What I write must be very disturbing to trigger funny reactions such as Snowy doesn't have five "pattes" in the frame...
I’m not at all disturbed, but thank you for checking; I’m merely analysing what you have to say, rather than accepting it blindly.
...which is perfect French indeed, for you can't say 'jambes' (legs) for a dog...
That’s very odd, because I can
say it, as can the author of this diagram
, which quite clearly shows the jambe
is part of the dog’s leg - and (just to show that it isn’t a one-off, this dog breed page also uses “jambe”
in their description. I’m sure I could find many more, but as you would say, please search… But that’s by-the-by… This is a side-track issue, as “jambes” only just came up… [NB: In fairness, I have edited the above slightly, as I misinterpreted the text on the diagram, and took a label for part of the leg as specifying the “patte” as the paw; this is an error. However, it does still show the “jambe” of a dog…]
Armless' is certainly more easily drawable than 'harmless', imho...
Yes, indubitably - which, imho, is why a man engaged in creating a rebus-like
system would choose to draw it that way - as armless
. And it is definitely
more believable than cinq pattes/ sympathique
- I have provided a true pair of homophones for many English speakers, and one which would be immediately available to almost all English speakers; you have given a pun which would need to be explained, and is at best very laboured, even for Francophones…
Can anyone confirm all this is becoming ridiculous, please?
It occurs to me that I haveonly been trying to demonstrate that the proposition you have been offering is tenuous at best; if you yourself now wish to characterise it as ridiculous, I can only agree with your own analysis.
I put it to you that you're the only one on this site to express a systematically negative opinion about Herge's rebus...
Actually, I thought I was perhaps extending you the courtesy of looking in to what you have to say, and consistently addressing your many questions and requests for information; if you don’t want me to try and work my way through your labyrinthan effusions, well I’m sorry to have troubled you.
I have been systematically sifting your evidence, that is true, and finding it wanting; if you choose to characterise analysis of your own material which doen’t agree with you as negative, then that is your perogative - however, I think it is better to say that I have been a fair critic of your theory.
I also dare say that it is somewhat presumptious to assume that the silence of the vast majority is the silence of agreement…
I also think that you are trying to undermine what I am saying merely by attacking my position of scepticism, rather than by defending your own position, which does it no credit; I have never done this to you - I merely use logic and rigour to offer a different interpretation of your evidence, and ask you to provide proof for the “hidden message”.
And I doubt you'll manage to prevent any person of good faith interested in Tintin & in Archipelagos' languages to discover sooner or later how Tintin was intimately inspired by Herge's very sad family secret...
Setting aside the suggestion that I am not a person of good faith because I disagree with you, which is just plain rude, I think a person of good faith would wish to look objectively at both sides of the argument and weigh the evidence. As it stands, I am fairly certain that you have offered not a shred of evidence to back up the points, some of which I repeat once more:
* That Hergé, as a youth drawing a children’s comic-strip, embarked on a 50-odd year coded message
* That he knew any method of doing this
* That he could make it systematic
* That there is any documentary evidence of this code, although his research material, notes and correspondence for more than fifty years are largely extant, and the subject of research
If you come up with a body of evidence which is factual and not interpretative, then there would be real material to debate.
Snowy, thank you for your support; you are very kind.
PS: Drat! Drifted off topic - sorry! The bird is a tintin - I mean can-can, that is a two-can…