Gaffa after gaffa, round and round

[IEDSRI@aol.com]

 > Well, come on in, out of that snow storm.
 > |>oug

Thank you, he shall.

IED admired Craig Heath's good-humored stab at the unstoppable
"gaffa" corpse; although his logic was inescapable, he will by
now have seen how little such a detail matters here, occasionally. IED is,
alas, living proof of Craig's report
about the American's lack of access to irony (though even he understood that
"latex" was a joke, not a lie!), as the 
following dogged attempt to make his position clearer to his forensic
opponents demonstrates.

Chris Williams writes: 

 > I've been showing the depth of the metaphor. We just disagree
 > on exactly what the metaphor is. I believe that "gaffa is a
 > plural of gaffe" is the original meaning. 

 For the second time, IED will explain that the
plural of the French word "gaffe" is, in French, "gaffes" --
not "gaffa".  In Italian (even if one concedes that the 
Italians might translate from the French into their own
"gaffa") the plural is "gaffe" -- not "gaffa".  (It is
also remotely possible that they do not translate the word
from the French; in that case, however, the plural would
be "gaffi" -- again, not "gaffa". Quite apart from the fact
that Italian has nothing to do with the word or the song!)
Thus, your assumption that "the original meaning" of the song
is that "gaffa is the plural of gaffe" is wrong. That's as in "wrong".

 > I feel very confident of the following:

 >  Kate is human
 >  Humans lie
 >   Kate lies

 > Sad, but true. 

It's not sad at all, but that's another subject. IED's point,
which was perhaps not presented with sufficient clarity, is this:
though Kate Bush may well have lied once or twice in published interviews
(and, as Chris Heath has shown, even the examples you cite may well support
alternative explanations), you have produced no evidence to support your hope
that she has lied on *this* occasion.

Our group's founder ably writes:

 > I think you are missing the point, though, Chris, of those 
 > who say the only meaning of "Gaffa" is "gaffer's tape".  Its 
 > literal meaning is only "gaffer's tape", but it is used as a
 > metaphor for some very deep and confounding principles of
 > life.  By not acknowledging the power and directness of its
 > superficial meaning, you are missing the metaphor, and thus
 > the depth of the song.

This is, of course, manifestly true. Kate Bush herself has identified the
signifier of the metaphor: "gaffer 
tape".  It is up to us to unravel, as well as possible, the 
metaphor in full.  That metaphor may indeed carry secondary associations, as,
for example, the French "gaffe"; but you have offered no reason at all to
accord this possible pun the status of primary signifier.

It simply doesn't do to reject the author's own unequivocal explanation
merely because you have happened to stumble upon an additional layer of
linguistic interactivity (i.e., the likeness of "gaffer" to "gaffe") which
you clearly prefer to the explanation which the author offered.  

No one, IED believes, is saying that Kate was unaware of the "gaffe"
connotation. The fact remains, however, that she acknowledged "gaffer",
which, as |>oug has already said, serves eloquently as the root word of a
telling metaphor of the song's larger meaning.

 > The *only* thing you have on your side is one Kate quote.

  That's as opposed to. . . ?

 > I can imagine someone saying "Gaffa? What's gaffa?
 > Is that like gaffer's tape?" (possibly the same friends
 > who kept commenting to Kate how "Spanish" _Sat In Your
 > Lap_ sounded.) I can imagine Kate getting tickled at
 > the misinterpretation, and using it on the next
 > interviewer.

No one disputes that you can imagine these little scenes. 
Thankfully, others among us cannot, and must rely on facts instead.

-- Andrew Marvick (IED)
   S        R         I