The four-letter word

The four-letter word

John Bjarne Grover

On 21 march 2014, Yahoo moves all european domains and accounts to Ireland, including irish legislation. The present web page was hitherto under Germany. Could be this move means that the domain can be deleted (by irish legislation) if it contains elements from a certain list of rude words - I don't know about that but cannot exclude the possibility that there could be a change in the evaluation of such words. The word 'fi**efu**er' (looks ridiculous!) could be telling of attempts to define certain rude forms as reserved for political intrigue for which it should be impossible to pronounce in public the true name of the political strategy. I therefore - in order to avoid such problems - use the form 'fiskefusker', wherein the letter 'S' takes the place of the more common spelling. This is a step backwards and we must hope that the EU takes to its senses and will allow for a visa-free regime with Russia and respond to Russia's letter about it. 'Mai-dan' is norwegian for 'the day in may', which could be the day 200 years ago - the norwegian constitution was made on 17 may 1814 and it is well possible that this is how and when the 'Klipra connection' was made. When WWI broke out in 1914, it could have been for precisely the reason of the centennial anniversary of this connection-making, and the shot in Sarajevo indexed with high precision the later address of Laura and Bjarne Eidsvig in Fjellgata 72, Klipra, Aalesund.

The 'Klipra connection' includes the origin of John Jensen in 1916 by his parents Sigurd Jensen and Inga Olsen in Klipra in Aalesund, a few houses down the street from the Eidsvigs - his father Sigurd Jensen worked as 'fish sorter' - which means that if he were not truly honest in all his judgements of the fish he would have been a 'fiskefusker', a 'fish cheater'.

(The story was told to me by my official sister Vibeke Gröver that Sigurd Jensen worked as a fisherman in Lofoten in northern Norway and travelled in probably early 1916 with fish to Bergen for selling them there - on the way he stayed overnight in Aalesund and met Inga Olsen in the harbour - and on his way up again some time later he stayed once again over in Aalsund and met her again and she could tell that she was pregnant and he had to move down there, and they settled in Klipra. If this is a probable story in 1916 before the freezing technology was invented, I don't know - could be it is).

In addition, there is this 'wigwam' phenomenon that the two persons shown on the cliff form have sort of 'fish eyes' - which could mean some sort of 'fiskefusker'. Could be it could be called 'fish eyes', could be it could be called 'cameleon eyes'.

This means that the form 'fi**efu**er' (we must hope that the political situation will come to its senses and we can return to reality - it is likely that it is EU who should answer the letter from Russia on visa-free regime rather than returning to puerile joke times) in fact could have its origins in the special eyes on this wigwam piece - if it is a standard archetype which can take on material shape more or less on the same form over and over again - that people at different times and places find this same puzzling piece of matter with the two characters with fish-looking eyes standing in this sort of cliff, that is, that there is a 'Klippe-ra connection' between them. Strange indeed it is.

Sigurd Jensen's official title was 'fiskevraker' which means 'fish-wrecker' or more properly 'fish discarder', throwing bad fish away. He was employed by the state - a safe job - and hence his real title was 'statsvraker' = 'state-wrecker' or 'state discarder'. That could be a part of this story of the 'fiskefusker' - and when John Jensen changed his name in 1946 to 'John Gröver', it could be said that 'he took his father's title as his name'. When in the 1960's his signature looked like 'Wigwam', that could be telling of this link of the 'fiskefusker' to the 'wigwam' piece of transcendent matter.

'Visvas' is a norwegian word for 'nonsense'. German 'wischiwaschi'. 'Same' is norwegian for 'lapp'.

The form 'fi**efu**er' or 'fi??efu??er' could be compared with the phonetic notation for the (frequent in arabic-semitic) articulation called AIN, the voiced pharyngeal fricative constriction. When in the Vienna U-Bahn it is announced "Steigen Sie nicht mehr ein" just before the doors are closing, it could be compared with the form 'J.Teigen sier NICHT me[d] AIN'. This means that if I now have to rewrite the pages containing the four-letter word - due to fears that the move of the domain or site to get under irish legislation can lead to a 'closure of the doors' to the web, a closing of the site - it could be telling of the name of the norwegian singer-entertainer Jahn Teigen (the collaborator or partner of Anita Skorgan, another norwegian singer-entertainer) as 'J and Teigen' for 'Steigen'. The word 'teigen' ('teig' in indefinite form) means 'the site', typically a site or limited area in a forest, typically a field of trees in e.g. a hillside, while 'ja'n teigen' or 'ga'n teigen' means 'gave him the site'. Who could have given me a site? Would it have been the Forester? Well, the site is on Yahoo - and hence 'Net and Yahoo' is the question of site. 'Benjamin Netanjahu' would clearly be a name invoked by this construction. Aha, ed ward forester? But that could perhaps be felt as a ridicule of Netanjahu, 'in which case' it could be said that he was 'domma in' - 'he was fooled in'. 'Dumma ut' ('fooled out') is the normal form - that means to be made a fool of.

But this is rather long ago and the couple Teigen-Skorgan were in norwegian entertainment news around the 70's, I think it was. Teigen was also known for his 'split-hops' on stage.

Ireland is a land of catholic faith and the northern Ireland conflict could be seen as having its historic rooting or at least 'reference' in the excommunication of England by the time of Henry VIII.

'Just before the doors are closing': There is also the story about me living in Venice in 2009 when the two neighbours died and the street was apparently in the process of being depopulated and I felt that it was time to move. For various reasons, moving back to Vienna was the option which could be the solution and I was kindly allowed to use Wien Wohnservice who have a site on which I then could log on and scan for possible flats. After some time I got this offer and I got a contact telephone number to the tenant who was about to move out. The rules say that one has three days from the moment of the offer to see the flat and to accept it and sign some papers at Wien Wohnservice, but if three days elapse without any response, the offer goes on to the next on the list. According to the rules, one is obliged to see the flat before taking it - or, I would say, at least see as much of it as possible, since it is normally occupied and one cannot scan every part of it. (This probably means that if one takes a flat and moves in later, if the flat is not habitable when one eventually moves in one has to pay for the period of notice if one had not seen it in advance, or if it were not really for rent or did not even exist one probably has not the immediate right to another one, sth like that - even if one has moved out of the former home). I repeatedly called the tenant who had it by the telephone number I had got for an appointment to come and see the flat, but there was no answer, and after a day or so of repeated calls I had to conclude that it was probably disconnected somewhere inbetween. As far as I remember, I called Wien Wohnservice and asked what to do and they said that they could offer me an appointment to see it on the last day of the tenancy which was 30 november. According to normal housing contracts the previous tenant is obliged to show the flat to the next tenant but clearly that is on the condition that it is possible and I don't know what the previous tenant's contract was like. But I had to decide in the course of 3 days and that was in september or october and to wait untill 30 november was not possible for deciding. I therefore had no other choice than going to Vienna to find the flat and ring the doorbell and explain the situation for the previous tenant, if there were somebody there, under the assumption that the telephone connection probably had been broken ('klipper a connection') e.g. by political intrigue. I took a night train and arrived early in the morning and went right to the place which was not far away. I had been speculating on the way what to do when I arrived - I probably had no other choice than to wait at the house door for somebody coming out and ask for permission to enter, for being able to ring the doorbell of the previous tenant's door. But I could not know how many lived in the house - if there were only 2 or 3 people in the house for that time being, I could have to wait untill the evening and maybe even that would fail. I would then have to stay over in a hotel and continue the next day. Etc etc. There were some options. I could not know if the outside doorbell to the tenant functioned more than the telephone, and in fact the situation of today tells me that it can be difficult to reach the tenant without going in through the house door.

On my arrival, I saw as I approached the place a woman standing inside the window of the door. She seemed to be waiting and I immediately thought that, ah, that was friendly of them, they have asked (could be because of my telephone to the Wohnservice) somebody - could be the caretaker - to wait for my arrival with the night train in order to open the house door for me, so I will not have to stand here all day long waiting. (When a man looking like Gordon Brown some time later - I think around 12 january 2010 - entered the same night train from Venice to Vienna and the conductor asked me to open the sleeping compartment to let him in, that could, in particular when he was carrying an old doctor's bag which looked like the one I had lost in the end of the seventies, mean that at least the chief of state - well, at least somebody sufficiently similar - would be able to know that I was on my way to Vienna with the night train, and hence the theory that she was waiting for me was not impossible). As I came closer to the door, she started opening it and she held it open for slipping out herself just when I arrived. This gave me the opportunity to enter the door - I took the door just before it closed - and find the flat and ring the doorbell, but nobody opened.

The question is then whether I should have asked the woman who opened the door for permission to enter - or at least politeness calls for an explanation to the entering. It was the fact that she seemed to stand there waiting inside untill I had come close enough before she went out that made me believe that she had opened the door for giving me the chance to go in - but she had perhaps not opened it sufficiently far up for me to allow for a claim that she had outright invited me in. The question is perhaps whether she had the right to deny me entrance. If she had not the right to deny me entering the house, on the assumption that she shared house key with a number of other tenants to the common area, and on the background of my legal errand in there, it would not be right to ask her for permission to enter. The situation resembles the one of reproducing from a literary work in an article of critical scientific analysis (and in fact I was on my way to do a critical analysis of the flat): To quote from the work under such circumstances of scientific criticism is obligatory (for not doing injustice to the author) and the one who has the authority to the rights cannot, according to the law, protest against it. However, if the 'criticism' is only a false pretext for reproducing the literary text, it is not allowed to do it without the permission. It is not polite to ask the author for permission to reproduce part of a work in a scientific analysis when the author has not the right to protest and the law grants the scholar the right to the quote. If this 'authority to the rights' resembles the doorway to the house, it would have been impolite to ask for permission to enter if she had not the right to deny me entrance. I had a legal right to see the flat including the relevant inside of the house (I had got a draft of the flat but not the house) and it had to be done within the period of three days and my identity was well documented. But it is probably right that I should have presented the purpose of my entering for her - but, on the other hand, she was on her way out and did not stop for waiting for an explanation. That was a border case, though - could be she would have preferred an explanation to why I 'grabbed the opportunity' to enter the house - unless, that is, she had been waiting there for me to give me the chance, in which case she knew every aspect of it - and I should have presented at least a thanks in return for her opening. Could be I did, I don't remember. If she had been waiting for me, such as I believed, she would perhaps have asked me about my errand or identity if it were a matter of concern. But it happened too quickly and I had not had the chance to evaluate other possibilities.

There was the earthquake of 'Port-au-Prince' around the time or days when the Brown-looking man entered the train, and there was an aircrash of a fighter jet in Virginia Beach which had been preceded by the pilot's jumpout after a 'sorry' (a speech act, that is) on the radio. A 'mayday' it wasn't, though.

I hope this is not about setting the parametres for the beginning of a WWIII.

However that be, it would probably have been right and polite to say something calming to the woman who went out the door. I am sorry if I should have been more friendly and I do apologize for any inconvenience or problem this could have caused her.

I don't know who it was, though. The previous tenant has later been listed in the telephone book under the same address, as if she had not moved out of the house, and it happened once (many months, could be a year or two later) when I arrived to the house and entered just after this same woman - who then went in shortly enough before me to let the door be open when I came - that police stood just inside the door and inspected another door and they asked her if she had a key to it, to which she answered no. She would have had if she had the key to the housedoor, which means that she probably was not a resident there. I then likewise was surprised and did not think of it as a chance to present apologies or sorry but believed that she was occupied with the police for some reason or other and I would not disturb the situation and continued in. I was a resident, though, and had a key to the relevant door and perhaps I should have offered my assistance with getting the door up, but somehow the people must have gotten into the house and then they must have had a key somehow. A police car was parked a little away with only one red back light on, and perhaps the police had rung doorbells untill somebody was willing to open the door. That was the option which I also had in 2009 unless somebody happened to open the door when going out. But I could not know if there were people in the house at all and when the woman was just about to get out it could have been the last one in the house and the last chance I had. (This is probably not likely to be the background of 'Jiang Zemin' in China, for 'sjansen min' = 'my chance', 'the chance I had').

Etiquette? Ink-on-wien-ience? It is not there. Could be it is a matter of 'politeness' = 'Höflichkeit' when I wanted to get into the 'Hof' of the house to see the flat or ring the doorbell. What is politeness? Is it about respecting civilian rights - and are civilian rights a form of organized politeness?

The norwegian constitution from 1814 - which could have been the background of the Klipra connection - had its background in the union of Norway and Denmark which then had lasted for some hundred years. Norway was considered danish earth, probably, around 1800. It is said that it was because Denmark granted jews civilian rights equal to other danes in probably early 1814 that a liberation movement broke out in Norway in protest against these rights of the jews and an outright antisemitic constitution of 17 may 1814 was made which declared a new independent state of Norway and which prohibited jews and jesuits access to the new kingdom (which, though, immediately went into a new union with Sweden with whom they shared monarch untill 1905, when they chose a danish prince as new king). What was the historic background for the new situation in Denmark in 1814? One can speculate that it could have resembled my current problems. Will it come out better this time? Is it the plan to close down the Klipra connection? Hopefully not for returning to the state before 1814. I notice that 'Kiev' and 'Köev'-enhavn could be read backwards and in combination. Could be that is what is pronounced with AIN sign in printing. Of course, if the previous tenant had switched off the phone because it was unwanted that I should move in (I did not have that impression, though) and I would lose the chance after three days, it could have had a taste of pre-1814 anti-semitism about it. Hopefully it is not about the 'domain' of 'teigen' in combination with the 'state discarder'.

Maidan = the day of may
Tiananmen = could mean the time point of my arrival with the night train - the woman in the door could have been informed about when I would arrive
Tahrir Square = tar irsk where, takes irish where - or even 'takes irish site'?

The earthquake of Port-au-Prince if seen in connection with the arrival of Gordon Brown could mean that the entrance into the house could be compared with a rape if it were not explicitly permitted. This could mean a political wish to recognize the house-space as the same as the body-space, which could be about the idea of the church as the body of Christ. I dont know if there are substantial differences on that matter between catholics and protestants or anglicans.

A guess could be that it could be an attempt to construct a strategy against China - e.g. to make it look as if 'Jiang Zemin' should have meant my arrival at the housedoor (and not, say, for another example, 'Jan P. Jansen' who commented on norwegian TV about the US moon landing in 1969 along with Erik Tandberg) or that the Tiananmen massacre could have been in preparation of the same arrival in 2009, for adding weight to the politics. That would be surprise politics if it should have been chinese.

However this be, I find it wise to replace the occurrences of the four-letter word with wildcarded or AIN'ed versions, however ridiculous that may look when I have not used the words but only referred to them as linguistic phenomena. In particular, it would look ridiculous to discuss the etymology of the word FU** if one cannot be certain which phonological elements are involved. But if the plan could have been to let an automatic web scanner crawl over the site and delete sites which contain the 'quasi-holy' (by such puerile old-boys logic) forms, it is better to use the wildcards. But that only tells that the preplanning of the history could look a little old and outdated by now. Isn't it better to move on?

I add that norwegian for 'tenant' is 'leieboer'.
'Same' = 'lapp'.
Norwegian fourletter word for 'vagina' includes a double 't'.
The concept of 'blomster-pigen' ('the flower-girl') could, as political concept, be taken to include such fourletter words that it turns with the feature VOICE on the telephone contact I had for seeing the flat in 2009.

In the summer 2010 I had a period of extreme olfactory sensations when I entered the flat. Could it be the flat smelt stronger than it looked? 'Lukt' is norwegian for 'smell', cp. also 'Luke 24'.

As far as the form 'fourletter word' is concerned, I notice that the 'wigwam' piece is constituted by apparent 'foldovers', and when it even seems to undergo some changes, see stage 1 compared with stage 2, that could be due to a continuation of the folding, for example due to drying.