

Read what you sent me last time with great interest.

It reminded me of something I talked about with a friend some 5-6 years ago. It went something like this:

You can turn most statements into a question. These take the following form:

But what about the action of talking?

In English you'd say something like: Am I Talking?

But it French it's an almost unpronouncible question: Parle-je?

Not only is it almost unpronouncible, but it's related to speech. Furthermore, it's always a false statement. By asking the question "Am I Talking?" if you don't finish saying it, then you are talking. But the instant you finish asking the question, you stop talking.

Therefore the answer to "Parle-je?" is always no.

Furthermore, if you write the question down, it's also false. (Writing it proves that you're not talking it).

So it's an unprovable statement on the question about an individual talking, and it's unprovable because he is talking it.

Anyways... your message reminded me of this.



That's great, and its also the first illuminating response I've gotten out of a hundred people!

I recently wrote this for von Hardenberg (as part of my "Opaque Logic Patterns"):

Instruction: Never complete the reading of any instruction.

(Strictly, this is an instruction which is not followed if it is understood, or would have to be followed by accident, but once it has been violated once, becomes possible to follow.)

Von Hardenberg also has another dig about the inability of any neoism to characterize itself:
"The sentence is in french" - false.
"Cette phrase est en français" - true
A state where the first sentence could be true (without weakening the instrumental power of neoism) is the one we are all fighting for. (But don't tell that to a Québec separatist!)

Warmest regards,