As an impecunious graduate student, and later as a
threadbare lexicographer, I bought used copies of books whenever possible. Sometimes, these had been ill-used. This happened especially in the case of volumes currently
being used as textbooks. Absurdly
overpriced when new, these might come within the price-range of the elbow-patched
pauper after having passed through
the hands of some subsidized undergraduates who never really should have taken the course in the first
place, and who now sold their texts, out of sight out of mind, allowing us (as Leviticus prescribes)
to survive on their leavings and gleanings. These
individuals would often underline in ink, or highlight in yellow (or, horresco referens, pink), sometimes
every other sentence or paragraph:
and the color would bleed through the page, spuriously hemi-highlighting
many a quite random passage.
To read through the work, I had to wade through the swamp of their
mediocrity of mind. Why
couldn’t they at least highlight in pencil?
At present, I am reading a used paperback copy of Gordon
Craig’s classic 1978 history of Germany. And as the chapters go by, it becomes increasingly
apparent that the previous owner had been a scholar, or scrupulous
autodidact. The passages
marked are few, and always in faint pencil. Moreover, these do not constitute “highlights” in any
obvious sense; rather, they
illustrate some theme which that reader was pursuing in his mind, no longer
apparent to this one. His
interests, whatever they might have been, do not match mine: the phrase “civil service” merits, in
his recension, a rare double-underline.
Moreover, there are occasional pithy marginal notes, but penciled-in so
small that, even with a magnifier, I cannot decipher them -- in part because he
uses personal abbreviations, in part because the thought is not predictable. But one sigil thus used I do understand, and it marks him as my
Sinnesgenosse: that little pyramid of three dots,
which signifies “therefore” to a logician.
∴
~
Someday, when I am gathered to that great library in the sky, my own annotated holdings will flood the market (if it still exists; perhaps paper will be obsolete, and everyone on Kindle). And the purchasers will puzzle over my own arcane jottings. To aid later philologers, I shall mention here, that many of the abbreviatory symbols stem from lectures by Gleason or Quine: the rounded curly-d for ‘boundary’, an acutely downhooked upright for ‘restricted to’ (whence ‘only, just’), a perpendicularly downhooked horizontal for ‘not’, a square for ‘necessarily’ (whence ‘must’), a diamond for ‘possibly, maybe’, a thick-shafted arrow (=>) for ‘causes, gives rise to’, an upside-down A for ‘all’, a backwards E for ‘there is, there exists’, an inverted point-triad for ‘since, because’, and so forth. Or perhaps, like my own sad ashes, they will simply all be pulped.
[Note: The more
usual symbol for restriction of a function to a subset of a domain is simply vertical-bar. But that has many, many other
meanings; so I follow Gleason in
adding a hook, which quite
appropriately depicts the
restrictor as a grappling-iron …
Likewise, there are many traditional symbols used for ‘not’,
all of them grievously ambiguous.
I follow Quine in adding the disambiguating hook.]
No comments:
Post a Comment