I once sat bought tickets for a son-et-lumiere (well, an indoor son-et-lumiere) in the Nimes Maison Caree: a kind of dramatised presentation of the history of what was then Languedoc-Roussillon but is now Occitanie, projections on a screen, light show, a but of 3D. It was fairly well done: a little dramatised scene of Roman Gaul, actors giving it their all; then a scene of medieval France; then the revolution 1789; then late 19th-century silk weavers; then … straight into 21st-century France. Nothing on the whole Vichy France Nazi alignment mid-20thC French history stuff: such was not part of the narrative. Not to dunk, it was a well done presentation. But … well.
Adam Roberts @1:
“I once sat bought tickets for a son-et-lumiere ….”
I found this sentence intriguing and puzzling, because I’d never encountered this manner of expressing the description of an event of viewing a show, if that’s what is expressed. (It is perfectly grammatical.) It doesn’t seem like the residue of a rephrasing, or a typo (as with “a but of 3D”). Can you “sit bought tickets” for a play? Why did you say it like that? Why ‘sit’ and ‘buy’, and ‘ticket’, for that matter? In any case, if you intended to express the description differently from the way you did, I think I prefer the way you did (so no need to change it).
JPL: my clumsy fingers omitted to delete “sat” when I changed the locution (which was originally going to be “sat through…” but that seemed too penitential).
So it was a residue of a rephrasing after all. I rejected that interpretation since, I thought, if you viewed the show, why would you not describe the event of your viewing of the show instead of only the event of your buying a ticket for it? So now what’s intriguing is the emotional undercurrent of your viewing experience: if it was not penitence, what was it exactly? Your description of the show itself makes it seem interesting, but mysterious. Why the reticence at the end? (“But …”) (My alternative interpretation of your sentence was that it was a serial verb construction, which would be possible in some other languages, but not yet officially in English.) (Sorry, don’t feel obligated to respond to my obsessive musings about sentences, unreflective of intended thoughts as they may be. It’s an example of a big problem in the philosophy of language: what is a thought?)
{ 6 comments }
Adam Roberts 11.04.24 at 6:56 pm
I once sat bought tickets for a son-et-lumiere (well, an indoor son-et-lumiere) in the Nimes Maison Caree: a kind of dramatised presentation of the history of what was then Languedoc-Roussillon but is now Occitanie, projections on a screen, light show, a but of 3D. It was fairly well done: a little dramatised scene of Roman Gaul, actors giving it their all; then a scene of medieval France; then the revolution 1789; then late 19th-century silk weavers; then … straight into 21st-century France. Nothing on the whole Vichy France Nazi alignment mid-20thC French history stuff: such was not part of the narrative. Not to dunk, it was a well done presentation. But … well.
JPL 11.04.24 at 11:57 pm
Adam Roberts @1:
“I once sat bought tickets for a son-et-lumiere ….”
I found this sentence intriguing and puzzling, because I’d never encountered this manner of expressing the description of an event of viewing a show, if that’s what is expressed. (It is perfectly grammatical.) It doesn’t seem like the residue of a rephrasing, or a typo (as with “a but of 3D”). Can you “sit bought tickets” for a play? Why did you say it like that? Why ‘sit’ and ‘buy’, and ‘ticket’, for that matter? In any case, if you intended to express the description differently from the way you did, I think I prefer the way you did (so no need to change it).
Adam Roberts 11.05.24 at 12:19 pm
JPL: my clumsy fingers omitted to delete “sat” when I changed the locution (which was originally going to be “sat through…” but that seemed too penitential).
Philippe 11.05.24 at 9:08 pm
Small typo : “ carrée “ !
I wonder, as you post a lot from the region, do you ever go to Arles for the “ Rencontres “ ?
Thanks for the picture
JPL 11.05.24 at 10:20 pm
So it was a residue of a rephrasing after all. I rejected that interpretation since, I thought, if you viewed the show, why would you not describe the event of your viewing of the show instead of only the event of your buying a ticket for it? So now what’s intriguing is the emotional undercurrent of your viewing experience: if it was not penitence, what was it exactly? Your description of the show itself makes it seem interesting, but mysterious. Why the reticence at the end? (“But …”) (My alternative interpretation of your sentence was that it was a serial verb construction, which would be possible in some other languages, but not yet officially in English.) (Sorry, don’t feel obligated to respond to my obsessive musings about sentences, unreflective of intended thoughts as they may be. It’s an example of a big problem in the philosophy of language: what is a thought?)
Chris Bertram 11.06.24 at 8:44 am
@Philippe thanks. Corrected. I do go to Arles from time to time, though never, so far, for the Rencontres.
Comments on this entry are closed.