That qoutation ain't really hitting nothing about Grotowski, I should say.
Check out the "tata, hoho" post, by the way

Sven,you got it wrong man. Though you, mentioning the New Oelean Jazz may ring a bell. However, it's Dean Andrews who says "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho" when he denies that Clay shaw is Clay Bertrand. By tha sentence he means that "yes I named the Clay Bertrand (ta-ta), but you got the wrong guy (ho-ho)nstead of him".
This guy talks wierd throughout the film when he appears. Check out these:
"We been thicker'n molasses pie since law school". "I gave'em anything that popped into my cabeza". "Is this off the record, Daddy-o?" ""Big Enchilada"" AND "The government's gonna jump all over your head, Jimbo, and go "cock-a-doodledoo!""
You can check out the script at: http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/JFK1.txt

Not quite postmodern, but I'm troubled with a beardy Polish man, named Jerzy Grotowski who once said "I said yes to past".
However, he had a research program known as the paratheatre. Do you know anything about him?
The thing is that I gotta translate this term to Persian. Any suggestion? :)

Scots? That's a wee bit difficult, though nice try. We mighn't ge' whatch ya sayin' anymore, love"!

Speedwel
I think Alec is somehow right. I don't know about Australia but I can notice this "he" and "His" a lot more in the English English books more then one could find in American's for instance. It could also be seen in the current publications. I think it's a matter of British norms and stuff, you know.

OK! The charactor who says this "ta-ta, ho-ho" (if you have seen the film) says a hell a lot of other wierd stuff. The thing is that thoes things which he adds to the end of his lines in the film are not subtittled unfortunately. So I don't know what he says at all. If you could check it out and let me know what kind of dialect he is indicating.

You're teacher was right speedwell. The "gender" in language(s) has little to do with "sex". Even in the languages where a same pronoun is used for the both "sexes" there could still be a distinguish between "genders".

So I just wonder why can't one create the new word, "odditiness". I mean what's the red line of right or wrong when it comes to composing new words? I have before mentioned that Derrida for instance distinguishes between "irrepresentablity" and "unrepresentablity".
http://painintheenglish.com/post.asp?id=133

I know that I still have problems to speak simple English, but there are times when one needs to compose new words. So there must be a measure.

By the way, could you give some example of the facetious use of "be-"?

I'm sorry speedwell, but I just don't get when this "modern times" are! You agree that the words mention "below" are still used, so what does "in modern times words are no longer formed by adding "be-" to them" mean?
Do you mean we do not make new ones?
BBC has just one today; "Beheaded": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3705409.stm
They could as well say "decapitated", right?