|
|
The purpose of Newspeak was not
only to provide a medium of expression
for the world-view and mental
habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc,
but to make all other modes of
thought impossible. It was intended that
when Newspeak had been adopted
once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten,
a heretical thought--that is,
a thought diverging from the principles of
Ingsoc--should be literally unthinkable,
at least so far as thought is
dependent on words. Its vocabulary
was so constructed as to give exact and
often very subtle expression to
every meaning that a Party member could
properly wish to express, while
excluding all other meanings and also the
possibility of arriving at them
by indirect methods. This was done partly
by the invention of new words,
but chiefly by eliminating undesirable
words and by stripping such words
as remained of unorthodox meanings, and
so far as possible of all secondary
meanings whatever. To give a single
example. The word FREE still existed
in Newspeak, but it could only be
used in such statements as 'This
dog is free from lice' or 'This field is
free from weeds'. It could not
be used in its old sense of 'politically
free' or 'intellectually free'
since political and intellectual freedom no
longer existed even as concepts,
and were therefore of necessity nameless.
Quite apart from the suppression
of definitely heretical words, reduction
of vocabulary was regarded as
an end in itself, and no word that could be
dispensed with was allowed to
survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend
but to DIMINISH the range of thought,
and this purpose was indirectly
assisted by cutting the choice
of words down to a minimum.
Newspeak was founded on the English
language as we now know it, though
many Newspeak sentences, even
when not containing newly-created words,
would be barely intelligible to
an English-speaker of our own day. Newspeak
words were divided into three
distinct classes, known as the A vocabulary,
the B vocabulary (also called
compound words), and the C vocabulary.
It will be simpler to discuss
each class separately, but the grammatical
peculiarities of the language
can be dealt with in the section devoted to
the A vocabulary, since the same
rules held good for all three categories.
THE A VOCABULARY. The A vocabulary
consisted of the words needed for the
business of everyday life--for
such things as eating, drinking, working,
putting on one's clothes, going
up and down stairs, riding in vehicles,
gardening, cooking, and the like.
It was composed almost entirely of words
that we already possess words
like HIT, RUN, DOG, TREE, SUGAR, HOUSE,
FIELD--but in comparison with
the present-day English vocabulary their
number was extremely small, while
their meanings were far more rigidly
defined. All ambiguities and shades
of meaning had been purged out of
them. So far as it could be achieved,
a Newspeak word of this class was
simply a staccato sound expressing
ONE clearly understood concept. It
would have been quite impossible
to use the A vocabulary for literary
purposes or for political or philosophical
discussion. It was intended
only to express simple, purposive
thoughts, usually involving concrete
objects or physical actions.
The grammar of Newspeak had two
outstanding peculiarities. The first of
these was an almost complete interchangeability
between different parts of
speech. Any word in the language
(in principle this applied even to very
abstract words such as IF or WHEN)
could be used either as verb, noun,
adjective, or adverb. Between
the verb and the noun form, when they were
of the same root, there was never
any variation, this rule of itself
involving the destruction of many
archaic forms. The word THOUGHT, for
example, did not exist in Newspeak.
Its place was taken by THINK, which
did duty for both noun and verb.
No etymological principle was followed
here: in some cases it was the
original noun that was chosen for retention,
in other cases the verb. Even
where a noun and verb of kindred meaning
were not etymologically connected,
one or other of them was frequently
suppressed. There was, for example,
no such word as CUT, its meaning being
sufficiently covered by the noun-verb
KNIFE. Adjectives were formed by
adding the suffix -FUL to the
noun-verb, and adverbs by adding -WISE. Thus
for example, SPEEDFUL meant 'rapid'
and SPEEDWISE meant 'quickly'. Certain
of our present-day adjectives,
such as GOOD, STRONG, BIG, BLACK, SOFT,
were retained, but their total
number was very small. There was little
need for them, since almost any
adjectival meaning could be arrived at by
adding -FUL to a noun-verb. None
of the now-existing adverbs was retained,
except for a very few already
ending in -WISE: the -WISE termination was
invariable. The word WELL, for
example, was replaced by GOODWISE.
In addition, any word--this again
applied in principle to every word in
the language--could be negatived
by adding the affix UN-, or could be
strengthened by the affix PLUS-,
or, for still greater emphasis,
DOUBLEPLUS-. Thus, for example,
UNCOLD meant 'warm', while PLUSCOLD and
DOUBLEPLUSCOLD meant, respectively,
'very cold' and 'superlatively cold'.
It was also possible, as in present-day
English, to modify the meaning of
almost any word by prepositional
affixes such as ANTE-, POST-, UP-, DOWN-,
etc. By such methods it was found
possible to bring about an enormous
diminution of vocabulary. Given,
for instance, the word GOOD, there was no
need for such a word as BAD, since
the required meaning was equally
well--indeed, better--expressed
by UNGOOD. All that was necessary, in any
case where two words formed a
natural pair of opposites, was to decide
which of them to suppress. DARK,
for example, could be replaced by UNLIGHT,
or LIGHT by UNDARK, according
to preference.
The second distinguishing mark
of Newspeak grammar was its regularity.
Subject to a few exceptions which
are mentioned below all inflexions
followed the same rules. Thus,
in all verbs the preterite and the past
participle were the same and ended
in -ED. The preterite of STEAL was
STEALED, the preterite of THINK
was THINKED, and so on throughout the
language, all such forms as SWAM,
GAVE, BROUGHT, SPOKE, TAKEN, etc., being
abolished. All plurals were made
by adding -S or -ES as the case might be.
The plurals OF MAN, OX, LIFE,
were MANS, OXES, LIFES. Comparison of
adjectives was invariably made
by adding -ER, -EST (GOOD, GOODER, GOODEST),
irregular forms and the MORE,
MOST formation being suppressed.
The only classes of words that
were still allowed to inflect irregularly
were the pronouns, the relatives,
the demonstrative adjectives, and the
auxiliary verbs. All of these
followed their ancient usage, except that
WHOM had been scrapped as unnecessary,
and the SHALL, SHOULD tenses had
been dropped, all their uses being
covered by WILL and WOULD. There were
also certain irregularities in
word-formation arising out of the need for
rapid and easy speech. A word
which was difficult to utter, or was liable
to be incorrectly heard, was held
to be ipso facto a bad word; occasionally
therefore, for the sake of euphony,
extra letters were inserted into a word
or an archaic formation was retained.
But this need made itself felt
chiefly in connexion with the
B vocabulary. WHY so great an importance was
attached to ease of pronunciation
will be made clear later in this essay.
THE B VOCABULARY. The B vocabulary
consisted of words which had been
deliberately constructed for political
purposes: words, that is to say,
which not only had in every case
a political implication, but were intended
to impose a desirable mental attitude
upon the person using them. Without
a full understanding of the principles
of Ingsoc it was difficult to use
these words correctly. In some
cases they could be translated into
Oldspeak, or even into words taken
from the A vocabulary, but this usually
demanded a long paraphrase and
always involved the loss of certain
overtones. The B words were a
sort of verbal shorthand, often packing
whole ranges of ideas into a few
syllables, and at the same time more
accurate and forcible than ordinary
language.
The B words were in all cases compound
words. [Compound words such as
SPEAKWRITE, were of course to
be found in the A vocabulary, but these were
merely convenient abbreviations
and had no special ideologcal colour.]
They consisted of two or more
words, or portions of words, welded together
in an easily pronounceable form.
The resulting amalgam was always a
noun-verb, and inflected according
to the ordinary rules. To take a single
example: the word GOODTHINK, meaning,
very roughly, 'orthodoxy', or, if
one chose to regard it as a verb,
'to think in an orthodox manner'. This
inflected as follows: noun-verb,
GOODTHINK; past tense and past participle,
GOODTHINKED; present participle,
GOOD-THINKING; adjective, GOODTHINKFUL;
adverb, GOODTHINKWISE; verbal
noun, GOODTHINKER.
The B words were not constructed
on any etymological plan. The words of
which they were made up could
be any parts of speech, and could be placed
in any order and mutilated in
any way which made them easy to pronounce
while indicating their derivation.
In the word CRIMETHINK (thoughtcrime),
for instance, the THINK came second,
whereas in THINKPOL (Thought Police)
it came first, and in the latter
word POLICE had lost its second syllable.
Because of the great difficulty
in securing euphony, irregular formations
were commoner in the B vocabulary
than in the A vocabulary. For example,
the adjective forms of MINITRUE,
MINIPAX, and MINILUV were, respectively,
MINITRUTHFUL, MINIPEACEFUL, and
MINILOVELY, simply because -TRUEFUL,
-PAXFUL, and -LOVEFUL were slightly
awkward to pronounce. In principle,
however, all B words could inflect,
and all inflected in exactly the
same way.
Some of the B words had highly
subtilized meanings, barely intelligible to
anyone who had not mastered the
language as a whole. Consider, for example,
such a typical sentence from a
'Times' leading article as OLDTHINKERS
UNBELLYFEEL INGSOC. The shortest
rendering that one could make of this
in Oldspeak would be: 'Those whose
ideas were formed before the Revolution
cannot have a full emotional understanding
of the principles of English
Socialism.' But this is not an
adequate translation. To begin with, in
order to grasp the full meaning
of the Newspeak sentence quoted above,
one would have to have a clear
idea of what is meant by INGSOC. And in
addition, only a person thoroughly
grounded in Ingsoc could appreciate
the full force of the word BELLYFEEL,
which implied a blind, enthusiastic
acceptance difficult to imagine
today; or of the word OLDTHINK, which was
inextricably mixed up with the
idea of wickedness and decadence. But the
special function of certain Newspeak
words, of which OLDTHINK was one,
was not so much to express meanings
as to destroy them. These words,
necessarily few in number, had
had their meanings extended until they
contained within themselves whole
batteries of words which, as they were
sufficiently covered by a single
comprehensive term, could now be scrapped
and forgotten. The greatest difficulty
facing the compilers of the Newspeak
Dictionary was not to invent new
words, but, having invented them, to make
sure what they meant: to make
sure, that is to say, what ranges of words
they cancelled by their existence.
As we have already seen in the
case of the word FREE, words which had
once borne a heretical meaning
were sometimes retained for the sake of
convenience, but only with the
undesirable meanings purged out of them.
Countless other words such as
HONOUR, JUSTICE, MORALITY, INTERNATIONALISM,
DEMOCRACY, SCIENCE, and RELIGION
had simply ceased to exist. A few blanket
words covered them, and, in covering
them, abolished them. All words
grouping themselves round the
concepts of liberty and equality, for
instance, were contained in the
single word CRIMETHINK, while all words
grouping themselves round the
concepts of objectivity and rationalism
were contained in the single word
OLDTHINK. Greater precision would have
been dangerous. What was required
in a Party member was an outlook similar
to that of the ancient Hebrew
who knew, without knowing much else, that
all nations other than his own
worshipped 'false gods'. He did not need to
know that these gods were called
Baal, Osiris, Moloch, Ashtaroth, and the
like: probably the less he knew
about them the better for his orthodoxy.
He knew Jehovah and the commandments
of Jehovah: he knew, therefore, that
all gods with other names or other
attributes were false gods. In somewhat
the same way, the party member
knew what constituted right conduct, and in
exceedingly vague, generalized
terms he knew what kinds of departure from
it were possible. His sexual life,
for example, was entirely regulated by
the two Newspeak words SEXCRIME
(sexual immorality) and GOODSEX (chastity).
SEXCRIME covered all sexual misdeeds
whatever. It covered fornication,
adultery, homosexuality, and other
perversions, and, in addition, normal
intercourse practised for its
own sake. There was no need to enumerate
them separately, since they were
all equally culpable, and, in principle,
all punishable by death. In the
C vocabulary, which consisted of scientific
and technical words, it might
be necessary to give specialized names to
certain sexual aberrations, but
the ordinary citizen had no need of them.
He knew what was meant by GOODSEX--that
is to say, normal intercourse
between man and wife, for the
sole purpose of begetting children, and
without physical pleasure on the
part of the woman: all else was SEXCRIME.
In Newspeak it was seldom possible
to follow a heretical thought further
than the perception that it WAS
heretical: beyond that point the necessary
words were nonexistent.
No word in the B vocabulary was
ideologically neutral. A great many were
euphemisms. Such words, for instance,
as JOYCAMP (forced-labour camp) or
MINIPAX Ministry of Peace, i.e.
Ministry of War) meant almost the exact
opposite of what they appeared
to mean. Some words, on the other hand,
displayed a frank and contemptuous
understanding of the real nature of
Oceanic society. An example was
PROLEFEED, meaning the rubbishy
entertainment and spurious news
which the Party handed out to the masses.
Other words, again, were ambivalent,
having the connotation 'good' when
applied to the Party and 'bad'
when applied to its enemies. But in
addition there were great numbers
of words which at first sight appeared
to be mere abbreviations and which
derived their ideological colour not
from their meaning, but from their
structure.
So far as it could be contrived,
everything that had or might have
political significance of any
kind was fitted into the B vocabulary. The
name of every organization, or
body of people, or doctrine, or country, or
institution, or public building,
was invariably cut down into the familiar
shape; that is, a single easily
pronounced word with the smallest number
of syllables that would preserve
the original derivation. In the Ministry
of Truth, for example, the Records
Department, in which Winston Smith
worked, was called RECDEP, the
Fiction Department was called FICDEP, the
Teleprogrammes Department was
called TELEDEP, and so on. This was not
done solely with the object of
saving time. Even in the early decades of
the twentieth century, telescoped
words and phrases had been one of the
characteristic features of political
language; and it had been noticed
that the tendency to use abbreviations
of this kind was most marked in
totalitarian countries and totalitarian
organizations. Examples were such
words as NAZI, GESTAPO, COMINTERN,
INPRECORR, AGITPROP. In the beginning
the practice had been adopted
as it were instinctively, but in Newspeak
it was used with a conscious purpose.
It was perceived that in thus
abbreviating a name one narrowed
and subtly altered its meaning, by
cutting out most of the associations
that would otherwise cling to it.
The words COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL,
for instance, call up a composite
picture of universal human brotherhood,
red flags, barricades, Karl Marx,
and the Paris Commune. The word
COMINTERN, on the other hand, suggests
merely a tightly-knit organization
and a well-defined body of doctrine.
It refers to something almost
as easily recognized, and as limited in
purpose, as a chair or a table.
COMINTERN is a word that can be uttered
almost without taking thought,
whereas COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL is a phrase
over which one is obliged to linger
at least momentarily. In the same way,
the associations called up by
a word like MINITRUE are fewer and more
controllable than those called
up by MINISTRY OF TRUTH. This accounted not
only for the habit of abbreviating
whenever possible, but also for the
almost exaggerated care that was
taken to make every word easily
pronounceable.
In Newspeak, euphony outweighed
every consideration other than exactitude
of meaning. Regularity of grammar
was always sacrificed to it when it
seemed necessary. And rightly
so, since what was required, above all for
political purposes, was short
clipped words of unmistakable meaning which
could be uttered rapidly and which
roused the minimum of echoes in the
speaker's mind. The words of the
B vocabulary even gained in force from
the fact that nearly all of them
were very much alike. Almost invariably
these words--GOODTHINK, MINIPAX,
PROLEFEED, SEXCRIME, JOYCAMP, INGSOC,
BELLYFEEL, THINKPOL, and countless
others--were words of two or three
syllables, with the stress distributed
equally between the first syllable
and the last. The use of them
encouraged a gabbling style of speech, at
once staccato and monotonous.
And this was exactly what was aimed at. The
intention was to make speech,
and especially speech on any subject not
ideologically neutral, as nearly
as possible independent of consciousness.
For the purposes of everyday life
it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes
necessary, to reflect before speaking,
but a Party member called upon to
make a political or ethical judgement
should be able to spray forth the
correct opinions as automatically
as a machine gun spraying forth bullets.
His training fitted him to do
this, the language gave him an almost
foolproof instrument, and the
texture of the words, with their harsh sound
and a certain wilful ugliness
which was in accord with the spirit of
Ingsoc, assisted the process still
further.
So did the fact of having very
few words to choose from. Relative to our
own, the Newspeak vocabulary was
tiny, and new ways of reducing it were
constantly being devised. Newspeak,
indeed, differed from most all other
languages in that its vocabulary
grew smaller instead of larger every
year. Each reduction was a gain,
since the smaller the area of choice,
the smaller the temptation to
take thought. Ultimately it was hoped to
make articulate speech issue from
the larynx without involving the higher
brain centres at all. This aim
was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word
DUCKSPEAK, meaning 'to quack like
a duck'. Like various other words in
the B vocabulary, DUCKSPEAK was
ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the
opinions which were quacked out
were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but
praise, and when 'The Times' referred
to one of the orators of the Party
as a DOUBLEPLUSGOOD DUCKSPEAKER
it was paying a warm and valued compliment.
THE C VOCABULARY. The C vocabulary
was supplementary to the others and
consisted entirely of scientific
and technical terms. These resembled the
scientific terms in use today,
and were constructed from the same roots,
but the usual care was taken to
define them rigidly and strip them of
undesirable meanings. They followed
the same grammatical rules as the
words in the other two vocabularies.
Very few of the C words had any
currency either in everyday speech
or in political speech. Any scientific
worker or technician could find
all the words he needed in the list devoted
to his own speciality, but he
seldom had more than a smattering of the
words occurring in the other lists.
Only a very few words were common to
all lists, and there was no vocabulary
expressing the function of Science
as a habit of mind, or a method
of thought, irrespective of its particular
branches. There was, indeed, no
word for 'Science', any meaning that it
could possibly bear being already
sufficiently covered by the word INGSOC.
From the foregoing account it will
be seen that in Newspeak the expression
of unorthodox opinions, above
a very low level, was well-nigh impossible.
It was of course possible to utter
heresies of a very crude kind, a
species of blasphemy. It would
have been possible, for example, to say
BIG BROTHER IS UNGOOD. But this
statement, which to an orthodox ear merely
conveyed a self-evident absurdity,
could not have been sustained by
reasoned argument, because the
necessary words were not available. Ideas
inimical to Ingsoc could only
be entertained in a vague wordless form,
and could only be named in very
broad terms which lumped together and
condemned whole groups of heresies
without defining them in doing so.
One could, in fact, only use Newspeak
for unorthodox purposes by
illegitimately translating some
of the words back into Oldspeak. For
example, ALL MANS ARE EQUAL was
a possible Newspeak sentence, but only
in the same sense in which ALL
MEN ARE REDHAIRED is a possible Oldspeak
sentence. It did not contain a
grammatical error, but it expressed
a palpable untruth--i.e. that
all men are of equal size, weight, or
strength. The concept of political
equality no longer existed, and this
secondary meaning had accordingly
been purged out of the word EQUAL.
In 1984, when Oldspeak was still
the normal means of communication,
the danger theoretically existed
that in using Newspeak words one might
remember their original meanings.
In practice it was not difficult for
any person well grounded in DOUBLETHINK
to avoid doing this, but within
a couple of generations even the
possibility of such a lapse would have
vaished. A person growing up with
Newspeak as his sole language would no
more know that EQUAL had once
had the secondary meaning of 'politically
equal', or that FREE had once
meant 'intellectually free', than for
instance, a person who had never
heard of chess would be aware of the
secondary meanings attaching to
QUEEN and ROOK. There would be many
crimes and errors which it would
be beyond his power to commit, simply
because they were nameless and
therefore unimaginable. And it was to be
foreseen that with the passage
of time the distinguishing characteristics
of Newspeak would become more
and more pronounced--its words growing
fewer and fewer, their meanings
more and more rigid, and the chance of
putting them to improper uses
always diminishing.
When Oldspeak had been once and
for all superseded, the last link with
the past would have been severed.
History had already been rewritten,
but fragments of the literature
of the past survived here and there,
imperfectly censored, and so long
as one retained one's knowledge of
Oldspeak it was possible to read
them. In the future such fragments, even
if they chanced to survive, would
be unintelligible and untranslatable.
It was impossible to translate
any passage of Oldspeak into Newspeak unless
it either referred to some technical
process or some very simple everyday
action, or was already orthodox
(GOODTHINKFUL would be the Newspeak
expression) in tendency. In practice
this meant that no book written before
approximately 1960 could be translated
as a whole. Pre-revolutionary
literature could only be subjected
to ideological translation--that is,
alteration in sense as well as
language. Take for example the well-known
passage from the Declaration of
Independence:
WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT,
THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL,
THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR
CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS,
THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY,
AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS
ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN,
DERIVING THEIR POWERS FROM THE
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. THAT WHENEVER
ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES
DESTRUCTIVE OF THOSE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH
IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT...
It would have been quite impossible
to render this into Newspeak while
keeping to the sense of the original.
The nearest one could come to doing
so would be to swallow the whole
passage up in the single word CRIMETHINK.
A full translation could only
be an ideological translation, whereby
Jefferson's words would be changed
into a panegyric on absolute government.
A good deal of the literature of
the past was, indeed, already being
transformed in this way. Considerations
of prestige made it desirable to
preserve the memory of certain
historical figures, while at the same time
bringing their achievements into
line with the philosophy of Ingsoc.
Various writers, such as Shakespeare,
Milton, Swift, Byron, Dickens, and
some others were therefore in
process of translation: when the task had
been completed, their original
writings, with all else that survived of
the literature of the past, would
be destroyed. These translations were
a slow and difficult business,
and it was not expected that they would
be finished before the first or
second decade of the twenty-first
century. There were also large
quantities of merely utilitarian
literature--indispensable technical
manuals, and the like--that had to
be treated in the same way. It
was chiefly in order to allow time for
the preliminary work of translation
that the final adoption of Newspeak
had been fixed for so late a date
as 2050.
End of this Project Gutenberg of
Australia etext of
Nineteen eighty-four by George
Orwell
More information about this eBook is provided at the top of this file.
Our US site is at http://gutenberg.net or http://promo.net/pg
It takes us, at a rather conservative
estimate, fifty hours to get any
eBook selected, entered, proofread,
edited, copyright searched and
analyzed.
The Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation in the United States has
been created to secure a secure
future for Project Gutenberg
All donations should be made to:
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655-4109 USA
***
** The Legal Small Print **
Why is this "Small Print!" statement
here? You know: lawyers. They tell
us you might sue us if there is
something wrong with your copy of this
eBook, even if you got it for
free from someone other than us, and even
if what's wrong is not our fault.
So, among other things, this
"Small Print!" statement disclaims
most of our liability to you. It also
tells you how you may distribute
copies of this eBook if you want to.
*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS
eBook
By using or reading any part of
this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, you
indicate that you understand,
agree to and accept this "Small Print!"
statement. If you do not,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for this eBook by sending
a request within 30 days of receiving
it to the person you got it from.
If you received this eBook on a
physical medium (such as a disk),
you must return it with your request.
ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM eBookS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook
is in the "public domain" in Australia
Among other things, this means
that, in Australia, no one owns a copyright
on or for this work, so the Project
(and you!) can copy and distribute it
in Australia without permission
and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth below,
apply if you wish to copy and distribute
this eBook under the "PROJECT
GUTENBERG" trademark.
Please do not use the "PROJECT
GUTENBERG" trademark to market any
commercial products without permission.
To create these eBooks, the Project
expends considerable efforts to
identify, transcribe and proofread
public domain works. Despite these
efforts, the Project's eBooks
and any medium they may be on may contain
"Defects". Among other things,
Defects may take the form of incomplete,
inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement,
a defective or damaged disk or other
eBook medium, a computer virus,
or computer codes that damage or cannot be
read by your equipment.
LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF
DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement
or Refund" described below, [1] Michael
Hart and the Foundation (and any
other party you may receive this eBook
from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
eBook) disclaims all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER
STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL
DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If you discover a Defect in this
eBook within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money
(if any) you paid for it by sending an
explanatory note within that time
to the person you received it from. If
you received it on a physical
medium, you must return it with your note,
and such person may choose to
alternatively give you a replacement copy.
If you received it electronically,
such person may choose to alternatively
give you a second opportunity
to receive it electronically.
THIS eBook IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF
ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
ARE MADE TO YOU AS TO THE eBook OR ANY
MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold Michael
Hart, the Foundation, and its trustees
and agents, and any volunteers
associated with the production and
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
texts harmless, from all liability,
cost and expense, including legal
fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following that
you do or cause: [1] distribution of this
eBook, [2] alteration, modification,
or addition to the eBook, or [3] any
Defect.
DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this
eBook electronically, or by disk, book
or any other medium if you either
delete this "Small Print!" and all other
references to Project Gutenberg,
or:
[1] Only give exact copies
of it. Among other things, this
requires
that you do not remove, alter or modify the
eBook
or this "small print!" statement. You may however,
if you
wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
binary,
compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
including
any form resulting from conversion by word
processing
or hypertext software, but only so long as
*EITHER*:
[*]
The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
does *not* contain characters other than those
intended by the author of the work, although tilde
(~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
be used to convey punctuation intended by the
author, and additional characters may be used to
indicate hypertext links; OR
[*]
The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
the case, for instance, with most word processors);
OR
[*]
You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
or other equivalent proprietary form).
[2] Honor the eBook refund
and replacement provisions of this
"Small
Print!" statement.
[3] Pay a trademark license
fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
gross
profits you derive calculated using the method you
already
use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you
don't
derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are
payable
to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
the 60
days following each date you prepare (or were
legally
required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
periodic)
tax return. Please contact us beforehand to
let us
know your plans and to work out the details.
** END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC
DOMAIN eBookS*Ver.06/12/01 **
[Portions of this header are copyright
(C) 2001 by Michael S. Hart
and may be reprinted only when
these eBooks are free of all fees.]
[Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark
and may not be used in any sales
of Project Gutenberg eBooks or
other materials be they hardware or
software or any other related
product without express permission.]
**********