The Story of Shebele River

[Zaylici]

The Story of Shebele River

Young man who recently finished his high school in Baladwayn city of Somalia left to see his family who were residing on the other side of a mighty river: shebele. The city is divided by a river, upon crossing the river early in a Friday morning he saw some half-fish and half-human herd sitting in a circular fashion; a big one was sitting on an elevated chair listening to various fishes who were addressing the survival issues of their humofish species. Five individuals asked his majesty to allow them to present their studies about the conditions, resources and skills that are needed to enhance the survival of the species. As the audience listened to the lecture, some of the audience were fervent (zealous or diplaying an intense feeling) about the speeches, others thought the speeches were facetious (not serious), still others thought the survival would be assured by some fortuitous (fortunate)forces as they did in the ancient times :what was needed from the species, they said with confidence, was just doing what they were doing before and their survival would be assured as they were assured before. While listening the lecture, a fracas( noisy quarrel) erupted among some audience and subsequently participants were divided into two groups: those who thought the gathering was used to charm the opposites and not advance the interest of the homofish population and those who thought genuine discussion and analysis was necessary for survival. The king asked to separate into groups, since this was their displayed tendency, and conduct a lively debate about their views, so that he could judge them. Proponents of scientific analysis expatiated( discussed at length) about their findings and recommendations, while doing so they exonerated Shark predators by claiming that sharks were doing what we homofish were doing to the smaller fish species: consuming them to assure our survival. A young homfish, whom I think was among those who started aforementioned fracas, lost his equanimity( self-possession) and said loudly: you scientist should be finding, if you have the interest of homofish population at heart, some ways to extirpate( exterminate) our sworn enemies: sharks and human beings; however, your recurring tendencies of exculpating( exonerating or freeing sharks from blame) our opponents in the evolutionary struggle, shows your superficial interest in homofish survival and prosperity. That is a felicitous( very well expressed) statement, said by an old homofish sitting next to the young Homoffish who was fulminating( denouncing loudly) the proponents of science: you have exposed, he said, while laughing sarcastically, their gossamer( insubstantial) work, well done young homofish. The fulminated group complained about the flip (impertinent) remarks of their opponents. The king, therefore, asked groups to restrain and not lose their equanimity and doing so forestall( hinder) genuine discussion about the future of homofish population; I do not mind opposing others, he said, in so far as one does not deprecate (belittle) his fellow homofish. All groups accepted the king’s request. While the king was lecturing about moderation of behavior, both groups were reorganizing themselves to put a good fight. Some members of the audience who were observing the preparations of both groups for intellectual and possibly for military confrontations were distrated (distracted due to anxiety) for they thought homofish population would never learn to work together, they would always prefer to divide themselves and fight over every thing even the future of the homofish.

A dilettante scientist started to lecture: some of my colloquies have previously claimed, he said, that one way to assure the future of homofish population, to which I belong, is to find some food for their predators( sharks and possibly humans) ;this, he said, is quixotic notion (impractical idea). How can we find food stuffs for others while we are having a hard time securing for ourselves, or do you expect us, o homofish kinsmen, he said in a serious tone, to fawn( flatter) you and dissemble( conceal) the realities that you face as biological community. I do not wish to flout( show contempt) your miserable conditions, nor expatiate( discuss at length) upon epithets( disparaging remarks) that your circumstances merits; I, however, expiate( amend) if I sound harsh. Some of you have the tendency to distribute doggerel( trivial) material which is full of gauche( awkward, tasteless) propositions; I speak to you in glib( informality) fashion, for you are my kinsman. Neverthless, I exact from the so- called intellectual class to expurgate doggerel material from their work, and in so doing produce highly polished and well prepared material: such material, I believe, would be useful to our population. Some of you may accuse me of being effusive( demonstrative) so as to charm the king’s daughter, who is, accidentally, present at this political assembly, and other beautiful homofish girls; however, It is clear if you pay attention to my expatiation at the subject matter, you will conclude that it is not extemporaneous( improvised) presentation, but rather premeditated material intended to enrich and inform populations, if so, my efforts and contribution to the subject matter suggest that I aim more than beautiful girls, to think otherwise, however, is to be fatuous(silly) and not be facetious( serious) about grave matters in question. He sat down quietly while people were still digesting what he said.

While the discussion between the groups were heating, a similar discussion has started among the audiences, and this debate among the audience unfolded, one of the audience lost his equanimity, again and very loud fracas erupted; the noisy quarrel soon degenerated into actual bloody fight which killed 20 and wounded 50 others.The king was powerless so he went to the bank of the river and sat down under tree, reciting ancient wisdoms about human nature. Two hours later the fighting has subsided and the dead were berried in a fell (high barren field) adjacent to the river banks and the wounded attracted predators who finished them although some were saved. Ennui (restlessness or dissatisfaction) ensued and dominated the mental state of the population. The young high school graduate left the scene some time during the afternoon while thinking that modern human species were no more different than the homofish viewed from their capacities to moderate their impulsive tendencies to destroy. While leaving the scene he saw what appeared to be an elegy and funeral dirge ( a song or poem expressing sorrow or lamentation) followed by dulcet music that was so beautiful it made every body, including in this case the human observer, forget their ennui state; Capturing this state of emotions, the king made his verdict: this shows, he said, O Homfish population, your varying capacities: On one hand you have capacities to create and enjoy a wonderful work, as the music and poetic language attests; on the other hand, you have capacities and tendencies to engage in the most egregious( conspicuously bad) acts that we can reasonably imagine ; I wish, he said, I could find a way or a means to boost your propensities for good so that you could be better placed to moderate you tendencies for destruction and obliteration. The group adjourned while shouting long life for homofish, long life for homofish. The young boy left and joined his family on the other side of the river.

[Zaylici]

Part II The Story of the River

Some people have the tendency to offer an officious material( meddlesome: supply of un-requested service), no wonder their work is not appreciated. I, however, think your meddlesome( impertinent) material is result of you overweening( immoderate) tendencies to palliate( moderate) something just to display your pedantic( show of knowledge) urges. Your penchant(strong inclination) for demonstration is self-defeating; your tendencies to display your extensive knowledge hence differentiate your self from the bulk of the population, actually exposes your unimaginative nature and your obsession with details and formal rules. However, I admit that you show less peremptory (admission of no contradictions) and we do appreciate this character of yours. Your living conditions affect your work: you produce ostensibly perfunctory work: a work done with less interest and care. Had you dedicated your work, you would have produced a better work. Your perspicacious (having a key discernment) mind is not reflected in your perfunctory work: because you do not have the time needed to perfect your work. In any case, Science, o homofish, is not pernicious as many of you think. Your claim, however, that science community is dominated by philistines (materially not intellectually motivated) individuals who are phlegmatic (impassive or showing no emotions) to your suffering may have some merits; I have observed that some scientists admire to sit in pied picaresque rogues and enjoy classical music. Your tendency, therefore, to pillory (punish in public, scorn) these scientists rather than reward them with grants, is understandable; moreover, your pining (yearning) for pious scientists who are less petulant (rude) with you is further justifiable. I must admit, however, that the needed reconciliation is petrous one. Your plangent (woes) and plaintive (melancholy) mood demands something that is hard to placate because your ennui (restlessness) rests on a pique: hurt pride. Although your bith is piquant (spicy) it does not lack a platitude (superficiality) and because it does not lack platitudes it affords your opponents a plethora of grounds to make a counter argument against your pith which you have packaged it in a pithy (precise) manner. Since both arguments display a greater degree of plascity (malleability), I believe we have less energy to dwell on those disputes hence the need for pluck, spunk, fortitude and courage to forget the past and even the future differences and dwell on what we can do to improve our conditions; this, I believe, is the challenge that we face now and in the future. Such then, said one Homofish, is nothing but the usual peroration (concluding part of the discourse).

[Zaylici]

Par III

Young, sanguine-like intellectual who was reticent(quite) made this puissant( powerfull) lecture: ancients used to say, he said, speaking in pellucid( clear voice) manner, that rural populations show a greater tendency to repeatedly affirm prosaic( unimaginative, dull) discourses, perhaps, to break from their boredom and familiar routines, but this tendentious character never liberates them but only habituates them to engage in a cliché or violent engagements. Violent episodes are pursued to break, presumably, the familiar cycle of rural life and experience new mode of human experience: the mode of aggression, group feeling, nepotism, discrimination, and solidarity, albeit at the expense of some: the dead and the wounded. Oreheru, another aspiring thinker, said, this is taking us too far, why not propitiate (gain their good will or conciliate) them rather than infuriate. He continued, while paying no attention to this moderate thinker: their sedulous (busy) endeavor merited, according to ancients, some help. So they did invent for them some dances, songs, instruments and games to enable them to break from their familiar routines without destroying themselves and others. As a result, the cultural varieties available to you were part of provident material intended to enrich life. Your claim that wars between groups were planned and sponsored by alliances of literate and ruling classes is essentially sententious( moralistic), that is to say the belief that your problems is caused by others is belief that is intended to relieve you from blame and therefore achieve certain degree of psychological stability. This does not sit well with corpus of knowledge that is available to us.

 

 

I wish to tell that we are not puerile (immature or childish), as many of you think after you look to our quixotic objectives, which you rightly accuse us of having a foolish and impractical ideals; surely, we pursue a quixotic objectives, but that is not puerile, rather it makes our queries (questions) much more valuable. By aiming high we always attain some good which is useful not to us alone but to the general population as well. Pursuit of rarified (refined) knowledge is not something that is to be rescinded (recanted, retracted) regardless of its quixotic character. You should not rue about our quixotic objectives in so far they lack sanctimony (self-righteousness). It may be true that individuals perusing something that is ostensibly quixotic may develop scurvy( despicable, contemptible) characters, nevertheless they have, I assure you, their own qualms (reservations) about their quixotic objectives; these scientists are not pusillanimous( cowards) about confronting their realities and paradoxes; however, if you visit their labs surely they have pungent( sharp) adore which would incline you that they work with putrefying( decaying) material in their homes: you might ask, what is this unknown stuff that is producing this pungent adore? How in the world do they manage to live in such conditions? You ask, now the pungency increases and you see what appears to be a lying Home-fish, you surely do quail (shrink because of fear) thinking that scientist eat homofish, you too should be eaten to day! O peasants, you should not rail (complain) about the living conditions of scientists, for your living conditions are no better, because you have pungent adore too in your living quarters which scientists cannot stand for: they wonder how these poor peasants withstand to these pungent material; both of you have something in common, you both quaff (drink deeply), so it is possible that your pungent adore may actually be a product of your traditional beer.