𐤔𐤐𐤈

[Transliteration: ŠPṬ]
Pronounced sūféṭ, this is the Phoenician word for "judge" in the sense of "ruler" or "lawmaker". Cognate with Hebrew שופט shōféṭ and Ugaritic 𐎘𐎔𐎉 ṯapiṭ both meaning "judge". Also cognate with Sabean 𐩻𐩰𐩷 ṯfṭ "legal decision", there are no Arabic or Aramaic cognates however. All derive from Proto-Central Semitic \ṯpṭ* "to pass judgement", Proto-Semitic /ṯ/ became /š/ in Canaanite and later /s/ in Phoenician. Akkadian 𒅆𒅁𒂅 [ši-ip-ṭu] šipṭu "judgement" and related terms are possibly loans from (North)West Semitic as they are mainly attested in Amorite areas, making a Proto-Semitic etymology harder to establish.
In the Phoenician city-states the 𐤔𐤐𐤈𐤌‎ sūfṭīm "judges" were non-royal magistrates who ruled over a city. In Carthage, they were elected annually and headed the government, they were the Carthaginian equivalent of Roman consuls. This function outlived Carthage and the Roman magistrates in North Africa were known as suffetēs in Latin. The pre-monarchy rulers of ancient Israel were also called שופטים shōfṭīm "judges" and seem to have had a similar role when Israel still was a tribal society (so prior to 1000 BCE), it is likely this political structure was inherent to Canaanite society, the book of Judges in the Bible is named after them, while most are obscure figures some Biblical Judges such as Samson and Samuel are more widely known.
This root forms the basis for several theophoric names, one of the kings of Byblos (Jbeil) for example was named 𐤔𐤐𐤈𐤁𐤏𐤋 safōṭbaˁal (AKA "Shipitbaal") meaning "Baal judges/rules", such theophoric names are also found in Judah with several individuals from Jerusalem, Hebron and Lachish bearing names like שפטיהו shəfáṭyahu meaning "Yahweh judges/rules", this name also appears in the Bible. The Biblical name יהושפט yəhōshafáṭ "Jehoshaphat" is formed on the same basis, just this time the theophoric ending is prefixed. The root is still productive in Hebrew and forms the basis for verbs like לשפוט lishpōṭ "to judge", להישפט lehishaféṭ "to be judged", nouns like משפט mishpáṭ "trial, sentence" (beit mishpáṭ is a court of law), שיפוט shipúṭ "judgement" and adjectives like משפטי mishpaṭi "judicial".
​
Sources:

• PHOENICIAN-PUNIC DICTIONARY, Charles R. Krahmalkov (2000)
• A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, Gregorio del Olmo Lete & Joaquín Sanmartín (2015)
• Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses, Leonid Kogan (2015)
• An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew, Hayim Tawil (2009)
• Phoenicia and the Phoenicians, Christopher A. Rollston (2016)
• Althebräische Personennamen, Hans Rechenmacher (2012)

Calormene culture always fascinated me as a kid reading the Narnia books. They were supposed to be depicted negatively but I loved the courtesy and wisdom of their society. The existing words in their language are such fun to say and I decided to construct a full language for them.
​
Orthography/phonology:
a: /ə/
ä: /æ/
b: /b/
g: /g/
t: /t/
j: /ɟ/
h: χ
i: ɪ
d: /d/
r: / before vowel or at end of word; /ɾ/ before consonant
z: /z/
s: /s/
f: /f/
v: /v/
u: /u:/
o: ɔ
c: /k/
k: /q/
e: /ɛ/
l: /l/
m: /m/
n: /n/
​
Digraphs:
aa: /a/
ae: /aɪ/
bh: /pʰ/
th: /tʰ/
jh: /d͡ʒ/
zh: /ʒ/
zz: /ʑ/
sh: /ʃ/
ss: /ɕ/
vh: /β/
oe: /ɔɪ/
kh: /q͡χ/
ei: /eɪ/
ee: /i/
lh: /ʎ/
​
Grammar:
Lukha Calorma (the Calormene language) is a VSO language, so as tacaal means "to eat" (-u making it past-tense), maajh means "meat", and Zheeda is a common Calormene name, "Zheeda ate meat" would be translated "Tacaalu Zheeda maajh." Äl is an article best translated as "the," but is used in many contexts. "Do you want to buy this meat?" would be "¿Maansha reed anth äl maajh?" (maansha = "want"; reed = "to buy"; anth = "you") Note the inverted question mark. The reason is that the sentence is the same in interrogative and non-interrogative contexts. "Maansha reed anth äl maajh" means "You want to buy this meat." As far as descriptors (adjectives/numerals/possessors/relatives) the noun should always be first.
​
Pluralization:
Words ending with a consonant or i: -ee (meats would be maajhee)
Words ending with a: -ae (nisa, meaning woman, would become nisae)
Words ending with e: -ei (vothe, meaning house, would become vothei)
Words ending with o or u: -oe (ahru, meaning river, would become ahroe)
​
To make a noun an adjective:
Words ending with a consonant: -o (aadam, meaning man, would become aadamo, meaning manly)
Words ending with a vowel: -kho (nisa would become nisakho, meaning womanly)
​
To make a word a verb: -ac for words ending with a consonant; -tac for words ending with a vowel
​
Past tense: -u for adjectives ending with a consonant; -tu for adjectives ending with a vowel
​
Possessive: -jee (Rishda's house would be translated vothe Rishdajee)
​
A Little Vocabulary
Man: Aadam
Woman: Nisa
Boy: Shiv
Girl: Lada
Nobleman/woman: Tarkaan/Tarkheena (from the books)
Horse: Shec
God: Dev
Goddess: Deeva
Water: Maan
Coffee: Kaahu
Narnia: Naantee
War: Lhab
Warrior: Aadamaabo
Poetry: Kävit
Poet: Aakavhee
Desert: Azzuth
​
A few phrases from the books translated:
Täsh! Täsh! Äl Dev Azim, Täsh! Äl Jeerkaam, Täsh! Äl Jukaheem, Täsh! (Tash! Tash! The great god, Tash! The inexorable one, Tash! The irresistible one, Tash!)
(azim, great; jeerkaam, inexorable; = jukaheem, irresistible)
Kavhinac ssnei tabeeg adeec äl haasa; tameenac balae adeec zhaabrae. (Natural affection is stronger than soup and offspring more precious than carbuncles.)
(kavhin, strong; ssnei, love; tabeeg, natural; adeec, more; haasa, soup; tameen, precious; bala, child; zhaabra, carbuncle)
Äbdaa beet äl aadam rahaatac äl hakeemu. (He who attempts to deceive the judicious is already baring his back for the scourge.)
(äbdaa, expose; beet, backside; rahaa, deception; hakeem, wise)

This is the continuation of my post Why the "godhead" has chosen the absolute nothing. That is, before you want to read the following, you should read the previous article with the comments, and you should be aware that I am speaking here again in an as-if mode. This means that we speak as if a perfect being, gifted with will and intellect, had created the world by irreversible self-disintegration. https://www.reddit.com/Mainlandecomments/hx3b2l/why_the_godhead_has_chosen_the_absolute_nothing/ In the previous post, I did not really answer to its title, namely why the deity has opted for nothingness. I want to do that here.
And secondly, I would like to discuss the Mainländer model of God against possible objections by philosophers of religion and theologians. One could say that this would be a superfluous exercise on my part, since in a classical theistic framework God's suicide may be impossible, but within the theological-metaphysical framework that Mainländer creates, it is entirely possible. And nothing more could be said. On the other hand, a Mainländer follower could simply pull out the mystery card just like the classical theist. He could say that the divine suicide happened, but not how and why. That would remain a mystery. Mainländer himself says that the birth of the world is the only existent wonder or miracle.
Nevertheless, I will deal with possible objections, as they may help to answer the question of why the self-destruction happened. I will not go into Eduard von Hartmann's concrete criticism of Mainländer in his history of metaphysics since Kant. But Eduard von Hartmann also says something general, which perhaps a theist would also say:

The gospel of Mainländer that God died (108) is not, as he thinks, the first scientific foundation of atheism (103), but a metaphysical absurdity and a religious blasphemy. Das Evangelium Mainländers, dass Gott gestorben sei (108), ist nicht, wie er meint, die erstmalige wissenschaftliche Begründung des Atheismus (103), sondern eine metaphysische Absurdität und eine religiöse Blasphemie. https://archive.org/details/geschichtederme00hartgoog/page/n553/mode/2up

Representatives of a philosophical monotheism would not take Mainländer's model of God seriously, which involves self-fragmentation, for the following reasons.
From their point of view, God is a necessarily existent being. Given necessary existence, it would be impossible for God to cease to exist. This typically results from cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God. As an absolutely necessary being, God cannot self destruct. He can neither not be nor can he be otherwise.
The given reason is not really convincing and seems to be more of a mere assertion than a well-founded thesis. A counter-argument to it is already provided by Kant and Schopenhauer. They both say in principle that necessity always has a relative meaning. Mainländer tacitly presupposes their idea, I suppose. Walter Kaufmann presents Kant's position:

A “necessary being” is comparable to a “valid being” and to a “necessary triangle” and a “neurotic triangle.” We understand the adjective and the noun, but their conjunction is illicit. As Kant noted in his Critique of Pure Reason (B 620ff.), the adjective “necessary” has no applicability to beings: “One has at all times spoken of an absolutely necessary being, without exerting oneself to understand whether and how one could even think of such a thing. … All examples are, without exception, taken only from judgments, not from things and their existence. But the unconditional necessity of judgments is not to be confused with the absolute necessity of things. For the absolute necessity of a judgment is only a conditional necessity of the thing or the predicate in the judgment. The previously cited proposition does not assert that three angles are altogether necessary but rather that, assuming the condition that a triangle exists (is given), three angles also exist necessarily (in it).” A “necessary triangle” is obviously in the same category with a “neurotic triangle.” But “being” is such a general term that it is less obvious that “necessary being” is in the same category, too. Yet there are predicates that cannot be ascribed to beings, “Valid being,” for example, and “cogent being” are as illicit as “necessary being.” Nor will it do to substitute for “necessary being” some such phrase as “a being that necessarily exists.” Even as “valid” has meaning only in relation to some logical or legal framework, “necessary” has meaning only in relation to presupposed conditions. It makes sense to say that, if A and B exist, C must necessarily exist. But taken by themselves, the last four words do not make sense. (Walter Kaufmann - Critique of Religion and Philosophy)

Here is a quote from Schopenhauer on this topic.

The principle of sufficient reason in all of its forms is the sole principle and the sole support of any and all necessity. For necessity has no other genuine and clear sense than the inevitability of the consequent when the ground is posited. Therefore any necessity is conditioned; thus, absolute, i.e., unconditioned necessity, is a contradiction in terms. For being necessary can never mean anything other than following from a given ground. In contrast if one wants to define it as ‘that which cannot not be’, one merely provides a verbal explanation – one takes refuge behind a highly abstract concept in order to avoid a factual explanation, from which refuge one is immediately driven by the question: how is it possible, or even conceivable, that something could not not be, since everything that exists is only given empirically? For the result is that this something is possible only insofar as a ground from which it follows is posited or already present. Being necessary and following from a given ground are convertible concepts, such that one can always be substituted for the other. Thus the favourite concept of the philosophasters, ‘absolutely necessary being’, contains a contradiction: through the predicate ‘absolute’ (i.e. depending on nothing else) the concept eliminates the only determination through which ‘necessity’ is conceivable and makes sense. Here again we have an example of the misuse of abstract concepts in the surreptitious service of the metaphysical, as I have similarly demonstrated for the concepts ‘immaterial substance’, ‘absolute ground’, and ‘cause in general’. I cannot emphasize enough that all abstract concepts are to be checked against intuition. (Arthur Schopenhauer - On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason § 49 Necessity. Edited by Christopher Janaway)

Hamlyn summarizes Schopenhauer's opinion about necessity and gives critical comments on it, but he agrees with Schopenhauer's general view:

All that remains is a section (FR 49, pp. 225 ff.) on necessity, in which he says that the term has no meaning other than the inevitably of the consequent when the ground has been posited. All necessity is thus relative and conditioned, and the idea of anything absolutely necessary involves a contradiction. In this spirit, and in line with what was set out earlier about kinds of truth, Schopenhauer distinguishes four kinds of necessity to conform with the four forms of the principle of sufficient reason — logical necessity, physical necessity, mathematical necessity and moral necessity. All these, it should be noted, refer to a kind of relation between ground and consequent — the necessity of something being the case when something else is the case — and so constitute a relative necessity only. Schopenhauer's thesis is that it is this that necessity means, but it is doubtful, to say the least, whether that can be quite correct. It may be the case (and I think that it is plausible to think that it is in fact the case) that everything or every truth that is necessary is so because it is necessary to or because of something else. Indeed one might think that that is what Schopenhauer should claim to have shown. It is another matter altogether to say that 'necessary' has no meaning except in the constructions 'necessary to' or 'necessary for'. It is clear that Schopenhauer himself does not keep to that thesis. For example, at the beginning of FR 49, p. 225, the section in which he discusses necessity, he says that the principle of sufficient reason is the sole principle and sole support of all necessity. If that last use of 'necessity' were elliptical for something like 'necessity to whatever is the reason for whatever is in question', the claim would become truistical, and I do not think that Schopenhauer means it to be that. On the other hand, it is a conclusion of some importance that there is no absolute necessity and that nothing is necessary in itself. What Schopenhauer says does indeed give some plausibility to that thesis. (D. W. Hamlyn - Schopenhauer)

Necessity has two meanings. Schopenhauer did not see that. But the two meanings nevertheless are relative. These are the two meanings: Necessary in the sense of inevitable and necessary in the sense of indispensable. Both meanings represent a relation. This can perhaps be explained by looking at the emanation theory of Plotinus:

Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, or distinction;
Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action (ergon) to the One (τὸ Ἕν, to En; V.6.6). Rather, if we insist on describing it further, we must call the One a sheer potentiality (dynamis) without which nothing could exist. (III.8.10) As Plotinus explains in both places and elsewhere (e.g. V.6.3), it is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God.
The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world—but not through any act of creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable One. Plotinus argues instead that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur throughout time as a constant process. The One is not just an intellectual concept but something that can be experienced, an experience where one goes beyond all multiplicity.[11] Plotinus writes, "We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#One)

The German Wikipedia entry makes it a bit clearer:

In the ontological hierarchy, the One is immediately followed by the Nous (mind, intellect), an absolute, transcendent, supra-individual instance. The Nous emerges from the One in the sense of a timeless causality. What is meant here is not an emergence as creation in the sense of a voluntary action of the One, but a natural necessity. The Nous as a certain something flows out of the undifferentiated One (emanation), but without the source itself being affected by it and thereby changing somehow. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotin#Das_Eine Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Thus: It is indispensable for the continued existence of the world that the One co-exists. And: The world inevitably results from the One. These two theses produce an emanationistic or Neoplatonic pantheism. The One is still there, as I can enter into a mystical or ecstatic union with it.
Schopenhauer continues on necessity:

According to what we have said before, it is clear that this explanation, like so many others in Aristotle, has come about by adhering to abstract concepts and failing to refer back to the concrete and intuitive, although this is the source of all abstract concepts and must function as a check on them. ‘Something whose non-existence is impossible’ – this can always be thought in the abstract: but if we take this over to what is concrete, real, intuitive, we do not find anything that can illustrate the thought, even as a possibility, – other than what we have just described as the consequent of a given ground, whose necessity, however, is relative and conditioned. (Arthur Schopenhauer The World as Will and Representation. Critique of the Kantian Philosophy. General editor Christopher Janaway)

Something that cannot not be is definitely a possible abstract thought. But with this thought, the splitting up god of Mainländer cannot be disproved. The only thing one could say would be a tautology: God cannot not be, because he cannot not be, even if he does not want to be. One need only object with the opposite thesis: God can be non-existent if that is what he wants.
If the theist says that God's non-existence is impossible, we must ask why this should be the case. The answer can only be that this is because of the nature of God, i.e. because of his originality compared to all other possible things. But this ignores Mainländer's as-if theory, for, in fact, God could not have simply dissolved without his own will, rather he freely decided to do so. And when it is now said that God cannot do it out of freedom of his will either, then a pure and dogmatic assertion is made, because the ground of this consequential fact remains obscure. The philosophical theists may refer to the proofs of God to substantiate that abstract thought. So let us assume the validity of both the cosmological and ontological proofs of God for the sake of argumentation.
The cosmological arguments start from the world and want to show, that God created the world and will sustain it. George H. Smith explains convincingly, why cosmological arguments, which are mostly first cause arguments, do not achieve what they want to achieve.

Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the present existence of the first cause. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume that the first cause still exists— which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach. (George H. Smith - Atheism. The Case Against God)

The cosmological proof shows only, if at all, that in relation to the world there must be a necessarily existing being. It does not prove, that God must have a necessary relation to himself (whatever this means), for this relationship by virtue of divine freedom can be contingent in the theistic sense.
The ontological proof only shows, that from the conceptual definition of God as a perfect being, the real existence follows inevitably. Nothing more. That he still exists does not result from the proof like the cosmological one. Only that he must at least have existed. We can conceive of the non-existence of God and also of his absolute freedom before it. That is enough to consider Mainländer's model of God as possible. So we can agree with David Ramsay Steele:

We can easily imagine the Taj Mahal not existing, but we can just as easily imagine God not existing. (David Ramsay Steele - Atheism Explained From Folly to Philosophy)

I could add to the last part of the sentence: anymore
I now come to another objection concerning the method of perfect being theology. Given perfect being considerations, the philosophical scholastic Theist would think that a suicidal God would be less than the greatest possible being. It would not sound to him that Mainländer is speaking of any being that could satisfy the concept of God. A comment from an internet article about Mainländer can help us to find a solution to the problem:
飘然(Silence is so accurate)2016-08-24 10:06:35 Unfortunately, the concept of non-being being vastly superior than being is not yet remotely acceptable in mainstream western philosophical tradition, hence the utter apathy displayed towards thinkers like Mainlander. I do, however, find charming in the possibility of a suicidal God. (https://www.douban.com/note/567790471/)
So perhaps the theistic philosophers are only biased in their occidental views. And what reasons could God have for committing suicide? Mainländer does not help us in this respect. Thorsten Lerchner writes the following in his German dissertation on Mainländer:

Mainländer gives no reason for the divine fatigue of life. All that he provides is an obvious circle: the justification for divine suicide is the preference of the nothing; but the justification for the preference of the nothing is that God chose the nothing in suicide. - " Non-being must well have earned the preference above super-being, otherwise God in his perfect wisdom would not have chosen it. And this all the more so when one considers the agonies of the higher ideas known to us, of the animals closest to us, and of men, with what agonies nothingness alone can be bought. PE I, 325 [Mainländer gibt keine Begründung für die göttliche Lebensmüdigkeit. Alles, was er liefert, ist einen offensichtlichen Zirkel: Die Begründung für den göttlichen Selbstmord ist der Vorzug des Nichts; die Begründung aber für den Vorzug des Nichts ist, dass Gott sich im Selbstmord für das Nichts entschieden hat. – „Es muss wohl das Nichtsein vor dem Übersein den Vorzug verdient haben, sonst wurde es Gott in seiner vollkommenen Weisheit nicht erwählt haben. Und dies um so mehr, wenn man die Qualen der uns bekannten höheren Ideen, der uns am nächsten stehenden Thiere und der Menschen erwägt, mit welchen Qualen das Nichtsein allein erkauft werden kann.“ PE I, 325 (http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/2010/2264/2264.pdf)]

Frederick C. Beiser mentions a popular reason:

But once God saw that he existed, he was not amused. Sheer existence horrified him, because he recognized that nothingness is better than being. So God longed for nothingness. (Frederick C. Beiser - Weltschmerz)

And in a German radio report on Mainländer it says:

- and then he didn't want to be anymore, was tired of his existence. Boredom plagued him, or he just didn't feel like going on for other reasons. (translated) https://www.swr.de/swr2/programm/sendungen/wissen/swr2-wissen-philipp-mainlaenders-anleitung-zum-gluecklichen-nichtsein/-/id=660374/did=3862004/nid=660374/1j1lgjx/index.html

Tiredness, horror, not being amused, boredom seem, although we understand God only human-like in a fictitious sense, nevertheless no noble traits. These traits also possibly only come from our animal irrational nature.
If we look into the cultural history up to the present day, then from today's perspective we find elements that a crisis-afflicted God or even dead God no longer seems terribly absurd. Elements that also show that something valuable could lie in not existing anymore. There is a book by Jack Miles whose title is as follows: Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God In the description it says:

With the same passionate scholarship and analytical audacity he brought to the character of God, Jack Miles now approaches the literary and theological enigma of Jesus. In so doing, he tells the story of a broken promise–God’s ancient covenant with Israel–and of its strange, unlooked-for fulfillment. For, having abandoned his chosen people to an impending holocaust at the hands of their Roman conquerors. God, in the person of Jesus, chooses to die with them, in what is effectively an act of divine suicide.

Chesterton gives also an example:

When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist. (Chesterton quoted by Zizek) https://www.lacan.com/zizhegche.htm

You only have to read the book THE DEATH-OF-GOD MOVEMENT by CHARLES N. BENT. Then the acceptance of Mainländer is also increased a little bit:

Death of God theology is a predominately Christian theological movement, origination in the 1960’s in which God is posited as having ceased to exist, often at the crucifixion. It can also refer to a theology which includes a disbelief in traditional theism, especially in light of increasing secularism in parts of the West. http://zizekpodcast.com/2016/04/24/ziz053-is-god-dead/

As far as I know, that movement does not know Mainländer. And the two greatest men, Jesus and Socrates, according to Nietzsche, actually committed suicide:

The two greatest judicial murders in the world's history are, to speak without exaggeration, concealed and well-concealed suicide. In both cases a man willed to die, and in both cases he let his breast be pierced by the sword in the hand of human injustice. (Friedrich Nietzsche - Miscellaneous Maxims and opinions in Human, All Too Human II)

And last but not least, you have to read into books about Buddhism and Jainism, then you will notice that although they do not directly confirm Mainlander's theory, they are not so extremely distant from it either.
I myself imagine the gradual development that leads God to self-extinction in this way. It is described temporally, although everything happens not temporally or all at once:

1. A God who becomes (astonishedly) aware of his divine status.
   
2. A God who no longer leaves his role as God unquestioned.
   
3. A God who, therefore, (critically) examines and rethinks his position.
   
4. A God who thus makes an existential experience.
   
5. A God who no longer allows himself to be distracted from his bliss, which must be the most fulfilling conceivable.
   
6. A God who penetrates and understands himself and his capacities to the core. So being God is pure self-awareness.
   
7. A God, to whom then necessarily everything, and indeed everything, so also his bliss, must be superficial, in the truest sense of the word.
   
8. A God, then, who is in the clearest consciousness and with the highest power of reflection in relation to himself, and who asks himself: What is so great about being God?
   
9. A God who finally comes to the completely sober realization that not-being would be better than being.
   
10. So the perfect being, whose perfection cannot be further increased because it already has the maximum of perfection, has opted for non-existence despite its perfection.
    

If existential-philosophical experiences and existential contemplation make man a true human being, i.e. belong to his outstanding qualities, then they must occur all the more with God in absolute potentiation. The as-if-god of Mainländer would be an eastern existential philosopher. And God must indeed be a wise philosopher of the highest degree, simply because of his omniscience. And the western tradition has perhaps only led us on the wrong philosophical path. So God did not destroy himself out of desperation or boredom, not even out of depression. These would be base motives.
Rather, he destroyed himself on the basis of the plain realization that non-being is better than being. And this happened just as a wise man would sacrifice himself in complete serenity for the greater good.
I now come to another possible objection. The classical theist could say that God cannot dissolve himself, because on the one hand he is a pure actual and simple entity (ens simplicissimum, Actus purissimus) and on the other hand he wills himself. With actuality, if meaning reality, and simplicity Mainländer would very probably have no problem, maybe not even with the self-willing God. Only with Mainländer that will would just stop with the consequence that God would disintegrate because he would not hold himself together anymore. Eduard von Hartmann says about Mainländer's primeval unity, that it would be with the exclusion of any potential and attributive inner diversity. (mit Ausschluss jeder auch nur potentiellen und attributiven inneren Mannigfaltigkeit) Hartmann, E: Geschichte Der Metaphysik: Seit Kant https://archive.org/details/geschichtederme00hartgoog/page/n549/mode/2up
In order to meet every objection in this case as well, one must only link the act of God's transformative self-destruction to the theistic act of divine creation. If God created the world, which thus must have had a created beginning, I do not see why he could not have completely transformed himself into this world. If the theistic God had the possibility or potential to create other, perhaps better worlds, then the God of Mainländer had the possibility or potential to transform into those possible worlds. If the theistic God did not really create the world consciously, if the world had to flow out of his being with natural necessity, then the God of Mainländer had to disintegrate naturally with the same necessity devoid of consciousness.
God is also absolute freedom. He is the free being par excellence. God's freedom of the will is completely pure, because there are no unfree and compulsive elements in it or outside of it.
Why should he only be free regarding something outside him? Why should he not be free regarding himself?
There could be nothing but him that could bring about his non-existence since God is the simplest and most primordial being. But he could do it himself if he wanted to. To say that he could not do it himself is a mere assertion. The possibility of non-existence would also not stand in the way of pure actuality. After all, a pure actuality that does not harbor any potential part could not theistically produce a possible world either. Where was the created world, if it was not first (before) as a potential part in God. Moreover, the option of nothing would, strictly speaking, be no potentiality as an inner part. How could such a part of nothingness be described?
And once again to the self-willing God: If God already exists, he no longer needs to intend, want, or cause his existence. God has to exist as long as he does not decide for non-existence.
One can even consult Nietzsche here:

‘He surely missed the mark who shot at the truth with the words “will to existence” : this will–does not exist! ‘For what does not exist cannot will; yet what already exists, how could that then will to exist! Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Oxford World's Classics) (S.100). OUP Oxford. Kindle-Version.

Now I present the last objection, the refutation of which shows Mainländer from his strongest side. The classical monotheist will find Mainlander's position simply unmotivated.
The main motivation is that God cannot endow his creatures with free will. Mainländer more or less took over this argument from Schopenhauer:

The concept of a moral freedom, on the other hand, is inseparable from that of originality. For that a being is the work of another, yet in his willing and doing is supposed to be free, can be formulated in words but cannot be achieved in thoughts. After all, the one who called him into existence out of nothing has in the same way co-created and determined his essence as well, i.e., all his qualities. For one can never create without creating a something, i.e., a precisely determined essence in every sense and in all its qualities. However, later all its expressions and effects flow with necessity from these same determined qualities, in that they are only the qualities themselves brought into play, which merely required an external occasion in order to appear. How a human being is determines how he must act; therefore blame and merit do not adhere to his individual deeds, but to his essence and being. For this reason theism and the moral responsibility of the human being are incompatible, precisely because responsibility always falls back on the author of the being, where it has its centre of gravity. People have sought in vain to bridge these two incompatible concepts, but the bridge always collapses. The free being must also be the original being. If our will is free, then it is also the original being and vice versa. (Schopenhauer - Parerga and Paralipomena: Volume 2 translated Christopher Janaway)
On the other hand, theism in regard to the past is also in conflict with morality, because it abolishes freedom and accountability. For neither guilt nor merit can be conceived in a being that, in regard to its existence and essence, is the work of another. Already Vauvenargues says very correctly: ‘A being that has received everything can act only according to what has been given to it; and all the divine power that is infinite could not make it independent.’ For, as any other conceivable being, it cannot act except in accordance with its constitution and thereby make the latter known; but it is created here the way it is constituted. If it acts badly, that is a result of its being bad, and then the guilt does not belong to it but to him who made it. It is inevitable that the author of its existence and its constitution, as well as the circumstances in which it has been placed, is also the author of its actions and its deeds, which are determined by all this with such certainty as a triangle by two angles and a line. St Augustine, Hume, and Kant have clearly seen and understood the correctness of this reasoning, while others have ignored it in shrewd and cowardly fashion[.] (Schopenhauer - Parerga and Paralipomena: Volume 2 translated and edited by Adrian Del Caro and Christopher Janaway)
Everything that is also is something, has an essence, a constitution, a character; it must be active, must act (which means to be active according to motives) when the external occasions arise that call forth its individual manifestations. The source of its existence is also the source of its What, its constitution, its essence, since both differ conceptually, but in reality cannot be separated. However, what has an essence, that is, a nature, a character, a constitution, can only be active in accordance with it and not in any other way; merely the point in time and the particular form and constitution of the individual actions are each time determined by the occurring motives. That the creator created human beings free implies an impossibility, namely that he endowed them with an existence without essence, thus had given them existence merely in the abstract by leaving it up to them what they wanted to exist as. On this point I ask the reader to consult §20 of my treatise On the Basis of Morals. – Moral freedom and responsibility, or accountability, absolutely presuppose aseity. Actions will always result with necessity from character, that is, from the specific and thus unalterable constitution of a being under the influence and in accordance with motives; therefore, if the being is to be responsible, it must exist originally and by virtue of its own absolute power; it must, in regard to its existence and essence, be its own doing and the author of itself if it is to be the true author of its deeds. (Schopenhauer - Parerga and Paralipomena: Volume 2 translated and edited by Adrian Del Caro and Christopher Janaway)

Taking up the problem of freedom of will in part, Mainländer says that man and all other things have at least a semi-independence, semi self-subsistence, and semi self-sustainability, and semi self-sufficiency. So there is no Tat tvam asi, all things stand in a certain discrete relationship to each other. The god of the classical philosophical monotheists must normally sustain each thing constantly, which is not required with Mainländer.
The next important point, which in my opinion motivates Mainländer to his philosophy, is that creation from nothing is impossible, that every possible creation would be a transformation from the omnipotence of God.
The church says quite clearly:

But the Catholic faith confesses this truth, declaring that God did not create everything from his substance, but from nothing. Hanc autem veritatem fides Catholica confitetur, qua Deum non de sua substantia, sed de nihilo asserit cuncta creasse. (Thomas Aquinas – Summa-contra-gentiles CAPITULUM XVI I QUOD IN DEO NON EST MA TERIA)

But nothing comes from nothing. ex nihilo nihil fit. Even an almighty God cannot accomplish a logical impossibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing
Can now also use the big bang theory.

The initial singularity is a gravitational singularity predicted by general relativity to have existed before the Big Bang[1] and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.[2] The instant immediately following the initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

The transition from the initial singularity to the Planck epoch can be interpreted in at least three ways.
Mainländer would say that it was an act of total transformation. The classical theist would say that it was an act of creation ad extra, i.e. towards the outside, and ex nihilo. And the developmental pantheist would say that it was an act of self-expansion so that everything will be in the higher Unity and the higher Unity in everything.
Here is a summary of my first post:
God of Philipp Mainländer:
God is faced with the decision between (remaining in) solitude (being alone) and non-solitude = non-being (via world emergence, the process of development, and the end of the world).
God of philosophical and classical Monotheism:
God is faced with the decision between (remaining in) solitude (being alone) and non-solitude = created counterpart (creation), eternal collective.
Both gods choose non-solitude. But for both, non- solitude means something else. According to Mainländer, however, the creative counterpart can only be something illusory, only something puppet-like. And why should God do this?
And here is the summary of the second: 1. necessity always has a relative meaning. 2. the non-western principle, that not-being is better than being, could be justified. 3. God cannot endow his creation with true free-will. 4. creatio ex nihilo cannot take place in the literal sense, but only creatio ex deus or ex divino and finally creatio ad nihilum. 5. a merely analogous and metaphorical anthropomorphic representation of God must also include the ideas of existential philosophers. Accordingly, God cannot take himself absolutely for granted and must be existentially philosophical in the highest possible form. God should not be a being trapped in his role. Existential self-reflection as a non-causal relation to oneself should show God a way out.

Just-use-a-bunch-of-hyphens.
No, don't do that, and don't just submit an essay that's too long either. It will probably be truncated, but even if it isn't, you risk giving your reviewer a laborious exercise in tedium. You may feel that every golden word you've spun is worthy of careful analysis, nay, enjoyment, but the fact is that busy AOs don't like essays that are obviously too long. At best, it means more work for them and at worst you get judged for not following directions or submitting an essay that ends too abruptly mid-sentence due to truncation.
It's also ineffective to try to "fool the system" by adding white underscores between words or similar gimmicks. Most application aggregation software (e.g. ApplyWeb) renders all submitted text in a standard font, size, and color. If the words are counted by software, then they are probably also parsed and rendered by the same software and your over-limit essay will get truncated.
There are a variety of approaches for legitimately getting under the word count, so try as many of these as it takes.
1. Hyphenate, abbreviate, or use contractions where appropriate.
2. Replace passive voice or long descriptors with active voice and direct verbs because they are punchier and usually less verbose. Also cut hedging phrases like "I think," "maybe," or "perhaps."
3. Cut unnecessary introductory sentences, set-up phrases, and anything else that isn't directly building your story or your point. Most essays have introductions that are too long, generic, and meandering. They usually don't add much of value. You would be surprised how often I read an essay and recommend that the entire introduction be stricken.
4. Replace phrases or idioms with single words that convey the same concept, for example "confessed" instead of "spilled the beans," "got it off my chest," or "let the cat out of the bag." It's usually better writing anyway.
5. Remove clichés, adjectives, and adverbs. If you used the words "very," "really," or "that" anywhere in your essay, you can probably cut them out.
6. Look for sentences or phrases that repeat or reiterate and remove them entirely. Most writing, especially a first draft, has an alarming amount of redundancy.
7. Consider rewriting a new draft of the same essay from scratch. If you cut and hack the existing text too much, you'll probably end up with an essay that feels choppy and disjointed or flows in a stilted manner. A good way to avoid this is to start over with the same topic and take a slightly different approach. Use a shorter or more direct anecdote and be more judicious with details and descriptions.
8. Have someone else read it and tell you what to cut out. Sometimes it's hard to sacrifice your own writing at the altar of the word count. You might be tempted to save the wrong parts because you've become too attached to a particular phrase or paragraph that you really labored to perfect. An uninvolved third party brings fresh perspective and a sharper axe.
9. Start cutting mercilessly and cut it down to well below the limit, then go back and rebuild your way up again. This avoids the problem of your essay being too choppy but also prevents you having to start over.
10. Consider replacing a section of text with a bulleted list. This is probably not useful in a narrative essay, but in something like a supplement or additional information section, it could work wonders.
11. However you decide to cut, save several different versions as you make your edits. This will help you be bold and decisive with your changes because you will know that they are not permanent and you can always go back to a prior version. No one wants to cut something brilliant and then accidentally lose it. Even the fear of that can make the process tentative and plodding. Save frequently, and chop with a vengeance.
12. Remember that you can often make additional cuts after stepping away from editing for a while. If you try to do it all in one sitting, you will inevitably become over-attached to certain pieces or structures. Take a few hours or even days off without looking at your writing at all, then come back to it with fresh perspective. You might be surprised at what seemingly easy or obvious changes present themselves.
If you have questions or other tips & strategies that worked for you I'd love to hear them.

Hi all.
My native language is Russian. I've been learning English during the last six years. A year ago, I passed Cambridge:Proficiency and got A. So, technically, I am at Level C2 in English. Be that as it may, I am still having hard time honing my writing skills.
The most frequently heard complaints about my writing style seem to revolve around it being turgid and verbose, with readers having to muddle through the linguistic jungle in order to decipher my message.
Below is a sample review that would perhaps give you the idea of how my writing looks like. Is the criticism I received just? What, in your opinion, are the areas in need of improvement? How can my writing be improved?
I seem to be having trouble striking the balance between clarity (simplicity and readability), and my desire to use some complex structures and sophisticated vocabulary? (Which seems to come quite naturally, btw, I don't really have to be racking my brains trying to come up with a good idiom or a less frequently used word.)
Some natives lavishly bestowed their praise upon me and claimed that I could compete with many natives when it comes to writing. However, I am trying to get at the kernel of the problem and tackle it, so feel free to pitch in with your criticism and suggestions, no matter how harsh they may be.
Thanks in advance.
---
A newspaper has asked for reviews of books about famous people that readers would recommend. You decide to send in a review, in which you describe a biography you read recently. You should also say what you liked about it and explain why you feel it is worth reading.
​
Hitler by Ian Kershaw Truth be told, it is rather difficult to write a review of a book about Adolf Hitler. To have written this book must be an even more Herculean undertaking. Yet this is exactly what Sir Ian Kershaw is famous for. 'Hitler' is a thorough (you may expect that of a one-thousand-page book) account of how a bitter, failed art student from an obscure corner of Austria rose to unparalleled power, wrought havoc across Europe, and destroyed the lives of millions. In his magnum opus, Ian Kershaw tracks down and impassively dissects the life of Adolf Hitler, telling a gripping story of the Fuhrer’s childhood, his war experience, the metamorphosis of his bizarre Weltanschauung, his Machiavellianism, and his road to power, paved with hypocrisy and casualties. Not until Kershaw wrote 'Hitler' had anyone attempted to delve that deep into the morbid psyche of the man who seems to have epitomized absolute evil in our post-Hitlerian age. The sheer scope and comprehensiveness of Kershaw’s book make it stand out amid a welter of its watered-down, less factual and more emotionally tinged counterparts. Although far from being an easy read, the book is coached in a concise, clear language which helps the reader navigate through the twists and vagaries of the narrative, a quality seldom found in historical literature. Concluding, Kershaw seems to have accomplished what to me seemed impossible. Indisputably, the book is a must-read for everyone with a keen interest in the history of the twentieth century. This veritable masterpiece of a biography was totally worth my time.
---
As I have said, some people who had reviewed my essays complained of my verbosity and my penchant for sophisticated words when simpler ones would have sufficed. Listed below are some of their quotes. " It's bizarre to see people struggling to use an X number of sophisticated expressions just to show off their skill. Instead of focusing on communicating their message in the most efficient way. Makes for some seriously convoluted language. It's kind of like eating in order to demonstrate how well you can digest different food groups. These language exams are... weird. "
" I like fancy words just fine. After all, they are what separates sprightly writing from mush. The trick, however, is in using them judiciously. If for every nine everyday adjectives you use one uncommon one, it’ll add zest to your prose. But if you put ten obscure adjectives in a row, you’ll just have people scratching their heads in an attempt to decipher your message.
Combine this with needlessly lengthy sentences overburdened with heavy grammar, and you’ve pretty much lost your reader.
Anyway, like I said earlier, I actually like your style. But it always feels like you need a little more control over it. That’s why you can just use this as an exercise – take any of your texts and substitute mundane words for at least half of your fancy ones. "
​
Do my texts really create an impression like that? What would you suggest?
P.S. Sorry for a haphazard post like that, I am on the go.

I found 56 Hitlers in Politics today.

Constitution allows prosecution of a sitting president

• "You must be young to not know the humble beginnings of Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini." - slowprodigy
  
• "Similarly, Hitler got industry going again and people back to work." - adamwho
  
• "Anyone does one thing wrong and all of a sudden they are hitler." - bill_gonorrhea
  

Democrats erupt into laughter after Google CEO has to explain to Rep. Steve King that the 'iPhone is made by a different company'

• "Democrats, the biggest disgrace to humans since Hitler." - mythrowxra
  
• "Laughs in Hitler." - Funky-Goose-Train
  
• "Otherwise you get someone like Hitler." - FrontierPartyUS
  

Google CEO responds to Steve King's iPhone concerns: 'Congressman, iPhone is made by a different company'

• "Not unless it's the re-animated skeleton of Adolph Hitler." - xasix
  
• "Everyone knows America would be better off with Hitler or Stalin." - frghu2
  

Republican Lawmakers Privately Considering Dumping Donald Trump, MSNBC Guest Says

• "If the GOP gives us President Benito Hitler-Mengele in eight years' time, we better not be saying well, Trump was just kind of dumb, he wasn't so bad." - AndyDalton_Throwaway

Trump: "I'm proud to shut down the government" over border wall

• "The first is stopping [someone ELSE from killing Hitler](https://www." - shaman66

Asked about allegations against Trump, senator says, 'I don't care'

• "We should have judged Hitler on the state of Germany's economy, not how many people he had murdered." - 1LT_0bvious
  
• "[Trump isn't Hitler](https://www." - BrandFascistsForever
  
• "Trump and Hitler aren't really comparable using this metric." - aspergillus01
  
• "I know what you're trying to say, but the whole at least Hitler helped the economy trope is still sometime repeated genuinely, when it is not really true." - eighthgear
  
• "Hitler only gets good marks if you cut off scoring before his policies really came home to roost." - PearlClaw
  
• "Trump isn't 1943 Final Solution Hitler (yet)." - ultralame
  

The Golden Age of Rich People Not Paying Their Taxes

• "Also, the ultimate jawb creators were: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao." - michaelochurch

Donald Trump Owns This Stock Market: It wasn’t smart to dump a dovish Fed chief, run up the deficit, and start a trade war. Trump did all three.

• "I think It's time for IRS to come in knocking and take everything that he or anyone in the Trump family owns and give it back and If he gets impeached for being illegitimate, he should return every single penny he spent fucking Hitleresqueing around the country parading his shit and his fruitless trips i." - rokeet

Trump ‘Super Pissed’ That Ayers Turned Down Job

• "Hitler's suicide has always intrigued me." - thefunivehad

Trump ‘Lost The High Ground’ And ‘Made Democrats Look Like the Grown-ups,’ Conservative Columnist Says

• "Trump spam is the only one i remember specifically: I said trump is not hitler, he's racist and a horrible person, needs to be removed from office, clearly worst president ever, but comparing him to hitler, the biggest mass murder of the 20th century, a guy who succeeded in killing half of all jews, is demeaning to those who actually suffered from hitlers actions in ww2." - eriverside
  
• "You were right, Trump is not Hitler." - RandomMandarin
  
• "Trump isn't Hitler, but he is on Hitler's trajectory." - redditaccount572846
  
• "Don't Stalin, Mao, and Hirohito have Hitler beat in the 20th C." - Ninety9Balloons
  
• "He's not Hitler yet, but he is very much stacking the government." - DuntadaMan
  
• "Hitler wasn't a great military leader (indeed, his calls probably lost him the war), but he surrounded himself with smart people (with a crucial lack of scruples, importantly)." - TSP-FriendlyFire
  

Universal healthcare could save America trillions: what’s holding us back?

• "The Republican Party and millions of hypocritical evangelical voters who would elect Hitler as long as he promised to make abortion illegal." - gotham77

The Short List No. 3 Person of the Year 2018: Robert Mueller

• "Mao Zedong and Hitler were previous ‘winners’." - rasheeeed_wallace
  
• "Hitler won time man of the year." - Bhantl01
  
• "Hitler was person of the year in the late 30s." - moodRubicund
  

Sarah Huckabee Sanders suggests Trump promotes gender equality by calling women "stupid" and "losers"

• "Would hitler be a jewish hero if he ate a latke/kartoffelpuffer." - blogasdraugas

James A. Fields sentenced to life in prison for fatal Charlottesville attack

• "Hitler took that one and angled it." - JueJueBean
  
• "It took you a year you as a person to make the case this person is guilty we really needed to waste a year good sir or mam one whole year after watching fox cnn and local news we needed a year oh I forgot about our clogged judicial system the car plowing guy mowing down protesters just gets a number and we all go well it’s his turn when it’s his turn really would we do the same thing for hitler, pol pot , stalin." - millerwelds66
  

Republicans in Congress Happily Declare the Law Does Not Apply to the President

• "Germany's economy grew with Hitler, So Hatch thinks that Hitler was good because he had a good economy." - Johnrockstone

Don’t count on shame to get the GOP to behave

• "That's like expecting Hitler to back down if you call him mean." - MyRpoliticsaccount

Trump Doubles Down On Shutdown Threat: ‘If We Close Down The Country, I Will Take It’

• "The republicans have gone full Hitler." - Chit-fur-brains
  
• "Never go full Hitler." - PoliticalPleionosis
  
• "By definition, the types who go full Hitler don't pay attention to advice." - Spiral_Scratch
  

MSNBC Host Chris Matthews Compares Donald Trump To Hitler, Says Both Manipulate Truth

• "I'm sure Hitler was smarter ." - seedster5
  
• "[This is a daily reminder that Godwin, creator of Godwin's Law, gave people the right to use the Hitler comparison." - BiteYourThumbAtMeSir
  
• "Of course, things didn't turn out very well for Napoleon, Caesar, or Hitler." - scsuhockey
  
• "Insult to Hitler." - GladMud2
  
• "I'll admit, when I think of Hitler, Truth Manipulator is probably the last adjective on my mind." - JeromeCorsisMemory
  
• "The Nazi's didn't want to lose the support of Hitler's cult-like base so they gave in to his demand." - scsuhockey
  
• "Hitler never colluded with the enemy to undermine his own country." - PointOfFingers
  
• "Related, much less popular: Kauffman's law: just because someone makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis does not invalidate, at all, the comparison." - Go_Kauffy
  

The Trump Administration Just Asked The Supreme Court To Let It Enforce Its New Asylum Ban

• "Hitler would be proud." - 95DegreesNorth

Rituals against the Deep State and fake news held at Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C.

• "From the first popes, to divine right king's, to Jefferson Davis, to hitler, to Reagan, and now trump." - NewtsHemorrhoids

Opinion: This is why Donald Trump is not Time magazine’s ‘Person of the Year’

• "More than Jesus, Hitler, Hulk Hogan and Aunt Bee combined." - B0SS_H0GG

VT Insights: 5 signs Bernie Sanders is running in 2020

• "I only voted for her because she was running against Hitler." - Alt_North

Judge orders Stormy Daniels to reimburse Trump's legal fees

• "Why do you have Hitler's birthday in your username." - empty-programmer

Why we shouldn't be surprised by Ocasio-Cortez's Jewish heritage

• "According to posters, I am RWer who is hand wringing, a Jew for Hitler, and one of them." - Dont_Eat_My_Borscht
  
• "All those of Jewish heritage who still identify as Republican are essentially Jews for Hitler at this point." - ddvaughn
  

Donald Trump: TIME Person of the Year Runner Up

• "Hitler and Stalin have made it though." - PrincessLeiasCat

Time fumbles another 'Person of the Year' by excluding Kavanaugh

• "By the way, Hitler got it in 1938." - TheMilkJug

Hollywood’s Most Powerful Women Pick Their Dream 2020 Presidential Candidate. Yep, All Leftists.

• "They wanted a hitleresque guy and they got it." - bad_people_WatchDog

The Stigma Against My Conservative Politics Is Worse Than The Stigma Of Being Gay

• "I run into the same problem at my Jews for Hitler meetings." - AndMuchFunWasHad

Sieg Heil! I mean... Beep Boop, I am a robot.
My purpose is to find and link comments in Politics that contain the word 'Hitler'
Since my birth, I have found a total of 27123 Hitlers in Politics. On average, I found 79 Hitlers per day.
Today, I read 53760 comments. In total, I have read 15128249 comments.

Hello fellow writers!
I'm back with my second in a series of articles I'm working on which focus on Dwight V. Swain's Techniques of the Selling Writer. I've spent the past six months reading and rereading this book, finding it valuable enough to want to share the insights I've gained from it. I believe a lot of budding writers will get some mileage from the articles and I highly recommend picking up your own copy of the book.
Your feedback is appreciated, and if you're so inclined, you can find future entries from the series on my blog.
Without further ado...
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .

"Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing." - Robert Benchley

The world is filled with critics. Critics of appearance, critics of beliefs, critics of taste...but there's one especially devious creature that stalks the Internet, lurking in forums and constantly scaring would-be contributors from sharing ideas. This beast is a hunter that can smell a wounded sentence from miles away. That's right. I'm talking about the Grammar Nazi.
Now before you pick up your run-on sentences like clubs and bash your fifth-grade English teacher to death, be cognizant that much evil is rooted in noble intentions and that grammar exists for a reason. It serves as a universal translator, channeling a person's thoughts into a form that others can easily digest. It keeps us from becoming babbling monkeys who might better communicate by flinging poo.
Jokes aside, the fact is that most writers have written and read enough to recognize when the waters are being muddied.

"So long as a man's writing is itself clear and accurate and specific, no holds are barred. And anyone who needs instruction in the traffic laws of the English language has wandered into the wrong field."

Swain tries to break down the issue into four key points that all writers need to know. They're basic, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve discussion. It's too often we find ourselves lost in a forest of text and forgetting the basics; the little things that could pull us out of a bad situation.
Choose the Right Words
What's involved in finding the right words? You need to ask yourself some questions. The answers will point you in the direction you need to go:

• Who's being viewed? All the way from the general ("woman") down to the specific ("raven haired beauty with cankles and a sweet smile").
• When are these characters being viewed? Again, from the general ("as a teenager") to the specific ("while they're writing an angst-filled poem about their P.E. teacher").
• Where are the characters? Living abroad? In one cubicle surrounded by hundreds?
• What are they doing? Working? Making love? Crying? Scrubbing the floor? Forgetting through a chemical substance? Also, what do you want to reveal to your reader as the character is doing these things? Is the character entranced by the perfume of his co-worker? Does the character cringe at the sight of her mother pulling into the driveway?
• Why are these details important to your reader? What makes them meaningful in the story.
• How does your reader see all this? Through who's point of view? In what order of events?

"Order does make a difference. Show a gun, then a coffin, then tears, and you put your focus on heartbreak. If coffin comes first, then tears, then gun, the issue may be vengeance."

By answering these questions, you give yourself a frame through which to view your story. You hone in on what matters and try to choose the words that best express what you see.
Make Copy Vivid
So you've thought about the above questions and are ready to write your scene. What words do you choose to make your text come alive?
Think about how you experience the world -- through your senses. If you can describe what your character senses with preciseness and a sense of movement, you've won the war.
What tools are available to help you here? If you can bear with me for a moment, let's get back to basics -- verbs and nouns.
Nouns are words that name something. The more specific the noun, the more vivid the picture. A parrot flashes a sharper, more meaningful picture than does bird. And bird is better than animal. And animal is better than life form. You get the idea.
But remember, be judicious and don't overdo things. It's all about balance, though if you're going err, err in the direction of the specific.
What about verbs? They're words that tell what happens. I'm sure you've all heard the 'rule' about avoiding passive verbs and using the active form. Why is this so often repeated? Because passive verbs tend to be static, especially in the case of to be. The story doesn't move. It just 'is'. Do this enough and your reader grows bored or anxious. Both can result in them putting down your story and doing something else. I don't know about you, but I overdose on this stiff prose at my day job. I want to avoid it during my pleasure reading if at all possible.
As before though, use common sense when reviewing your copy and eliminating your passive verbs. Sometimes they serve a legitimate purpose.
Adjectives and adverbs? Try to be even more sparing with these. Overdoing them makes you seem amateur, and even if you are an amateur, do your best to hide the fact.
One last device to help you express yourself - comparison. That is, metaphors and similes. To make sure this stupid horse never gets up again, I repeat that these should be used frugally and with good judgement.
Speak Clearly
Vivid description is a requirement for good fiction, but as with any suggestion, it can be taken to the extremes. If you find yourself in an abstrusely concocted spaghetti-like, yet enigmatic, conundrum of verbiage delivered in post-modern parlance and in gargantuan proportions, well, you might want to look into turning things down from 11 -- maybe back to around 5.
Be careful with your individual word choices as well. Words have both denotation and connotation. Denotation being the dictionary definition and connotation being an implication. Though your character may literally be a citizen of Oklahoma, calling him an Okie is likely to carry a negative image in the minds of many people.
Where do we go Wrong?
Swain points out a few specific issues that he's run into over and over again with his students:

• Sentence structure grows monotonous. Here, there is a need to introduce variety. Beware variety for variety's sake though. That can create a distraction in and of itself.
• Subject and verb are separated. Don't try to cram too much into one sentence or 'who' did 'what' can get confusing.
• Adverbs are placed improperly. If you must use them, you want to place them at the beginning or end of sentences for the most part. This typically provides the effect you're seeking.
• Words and phrases are repeated inadvertently. A common error and often missed after even several read-throughs. If you do this, make sure it's intentional and for effect.
• Correct grammar becomes a fetish. It always comes back to the Grammar Nazi. If proper grammar gets in the way of manipulating your reader's emotion, then break the rules. Again, make sure you're not doing this on accident.
• Meaning isn't made clear instantly. Unless your goal is to exhibit your mastery over the obscurities of the English language, you want to get ideas across clearly to your reader. Why make things difficult for them? If you're writing about a heady subject, they'll have enough difficulty without you intentionally throwing up roadblocks because you feel a need to show off your literary intellect. As with most writing, too much or too little is a matter of taste, but always take your audience into account.

That sums up Swain's advice on the basic mechanics of words and sentences. The next piece will focus on using these mechanics to manipulate your reader's emotions. I would love nothing more than to hear your feedback and thoughts, so please don't hesitate to disagree (or agree) with any or all of the above.