A Bit Of Fry And Laurie Quote
[Tricky Linguistics]
Hugh Laurie: : So let's talk instead about flexibility of language - um, linguistic elasticity, if you'd like.
Stephen Fry: : Yes, I think that I've said earlier that our language, English -
L: As spoken by us.
F: As we speak it, yes, certainly, defines us. We are defined by our language, if you will.
L: [to screen] Hello. We're talking about language.
F: Perhaps I can illustrate my point. Let me at least try. Here is a question: um...
L: What is it?
F: Oh! Um... my question is this: is our language - English - capable... is English capable of sustaining demagoguery?
L: Demagoguery?
F: Demagoguery.
L: And by "demagoguery" you mean...
F: By "demagoguery" I mean demagoguery...
L: I thought so.
F: I mean highly-charged oratory, persuasive whipping-up rhetoric. Listen to me, listen to me. If Hitler had been British, would we, under similar circumstances, have been moved, charged up, fired up by his inflammatory speeches, or would we simply have laughed? Is English too ironic to sustain Hitlerian styles? Would his language simply have rung false in our ears?
L: [to screen] We're talking about things ringing false in our ears.
F: May I compartmentalize - I hate to, but may I, may I: is our language a function of our British cynicism, tolerance, resistance to false emotion, humour, and so on, or do those qualities come extrinsically - extrinsically - from the language itself? It's a chicken and egg problem.
L: [to screen] We're talking about chickens, we're talking about eggs.
F: Um... let me start a leveret here: there's language and there's speech. Um, there's chess and
Hugh Laurie: : So let's talk instead about flexibility of language - um, linguistic elasticity, if you'd like.
Stephen Fry: : Yes, I think that I've said earlier that our language, English -
L: As spoken by us.
F: As we speak it, yes, certainly, defines us. We are defined by our language, if you will.
L: [to screen] Hello. We're talking about language.
F: Perhaps I can illustrate my point. Let me at least try. Here is a question: um...
L: What is it?
F: Oh! Um... my question is this: is our language - English - capable... is English capable of sustaining demagoguery?
L: Demagoguery?
F: Demagoguery.
L: And by "demagoguery" you mean...
F: By "demagoguery" I mean demagoguery...
L: I thought so.
F: I mean highly-charged oratory, persuasive whipping-up rhetoric. Listen to me, listen to me. If Hitler had been British, would we, under similar circumstances, have been moved, charged up, fired up by his inflammatory speeches, or would we simply have laughed? Is English too ironic to sustain Hitlerian styles? Would his language simply have rung false in our ears?
L: [to screen] We're talking about things ringing false in our ears.
F: May I compartmentalize - I hate to, but may I, may I: is our language a function of our British cynicism, tolerance, resistance to false emotion, humour, and so on, or do those qualities come extrinsically - extrinsically - from the language itself? It's a chicken and egg problem.
L: [to screen] We're talking about chickens, we're talking about eggs.
F: Um... let me start a leveret here: there's language and there's speech. Um, there's chess and
TV Show: A Bit Of Fry And Laurie
