Read Online Every Good Boy Deserves Favor and Professional Foul by Tom Stoppard - Free Book Online

of
STONE ’
s speech which they will cover. This applies also to any other interpolations. Obviously
, STONE
does not pause to let these other things in
.
    STONE: The confusion which often arises from the ambiguity of ordinary language raises special problems for a logical language. This is especially so when the ambiguity is not casual and inadvertent—but when it’s contrived. In fact, the limitations of a logical language are likely to appear when we ask ourselves whether it can accommodate a literature, or whether poetry can be reduced to a logical language. It is here that deliberate ambiguity for effect makes problems.
    ANDERSON: Perfectly understandable mistake.
    STONE: Nor must we confuse ambiguity, furthermore, with mere synonymity. When we say that a politician ran for office, that is not an ambiguous statement, it is merely an instance of a word having different applications, literal, idiomatic and so on.
    MCKENDRICK: I said I knew his face.
    ANDERSON: Match of the Day.
    STONE: The intent is clear in each application. The show ran well on Broadway. Native Dancer ran well at Kentucky, and so on. (
In the audience a Frenchman expresses dismay and bewilderment as his earphones give out a literal translation of ‘a native dancer’ running well at Kentucky. Likewise a German listener has the same problem
.)
And what about this word ‘Well’? Again, it is applied as a qualifier with various intent—the show ran for a long time, the horse ran fast, and so on.
    MCKENDRICK: So this pressing engagement of yours is a football match.
    ANDERSON: A World Cup qualifier is not just a football match.
    STONE: Again, there is no problem here so long as these variations are what I propose to call reliable. ‘You eat well’ says Mary to John, ‘You cook well’ says John to Mary. We know that when Mary says ‘You
eat
well’ she does not mean that John eats
skilfully
. Just as we know that when John says ‘You cookwell’ he does not mean that Mary cooks
abundantly
.
    ANDERSON: But I’m sorry about missing your paper, I really am.
    STONE: I say that we know this, but I mean only that our general experience indicates it. The qualifier takes its meaning from the contexual force of the verb it qualifies. But it is the mark of a sound theory that it should take account not merely of our general experience, but also of the particular experience, and not merely of the particular experience but also of the unique experience, and not merely of the unique experience but also of the hypothetical experience. It is when we consider the world of
possibilities
, hypothetical experience, that we get closer to ambiguity. ‘You cook well’ says John to Mary. ‘You eat well’ says Mary to John.
    MCKENDRICK: Do you ever wonder whether all this is worthwhile?
    ANDERSON: No.
    MCKENDRICK: I know what you mean.
( CHETWYN
is twisting the knob on his translation phone, to try all this out in different languages. He is clearly bored. He looks at his watch
.)
    STONE: No problems there. But I ask you to imagine a competition when what is being judged is table manners.
(
Insert
FRENCH INTERPRETER ’
s box—interior
.)
    INTERPRETER: … bonne tenue à table …
    STONE: John enters this competition and afterwards Mary says, ‘Well, you certainly ate well!’ Now Mary seems to be saying that John ate
skilfully—with refinement
. And again, I ask you to imagine a competition where the amount of food eaten is taken into account along with refinement of table manners.
Now
Mary says to John, ‘Well, you didn’t eat very well, but at least you ate well.’
    INTERPRETER: Alors, vous n’avez pas bien mangé … mais…
(
All
INTERPRETERS
baffled by this
.)
    STONE: Now clearly there is no way to tell whether Mary means that John ate abundantly but clumsily, or that John ate frugally but elegantly. Here we have a genuine ambiguity. To restate