Why not? If we’re starting with this nautical analogy (unmoored), immediately flipping to a biological one is odd. I strongly suspect this was a transcription error and/or intentional pun - the two are pronounced identically.
You’re reading “created” into it to justify that interpretation. If you assume he meant created then sure go with birthed, but that doesn’t prove anything beyond your initial assumption.
A “berthed”-friendly interpretation would be “all books start off tied to a particular point in time, it is their destiny to become free of their temporal bounds, to drift through eternity”
You're assigning some notion that berthed means berthed in a home port. Ships are berthed in many different places and times. So the "time which berthed them" just doesn't work.
It does. They were tied to a point in time. They are destined not to be. It’s really very simple. I’m sorry you can’t understand it.
Mixing metaphors and claiming a now-unmoored vessel is more likely to be contrasted with one in a state of being “born” than “berthed” is what “doesn’t work”.
Especially considering “unmoored” is a nearly exact antonym of “berthed”, whereas a ship is never described as being “born”. Christened, perhaps. But certainly not born.
It's an action though, "the time that XXX'ed them". Birthed fits there well, berthed does not. Had it said "the time they were berthed to" I would understand your point better.
Perhaps you're right and it was remembered or quoted wrong, and the word really is "berthed", but it wouldn't have been just the one word remembered incorrectly.
There is no categorical semantic difference between "berthed" and "birthed". They are both past participle tense verbs and fit equally well with no changes needed to the rest of the sentence. Perhaps you simply have more experience hearing birthed in that context and perceive it to fit better? But in reality they really are grammatically identical.
If it were birthed it might be smarter to say orphaned or alienated or something that follows the parentage metaphor instead of unmoored.
If it were berthed it would make more sense to be something like "The destiny of all books is to become unmoored from the time where they were originally berthed".
But it is more common in English to use birthed as created than this kind of extended nautical metaphor.
And it is more common for people to mix their metaphors, especially when they are trying to sound clever.
Therefore I think they mixed their metaphors a bit.
> But it is more common in English to use birthed as created than this kind of extended nautical metaphor.
The question isn't whether birthed is more common than extended nautical metaphors in general, the question is given that a nautical metaphor is already in place, what is the likelihood that metaphor is being extended, versus trampled and replaced with another?
> If it were berthed it would make more sense to be something like "The destiny of all books is to become unmoored from the time where they were originally berthed".
Only if the author is assuming the ship has been berthed many times. It might just as easily have been berthed once and adrift ever since. Being berthed in no way implies repetition.
I guess your assumption about repetition is due to originally, because otherwise I don't see anything that could lead to that assumption, but that assumption is also rather tenuous, because originally berthed would still be a relevant phrasing to use if the boat becomes unmoored.
That is to say originally berthed also works for having been berthed once and adrift ever since, at least in English which tends to be forgiving about this kind of thing.
