I'd like these letters to be analysed by people who could make some real sense of them and put them into a decent context. Finding a throwaway remark that many have made on the spur of the moment and headlining it is a bit crass.
This article is written for a general audience, and there's probably not much else of general interest in them if they're mostly about academics.
Edit: My bad, after reading the Conditions Governing Use I found this: "Photocopies and photographic copies of material in the archive can be supplied for private study purposes only, depending on the condition of the documents." So it looks like these written summaries are all we can get?
Sadly it was his own State that killed him in the end.
"Detest" and "despise" are not synonyms. To detest is to speak out against; to despise is to look down upon. Their roots come directly from Latin/French. If you detest something, you are issuing speech which indicates that you dislike it. If you despise something, you have observed it and disliked your observation (or, more usually, something about the detail of the observation!)
When people use these words in idioms like, "I despise and detest their actions," they are saying that they have seen the actions, they do not like what they have seen, and they are now speaking out to denounce those actions.
Interesting. I've never heard this use. The definitions I've seen of detest are some form of dislike intensely.
Reviewing Merriam-Webster, I see there is an obsolete sense of detest that means to curse.
> 1 : to feel intense and often violent antipathy toward : loathe · detests politics · They seem to truly detest each other.
> 2 obsolete : curse, denounce
I can't recall ever having across across the word used in this way in American English. I've only seen the first sense used, and would have interpret someone saying "despise and detest" to be effectively doubling (redundantly) for emphasis, not to distinguish between the two.
Etymology doesn't determine meaning.
I'm open to the possibility that in 1950s England these words meant what you say (even though in my native dialect of English they don't), but to argue that you would need to give citations, not etymologies.
Words mean things. Just because you, and many others don't always observe the minutae of meaning, does not erase it. There are words you, and 1000 other peers, have not learned yet. That does not render them meaningless.
That's not what he said.
Not for the last 2-3 centuries it is not. For people reading Beowulf in the first edition, maybe.
1. to feel abhorrence of; hate; dislike intensely. (dictionary.com)
1 to feel intense and often violent antipathy toward : loathe detests politics They seem to truly detest each other.
2 obsolete : curse, denounce
1. to hate someone or something very much (Cambridge dictionary)
1. Dislike intensely (Oxford dictionary)
>Their roots come directly from Latin/French.
Which is irrelevant as to their current meaning.
Now, we are not that different. My correction is also driven by the same joy of correcting others that makes people learn some obscure obsolete factoid and insist on it as if the whole world is wrong and they are right. The only difference is I'm right :-)
It is a 3 word quote. Is it really that hard to get it right? Is it really acceptable to get such a simple quote wrong when writing it down to an audience?
If you quote someone and get it slightly wrong then given a few generations of small modification by others getting it slightly wrong and meanings can change drastically.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
I don't have any insight as to why this particular comment was down voted. (Edit to add: I suspect it was down voted because it misquotes the source material.) If it's something you're really interested in looking into more in general, I suggest searching HN for other discussions on votes and taking some more time to think about what might cause someone to down vote, whether you agree with the possible reason or not.
As an aside, just because a comment is true doesn't mean it's somehow immune to down votes. Comments in general should be civil and constructive.
Incidentally, when did HN guidelines start privileging entertainment value? That is certainly at odds with what I consider the spirit of this community to be.
Some have further suggested that British Security Services assassinated him.[0,1] Rudy Rucker features that theory in Turing & Burroughs, but has Turing survive. Roger Bristow argued that the FBI assassinated him. I don't believe that any clear evidence has been revealed.