From: cla02@seq1.keele.ac.uk (R. Wallace)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: OSE: A troskyist fringe group
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:38:54 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Oct1.020753.49061@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, by dk0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DIMITRIOS KOUVATSOS):
> Mr. Wallace, I admit I did get carried away a bit; mastery of English is a
> silly thing to argue about. Case closed with no ill feelings on my part.

Thank you for the message. I thnk we both got a bit carried away! I'll
resolve not to get side-tracked into irrelevancies next time.

> Regarding my signature file, do you really believe that anybody who likes a
> quotation in his signature file must have an 'M' mentality? I think it is you
> who got a little carried away on that.

You're absolutely right. What I said was quite uncalled for. But the
dreaded Mr M's sig really annoyed me. (His new incarnation - if such it
be - is much less active, it seems to me. I wonder why? Can somebody
have given him a real job, perhaps? Will we ever know?) 
>  
> Regarding politeness, you are right.

Good for you! No good argument ever lost its force by being expressed politely.
> 
> regards,
> Dimitris Kouvatsos
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------    "Avnr Ellnv basileus Makedovwv"
> += Dimitris Kouvatsos *=    "[I am] Greek man king of the Macedonians"
> <dk0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
> ------------------------                    -- Alexander III the Great

Now, just to make amends (and to stop this posting degenerating into a
sickening display of mutual admiration) let me give you the counter to
the argument I presented about the quotation in your sig.

You remember, I said that it could be interpreted as 'A Greek man'
(because descended from Argives, who everybody knows are Greek) 'king of
the Macedonians' (another lot of people altogether, whose Greekness is
very dodgy).

The argument I would use against this interpretation goes like this:
Nobody puts up inscriptions just for kicks. They want to make a point
(not always the point the words make of course; all of those Latin
inscriptions on 19th century public buildings really just say 'Look how
cultured I am'). So what is this inscription saying? Let's assume that
(as the previous argument suggests) the Greeks and Macedonians are two
different lots of people. Now, the next stage is to decide whether the
terms used are neutral, pejorative, or complimentary. Assume both are
neutral. "I, a member of one lot of people, rule another lot of people'.
Hardly worth blunting your chisel for, is it? Assume Greek is
complimentary, and Macedonian pejorative. "I, a civilised and cultured
Greek, rule over these squalid and pig-ignorant Macedonians". Well, you
might think that, but it's not the sort of thing you would want to put
into writing! Not if there were Macedonians around to read it! Do it the
other way round. "I, a feeble and despicable Southerner (i.e Greek), am
king of the brave and virile Macedonians". One doesn't really associate 
this sort of near-saintly
self-abnegation  with ancient Greek rulers! You can play around with
other permutations, and get similarly daft results.

Conclusion: a classic reduction ad absurdum. Since all the conclusions
which can be drawn from the initial assumption are wrong, then the
assumption itself is wrong. The assumption was that Greek and Macedonian
do not refer to the same People. That is wrong. Therefore they do.

Q.E.D.

(But don't get carried away! the argument only applies to this
inscription, and I think most people would agree that Macedonian kings
did, at any rate when it suited them, represent themselves as Greek. The
more general question needs other arguments)

All the best!

Richard Wallace. 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.greek:9463 soc.culture.yugoslavia:8988 soc.culture.bulgaria:1467