I don't understand this sentence at all

You Tube Videos


Apocalypse Now - Trailer


Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam epic, loosely based on HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad, tells the story of Captain Willard (Martin Sheen), a special agent sent into Cambodia ...

spike.com


http://www.spike.com/video/apocalypse-now/2672745

Robin Michael, first you equate silence and incomprehension:

<Conrad contrast the silence (incomprehension) >

Then you equate incomprehension to noise v. silence:

<Civilisation (Noise) v. The Savages (Silence) = Incomprehension >




It is not good thinking, my friend.

Unfortunately Joe K. you simply do not understand.

First I equate silence and incomprehension. OK

Then I say there is a clash of civilisations or rather of Western Civilisation versus the natives of the dark continent - Africa.

The result of western civilisation coming into contact with the natives was 'incomprehension'. Incomprehension on both sides. Conrad describes Western Civilisation as being 'noisy'. He describes the Dark Continent as being 'silent'.

Between the 'noise' of the river boat, and the silence of the river, there is a complete and utter lack of understanding. The two groups of people, cannot even start to communicate.


You are looking at what I have written from a strictly logical point of view with out looking at any of the sources that I have referred you to. Consequently your analysis is simplistic in the extreme.

I will give you another You Tube video.


Heart of Darkness (1994) part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJUPNYmlQFE&feature=related




Movie Review

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110002/

Plot Summary for
Heart of Darkness (1993) (TV) More at IMDbPro »


Marlow is an ambitious and adventurous sailor who is employed by an English trading company and sent to an African colony. There he travels up the river, visiting the trading stations who barters for ivory with the natives. On his journey he is told about a man named Kurtz whose station is the one furthest up the river, deep in the African jungle. Some talk of him in awe, others in admiration, but they all seem to fear him. As Marlow gets closer and closer to Kurtz he understands that the man has gone insane and is now doing the most horrible and blasphemous deeds. Based on Joseph Conrad's classic novel about greed and insanity.


Heart of Darkness (1994) part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJUPNYmlQFE&feature=related

<You are looking at what I have written from a strictly logical point of view>

Yes, that is correct.

<First I equate silence and incomprehension. OK >

OK.

But if you equate silence and incomprehension, then when you say:

<Civilisation (Noise) v. The Savages (Silence) = Incomprehension >

and if incomprehension = silence, it means that

<(Noise) v. (Incomprehension) = Incomprehension >

How can that be, my friend?

Hmm, looking over the thread again, the opposing side is even more devoid of content than I remember, so I apologize to Timothy for misremembering the basis for his comments.

However, I persist in my belief that "such as I" is an example hypercorrection. In the phrase "someone moral and true such as I", "I" is presented as an example of "someone moral and true". If the phrase were "someone who is moral and true such as I", then taking there to be an ellipicital "am" at the end would make sense, but in the original form, it doesn't make sense to connect "someone" (a (pro)noun) with "I am" (a verb phrase).

< someone moral and true such as I >

It's probably a combination of "someone such as I" and "someone as moral and true as I".

It doesn't really matter to me, but I think the original form is correct.

Since "moral" and "true" are adjectives which modify "someone" and not "I," you can temporarily eliminate them for clarity: "someone such as I [am]."
Then it's clear that the form is correct.