Moses' Erroneous Supposition
Dr. Franz Issac-Huntree is New Zealand’s foremost expert on linguistic frivolity. Since her appointment as Head of the Oceanic Official Commission for Clean and Clockwise Cantrips( O²C⁴), she has debunked, denounced, and defrauded hundreds of superfluous sayings and egregious analogies. “Language,” she stated, “is a means to an end. The flowery use of synonyms and archaic verbiage is diminutive to the scholars that have worked tirelessly to construct this system. A system that serves to connect people directly and with minimal effort. The creation of the thesaurus is the second worst thing an English person has done to this language and I maintain that 1852 marked the beginning of the decline into madness that we find ourselves in today. Words exist to label and communicate and so there is no place for gray in such a black and white endeavor.” The following writing was her entry into the September 2011 issue of English Efficacy Reclamation. The magazine’s annual segment: “How our Minds Mind”, tasked experts with exposing to laypeople how well known sayings tied knots in statements that could have been simple strings of words. Dr. Franz, of course, won the publication’s blue ribbon and her submission is celebrated by the O²C⁴ to this day for it’s genius.
Moses supposes his toeses are roses;
Moses supposes erroneously,
For nobody's toeses are roses or posies,
As Moses supposes his toeses to be.
The phrase was popularized by the 1952 classic “Singin’ in the Rain”, a film with which I hold a number of additional grievances. However, the rhyme is recorded to have been written as early as 1888. This earliest instance is referred to by Wikipedia(for whatever it’s worth) as “nonsense verse”, a categorization of literature that I refuse to give even as much credence as having a categorization at all. I fear that Moses, legendarily renowned for his patience, would explode in a fit of rage at the sight of his name being used so wantonly. In this age of modernity we intellectual folk have far too many matters vying for our attention. The idea of creating a sentence so devoid of productivity surely makes my blood boil. I shall endeavor to smite the frivolity and demonstrate just how much fat is present to be trimmed.
The entire verse is predicated upon the idea that our dear Moses is a fool enough to genuinely believe that his ground-bound digits have been replaced, or perhaps have always been, fragrant flowers. It then goes on to unhelpfully point out that this holy man is incorrect in thinking that his feet contain flowers, immediately making this first sentence completely redundant. The deconstruction of such a writing is a textbook lesson in time-wasting as the second half works tirelessly to outdo the former to relay a single, USELESS, piece of information in as many words as possible. It is painfully clear to any sensible reader that Moses believing his Toeses are Roses is utterly ridiculous. More mind-boggling still, it is written that OBVIOUSLY NO ONE has roses for toes as Moses so unfoundedly thinks he does. The acknowledgement of this truth is staggering in it’s superflousness yet the verse continues on to reiterate that, despite this clear-as-day logic, the wise sage of the Egyptian exodus still maintains his stance.
In order to streamline our frustratingly verbose prose, identification of the exact information being communicated is essential. Thankfully, we have already accomplished as much. It is unnecessary to call attention to Moses’ folly or to state that which is commonly understood to us fluent English speakers, so the latter three-fourths of the rhyme can be omitted entirely. Furthermore, while Moses may well and truly think that thorny red beauties adorn the ends of his legs, we again know this to be preposterous to the point that it isn’t even worth mentioning. More succinctly, we can say that “Moses thinks.” as we have established the content of these thoughts to be nonsense unworthy of being elaborated upon. Similarly it is known that to be human is to think and therefore we can identify that the t, h, n, and k of the second word are free to be removed. This action leaves us with the pleasingly simple: “Moses is.”. Without the need to convey what he is thinking, or even that he is thinking at all, the minimalistic verb (is) finds itself serving in an even more reduced capacity. Thus it seems only appropriate to forgo a verb and present only our subject: “Moses.”. The name alone conjures up all of the imagery necessary to understand the core of what the original writing attempted to communicate sans twenty-two words, two commas, a semicolon, and a period.
If I were a few decades younger, and a touch more bold, I might seek a way to boil down the essence of the message to: “”. There is a case to be made that since who the subject is has no bearing on the statement, even his name could be removed. Though I would certainly be hard-pressed to argue with whomever presented this additional addendum to me, I am satisfied. When I picture in my mind the beaming visage of my biblical hero, his name free of any manner of linguistic tomfoolery, a peace fills my soul. It is in moments like these that I am able to look at my achievements and revel in the fact that I am doing what I know I am meant to do. I can know that despite the best efforts of the literary charlatans universally referred to as “poets”, there are heroes that work just as fervently to save innocent women and men from wasting their precious seconds trying to decode all manner of dense writing. I genuinely pride myself as one of your heroes. Please use your newfound time to enjoy that which truly matters. Pet your spouse, kiss your dog, or just look heavensward and breathe deep of all the blessing the Lord has deigned to bestow upon us.
Much Love and Many Thanks,
Dr. Franz Issac-Huntree
