefaly

Shefaly — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:48 +0000

JP:

I differ slightly.

There may be more inclusivity on the web but there is the great exclusivity of those not “webbed” yet.

It is the human condition. When it all gets “too inclusive”, “too well understood” we yearn to find ways to differentiate, to exclude. Within Oxford, there is Bullingdon; within Iranians, there are Persians and so on. We seek to stand out, not be anonymous.