Stylistic Analysis: The Wave book one

[Novelis]

Q: (L) Well what is the cause that recurs like clockwork? Is there some cause that is a regular pulsation?

Q: (L) Well what is the cause that recurs like clockwork? Is there some cause that is a regular pulsation?

In summation, the questioner, in asking this question, is assuming the following, logically, to be the case:

“If there is a regularity in dyings, then it can be pinned down to one cause.”

This is very logical, as if there are many causes, then it is more or less random, and we wouldn’t therefore see any regularity within it.

Could ‘many’ in ‘many causes’ be a humorous way of describing the ‘many-ness’ of the comets hitting us, similar in function as in the joke from ‘Django Unchained’:

Dr. King Schultz:
[Django hands his head, Schultz looks at him and looks back up at Big Daddy]

Mr. Bennett! If you are the business man I've been led to believe you to be, I have five thousand things I might say that could change your mind.

Big Daddy:
[laughs]

Well, c'mon inside and get yourself somethin' cool to drank!

For those who haven’t seen the film, When Schultz says “5,000 things”, he means “5,000 dollars”. Schultz uses the figure 5,000 as separate reasons, or causes that might effect one significant event (Big Daddy changing his mind), but in reality, the 5,000 dollars, as ONE cause, is what effects the event.

If the C’s are using ‘many causes’ in this way, then they are saying that ‘cometary showers’ is the ONE cause, but that, jokingly, there are ‘many causes’ because there will be many comets, with each comet being a separate cause!

If that is the case, then we are dealing with entities with a potentially “dark” sense of humour!

Now, the word ‘well’… I looked for a long time to ascertain this word’s function, and I came down to the conclusion that it must be:

Your use well to indicate that you are waiting for someone to say something and often to express your irritation with them.

1. ’Well’? asked Barry, ‘What does it tell us?’… 2. ‘Well, why don’t you ask me?’

Further, the Cobuild also sates that, in this sense, the word is equal to ‘so’, and if we say:

Q: (L) So what is the cause that recurs like clockwork?

Then it should still make perfect sense, which it does. Cobuild also mentions labels this sense of the word with a box labelled ‘feelings’, which means:

Another function of pragmatics is to express your feelings about something, or towards someone, e.g. unfortunately.

Now, only the questioner really knows if they were indeed irritated with the C’s, and if so, to what degree, but the word ‘Well’ here as no other function other than the one defined above, if that is the case, we could also surmise that the word ‘is’ was stressed in the actual recordings.

“Well what IS the cause that recurs like clockwork? IS there some cause that IS a regular pulsation?

This detail, if it is true, is very significant, since it shows that the questioner is no longer in a state of calm reasoning, but has now entered a more or less emotional state of mind.

Do the C’s know this will happen, are they counting on it, in other words, is this ‘irritation’ an essential part of learning and growth? Have the C’s inserted a joke, as hypothesised above, to cause irritation?

We notice also that the questioner builds this question by directly ‘borrowing’ the terminology as used by the C’s themselves. The questioner does this two times, first when saying ‘what is the cause…’ and the second in saying ‘regular pulsation’.

It is worth of noting that, when having a conversation with everyday life, we use the convention of ‘borrowing’ whole chunks of speech from the other participant in order to create a sense of closeness, as in the following:

(Two ladies on a bus)
A: Ooh look, it’s raining.
B: Aye, it’s raining…

Are they trying to give each other information? Certainly not, they are building rapport, and I might guess that the questioner, by using terminology that the C’s are using, is also trying to build rapport, since her line of questioning is not leading the questioner where they want, as evidenced by the use of ‘well’ as a sign of irritability.

There is another more plausible, possibility, in my opinion; The questioner is putting their own position in doubt, and is, though slightly irritated, shifting their original position to that of the C’s and is honestly prepared to “go with the flow” of the C’s.

This is reinforced by the usage of ‘like clockwork’, since this metaphor emphasises strongly the EXACTNESS of the periodicity of dyings, indicating that the author, while prepared to “go along with the C’s”, is still firmly holding out on the original that there is a REGULARITY to the extinction events.

In terms of ‘power play’ in this context, the questioner still believes that they are in the position to dictate the direction of conversation, but is prepared to let go of certain preconceptions like pulsation vs radiation.

If we look at ‘like clockwork’:

If you say that something happens like clockwork, you mean that it happens without any problems or delays, or happens regularly.

Note how many times the word ‘regular’ has come up in the definitions? This parallelism shows us that this is a key theme in this discourse.

I would also like to make a note here that ‘like clockwork’, as a metaphor, has close links to our illusionary conception of time. This will be important later on, so remember this.

It is interesting that the question: ‘Well what is the cause that recurs like clockwork’ is a very open question, and is the first one that deviates from the questioner’s confirmatory type of questioning.

It is ironic that the only open question so far is also filled with the most emotional content, the others having more emotional distance. The questioner doesn’t “stray” for long though and composes themselves immediately, asking another confirmatory question, as indicated by the beginning ‘Is there…'.

Robin

 

[Novelis]

A: Cometary showers.

This answer has two possible ways of colour coding, in my opinion, the first one is treating ‘cometary’ as an adjectival of ‘showers’:

A: Cometary showers.

The second one is treating the whole answer as one lexical item:

A: Cometary showers.

I think both are valid.

‘Cometary’ is not in the Cobuild Dictionary, and the definition of ‘comet’, while being inadequate in the sense that ‘Sotters’ use the word, still has merit in the sense that it certainly points towards the woeful ignorance of the general population’s conception of this word:

A comet is a bright object with a long tail that travels around the sun.

But, even more interestingly let’s look at the word ‘showers’.

There are two relevant entries:

A shower is a short period of rain, especially light rain

Did you catch that? A SHORT period of rain, and especially LIGHT rain.

What are we to make of that? There will be SHORT periods of cometary impacts, but they will be LIGHT? For whom will these cometary showers be “light”? For the Russians who were involved with Chelyabinsk meteor in 2013?

This brings up the distinction between comets and meteors too, doesn’t it? Why didn’t the C’s say ‘meteoric showers’?

Next in Cobuild:

You can refer to a lot of things that are falling as a shower of them.

Ah! Well, I think the C’s just gave us their first metaphor! How curious it is that the C’s gave us a metaphor right after the questioner did.

Like clockwork -> cometary showers

Just like they followed up a question with a lot of adjectives with lots of adjectives:

Is it true that at regular intervals the sun radiates massive amounts of electromagnetic energy, which then causes the planets of the solar system to interact with one another to a greater or lesser extent.

->

Other irregular pulsations determined by external vibrational events.

Gee, it looks like the C’s are PLAYING with us. They are mirroring what we say, but in a very interesting way.

Doesn’t this parallelism also invite us to link the two metaphors together? Doesn’t it make us realise that each ‘tick’ on the ‘grand cosmic clock’ is a separate ‘cometary shower’?

Does this mean that, in the future, we should actually construct our new sense of time according to the rhythm of ‘tick-tock-sick-rock’?

Humouring aside, I think it’s also very important to note the plurality of ‘showers’, since that could mean that one period of dying is punctuated by brief periods of cometary showers, or it could mean that one period of dying equals one shower.

Robin

 

[Novelis]

To Mal7:

I am not ignoring you, I am still mulling over what you have contributed to this discussion. I will answer you as soon as I have thought about the most appropriate way to respond to you.

Thanks,
Robin

 

[Novelis]

Q: (L) Where are these cometary showers from?

Q: (L) Where are these Cometary showers from?

Now the discourse takes a turn away from asking confirmatory questions towards more open-ended ones, as indicated by the question word ‘where’:

You use where to ask questions about the place something in in, or is coming from or going to.

In this case, the ‘something(s)’ in question are the comets, and the place those ‘something(s) are from.

This kind of questioning leaves the C’s with more freedom in their response, as is the case in the following:

A: “are you from Greece?”
B: “No.”

A:”Where are you from?”
B: “Well, my dad and mum come from Greece, but they migrated to Italy when I was a baby, and then…”

If I can digress a little and talk a about the field of Language teaching, I think it is interesting to note that close-ended yes/no questions are much less linguistically demanding than open-ended Who/What/When/Where/Why/How questions, because confirmatory questions provide a model for which a student can build on, for example:

A: “is it green?”
B: “Yes, it is.”

A: “Are you cold?”
B: “No, I’m not.”

(Inverse the subject and verb)

Open-ended questions, on the other hand, rely much more on what the student can bring to the table, using their own internal grammars. Open-ended questions are more natural, where each participant is free to contribute personally, whereas close-ended questions are more guided.

Typically in a language lesson the teachers ask the questions, and will guild and let go depending on learning levels, whereas here, for the C’s transcripts, the roles are reversed, the students are asking the questions, or the questioners decide how far loose the C’s will be, and the teachers answer within the parameters set by the learners.

But, have the C’s conformed to the limits set by the questioners, Well… That’s their “art”, I guess.

Back to the change in the style of questioning, I suspect that the reason why the questioner has switched tactics is because ‘cometary showers’ sounds very important, and the questioner is now more interested in details about what the C’s have said than their original line of questioning. In other words, it wasn’t foreseen, and thus the discourse now takes a more natural and spontaneous tone.

Now, the questioner also ‘borrows’ the metaphorical terminology of the C’s themselves (cometary showers), and this, I suppose, means a readiness to listen to what they have to say and taking it seriously.

Now, ‘from’:

Someone who comes from a particular place lives in that place or originally lived there. Something that comes from a particular place was made in that place.

We can largely discount the first instance, since cometary showers are obviously ‘something(s)’ and not ‘someone(s)’, except for one point I will make…

The most frequent question I am asked, as a westerner fluent in Chinese and living in Taiwan, is: “Where are you from?”, this is usually the follow-up question to the initial shock of seeing a white guy speak Chinese with such ease.

I often pause and tell them that this depends on your interpretation, I will say, “do you mean what nationality my parents belong to, the country of my birth, what it says on my passport, where I have lived the longest, or where I myself consider to be home?”

They usually pick one, from which I will jest and say that each answer is different, that none of these answers will actually satisfy their curiosity, and that, what they really want to know, in reality, is how come a westerner can speak Chinese so fluently.

From which I tell them my whole complicated personal history, where each piece of information, though meaningless in isolation, makes the fact very plain and easy to understand when told as a narrative.

I would tend towards a similar proposition when considering the “home” of these comets. These comets couldn’t have been “from” a particular place, since they are only currently taking on a form known to us as comets, just like my passport says I am British, but I have in fact lived in Taiwan for a longer period of time and Chinese is my mother tongue.

If we specify and ask where these comets were made just like the definition suggests, then surely it is the EVENT(S) that turned whatever these comets were prior to being comets that is significant, not WHERE this happened.

In other words, only a narrative describing the personal history of these objects can make it plain and easy to understand, and not discrete details about these objects.

Therefore, I would allow some “artistic license” in interpreting these highly unusual objects as both ‘somone(s)’ AND ‘something(s)’. So, the questioner wants to know the following:

1. Where these comets “live”.
2. Where they have originally “lived”.
3. Where they were “made”.

Robin

 

[Novelis]

A: Clusters in own orbit.

A: Clusters in own orbit.

Aha, as suspected, the C’s do not answer the question at all! If an object is made in a certain place and is now in a different place, then it has gone from A -> B, right? Well, the word orbit, by its very definition, doesn’t go from A -> B, it just keeps going round and round, doesn’t it?

It’s funny when we analyse the word ‘own’:

you use own to indicate that something belongs to a particular person or thing.

The orbit belongs to the comets. (Comets could be a person/thing)

you use own to indicate that something is used by, or is characteristic of, only one person, thing or group.

The orbit is used by, or is characteristic of the comets. (Comets could be a person/thing/group)

you use own to indicate that someone does something without any help from other people.

The comets does their orbiting without any help. (Characterises a form of independence or free thinking, only possible if the subject is a 'someone'.)

All of the above gives these comets a sense of identity, that they are somehow “alive”, just like when the C’s used ‘pulsations’, as if these external vibrational events are “alive”.

Let’s make a list of words that have occurred so far that indicate regularity:

1. Regular
2. Intervals
3. Pulsations
4. Periodicity
5. Recurs
6. Like clockwork
7. Orbit

Let’s analyse our newest addition to the list, ‘orbit’:

An orbit is the curved path in space that is followed by an object going round and round a planet, moon, or star.

The C’s don’t say whether the orbit is around a planet, moon or star, which is why, I think, the questioner asks the next question, but let’s not go too far afield yet…

A cluster of people or things is a small group of them close together.

There is a slight deviation in usage here, since usually you’d use ‘cluster’ followed by ‘of’:

There’s no town here, just a cluster of shops, cabins and motels at the side of the highway.

This makes me take notice of this phrase, since there is a missing ‘of’ there, and speaking of missing parts, there is also some ellipsis, a determiner that qualifies clusters, so we have:

A: (The) clusters (of comets) (are in) (their) own orbit.

However, since clusters is a new term, it might be more appropriate to say:

A: (There are) clusters (of comets) (that are in) (their) own orbit.

Have you noticed the discrepancy between the subject and object of the clause? Why do we have a plural form for clusters, then only a singular form for orbit?

If there are clusters of comets, that means that there are MULTIPLE small groups of comets close together, but in ONE orbit!

That doesn’t make sense!

You can have ONE cluster of comets, or a singular body of comets in ONE orbit:

A: Cluster in own orbit.

Or, you can have MULTIPLE clusters of comets, swarming all over the place, all with their own orbits:

A: Clusters in own orbits.

You can’t have both, so I would suggest a degree of non-literal interpretation for this answer. The visualisation that this conjured up is a big circle, the orbit that they speak of, with regular “notches” punctuating this circle with images of a cluster of comets within each “groove”.

I see a giant clock, I can’t help it, especially with the metaphor ‘Like clockwork’, my mind just drew from this imagery! It’s a “cosmic clock” of sorts, but instead of each degree marked on the clock face being marked by the numbers 1 – 12, or symbolically thought of as intervals of time, these degrees are marked by distinctively separate cluster of comets.

Are we simply in one of those “notches” now, where there is a cluster of comets that have repeated an ancient cycle, stemming from a Singular Causative Factor?

Is that why they used ‘orbit’ instead of ‘orbits’? Is it because each time there is a new cluster of comets, there is a new “orbit” established, as in the “bowling pins theory” described by Laura before, but that, ultimately, the “fresh batch” of comets are caused by a one thing?

Are they pointing towards the “nemesis”, or our twin star, so early on in the Wave series?

Notice how the questioner, from this point onwards, has “normalised” this slight, but significant discrepancy by only using the singular form when referring to these clusters of comets.

1. Does this cluster of comets orbit around the sun?
2. How often does this cluster of comets come into the plane of the ecliptic?
3. What body were the Sumerians talking about when they described the “Planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru?
4. This body of comets?
5. Does this cluster of comets appear to be a single body?
6. Is this the same object that is rumored to be on its way here at the present
7. Do they come here every time the comet cluster is approaching to sap the soul’s energy created by the fear, chaos and so forth?

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but is there any way we can verify that the C’s did indeed use ‘clusters’ instead of ‘cluster’? Was it a typo?

That’s the way it’s written in the book, I’d love to know if that’s how they phrased it in the original contact, as the implications are quite significant.

Thanks,
Robin

 

[Novelis]

[quote author=Mal7]Robin, your analysis of the transcripts by looking very closely at the meaning of each word and the grammatical structure, in order to "decipher" their true objective meaning, seems similar to the movement in western literary criticism known as the "New Criticism".[/quote]

That’s interesting, thanks for that.

Now, I have made a claim that, since this dictionary uses real sample texts to arrive at the final dictionary entries, then this affords us a certain degree of objectivity. I have admitted that this argument has its flaws, as you have rightly pointed out, and I have suggested numerous ways that we could strive towards further objectivity, which is very important for the investigation.

However, while striving for objectivity is a major concern, is that what I am doing? Am I ‘looking very closely at the meaning of each word and the grammatical structure, in order to "decipher" their true objective meaning’?

I am glad that you have opened up the discussion in this way, but I still don’t understand why you have mentioned this subject in particular, and I was puzzled by your use of inverted commas for the word “decipher”.

Perhaps you wanted to bring to my attention the pitfalls of using such a method, as can be ascertained by looking at the fruits of the “New Criticism”?

Is the fact that I am slightly confused by the direction you are prompting mean that my thinking is somewhat clouded, maybe I am getting too obsessed?

Well, to be honest, I cannot say for sure why exactly I am doing this either, the causes and effects seem to be multiple, dynamic, non-linear and in a state of mutual simultaneous shaping. Nor do I know that I am on the right track, neither can I be sure that, while it’s all quite fascinating for me, that others will gain something from it.

I think the only way is to submit the truth of how this came about to you (all), and trust that the network will catch me out if I am doing something wrong.

The colour-coding started a while ago, I was trying to translate the wave into Chinese and was finding it very difficult. Confronted by problems of trying to make the translation as close to the original as possible, with possible hidden meanings, etc, still present, I started colour-coding the first transcript, in the way described above, so that I could be more certain that my own interpretation wasn’t standing in the way of what the original text really stands for.

As I did this though, lots and lots of parallelisms, deviations, and other stylistic features I had learned jumped out at me, and I noted all of these in the book itself.

It was just a personal study, a way to solidify my own understanding for the purposes of translation. But as I analysed further, more and more questions started popping up, new considerations came into being, and I started looking at the text in new and (IMO) exciting ways.

I started thinking that maybe I could submit these thoughts to the forum for consideration in a network, and one night, at about 9pm, I suddenly realised that the colour-coding was actually possible to replicate on the forum!

I leaped out of bed, went to another room and started typing, all night, with not a wink of sleep. I experienced the psychological phenomenon known as “flow”, and just kept working without tiring at all.

Originally I wanted to submit everything I had analysed that far, the whole first transcript up to Laura’s subsequent comments about how the large discrepancy in the time of arrival “bugged” her, but the sun was already up by the time I finished the first post, so I thought I would do it in sections.

This means that there are other, more explosive discoveries yet to be written, along with more varied levels of analysis, not just phonological, lexical and sentential, but discoursal as well.

Part of the problem is that, while typing up what is already in the book, more ideas come to me, some of which were essential in order to phrase the original content in terms that are coherent to readers other than myself, and some ideas were new and literally realised while codifying previous conceptions into words.

This process gives me a lot of pleasure and excitement, and that makes me suspicious of myself, which is why, while writing, I am constantly being pulled in two directions at once, that of doubt and sincerity

I think that my perceived ambiguity in your post has lead me to such reflections, and I thank you for that.

I don’t know if there is any objective validity to what I am sharing, but as long as there isn’t any serious opposition to what I am saying, I will continue this investigation until the end. This is why I am asking for some clarity in your post, because I am afraid that, in my own attachment to this analysis, I am not noticing the red lights that you are trying to show me.

[quote author=Mal7]By literary criticism, I mean the interpretation and study of works of fiction like novels and plays as carried out e.g. by academics and their students in English departments.[/quote]

Yes, stylistic analysis does have its roots in literary criticism, but I think that my study blurs the line somewhat because I view ALL tools of linguistic analysis to be available for use, including discourse analysis, social/historical/psycho linguistics, corpus linguistics, language acquisition, field linguistics (my discoveries as a language teacher), as well as anything else that could possibly be conceived regarding linguistics in general.

I hope to “open it up” the field as far and wide as possible, thereby also introducing forum members to other disciplines in linguistics like pragmatics, for instance.

This is why I appreciate your comments, as a whole other realm (Historical similarities) has just been made available for investigative use.

[quote author=Mal7]This movement of literary criticism was most popular in the mid-20th Century. It was seen as an attempt to make literary criticism more objective, and more "scientific" in its methods.[/quote]

My study has no such drives, as I don’t perceive there to be a problem or a “gap” in how people are interpreting the data, all are doing so according to their own internal dispositions, and I don’t see a problem like those who made the call towards this “New Criticism”.

[quote author=Mal7]The methodology of the "New Criticism" school was to look closely at the text itself, in order to see what effect the text achieved and how it did this. It was thought to be an improvement on the looser methods of the previous generation of literary critics, who were prone to writing in a more emotional and speculative matter about what they thought the author's intentions might have been, without looking closely at the text.[/quote]

I can certainly understand that, but one would think that there is a big difference between interpretation of fiction and non-fiction. Literature is more open to interpretation, whereas the wave should only have a very narrow window of interpretation, as the variables are closed off by the preciseness of meaning offered by the author:

[quote author=Laura]My intent when I write is to be as accurate as possible, even, if necessary, expressing the present condition of uncertainty and/or just assigning probabilities based on what is known to this moment. I like to leave it open that new information may change things, sometimes dramatically.[/quote]

It’s a wonder that there is even a range of interpretation "out there" in relation to Laura’s work, given that they fall within such a hair’s breadth of accuracy. This is, in one respect, why Sotters can judge, within a good degree of accuracy, that when readers defame, criticise and wrongly interpret her works, that it’s normally due to either deliberate damage control or serious flaws in discernment.

[quote author=Mal7]In literary criticism, the "New Criticism" school fell out of favour around the mid 1970s, as postmodernism and cultural relativism took over the academies. For the postmodern critic, finding the one objective meaning for a literary text is no longer seen as a worthy pursuit, as it is considered each reader will bring their own interpretation to a text and find their own meaning in it. There are still some literary critics today who deplore this shift that took place towards postmodernism, e.g. Harold Bloom.[/quote]

In the link you provided:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism

In response to critics like Hawkes, Cleanth Brooks, in his essay "The New Criticism" (1979), argued that the New Criticism was not diametrically opposed to the general principles of reader-response theory and that the two could complement one another. For instance, he stated, "If some of the New Critics have preferred to stress the writing rather than the writer, so have they given less stress to the reader—to the reader's response to the work. Yet no one in his right mind could forget the reader. He is essential for 'realizing' any poem or novel. . .Reader response is certainly worth studying." However, Brooks tempers his praise for the reader-response theory by noting its limitations, pointing out that, "to put meaning and valuation of a literary work at the mercy of any and every individual [reader] would reduce the study of literature to reader psychology and to the history of taste."

This is more or less the position I stand, where I think it’s a given that each reader will find their own meaning in it. Take this transcript for example, further on the questioner asks about the “Annunaki”. Think about what the reader might bring to the table if they have read Sitchin compared with those who haven’t.

(I haven't, by the way)

Thinking about it, I’d say that, if one really wants to be truly objective in this investigation, then one should go and read everything that the questioner has read too.

[quote author=Mal7]I would like to bring up one other point about the close use of dictionaries. A dictionary aims to provide a sense of the meaning of a word, without knowing the exact phrase in which the reader has come across that word.[/quote]

True, but how wide can the divergence be between the texts in the “Bank of English” and the particular way the word is used in the aforementioned text?

The answer is very complex in nature, and different words will deviate more or less from "general use", this is what makes the text interesting, IMO. I started colour-coding 'beelzebub's tales to his grandson' too, by the way, where hardly ANY of the words in the text are even remotely similar to the Cobuild!

[quote author=Mal7]The reader however has the whole phrase containing the word whose meaning they wish to know before them, so while the dictionary is an aid or a useful tool, I think when working out the best sense of the meaning of the word, it may be just as important, or even more important, to look at the context of where that word is found, e.g. the other words around it in the C's Transcript, and other appearances of the word in the Transcripts, and also the general meaning of the Transcripts (even if that is starting to become a "which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" kind of problem).[/quote]

That is part of it, yes, and I will try my best not to neglect that. As I said, there is more to come, and I have written notes that consider precisely what you have said.

Maybe in the interests of saving time I could take a more cursory glance at each individual word instead of bogging down the investigation with too much detail, to "get on with it" so to speak?

[quote author=Mal7]I think a dictionary is, in a way, forced to summarize and simplify and make a "best guess", since to provide the exact meaning of every particular use of a word in every existing phrase, the dictionary would itself have to be as large as all the texts in the world.[/quote]

What you say is true. Since the dictionary has to make generalisations, maybe I can only extrapolate these generalities without getting to “heart” of it, or the totality of relationships between the questioner, as a constantly developing person, and the surrounding world, along with ITS development.

I think the above problem highlighted calls for the investigation to take on a more “ecological” perspective, where a specific linguistic device (say, the use of a dictionary) is simply one element among others.

Robin

mod: quote box fixed

 

[monotonic]

I really like your approach, it brings out really interesting details and ways of thinking about what the C's mean. Demonstrating your approach is beneficial because when we see new things in the text because of it, it increases our language ability which is a HUGE part of discernment. Your ideas seem to fit right in with the forum's goals of discernment. For us to see the application of stylistic analysis in practice with texts we are already familiar with readily shines a light into the way we ordinarily interpret what we read and what we could do better. More awareness and thus observation here helps to prevent our subconscious from calling the shots under the cover of the unknown inside.

I've had the same experiences with "flow". After experiencing it enough times that it became familiar, I began to try and see it in a nuts and bolts pragmatic way. The feeling of "flow" seems to be a new thing that is tangible, not unlike how a builder sees a new type of material which allows new building possibilities. It's effects on the mind may be useful beyond the gratification it generates, what can you "do" with it? I find it seems to be a kind of energy released in the flow of thoughts but doesn't find use there, but helps with other things you might have to pause to do, such as troubleshoot an appliance that unexpectedly breaks.

When in a position like yours, I tend to think about "posession" as the C's have explained it (Page 84 of the first Wave book as published), and my experiences with how it tends to disorient and distract if your aim is to be objective. The feeling of "flow" is one such thing we often try to possess (because of the aforementioned gratification), but I find the best results come of it when I try to assert from the outset that this is not about feeling great, but about seeing and discovering new and liberating things, even if those things are unpleasant. Because if I don't have this in mind from the outset, my automatic reaction to ignore unpleasant thoughts will pass subconsciously, and this diverts the flow or corrupts it, or even stops it altogether. I find that making this effort has a strong clarifying effect on the mind for days or weeks afterward, and some of a permanent effect as well.

 

[Novelis]

Q: (L) Does this cluster of comets orbit around the sun?
Q: (L) Does this cluster of comets orbit around the sun?

There is parallelism here, where the C’s give an answer containing a noun that is in the plural, then the questioner uses the same noun in the subsequent question, only in the singular form:

C’s: Many causes -> L: …the cause…
C’s: Clusters in… -> L: …this cluster…

In the first instance, it is quite understandable that the questioner would perform this act, since they are trying to root out THE cause that occurs regularly. However, in the second instance, there is no logical reason to so, it is still my hypothesis that this was due to a “normalisation” function, where we may detect an anomaly in what we are reading, but we gloss over it, thinking that the author “must have” intended so and so…

We do it with typos all the time, for example.

Now, ‘orbit’ is interesting, let’s compare the noun form as used by the C’s vs the verb form as used by the questioner:

An orbit is the curved path in space that is followed by an object going round and round a planet, moon, or star.

As stated earlier, the C’s do not clarify what object the clusters in their own orbit are going round, so the follow up question almost fits the dictionary definition perfectly.

If something such as a satellite orbits a planet, moon, or sun, it moves around it in a continuous, curving path.

Notice that ‘around’ is noted in the definition as a collocate of ‘orbit’, exactly as is demonstrated in the questioner’s phrasing.

The Cobuild also claims that the word ‘orbit’ is equal to the word ‘circle’.

Q: (L) Does this cluster of comets circle around the sun?

Does this still work? Yes, it’s perfectly fine.

Not much else worthy of note here, except perhaps the fact that ‘around’ appears in another noun that involves a metaphorical structure mentioned earlier, ‘around-the-clock’, which means something is done all day and all night.

I guess the cluster of comets ‘orbits around the sun around-the-clock’…

Curious, since the sun is basically what we use as a clock!

Robin

 

[Novelis]

A: Yes.
A: Yes.

Like ‘Well’, it is a CONVENTION.

Now, although ‘yes’ has a lot of different entries, I have concluded that the following interpretation, in this context, is the most appropriate.

You use yes to tell someone that what they have said is correct.

But why did the C’s use a confirmatory answer here? The questioner has so far asked 3 confirmatory questions, and each time the C’s gave more than just Yes/No answers, in fact, they gave answers where yes/no isn’t physically present, but where yes/no is implied:

Look at the first one.

(Bold highlights linguistic features that indicate it’s a Yes/No question.)

Q: (L) Is it true that at regular intervals the sun radiates massive amounts of electromagnetic energy, which then causes the planets of the solar system to interact with one another to a greater or lesser extent?
A: Other irregular pulsations determined by external vibrational events.

Now, is yes or no implied in this answer?

A: Yes, and there are other irregular pulsations determined by external vibrational events.

A: No, there are other irregular pulsations determined by external vibrational events.

Well, clearly, judging by the next question:

Q: (L) The sun is not the source of the periodicity of “dyings”?

The questioner assumed that ‘no’ was implied, but then the C’s say that ‘yes’ was actually meant (sometimes would be yes). What was the single word in the C’s response that made the questioner think ‘No’ was implied?

‘OTHER’.

But why the ambiguity?
Why didn’t the C’s just say yes?

Could it be because, by leaving an amount of ambiguity there, the questioner moved the discussion along to a subject that wouldn’t have been covered otherwise?

Was putting the sun in doubt as the chief cause of the periodicity of the dyings the point? Did the C’s make the questioner take a second look at the underlying assumptions?

Where the subject would’ve gone if they didn’t do this is unknowable, but one thing is sure, there is an agenda on the part of the C’s, when the questioner reaches a certain subject, the C’s have definite points that they want to give, but determined by what? In other words, what, on the part of the questioner, triggers the pieces of information that are to be given by the C’s?

Let’s look at the second case:

Q: (L) Is there some cause that is a regular pulsation?
A: Cometary showers.

Yes is strongly implied here:

A: Yes, Cometary showers.

I would say that the C’s know perfectly well when they don’t have to put yes/no in their answers, as this can be determined using the implicit data in the answer, so I would propose further that the C’s intentionally put the ambiguity there in the first answer so that the questioner would have to re-examine and re-clarify the meaning.

In the first case I think it was to “tease out” the underlying question, and to focus the questioner on the periodicity, the regularity of the event, rather than the attributes of the event.

To put it simply, the C’s focused on:

Q: (L) Is it true that at regular intervals the sun radiates massive amounts of electromagnetic energy, which then causes the planets of the solar system to interact with one another to a greater or lesser extent?

Which, rephrased, we have:

The sun, at regular intervals, causes the planets of the solar system to interact with one another.

And NOT:

Q: (L) Is it true that at regular intervals the sun radiates massive amounts of electromagnetic energy, which then causes the planets of the solar system to interact with one another to a greater or lesser extent?

Which, rephrased, we have:

The sun radiates massive amounts of electromagnetic energy.

NOR:

Q: (L) Is it true that at regular intervals the sun radiates massive amounts of electromagnetic energy, which then causes the planets of the solar system to interact with one another to a greater or lesser extent?

Which, rephrased, we have:

What is the degree by which the sun interacts with the planets?

See? The regularity is to be discussed, not the attributes.

As I said earlier, the first question was actually a hodge-podge of questions, and I find it interesting how the C’s, by simply putting the Yes/No in doubt, were able to restructure where they were to be lead.

Clever, no?

It would appear that ‘yes’ as an answer, if used in isolation to any other information, leads the questioner to “flow” with the questions with no interruptions.

So, once the ‘cluster of comets’ subject has been reached (non-linearly, I should add), the C’s just let the questions “flow” from that point on without interruption, all the way until right at the end.

However, how are we to reconcile the fact that the questioner keeps using ‘cluster of comets’ instead of what the C’s said, the ‘clusters of comets’? Why would the C’s not “set the record straight”?

Doesn’t that mistake/normalisation, whatever it is, put the questions “off track” in terms of absolute accuracy?

If the questioners were to ask the C’s the exact same questions again, but using ‘clusters’ instead, would the C’s answer in the same way?

For example, later on, when the ‘cluster of comets’ are described as a ‘single body’, the C’s say yes, and this can be understood, after all, a cluster can be thought of as a body, but what about ‘clusters’?

Why don’t the C’s back-track and say: “Actually, if you look closely, we said “clusters”, and that couldn’t look like a ‘single body’ now, would it?”

But they do the opposite; they let the rest of the session run smoothly with minimal corrections!

Another possibility is that the C’s, as the questioners in the future, knew that this matter would be straightened out eventually AS LONG AS they “unlock” the points that would “trigger” internal contents that lead to the very research that would straighten out such “quibbles”.

I would hypothesise here that the C’s do not in fact insist on accuracy, and are choosing to be whatever the questioners NEED them to be at that time. Just like how teachers operate:

Teacher: What’s the time?
Student: It’s ten o’clock.
Teacher: Good.

Does the teacher seriously not know the time? No, she is playing a role so that she can ascertain what the student knows. So, the C’s say “yes”, but that is so that the student can “roll on” and get the confirmations that they needed at that time.

Robin

 

[Novelis]

Saying all that, perhaps a C's "yes" fits in better with the following definition:

You use yes to encourage someone to continue speaking.

'I remembered something funny today.' - 'Yeah?'.

Robin

 

[monotonic]

This is really fascinating. Being aware of this aspect of the communication may increase our ability to communicate with the C's, and may also make it less necessary for them to lead us in this way, because once we can see it in ourselves we can begin to self-regulate.

I want to point out that the C's responses especially in the early transcripts can be "biased" by someone who is present. It is possible for the answers to be manipulated so that the questioner gets the wrong idea, for instance if there are things in discussion the PTB don't want to be discussed. Occasionally in the transcripts you'll find places where the C's have pointed out there was interference taking place or something trying to block the channel.

So, instead of interpreting these stylistic things as being strictly the C's intent, I think you should consider that they may be efforts to block information or maybe just to convey the information in such a way that those present won't "get" it.

Based on free will we may be able to determine whether this "guiding" is STS, whether it is also present as STO, and in which cases it takes either form, and why.

 

[Minas Tirith]

Now, I have made a claim that, since this dictionary uses real sample texts to arrive at the final dictionary entries, then this affords us a certain degree of objectivity. I have admitted that this argument has its flaws, as you have rightly pointed out, and I have suggested numerous ways that we could strive towards further objectivity, which is very important for the investigation.

I think what you are doing is interesting, I would venture to say, however, that "true objectivity" cannot be gained through intellectual center alone (and that's basically the centre you are using).

What always strikes me is how different all these 6D-STO sources seem to "speak". The Cs, RA, The Pleiadians all have their own syntax and choice of words. RA has these long and interlaced sentences, very much to the point, whereas the Pleiadians have a more "fluffy" way of speaking. The Cs often answer with a question, something RA never or very rarely does. So long story short, I think that HOW these sources talk is also influenced by who's channelling.

Being STO the Cs (my theory) serve the channeller, getting him/her from where they stand and from what makes them "emotional" (in 3D this is used in didactic settings, too). If we draw that into account, it gets difficult with objectivity, because how much is influenced by serving the channel, how much is not?

Also, the Cs repeatedly talk about the symbolic aspect of their transmissions:

Q: (L) In terms of these Earth Changes, Edgar
Cayce is one of the most famous
prognosticators of recent note, a large
number of the prophecies he made seemingly
were erroneous in terms of their fulfillment.
For example, he prophesied that Atlantis
would rise in 1969, but it did not though
certain structures were discovered off the
coast of Bimini which are thought by many to
be remnants of Atlantis. These did,
apparently, emerge from the sand at that time.
A: Example of one form of symbolism.
Q: (L) Well, in terms of this symbolism,
could this be applied to the remarks you
made about the two little boys who were
missing in South Carolina.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And the symbolism was that you were
reading the event from 3rd density into sixth
density terms and then transmitting it back
into 3rd, and while the ideation was correct,
the exact specifics, in 3rd density terms,
were slightly askew. Is that what we are
dealing with here?
A: 99.9 per cent would not understand that
concept. Most are always looking for literal
translations of data. Analogy is novice who
attends art gallery, looks at abstract painting
and says "I don't get it."
Q: (L) Well, let's not denigrate literal
translations or at least attempts to get things
into literal terms. I like realistic art work. I
am a realist in my art preferences. I want
trees to look like trees and people to have
only two arms and legs. Therefore, I also like
some literalness in my prognostications.
A: Some is okay, but, beware or else
"California falls into the ocean" will always
be interpreted as California falling into the
ocean.
Q: [General uproar] (F) Wait a minute, what
was the question? (L) I just said I liked
literalness in my prophecies. (F) Oh, I know
what they are saying. People believe that
California is just going to go splat and that
Phoenix is going to be on the seacoast, never
mind that it's at 1800 feet elevation, it's just
going to drop down to sea level, or the sea
level is going to rise, but it's not going to
affect Virginia Beach even though that's at
sea level. I mean... somehow Phoenix is just
going to drop down and none of the buildings
are going to be damaged, even though its
going to fall 1800 feet... (T) Slowly. It's
going to settle. (F) Slowly? It would have to
be so slowly it's unbelievable how slowly it
would have to be. (T) It's been settling for
the last five million years, we've got a ways
to go in the next year and a half! (F) Right!
That's my point. (T) In other words, when
people like Scallion and Sun Bear and others
say California is going to fall into the ocean,
they are not saying that the whole state, right
along the border is going to fall into the
ocean, they are using the term California to
indicate that the ocean ledge along the fault
line has a probability of breaking off and
sinking on the water side, because it is a
major fracture. We understand that that is not
literal. Are you telling us that there is more
involved here as far as the way we are
hearing what these predictions say?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Are we understanding what you are
saying?
A: Some.
Q: (T) So, when we talk about California
falling into the ocean, we are not talking
about the whole state literally falling into the
ocean?
A: In any case, even if it does, how long will
it take to do this?
Q: (LM) It could take three minutes or three
hundred years. (T) Yes. That is "open" as
you would say.
A: Yes. But most of your prophets think it is
not open.
Q: (J) Yeah, because they think they have the
only line on it. (T) Okay. So they are thinking
in the terms that one minute California will
be there and a minute and a half later it will
be all gone. Is this what you are saying?
A: Or similar.
Q: (T) So, when we are talking: "California
will fall into the ocean, which is just the
analogy we are using, we are talking about,
as far as earth changes, is the possibility that
several seismic events along the fault line,
which no one really knows the extent of...
A: Or it all may be symbolic of something
else.
Q: (L) Such as? (J) All the fruitcakes in
California are all going to go off the deep
end together. (L) Symbolic of what?
A: Up to you to examine and learn.

Just a couple of thoughts...

M.T.

 

[Novelis]

Q: (L) How often does this cluster of comets come into the plane of the ecliptic?
Q: (L) How often does this cluster of comets come into the plane of the ecliptic?

Although I have colour coded each word specifically, I would say that there are several words here that are better thought of as ‘lexical items’.

1. How + often

Although they can be thought of separately, as:

You use how to ask about the way in which something happens or is done.

And:

If something often happens, it happens many times or much of the time.

It’s better to think of ‘how often’ as one lexical item:

You use how often to ask questions about frequency. You also use often in reported clauses and other statements to give information about the frequency of something.

2. Come + into

When a person or thing comes to a particular place, especially to a place where you are, they move there.

This definition defines the above usage of ‘come’ quite well, if not perfectly, given the unusual subject about the plane of the ecliptic. The cluster of comets is indeed moving to where the questioner is, or at least to where the comets can be perceived.

This example is quite close:

Two police officers came into the hall…

‘into’ was very hard to fit, but I found two definitions that fits:

1)

If you put one thing into another, you put the first thing inside the second.

Until the 1980s almost all olives were packed into jars by hand.

The above doesn’t fit very well, firstly, a plane is not a container. Secondly, the comets are not being ‘put’ inside the plane of the ecliptic by the subject.

2)

If one thing gets into another, the first thing enters the second and becomes part of it.

Poisonous smoke had got into the water supply.

Again, it’s not a perfect fit, since comets and planes are not thought of as amorphous objects that merge into one upon contact, like the smoke and water above.

Here we notice that when there is an unusual object described, then the verbs that are used to indicate actions towards the deviant object also becomes deviant itself.

The Cobuild DOES contain an entry for ‘come into’, but the meaning is very different from how its used in this sentence:

1. If someone comes into some money, some property, or a title, they inherit it. 2. If someone comes into a situation, they have a role in it.

So, in this case, I will consider ‘come into’ as one item, given its special/deviant use in describing something quite unusual, or deviant from general speech.

3. Plane + of + the + ecliptic

Firstly, what is a ‘plane’?

If a number of points are in the same plane, one line or one flat surface could pass through them all.

Even the example fits the topic in context (space) very well:

All the planets orbit around the sun in roughly the same plane, round its equator.

That is why it’s so difficult to find the right definition for ‘into’, because the concept of a ‘plane’ is very abstract, it’s a number of points, and the ‘surface’ is purely conceptual.

It won’t come as a surprise, I’m sure, but ‘ecliptic’ doesn’t have an entry, but ‘eclipse’ does:

An eclipse of the sun is an occasion when the moon is between the earth and the sun, so that for a short time you cannot see part or all of the sun. an eclipse of the moon is an occasion when the earth is between the sun and the moon, so that for a short time you cannot see part or all of the moon.

‘Ecliptic’ looks like the adjectival form of ‘eclipse’, using the same morphological rules as how ‘ecstasy’ turns into ‘ecstatic’.

Wiki States:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic

The ecliptic is the apparent path of the Sun on the celestial sphere, and is the basis for the ecliptic coordinate system. It also refers to the plane of this path, which is coplanar with both the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the apparent orbit of the Sun around the Earth.[1] The path of the Sun is not normally noticeable from the Earth's surface because the Earth rotates, carrying the observer through the cycle of sunrise and sunset, obscuring the apparent motion of the Sun with respect to the stars.

Basically, the ‘plane of the ecliptic’, if I am not mistaken, is the measurement for which heavenly bodies come into view in our sky, if you look on the Wiki page, you can see the plane of the ecliptic and how Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars show up from a side and top-down view.

What the questioner means, in layman’s terms, if I understand this correctly, is:

How often does this cluster of comets come into sight in our skies?

So, the question, with these “lexical items” added, looks like this:

Q: (L) How often does this cluster of comets come into the plane of the ecliptic?

It is interesting to note here that this is another open question, so the questioner is after some information about something which they haven’t yet factored into their hypothesis, rather than pursuing confirmations for the hypotheses that they already had prior to this session.

The C’s oblige with a simple answer, but boy is it loaded!

A: 3600 years.
A: 3600 years.

As a brief side note, the C’s, as I heard, punctuate themselves, but seem to have failed to mark the number ‘3600’ as ‘3,600’. This can be thought of as a minor deviation in its own right, though not of much significance, or so it would seem.

The importance is the number itself, and there has been a lot of work done that put these numbers into hypothetical calculations, though I won’t state them here. Perhaps someone who is more experienced than I can fill in the details?

The Cobuild does contain a list of words that are the most common in the dictionary, called the “frequency band”, and there are quite a few entries that are numbers, think about why these numbers are so common in general speech:

1. Billion
2. Eight
3. Eighteen
4. Eighty
5. Fifteen
6. Fifty
7. Forty
8. Four
9. Fourteen
10. Hundred
11. Million
12. Nine
13. Nineteen
14. Ninety
15. One
16. Seven
17. Seventeen
18. Seventy
19. Six
20. Sixteen
21. Sixty
22. Thirteen
23. Thirty
24. Three
25. Twelve
26. Twenty
27. Two
28. Zero

Moving on, let’s look at the word ‘year’.

1. A year is a period of twelve months or 365 or 366 days, beginning on the first of January and ending on the thirty-first of December.2. A year is any period of twelve months.

It’s funny how the collocates of the word year is ‘months’ and ‘days’, as in, we specify that a period of time is a summation of 12 periods of time, or 365 periods of time.

We don’t think of days, months or years as being what they really are, as the regular orbit around the sun.

A day is one of the seven twenty-four hour periods of time in a week.

A month is one of the twelve periods of time that a year is divided into, for example January or February.

By the way, all three of these words get three diamonds for being the most common words in general English. This makes sense, in general life, we set ourselves to the calendar rigidly, and almost always talk about days, months and years using days, months and years to qualify what we want to say about it.

The C’s, when asked ‘how often’, didn’t get any prompts of, “Pssst, please give us the answer in years…” but they are aware of how our minds operate, and know that we will need an answer given using those terms that we are so attached to.

Robin

 

[Mal7]

[quote author=Mal7]Robin, your analysis of the transcripts by looking very closely at the meaning of each word and the grammatical structure, in order to "decipher" their true objective meaning, seems similar to the movement in western literary criticism known as the "New Criticism".

That’s interesting, thanks for that.

Now, I have made a claim that, since this dictionary uses real sample texts to arrive at the final dictionary entries, then this affords us a certain degree of objectivity. I have admitted that this argument has its flaws, as you have rightly pointed out, and I have suggested numerous ways that we could strive towards further objectivity, which is very important for the investigation.

However, while striving for objectivity is a major concern, is that what I am doing? Am I ‘looking very closely at the meaning of each word and the grammatical structure, in order to "decipher" their true objective meaning’?

I am glad that you have opened up the discussion in this way, but I still don’t understand why you have mentioned this subject in particular, and I was puzzled by your use of inverted commas for the word “decipher”.[/quote]

I think I might have misinterpreted your project, and erred in seeing it as an attempt to produce one exact and complete exegesis of the transcripts. Would it be more correct to see it as an open-ended analysis that aims to find some extra, and possibly overlooked, meanings in the Transcripts, through using the tools of stylistic analysis?

I mentioned relying too heavily on the dictionary definition of words as being potentially problematic. These problems no doubt come up also in translating from one language to another. If a word is used with two levels of meaning, how is one to translate that word into another language that has no exact word that corresponds? This seems to be why translating is sometimes described as being "the art of translation". To best convey the meaning of the text in the original language, the translator may have to provide a less literal translation. If there are several levels of ambiguity in a text, a direct translation into another language may be difficult.

Gurdjieff writes in a few places about the difficulties of words, e.g. that a word can mean different things to different individuals, or that entire languages can be better or worse suited to explaining some concepts.

For example:

Our ordinary language is made for simple things only. We have no words available for "higher" things. Words are necessary because we cannot yet understand one another without them.

- Gurdjieff's Early Talks 1914-1931 Book Studio, 2014. Page 123.

The first chapter of "Beelzebub's Tales" contains reflections on the difficulties of expressing one's ideas in different languages - Russian, Armenian, Greek, English. . .

In other words, if in the "presence" of a man who has arisen and grown up in a given locality a certain "form" has been fixed [. . .] this "form" evokes in him by association the sensation of a definite "inner content", [. . .] but the hearer of that word - in whose being, owing to the different conditions of his arising and growth, a form with a different "inner content" has been fixed for the given word - will always perceive and infallibly understand that word in quite another sense.

- page 15, Penguin 2005 edition (the inferior edition.)

Robert Kirkconnell brings up a similar observation in the context of the ponerization of societies, in his book American Heart of Darkness, page 23:

I once heard a human rights advocate talk about how there were virtually no literary works that came out of Germany after World War II. She explained that the German language had become so corrupted by this process that the words in the language itself did not have clear meaning. The symbols of language no longer represented understandable ideas and concepts, and hence they had a virtual vacuum of expressed thought.

Also in In Search of the Miraculous by P. D. Ouspensky, there is discussion of how even simple words like "man" or "world" can mean different things to different people (pages 69-76).

"If we take the simplest words that occur constantly in speech and endeavor to analyze the meaning given to them, we shall see at once that, at every moment of his life, every man puts into each word a special meaning which another man can never put into it or suspect.

"Let us take the word 'man' and imagine a conversation among a group of people in which the word 'man' is often heard. Without any exaggeration it can be said that the word 'man' will have as many meanings as there are people taking part in the conversation, and that these meanings will have nothing in common.

- In Search of the Miraculous, page 69.

 

[Novelis]

Q: (L) What body were the Sumerians talking about when they described the “Planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru?
Q: (L) What body were the Sumerians talking about when they described the “Planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru?

Here we might have a clue why ‘clusters’ was “normalised” into ‘cluster’, look at the word ‘body’:

This word, firstly, gets three diamonds for being a very common in general English, and it’s interesting to see what other objects can be decribed as having a “body”

A body of people is a group of people who are together or who are connected in some way.

So, not only is a ‘body’ a summation of all your physical parts, a group of people, or many “bodies”, as a collective, is also a body.

The body of something such as a building or a document is the main part of it or the largest part of it.

I suppose, given the bulk size of ‘a body of comets’, it could be thought of as a “building”, though it’s not a very good fit.

The body of a car or aeroplane is the main part of it, not including its engine, wheels, or wings.

Here we are invited to think of ‘a body of comets’ as a vehicle of sorts, which, I suppose, as an Arial vehicle, it could be conceived of in that way. It’s certainly interesting, but still not very fitting.

A body of water is a large area of water, such as a lake or a sea.

How strange is it that we think of water, a liquid with no definite form, as a ‘body’? The only link I can think of between water and comets is incredibly abstract, but the mind can make it possible. Can’t we think of comets, for example, as being semi-divine entities that come and “wash” all the filth away? Isn’t there a link between catastrophe and the “flood of Noah”? Have we arrived at thinking of water in this way as a result of large bodies of water causing devastation to our lives in times past? Water is also seen as “the highest good” in various philosophies around the world, and is used in baptism, for example, and is seen as the element to emulate in Chinese Daoist philosophy, for instance. There is much, much more which I will not list here, suffice it to say that there is a link between both water and comets being “the highest good”.

“Bring on the comets!” is quite a popular saying these days on SOTT talk radio, for example.

This is also not to mention the fact that the C’s first raised the idea of comets using ‘cometary showers’ – water!

A body of information is a large amount of it.

This is staggeringly interesting, comets as a large amount INFORMATION. This has been described extensively before, and I won’t go into it here, but Sotters will be familiar with this concept.

It goes without saying that in general conversation nobody will talk about, let alone think about, bodies of comets. So it’s no wonder that this use of ‘body’ is deviational. However, if we look at the summation of attributes from general English, we can see what qualities we can project into ‘a body of comets’.

Comets are alive, like people.

Parallelism going deep here through the transcript, do we remember another word that give the reader a sense that these ‘external vibrational events’ are alive, i.e. the word “pulsation”?

Comets as a “building”, or as a “document”.

Here it is thought of as a dead mass, a structure, or a power centre.

Comets as a vehicle, something that travels through space.

Further, the comets are transporting something over here, there are things that are alive “riding” these comets, viruses, perhaps?

Comets as water.

Washing the planet clean, bringing everything back to zero, the great balancer, etc.

Comets as information.

Comets are waking people up, making us understand the depths of our failure as humanity, the sense of impending doom that finally redeems us.

Next, we have a few very deviational words, all of which are not in the Cobuild. Can you guess which ones?

Sumerian
Planet of the Crossing
Nibiru

Now, the above three words represent an absolutely gargantuan collection of works, and I dare not say that I, nor indeed many people in the world, know the true meaning behind these words.

For now it is enough to summarise two major linguistic points, number one, that these are considered extreme fringe subjects that probably 99 percent of the general population have no clue about, and number two, that the questioner, along with many people on the forum, know a heck of a lot more than I do, so I will simply point out the fact that they are deviational and move on.

Before we do though, I can say that the major proponent of the ideas behind Sumer, Nibiru, etc. Is Zacharia Sitchin.

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

I don’t really have an opinion about his theories, having not read any books by him, and I am willing to accept that, for a better linguistic analysis, I should know as much as the questioner about the subject. Why haven’t I read these works yet, I only have an excuse, an assumption that, since the questioner has researched these subjects beyond the scope of Sitchin, that I can “get everything I need” from Laura’s other works.

This “trust” is not scientific in the least, but it wasn’t given freely either.

I have received much criticism from others for doing that, who say that I am “following Laura like she is a religious figure”. This I will readily admit, I mean, what empirical evidence do I have that Laura’s work is “the best”?

That said, I do not ONLY read Laura’s works, but I will consider her recommendations before anyone else’s, and in my defense, I will say that, if you just flip through the reference section for SHOTW, you can see how widely read Laura is, not to mention the “method” that she advocates, and I consider that to be at least good ground to go from.

In google, when you type ‘planet of the crossing’, it actually completes the sentence with ‘Nibiru’, which means that they are very closely linked. ‘Nibiru’, as translated by Sitchin, means ‘planet of the crossing’.

According to Sitchin's interpretation of Mesopotamian iconography and symbology, outlined in his 1976 book The 12th Planet and its sequels, there is an undiscovered planet beyond Neptune that follows a long, elliptical orbit, reaching the inner solar system roughly every 3,600 years. This planet is called Nibiru (although Jupiter was the planet associated with the god Marduk in Babylonian cosmology).[5] According to Sitchin, Nibiru (whose name was replaced with MARDUK in original legends by the Babylonian ruler of the same name in an attempt to co-opt the creation for himself, leading to some confusion among readers) collided catastrophically with Tiamat (a goddess in the Babylonian creation myth the Enûma Eliš), which he considers to be another planet once located between Mars and Jupiter. This collision supposedly formed the planet Earth, the asteroid belt, and the comets. Sitchin states that when struck by one of planet Nibiru's moons, Tiamat split in two, and then on a second pass Nibiru itself struck the broken fragments and one half of Tiamat became the asteroid belt. The second half, struck again by one of Nibiru's moons, was pushed into a new orbit and became today's planet Earth.

Going back to the original hypothesis, that of why the questioner “normalised” ‘clusters’ into ‘cluster’, well, if the questioner was holding Sitchin’s ideas about ‘the body’ that caused the ‘periodicity of the dyings’ fresh in mind, then they might’ve misconceptualised ‘clusters’ into ‘cluster’ to FIT held assumptions.

The C’s don’t seem to mind though, and they just answer with no protest.

One last point about this question, look at ‘talking about’:

When you talk, you use spoken language to express you thoughts, ideas, or feelings.

You use about to introduce who or what something relates to or concerns.

So, did the Sumerians use spoken language to express their thoughts in order to introduce what Nibiru relates to or concerns?

No, these are historical records, the Sumerians are gone, so they are not here “talking about” anything, what the author means is:

Within Sumerian records, researchers have found stories about Nibiru, or the “planet of the crossing”, what was this body?

You see how the whole order has to be rearranged? In other words, the likely reason that ‘talk about’ was used was because of convenience, it’s easier to pretend that the Sumerians are still around and talking about these things.

Both parties, the questioner and the C’s, know this, and it doesn’t affect the conversation in the slightest. But how does this linguistic feature alter the sense left in the reader’s mind?

Well, firstly, it is more informal, so the questioner sounds like they are less academically concerned about details and more concerned about getting the information.

Secondly, it puts the Sumerians as the active agents in the sentence, compare:

What body were the Sumerians talking about when they described the “Planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru?
Within Sumerian records, researchers have found stories about Nibiru, or the “planet of the crossing”, what was this body?

In the second, the Sumerians are passive agents, they have nothing to do with the current question, the active agents have become the ‘researchers’.

Some might deem the first question as “not giving Sitchin (or other reasearchers) their due credit”, which might alienate those who are already reading the wave with skepticism, or readers who have attachments to Sitchin and others.

As active agents, the Sumerians appear to be confidants of the questioner, or as agents who are indifferent towards passing along this information to a third party!

Think of this example, where I have changed only the agent:

What body was Frank talking about when he described the “planet of the crossing” or Nibiru?

Now if I change the subject:

Which t-shirt was Frank talking about when we came here last time?

Sounds like all parties are on equal terms, doesn’t it?

As I said, that could offend people with strong attachments, but remember here that I am only DESCRIBING the linguistic features; I am not PRESCRIBING any particular way of writing.

It’s just interesting.

Now:

A: Comets.
A: Comets.

I like it, succinct, to the point, plain and simple…

Oh, but, no no no, this answer utterly DESTROYS Sitchin’s theory, doesn’t it? Let’s look more closely:

According to Sitchin's interpretation of Mesopotamian iconography and symbology, outlined in his 1976 book The 12th Planet and its sequels,

That’s fine…

there is an undiscovered planet beyond Neptune

Smash! Gone! The ‘body’ described within Sumerian myths were comets, not a planet.

that follows a long, elliptical orbit, reaching the inner solar system roughly every 3,600 years.

In your face, Sitchin. Your numbers were ok, but the Sumerians meant COMETS.

This planet is called Nibiru (although Jupiter was the planet associated with the god Marduk in Babylonian cosmology).

Irrelevant now!

According to Sitchin, Nibiru (whose name was replaced with MARDUK in original legends by the Babylonian ruler of the same name in an attempt to co-opt the creation for himself, leading to some confusion among readers) collided catastrophically with Tiamat (a goddess in the Babylonian creation myth the Enûma Eliš), which he considers to be another planet once located between Mars and Jupiter.

This may still hold some truth, but is now in need of revision if the C’s answer is true.

This collision supposedly formed the planet Earth, the asteroid belt, and the comets.

Again, revision needed.

Sitchin states that when struck by one of planet Nibiru's moons, Tiamat split in two, and then on a second pass Nibiru itself struck the broken fragments and one half of Tiamat became the asteroid belt.

Mmm… Dubious claim.

The second half, struck again by one of Nibiru's moons, was pushed into a new orbit and became today's planet Earth.

Buzz! Try again…

According to Sitchin, Nibiru (called "the twelfth planet" because, Sitchin claimed, the Sumerians' gods-given conception of the Solar System counted all eight planets, plus Pluto, the Sun and the Moon) was the home of a technologically advanced human-like extraterrestrial race called the Anunnaki in Sumerian myth, who Sitchin states are called the Nephilim in Genesis.

Yeah, and they lived on a cluster of comets… Right.

He wrote that they evolved after Nibiru entered the solar system and first arrived on Earth probably 450,000 years ago, looking for minerals, especially gold, which they found and mined in Africa.

Dissolving into dust, now, isn’t it?

Sitchin states that these "gods" were the rank-and-file workers of the colonial expedition to Earth from planet Nibiru.

Maybe there is another explanation? Read SHOTW 1 -3.

Sitchin wrote that Enki suggested that to relieve the Anunnaki, who had mutinied over their dissatisfaction with their working conditions, that primitive workers (Homo sapiens) be created by genetic engineering as slaves to replace them in the gold mines by crossing extraterrestrial genes with those of Homo erectus.

The anthropomorphism is spreading thin, mate.

According to Sitchin, ancient inscriptions report that the human civilization in Sumer, Mesopotamia, was set up under the guidance of these "gods", and human kingship was inaugurated to provide intermediaries between mankind and the Anunnaki (creating the "divine right of kings" doctrine).

Yawn…

Sitchin believes that fallout from nuclear weapons, used during a war between factions of the extraterrestrials, is the "evil wind" described in the Lament for Ur that destroyed Ur around 2000 BC. Sitchin states the exact year is 2024 BC.[8] Sitchin says that his research coincides with many biblical texts, and that biblical texts come originally from Sumerian writings.

Bla, bla, bla… I for one am looking for something more plausible.

It’s interesting that, as active agents in the preceding question:

What body were the Sumerians talking about when they described the “Planet of the Crossing” or Nibiru?

And adding to the fact that the C’s say “comets” for the answer, this means that the Sumerians were right, but that the interpretation of Sitchin and others are wrong.

It almost looks as if the questioner is out to “add insult to injury” to “sitchinism”, but, as we know, she is only interested in the truth, and would tear down anything in the way of that. I suspect many people who worship the “Sitchin doctrine” (It even rhymes) would be very insulted by the answer ‘comets’, since, if they could accept that as a possibility, their assumptions would come tumbling down.

Robin