Re: Gaffa

[Craig Heath <craig@sco.COM>]

> From Chris Williams
> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 95 08:02:05 GMT

> >"Gaffa" clearly has multiple levels of meanings; all I was trying to
> >say was that at one level, it refers to gaffer tape.

>    It is possible that "gaffer's tape" was a background thought when
> she was writing the song...

"You are almost there. If you can just make one more tiny little jump..." :-)

>    I mean that I believe that "gaffer's tape" was a joke that Kate 
> thought of later.

I can't understand why you think this.

>    Whoa there with the generalization! I've been a fan of British
> comedy and SF since I was a wee tyke.

Sorry, as I said, I meant no offense.  I was merely trying to discover
why we apparently have different understandings of what "lying" is.

>    Kate is a human being (IED and I disagree on this, Andy and I agree.)
> She's said so herself. (Scenes from "Life of Brian" flash through my 
> mind.)

I'm not trying to deify Kate, I fully accept that she is human, and
makes mistakes, which is inherent in the human condition.  I do not
accept, however, that being human makes one a compulsive liar.  You
don't have to be a saint to find lying distasteful, and habitually
avoid doing it.

>    Everybody lies. Kate wouldn't be 5' 3" in Fee Waybill's "Quay Lewd" 
> platform shoes.

With a very broad definition of "lies", I will accept that "everybody
lies".  I will not accept that everybody is deceitful.  As for that
particular example, is that a literal quote from Kate or something
from a press release?  If the latter, I submit that it is not a
relevant example.

>    Even Kate. She has never claimed to be a paragon, and she has 
> indicated that she does not appreciate being put on a pedestal.

Indeed not, she is far too modest for that.

> >Obviously the spelling is open to question, in fact, I believe it is
> >deliberately misspelt so as to be reminiscent of a place name (see my
> >other message).  I quite believe you have never heard anyone call it
> >"gaffer" (no "'s") tape, but I have, and Kate probably has, because
> >that's what it's called in this country.

>    You are almost there. If you can just make one more tiny little
> jump, you will be able to accept that "gaffe", a word very descriptive
> of the sort of thing that Kate describes struggling with, is the
> *principle* meaning of the song. 

I'm not actually arguing about the meaning of the song as a whole,
I'm arguing about the specific origin of the word "Gaffa", and I will
not accept your explanation in preference to Kate's.

>    Then, do you believe that "gaffa as a plural of gaffe" is a
> reasonable explanation? At some point in the future I'd like to
> ask Kate "is gaffa a plural of gaffe?"  

No, I don't accept that explanation, because it has no linguistic
validity.  As I've already stated, I can entertain the idea that
"gaffe" was contributory, but I don't accept that it is the sole,
or even primary, derivation.

As for asking Kate, how much would you like to bet that her answer
amounts to "It could be..." :-)

I don't think I have anything further to contribute on this topic,
so I'll just have to agree to disagree.

		- Craig @ SCO near London.