You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Discredited comments on RIP Doug Engelbart - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: Dr_Manhattan 03 July 2013 07:19PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (15)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Discredited 04 July 2013 03:16:06AM *  8 points [-]

Every time I hear "Rest in Peace" my mind corrects with "...except not resting or at peace". Does anyone have a secular, naturalistic world view analogue? Like "whom we should remember with honor", but catchy.

Comment author: gwern 04 July 2013 03:18:17AM 11 points [-]

One of Eliezer's stories (http://lesswrong.com/lw/p1/initiation_ceremony/) uses the formula "Is dead but not forgotten." It's not bad even if I personally would prefer "gone but not forgotten".

Comment author: [deleted] 04 July 2013 04:32:38AM 5 points [-]

"gone" euphemizes death.

Comment author: gwern 06 July 2013 07:33:46PM *  1 point [-]

'Dead' has a less pleasing sound than 'gone', which fits better in the phrase rhythmically: 'gone' flows into 'but not forgotten', while 'dead' requires more of an abrupt full caesura to deal with the 'tuh' sound at the end.

Comment author: MrMind 04 July 2013 08:21:44AM 1 point [-]

I happen to like the even more euphemistic sentence I've read often in psychology blog: "Mr. X has left the building". However, if we want to have a naturalistic formula, I would use something on the line of "He is dead but will be remembered", or, if we want an acronym, DBR: dead but remembered.

Comment author: advancedatheist 04 July 2013 06:36:26PM 2 points [-]

He has entered the Off-State.

Which I prefer over superstitions about ordering dead people to "rest in peace," because brain preservationists want to turn death from a permanent off-state into a temporary and reversible off-state.

Seriously, think about the traditional expression. We use the imperative tense of the verb "to rest," and it sounds like a spell one of our shamanistic ancestors came up with to keep ghosts from bothering the living.

Comment author: fortyeridania 06 July 2013 01:48:15PM 2 points [-]

We use the imperative tense of the verb "to rest," and it sounds like a spell one of our shamanistic ancestors came up with to keep ghosts from bothering the living.

Not so. Neither the expression "rest in peace" nor the longer version "may s/he rest in peace" contains any imperative verbs. (Also, the imperative is a mood, not a tense.)

  1. In the full expression, the mood is optative, not imperative. That should be clear from the examples at this link. It does not express a command; it expresses a wish.

  2. English doesn't actually inflect for the optative mood; instead, optative meaning is expressed by verbs that are morphologically indistinguishable from the subjunctive or indicative verbs.

  3. Link: grammar.about.com on "mood" actually uses "May he rest in peace" as an example of a sentence using the optative.

  4. As for the shorter "rest in peace," it can be understood either as a truncated version of "may s/he rest in peace," in which case the verb is still optative; or it can be treated as a complete expression. If it's a complete expression then the mood is just subjunctive.

  5. The English expression is a translation of the Latin Requiescat in pace, in which the verb is unambiguously subjunctive.

  6. Link: grammaring.com uses "Rest in peace" as an example of a sentence with a present subjunctive.