Tarzan is the heir to the title of Lord Greystoke, born on the west African shore to his marooned parents, who both die tragically soon after his birth. He's saved from certain death by the anthropoid ape Kala, as she grieves for her recently deceased child. Brought up by his new mother, Tarzan leans the ways and language of this band of apes, which is how he acquires his name, which means white ape in their primitive tongue.
By happenstance Tarzan discovers the abandoned hut of his parents and their remains. Many of the belongings of his parents survive unscathed amid the decay and detritus of the abandoned hut, amongst these are language tutorials and dictionaries, from which Tarzan learns to read and write English. He accomplishes this prodigious feat without any tuition, with only the material available in the hut.
His mastery of English is so complete that when he finds that visitors from abroad are intruding upon his hut, he is able to draft a note and leave it for them.
THIS IS THE HOUSE OF TARZAN, THE
KILLER OF BEASTS AND MANY BLACK
MEN. DO NOT HARM THE THINGS WHICH
ARE TARZAN'S.TARZAN WATCHES.
TARZAN OF THE APES.
That's the story so far, now what is the inconsistency with this narrative?
It seems to me that it would be impossible to learn how to read and write English from books, because without a prior understanding of the language, one wouldn't know how words were pronounced. I'm quite sure that if I were given a book in Greek on how to learn Greek, I'd be none the bloody wiser as I wouldn't have a clue what it said.
ReplyDeleteYes well you're most likely right about that, but it's not actually inconsistent with the narrative, just a little bit (or maybe quite a lot) fantastic. There is though within this short précis, a real clanger that unravels the whole narrative.
DeleteWell, the note is in English, so unless the folk from abroad are British, they won't understand it.
DeleteGeography isn't my strong point and I can't be bothered checking, but could it be that it's impossible to get marooned off the west African shore?
Is it that he couldn't possibly know that it was the hut where his parents stayed?
Right, that's three guesses - spill the beans.
Or could it be that he wouldn't know how his name sounded in English (only having heard it in 'ape'), so therefore he wouldn't know how to translate it into our tongue?
DeleteGot there in the end Kid, it strikes me as an odd discontinuity because he spells his name out three flippen times.
DeleteActually, when you think about it, my first answer sort of covers it in a sense, because if he couldn't learn to speak English (as I suggested), then he wouldn't know how to write his name.
DeleteEr...
Delete...no.
Well, er... surely yes. You see, your proposition is that Tarzan knowing how to write his name in English is essentially nonsense. However, you're ignoring a major stumbling block in that it would be impossible for Tarzan to have learned how to speak and write English to begin with given the description of how he did so, in order to focus on one small part of a bigger flaw. A bit like looking at a small tear in the wallpaper and not seeing a big hole in the wall itself. So, yes - it doesn't make sense that he would have known how to write his name in English if he'd never heard it spoken in English, but neither would he have been able to learn how to read and write our language unless he had a dictionary on how to translate it from 'ape'. And where he actually learned how to speak it, well that's another problem. In short, signing his name is not the first or the biggest obstacle on his list here.
DeleteI really can't believe you're being serious.
DeleteAnd I really can't believe you can't see the logic of what I'm saying, DSE. Firstly, you have ignored the absurdity of a human baby being brought up by apes and learning their 'language' and to swing from vines and trees, fight and kill gorillas (and other wild animals), and then learn how to read, write and speak English from books by himself with no outside help. The simple fact is, the baby would most likely have died under the circumstances in which he is supposed to have been reared.
ReplyDeleteHowever, let's accept that he survived and thrived. Your main problem is that he can sign his name, never having heard how it was pronounced. What I'm saying is that's the lesser problem, since he wouldn't be able to understand any English to begin with as the explanation as to how he can doesn't bear scrutiny. In short, the main problem with this narrative is him being able to read, write and speak English at all, so the name thing is an offshoot of that, and therefore a secondary consideration. What you have done is ignored the primary flaw in order to focus on a minor one that flows from the main one. In fact, it could be argued that 'your' flaw isn't necessarily a flaw at all. For example, Tarzan's ape name is probably nothing more than a grunt (maybe a double-grunt to symbolise two syllables) with a slight inflection. So Tarzan has formed an English word that he likes the sound of to represent his ape name. See, if you're going to ignore the absurdity of him understanding English to begin with, it's not that much of a stretch to come up with an explanation for the name Tarzan that you imagine. In short, what you see as an inconsistency in the narrative may simply be down to your lack of imagination when it comes to explaining it. That doesn't mean that it's as much of an inconsistency as you perceive.
To labour the point a bit. Tarzan has chosen to call himself 'Tarzan', possibly not so much based on it being a literal translation of his 'ape' name, but merely because he likes the sound of it. As he is seemingly a self-taught master of the English language, he understands syllables. It would therefore be a simple matter of him choosing and combining two that he liked the sound of. As he (incredibly) knows how to spell, I don't see it as being as much of an inconsistency in the 'narrative' as you seem to. To reiterate merely for the sake of clarity, what you see as a difficulty may not be as much of a difficulty as you think - not if you apply a little imaginative logic as I have done.
This is beyond embarrassing because I find myself at a loss here. I'm not at all sure you're being sincere but you continue to persist with this utter nonsense. This is unpleasant for me because it's far from the first instance where I've had to contend with someone unable to handle, what is after all a very a simple, almost trivially understood truth. Those memories are particularly unpleasant for me and I've no wish to relive the experience through the internet.
DeleteIf by chance you're being sincere and this is not a prank, I would ask you to take a deep breath, pause a day or so then take little time to examine your claim, what it means and what the implications are. Then apply the same metre and standards of logic that you seem so fond of.
Well, it appears to me that you have difficulty in accepting the obvious because you're fixated on your own interpretation of things and have a blind spot. Also, you strike me as the type of person who resents others challenging your opinion on just about everything because you presume yourself to be right. Explain why what I say is, as you state, utter nonsense, and if you're right I'll thank you for it. I don't fear or flee from the truth. However, to be honest, it seems to me that you're stalling for time because you can't deal with the fact that your so-called inconsistency in a contrived narrative is not necessarily what you claim it to be. So I repeat - enlighten me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was waiting for your response, I refreshed my memory on Tarzan and note that he only learned to read and write English from the books in his parents' hut, but learned to speak it at a later date, so I assume your beef with the 'narrative' is how could he write his name if he couldn't pronounce it. Is that right? If so, the same problem remains. For instance, as the ape language (Mangani) does not exist in written form, how could Tarzan mentally translate English words into ape language in order to understand them? He might be able to visually associate a word like 'lion' with a lion if it was accompanied by a picture of one, but he wouldn't be able to pronounce it. So you've got that bit right, but you haven't thought the whole thing through. You see, there's another problem, which is this. Not having a written language of his own, how would he even recognise words on a page as having any meaning to begin with. He would have no concept of what a book even was, or its significance. So the major problem here to me is that he would never have been able to learn how to read or write English to begin with, so Burroughs' explanation of how he did so is arrant nonsense. Essentially, (and metaphorically) what you have done is ignore a trail of silver shillings in order to focus on a brass farthing. Forget his name - it's unlikely that he would have been able to construct the entire note, which makes my original answer the correct one.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if we're prepared to suspend disbelief and accept, for the purpose of enjoying the tale, the fact that Tarzan could learn to read and write English by himself, being able to write his name is not as insurmountable as you imagine it to be. He probably wouldn't have been able to pronounce his name as, at this stage, he wouldn't have been able to pronounce any English word, but as we're accepting the absurdity of him learning to read and write English to begin with, he could have chosen the visual appearance of his name by simply combining 'Tar' from 'tartan' and 'zan' from 'Zanzibar' - or any other words which contain these two sets of three letters. What I'm proposing is that he created his own English name, and attached the meaning of his ape name (which, I believe, actually means 'white-skin', not 'white ape') to it - the word means what he wants it to mean. In short, he combined elements of other words to suit his fancy because he liked the look of the result. Fantastic? Yes! Absurd? More than likely! But I return to my original point, which is this. It is no more fantastic or preposterous than him supposedly being able to read and write English to start with. To me it doesn't make sense for you to ignore prior absurdities in order to focus on another absurdity that springs from the ones which precede it. As I said, it's like ignoring a trail of silver shillings in order to pick up a brass farthing. Why would anyone do that?
In my view, once you are prepared to accept the first absurd premise of a story, finding a (seemingly) rational explanation for any other absurdity that springs from it is the best option.
So I refer you to my original comment, which actually incorporates your own difficulty. Tarzan writing his own name is really no more of a problem than being able to write the whole note, the contents of which he wouldn't have been able to construct to begin with. Why? Even if we accept that it's possible (and it is) to learn how to visually recognise (without being able to pronounce it) a word in a 'foreign' language which we can then associate with an object, that's a far cry from being able to construct a letter which makes any kind of sequential, comprehensible sense in that language. That's the main problem you should have difficulty with, DSE, before worrying about the name.
Just skimmed the first para but I haven't read the reply yet. I'll get back in a couple of days and reply properly.
DeleteThe question as stated above asks: what is this inconsistency with the narrative. You've pointed out that Tarzan's mastery of English is unlikely, which I feel is probably true but it doesn't answer the question as stated above because it's not an inconsistency within the narrative.
DeleteThe only answer to the question that satisfies the condition of being an inconsistency, that I'm currently aware of, is one that states there is no means for Tarzan to acquire the knowledge to spell his name in English, since it's a proper noun with no pictorial reference in the literature he learnt English from. Your initial answer to the question does not state or indeed infer such, therefore it is not possible to draw a conclusion relevant to the correct answer from your initial answer.
You might argue that Tarzan's ability to spell his name is just another fantastic event, like his ability to read and write English. This is true but I direct you to the question again: '...what is the inconsistency with this narrative?' Fantastic or not, it is an event inconsistent within the established narrative.
You may not recognise or concur with the distinction between a fantastic element of a narrative and an inconsistency within a narrative which is a collection of fantastic elements. This distinction is implicit to the question posed in my post, without which it makes no sense. In such case, I might as well ask, what’s unlikely about that and since Tarzan kills a lion with a ball of string at one stage in the narrative and there is a Frenchman who seems like a really great guy, the answer to that would be just about everything.
Although it has no relevance to the issue at hand, as an aside it might be worth alluding to the question of learning a written language with no phonetic reference. I don’t think a definitive answer to the question is possible, I think it’s possible in principle but an impossible practicality. There are cases of people learning written languages without reference to the native phonetic values but I think that mostly occurs with pictographic writing systems. There are other types of languages, programming languages for example, but they have a much reduced scope and are less abstract than normal languages.
I understand all that, but I repeat - as Mangani doesn't exist in written form, there is really no way for Tarzan to learn how to translate ANY of the ape language into written English, not just his name. He could possibly (and arguably) learn to visually associate the appearance of some English words with the objects they represent if there's a picture of each object accompanying its corresponding word, but he wouldn't know how to pronounce any of them until he was taught by someone. However, within the narrative (in which, impossibly, he has learned to read and write English), what is to stop him from having simply created the name by combining elements of other words? He still wouldn't know how to pronounce it, but there's nothing to stop him from creating his written English name simply because he liked the look of it. You see what I'm saying? He wouldn't know how to pronounce any of the words in his note, and his name is only a 'proper noun' because he applies it to himself. 'Tarzan' is merely the English 'translation' of 'white-skin' (or 'white ape') because he has chosen it to be.
DeleteConsequently, the whole premise of your question seems extremely contrived to me, and therefore redundant. Basically, it's saying 'Let's accept elements A, B, and C of an absurd and impossible narrative, in order to demonstrate how absurd and impossible element D is.'
So, although I see what you're saying, I just think it's a pretty pointless exercise at the end of the day. However, even if we accept your artificial strictures for the purpose of posing a puzzle, as the use of his name (especially if you accept at least the possibility of my explanation for its existence) is really no more impossible than any other word used in his note, my first answer actually fulfills the requirements of the question.
You see, I don't think you can legitimately differentiate between his name and any other word within the 'narrative', which is 'loaded' in favour of the artificial and contrived strictures you seek to impose in order to ask a question which really isn't as significant as you want it to be. I'm thinking beyond those strictures (out of the box even), but in so doing, I'm not ignoring them, I just don't regard them as being as limiting as you seem to.
Anyway, we could go around in circles forever, but in my opinion your artificially restrictive narrative doesn't preclude my first answer. Have you ever read the Mensa puzzle book? Some questions give the strong impression that they were created after the answer. By that I mean that there was a general idea of the question's premise, but the specific wording of the question was chosen after the answer had been decided upon. That means that although the answer is correct, it doesn't necessarily preclude another, slightly different answer also being correct. It's all down to what the questioner has decided is the 'right' answer, to (in his mind) the exclusion of any other answer that would also suit. I think that's what you're doing here, but it's certainly made for an interesting discussion. (I think so anyway.)
Having re-read that, it occurs to me that you may think I've still missed your point, so let's try this. Within the narrative of Tarzan being able to read and write English, you're saying that him being able to write his name in English is an inconsistency because there's no means by which he could learn the name. What I'm saying (I'm saying a lot more of course, but this is the Reader's Digest version) is that your assertion doesn't necessarily apply if he created his English name (even without knowing how to pronounce it, but neither would he be able to pronounce any other word in his note) by combining elements of other words. In short, it was the visual appearance of the word 'Tarzan' that rang his bell, not how it was pronounced. So, basically, what I'm saying is that what you see as an inconsistency is more of a 'seeming' inconsistency which evaporates when a little imagination is applied. Which, at the end of the day, is probably the best way to read imaginative stories. Remember, the word 'Tarzan' is an invented word anyway, which did not exist before Burroughs plucked it from his imagination. He had the benefit of being able to speak English of course, but I daresay that even if he couldn't, he could still have come up with the name based on its visual appeal.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it seems clear that, within the narrative, you're saying that Tarzan DID understand the other words in his note, and within the narrative, appears to have understood how they were pronounced. If so, he would therefore also have been able to recognise words like 'tartan' and 'Zanzibar' (if they were included within his father's books), so could have created his name from the first syllable of the first word and the last syllable of the second word. So, to reiterate, he would still have been able to come up with his name 'within the narrative', meaning that your 'inconsistency' isn't necessarily an inconsistency - or at least, it doesn't have to be.
I don't find any of this to be relevant, the quiz was written to stand alone but is I believe it to be reasonably consistent with the text of Tarzan of the Apes as first published. I believe a mildly edited version is available at the Australian Project Gutenberg site.
DeleteThe point I'd like to make here, is that you either:-
Reconcile yourself to the fact that you couldn't solve the riddle until your third attempt. While that is nothing to crow about, it's no reason to hang your head in shame, after all ERB wrote the book and he got over it, wrote a bunch more, got really rich and laughed all the way to the bank.
or
You persist with your current train of thought and demonstrate palpably that you can't draw the simple distinction between the fantasy of a narrative the continuity within that fantasy.
Which do you think reflects more favourably?
Actually, you're demonstrating that you don't quite grasp the fact that I've already covered (several times) the 'within the narrative' aspect that you persist on going on about. I've gone to great pains to try and make that clear. To you, Tarzan writing his name is an inconsistency. That's because you're convinced that there's a cleverness in being able to spot that (admittedly) apparent inconsistency. However, as I've explained several times over, that so-called 'inconsistency' can be reconciled to the continuity within the fantasy of the narrative. Got that? That's a fact which you keep ignoring because it doesn't suit your purpose. You continue to palpably demonstrate that you either can't see it, or refuse to accept it because it reveals that perhaps your question is not quite as clever as you think it is.
DeleteYou see, what I've done is think beyond (yet still address) the artificial restrictions you seek to impose on my reasoning, while you continue to hide behind them. One more time. Even if we accept the fantasy within the narrative, Tarzan could still have created a name for himself. If he could learn to understand (though not speak) English from his parents' books, he would be able to combine syllables from different words to create a new one, which he could then apply to himself as a name. Fantastic? Yes, but still possible within the confines of the narrative. Which, remember, allows him to write words that he wouldn't know at that stage how to pronounce. So I've adequately explained why it would not be impossible for Tarzan to be able to create a name for himself, and my proposition remains consistent within the confines of the narrative.
However, I've done more than that. I've also demonstrated the utter pointlessness of the question itself, which in no way is as significant as you imagine. Only the most obsessive, tiny minds would be prepared to accept the absurdities inherent within a fantastic premise in order to focus on what they perceive as another absurdity which stems from the previous ones.
Why would anyone say "Let's accept the improbability of a grunting savage being able to learn how to understand a language he can't pronounce, then construct coherent written sentences in that language, but let's not accept that if he could do that, he'd also be able to create a name for himself in that language"? Your so-called 'narrative' is one big inconsistency from the word go.
So, not only have I provided a reasonable, logical explanation for why Tarzan could write what he has decided is his English name - within the narrative - I've also demonstrated that your question wasn't even worth asking to begin with. A two-pronged approach in effect. Your 'narrative' is flawed from the outset, and whether within or without it, I've exposed that fact more than adequately.
You don't find any of that relevant? Of course you don't. If you did, you'd see that the assumed cleverness behind your 'quiz' is as fragile as your grasp of the obvious.
I should also point out that your original question was "what is the inconsistency with this narrative?", not "within this narrative", so as the entire narrative is inconsistent, my first answer pointing that out is basically correct - you just couldn't see it. And when you misuse the word 'infer' when you mean 'imply', I can see what the problem is. You think what you're saying means what you WANT it to mean because you KNOW what you want it to mean, whereas it's open to interpretation due to your less than precise use of language.
ReplyDeleteAnyone reading Tarzan knows that the word 'Tarzan' didn't exist in the English language at the time the Ape-Man wrote it in his note, so in that sense your questioning of where Tarzan 'learned' his name is justified, as one has to ask - "Where did he get it from?". However, any truly intelligent person with a bit of imagination would then assume that Tarzan must have created it himself, and I have proposed a perfectly legitimate method by which he did so, which remains consistent 'within the narrative'.
My explanation is therefore a perfectly valid one.
Penny dropped yet?
'I should also point out that your original question was "what is the inconsistency with this narrative?", not "within this narrative"'
DeleteOh that's the clincher except for, just what is the relevance? The answer to that is there is none, except perhaps for that imagined inside your head.
I mean: 'within' vs 'with this', I'm sorry but that's just asinine. It's not just that though it's scurrilous and I am convinced now that you're incapable of honest discussion.
There is no penny Kid because you're two pence short the price of admission.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell, that's a neat way of avoiding dealing with your own obtuseness, and it only took you a few days to think of it. You're so fixed on your own point of view that you can't see beyond it. Deadspidereye? Deadspiderbrain more like. You're just not as good at expressing yourself as you imagine, as testified to by the amount of people who couldn't understand your comments on my blog. There's none so blind as those who won't see - you're proof of that. Ever wonder why no one even comments on your blog anymore? It's because your posts are as pointless as your so-called poetry and doodlings.
ReplyDeleteI've ably explained why your apparent inconsistency isn't necessarily the inconsistency you imagine it to be, but you lack the creativity and imagination (plus the intelligence) to see it. You're not just two pence short of the price of admission, you're short of the whole fiver. I'll leave you to your vapid existence, writing puzzles cribbed from books or the Internet for a non-existent audience.