I was just in a chat room, and someone said, "Ah, the days of the silent verbals." It struck me that out of context that phrase might sound nonsensical. So, I am offering it here for people to speculate on.
It's got to be the particular form of loving warfare defined by the phrase
passive aggressive, and marked by deep and dangerous silences
Does this mean
not saying something has a meaning?
Ah, the days of silent verbals......and the nights of boisterous hieroglyphics!
If only 'twere possible to have them again!
Does this mean not saying something has a meaning?
See what Robert Bolt had to say on the subject, in Man for All Seasons, where Cardinal Wolsey accuses Thomas Moore of treasonable action in saying nothing about the King's (HviiiR) proposed divorce.
And, indeed, there is an aphorism that states, "Silence implies assent."
Not to mention: No Comment.
The encyclopedia says Thomas More was decapitated for refusing to support Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Thus he spoke very loudly against the divorce.
refusing to support Henry VIII's divorce...spoke very loudly against the divorce.
And did so by remaining silent.
On the contrary. He told the King he would not support him. Only after decapitation was he verbally challenged.
On the contrary.
Well, I wasn't there so what do I know?
In this case, where *absolute power is over ones' head, a refusal to support implies dissent as one assumes the penalty for (not)doing so is 'clear'.
However, in the case where the law supports silence, where that same law assumes innocence before guilt... claiming one's fifth ammendment right may avoid the truth as evidence but certainly doesn't do much to establish "a shadow of a doubt"... in this case truly speaking without uttering specific sounds.
Since we were given us such a wunnerful
(turn off the bubble machine) ponder in a choice of "one piece of music"... I offer this for your chewing pleasure...
If you were forced to lose one of the three: sight, hearing, or ability to speak... which would it be? For the sake of discussion let us assume that one could speak clearly without hearing (no need to explain all of what truly is possible in this vein...I am quite aware... unless Dr.Bill has insight that no other may.)
I choose to looze
Hi, AnnaS speech. (Now we'll see who the true "lingua"philes are
)
PS. Not answering this question can only mean one thing.
"Well, I wasn't there so what do I know?"
There used to be a radio program in thirties with Baron Munchhausen telling wild tales, and to his questioning stooge administering the finale punch line, "Vas you dere, Sharley?"
So, no, I wasn't there. I'm glad I wasn't. I might have gotten the chop too.
Great question, Musick.
i'd definitely choose to lose the power of speech. in so many ways it's the only "sense" that can be replaced quite easily. we can speak volumes with our eyes alone
(hi, C!), not to mention our actions.
besides, i talk way too much anyhow; it'd be a blessing to those around me
Hear, Eye would have to agree with caradea in the first part
(whilst strongly disagreeing with her in the second)
Hmm, which of the two obvious senses would I choose to lose. Knowing sign language obviously eliminates the loss of sight as an option. But between losing speech and hearing, I think it might be too close to call. I'd probably lean towards losing speech and rely on my hands to do the talking.
And an aside about blindness and deafness that I see illustrated every single day. Helen Keller said "being blind may separate you from things... but being deaf separates you from people." Look around at how socialized many blind people are, and then check in on how the deaf are so isolated and oppressed that they have created what anthropologists call a completely different culture. It deserves some thought.
I, long ago, decide that I would lose hearing, because I could still read, lip read, talk, and sign, and I would get rest from my brother. He talks far too much.
(I'm serious about the rest from my brother part)
What? The conversation has drifted off into the loss of bodily functions? Where's the food? Where's the sex?
Does anybody want to know what a silent verbal is?
Dear jimthedog: Get earplugs. And use them not only to tune out your brother, but to protect you from loud noise whenever it is even mildly unpleasant. I now wonder if I would have lost my hearing so severely if I had used them, even just when mowing the lawn.
Maybe I will. There's a field on the next hill, and I can easily shout to someone in my yard from there, if I do it loud enough. I don't have to get as loud as he does when he's mad.
When Helen Keller was asked which of her three senses she would choose to have she said hearing.
Finger spelling can be done in the palm of the hand as Annie Sullivan did for Miss Keller.
I have a 50% hearing loss and, believe me, I dread any threat to the hearing I have left. ... no music? ... not to hear my children's voices? ... the voices of friends? ... You can write stuff out, or type on a computer some computers even have "voices" ... I'm leaving now before this turns into a rant ...
OK, what are silent verbals?
Speaking of Silent Verbals .... my designator has changed ... Thanks for the "heads up" Helen!
Son-uv-a-gun!
Dear Lawrence-I-mean-musick,
Man, you ask a tough question! I think, by a near-tie between losing hearing and speech (I can think of only two fates worse than being blinded: being paralyzed, and death by drowning), I think I have to come down on the side of preferring to keep my speech. I could read lips to get what people were saying. My thoughts run so fast that often even my speech can't keep up with them, and I fear that trying to get them across by any other means would make me frenzied with frustration.
I can't believe that so few people have chosen to lose sight! I guess that shows how different we all are! That was the obvious choice to me. Already I am at the point where I am essentially useless without my glasses - I have memorized how to walk through my house because it's just too treacherous to depend on fuzzy vision when I don't have my glasses on. I can't distinguish colour at a distance without my glasses. And my night vision is terrible, even with glasses.
But not to ever hear music, the radio, my husband's voice, my purring cat, or be able to talk to my family on the phone...I am too dependent on my ears. I used to listen to TV more than I would watch it (the pictures never held much interest for me). I am a radio addict (CBC rules!). Between my husband and me, we have something like 300-400 CDs, six musical instruments, a very small project studio...And my voice - I love to talk! If we didn't have these unlimited evening calling phone plans I don't know WHAT I would do!
So, it would have to be sight, for me. But I hope that it never comes to that, for me or anyone here!
I would definitely have to go with losing speech. Even though I rather enjoy the sound of my voice, I don't think I would be able to stand not seeing what's around me or hearing music. I often prefer to observe situations more than engaging in them. Plus, there's always writing. The question basically comes down to whether you prefer to receive or give out information.
OK, what are silent verbals?
You have been summonsed, Sparts - don't keep a Pooh-Bah waitin'!
The statement was made during a sports chat, and the subject was collegiate recruiting.
As a reminder to non-Merkins [ducking from darts thrown by Dr Bill], in the US, collegiate sports is Big Business. Successful programs pull in millions of dollars a year for their universities, and result in increased applications for admittance. So, the competition for the best athletes is fierce, and coaching staffs recruit athletes to come to their schools. Recruiting efforts include visits to the colleges and much sweet-talking
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs the conduct of its members, including recruitment practices. Among the NCAA rules governing recruitment are restrictions on when a college can contact a potential recruit, and when a college can sign a recruit to a binding letter of intent. Once the athlete signs a binding letter of intent, he is bound to go to the intended college, and recruitment by other colleges must cease. There are two periods during the year, both brief - a week, maybe? - when an athlete can sign a letter of intent.
A "verbal" is a verbal commitment made by an athlete before he can sign a letter of intent; the verbal commitment is just the athlete saying to the coaching staff of a particular school, "I have decided to go to your college and will sign the letter of intent when the signing period comes." Verbals aren't formally binding, but are usually - not always - adhered to.
A "silent verbal" is a verbal commitment by an athlete which carries with it a request that the college not make the commitment public; usually, this is because the athlete doesn't want to stop the wining and dining he still has coming from other colleges who don't know that he has already made his choice. Right now, we are in the pre-letter period but close to the point at which a lot of basketball and football recruits are making decisions, and so the speaker observed that we are in the days of the silent verbals right now.
I'd prefer to lose sight rather than hearing or speech, and I definitely agree with those for whom hearing is the most important of the three. I have very often heard people express an opinion that losing their sight would be the worst thing for them. I wonder how many of them have actually thought about how, in Helen Keller's words, being deaf "separates us from people" (thanks, Brandon). Losing communication with the people around me would be the worst thing for me.
Thank you Sparteye, for that enlightening answer... the idea of "silent verbals" reminded me of advice I once received for dealing with lawyers:
"Never write anything if you can say it.
Never say anything if you can nod.
Never nod if you can smile."
Would that qualify a smile or a nod as a silent verbal, taken in a broader sense?
"As a reminder to non-Merkins [ducking from darts thrown by Dr Bill],"
Dear Sparteye: Why do you continue to prefer an obscenity to my suggestion of "merikins" ?
Dr Bill,
honi soit que mal y pense.
(pmf®)
Dear AS: It seems inconsistent that you accuse me of lewdness, and then defend lewdness.
And " Honi soit qui mal y pense" referred to a lady's garter, not her pubic wig.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_232.html
Dear Sparteye: Why do you continue to prefer an obscenity to my suggestion of "merikins" ?Dear Uncle Bill: Probably because she knows that it practically guarantees a response from you.
Dear Rapunzel: Maybe she was disappointed that I did not make a post about her "lick of chocolate penises".
And I resent some sly anal orifice having made an obscenity accepted as a slang term for American.
But I hope that it (losing a sense) never comes to that, for me or anyone here!Hear, Hear (and Aye Aye) to that.
I would hate to lose any of my senses. The one that gives me the least deep intoxicating pleasure and which I think is easiest to substitute in everday life and social situations is speech. And at least I'd have a
valid excuse for grunting when my wife asked me my opinion on what she should wear to go out for dinner
.
Rod
Um, Dr. Bill. This handy phrase from the language that dare not speak itself referred neither to pubic wigs nor to garters but to the attitudes of those who would see evil where there is none.
(Now we'll see who the true "lingua"philes are
Sweet musick,
Are you ready to take your count, now, Sweetie?
The story goes that the motto comes from an episode where one of the Countess of Salisbury's garters fell off at a court ball, and the monarch of the time, Edward III, picked it up and put it on his own leg, uttering the immortal words as a rebuke to the courtiers who were laughing at the embarrassed countess.
Bingley
Neat, wow! Thanks for the informative link.
Or, as we used to translate it:
Honey is sweet if you can't take a joke.