As one of his reasons for writing in french (rather than english) beckett said that he liked not having to write with...

as one of his reasons for writing in french (rather than english) beckett said that he liked not having to write with style. he meant that because english has so many synonyms, when you communicate in it you are forced to choose between equivalent words and in so doing express a sort of aesthetic/stylistic preference. is this really not eh case with other languages like french? are there far fewer synonyms in non-english languages, even other european ones? or was it just that beckett knew english so much better than french?

Attached: samuel-beckett-9204239-1-402.jpg (300x300, 8K)

i think the latter is what he meant
you are forced to communicate however you can in a second language, rather than worrying about bullshit

That’s it
He wrote what he called passable French and so in his lack of involvement with French was able to do away with care for stylisation and rather get to a more universally basic term.
From what I understand though from friends who speak English second is that English is ridiculously complex for synonyms

There are synonyms in French, just not useless ones, like in English "need" vs "necessity". The latter feels stilted and recherché. Or words that don't even make etymological sense in English like dentist or ramification. Or meme words like bootylicious. I completely get where he was coming from.

My impression is that english and french are very similar and both are suited for his minimalistic aesthetic. Can someone who speaks french confirm this? Is there a noticeable difference reading him in either?

completely retarded anecdote, but i just spent the last six months traveling and realized that over and over i would say the exact same thing with three or four completely different sentences in an effort to be understood—had never needed the versatility before, and maybe it's more confusing than anything for non native speakers, but it's there.

>recerche

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 7K)

They're not similar at all beyond some word spellings. French is its own thing. And no wonder, it's closer to its Romance cousins.

I really meant the grammar, not the vocabulary. Both are quite analytic and it fits Beckett's style.

Sorry, I speak Spanish and couldn't find a fitting word for "rebuscado" in English. Google told me this was used.

French is not at all analytic. French is synthetic.

english is analytic how?

In a relative sense, French is somewhat analytic, a bit less than English. In neither language can you easily change the word order.

You can also change the word order in Spanish. That doesn't make it any more analytic than French.

this

He just didn't know French on the level that he knew his native language.

>besoin vs. nécessité

Beckett felt he was far too influenced by Joyce so he switched to a foreign language to simplify his style

who cares? in the end we're probably going to read him in a shit English translation anyway

>recherché

? maybe i'm wrong but iirc he just talked about writing in french helping to simplify his language. obviously there are synonyms in french.

It's a very affected way to call something affected :^)

My guess is the latter. However, there are many more English words than there are French words.

No, English has a unique history, even before the introduction of French elements different species of Germanic tongues were competing and intermixing. In addition to this, there is the dearth of alternate options afforded by the invasion of the Norman (French) tongue. Beckett knew French at an academic level.

English diction can be so difficult to really comprehend. Compare Milton and Lincoln. Both wrote excellent English but there’s such a great difference in word choice. Or Shakespeare and Milton if you want to rule out some effects of time. Milton’s diction is as abstract as Latin. Shakespeare’s is just supplemented vernacular molded by poetics.

No, he absolutely didn’t. This is what foreigners cannot grasp about English and why they conceive it as so “easy” to learn. They have no idea what stylistic intricacies the language comprises outside of grammar.

This is what I mean, this user does not and cannot understand the very small differences between these words

>when anglos are in charge
Great thread. No ground say ground.

The secret key to Beckett is still Robert Pinget. Beckett’s translations are very telling.

What do you mean?

The words aren’t 100% interchangeable.

i watched waiting for godot one time it was really good

That's what a synonym is. A similar word but not 100% the same. Still, the difference is so vague and insignificant that it's a useless synonym, in my opinion.

Your opinion is based on nothing. Necessity and and need have very different connotations you ESL retard.

Beckett's thesis, not mine. Let's get that clear, retard. I just tried to make sense of it. Perhaps it was an inadequate, unfit, unsuited, inappropriate example. I might find a better one later on.

so you are saying he was afraid to write in his native language because he didn't want to be considered a hack?

The words need and necessity are a necessity to be fully able to articulate concepts in the English language
The words need and necessity are a need to be fully able to articulate concepts in the English language
The words necessity and need are a necessity to be fully able to articulate concepts in the English language
The words necessity and need are a need to be fully able to articulate concepts in the English language

>sperging like an autist over minutiae
Keep on the cringe, mate.

You saw the point didn't you
t. Someone who's done copyediting professionally

No, they aren’t interchangeable, they have very different meanings

>t. Someone who's done copyediting professionally
you fucking suck at it

You're not paying me $40 an hour mate so you take what you're given and you'll like it

Sound pretty interchangeable to me. From the OED:
>necessity (noun): The state or fact of being required.
>need (noun): Circumstances in which something is necessary; necessity.
A useless synonym.

>Circumstances

See . The two sentences using "are a need" are unnatural and a native speaker would never say them. You just don't recognize it because you aren't fluent.

"Need" as a noun is only used in certain types of situations, e.g. "able to meet his needs." I find it hard to explain exactly, but it's certainly not interchangeable with "necessity." The verb form of "need" is very common, though.

In this case we could remove "necessity" and use "requirement" instead and nobody would miss it. I'm still waiting for a reply to:

Those aren't fully interchangeable either. Examples from a dictionary:
>The plane was compelled by necessity to change its course.
>...did it, not because he wanted to, but by necessity
>...had come to help them in their necessity
>When his father collapsed, an ambulance became a necessity.
You couldn't use requirement in those sentences.

Argh, you're right. I stand corrected. Good night, mate.

>The verb form of "need" is very common, though.
What would be the difference between "to need" and "to necessitate"? Exactly like their noun forms but in verb form? Or is there a trick?

spanish has the same amount of synonymous than english

It's hard to explain since I never have to think about it, but I'll try. "Need" would simply mean lack you are in want of something; e.g. "He needs something to eat." "Necessitate" would be more about a circumstance creating a need; e.g. "Lack of sales necessitates that we scale back operations."

How do you even count synonyms? Also "synonymous" is an adjective while "synonym" is a noun.

>"Need would simply mean that* you are in want of something
Figured I'd fix my typo since I'm giving a grammar explanation.

Thanks, mate. I've also just read that one is bound by a timeframe and the other one isn't.

Requirement is even further and has other connotations. A word isn’t just its definition.

Overlooked may be what you mean