so called "Old Literature"

[hannah_arendt]

How often do you come back to reading old literature? Do you have your favourite works? Do you think that contemporary reader can reach a full understanding of the main ideas?

[cacian]

What do you call Old Literature? Do you have an example?

[osho]

Old literature is gold literature since what we do understand about literature or the way we think about literature comes from old literary sources and it is Shakespeare, Milton, Marlow, and Sophocles, even Plato and Kalidas, Vyas without them we would have been orphaned and it is on their back we stood and remain glorified. If we keep aside the whole history of literature that has to do with old literature we will be shrinking, diminishing ourselves into diminutive world. Let us glorify our old heritage, old literature and pride over them

[kasie]

Interesting questions, Hannah, especially the last part. I used to think that works of literature should be assessed (I don't like the word 'criticised', it has too many negative connotations) purely on its own merits. While I still shy away from trying to use a text to surmise something about the author's life or state of mind, I now think no work should be taken in isolation. Everything, to my way of thinking, is part of a whole, part of the Zeitgeist, if you like, and the more a reader understands about the period in which the work was written, the more likely it is that he/she will come close to understanding the writer's intentions.

In fact, I think it is quite dangerous to read any 'old' work with modern sensibilities alone - and by 'old', I'd certainly include anything more than twenty, or even ten, years old. In case you are thinking I'm being too stringent in my timing, let me suggest to you that you think for example about the changes in attitudes to money as recently as 2008 following the financial crises that began in the autumn of that year. As for social attitudes, when I was a child, (granted a long time ago,:smile5:) the word 'divorce' was whispered in hushed and shamed tones. It seems to me that unless you have some understanding of the mores of the time the book/play/treatise was written, you will not fully understand the work.

[PeterL]

So what is "old literature"? I have never encountered the term before, and most literature s still timely, even after a few millenia.

[hannah_arendt]

I used this term ("old literature") during my studies in Poland. For example, we studied at the very beginning "old polish literature". In polish it is called "literatura staropolska" and contains: Middle Ages, Renaissance and baroque. Baroque seemed to me then very contemporary, especially poetry by Mikolaj Sęp Szarzyński.

Recently I have been writting an essay about "Beowulf". I have read it for the second time feeling some kind of loss. I think that we`ve lost this gift of telling stories. Reading works as "Beowulf" or "Seafarer" we mostly do it in a contemporary way but probably we cannot do it differently. We cannot describe the world we do not know. Many my collegues do not even try to read those wonderuful works. It is always an exciting journey:) Despite the fact that we read mostly translations, we should try discovering this maybe forgotten world. We are only hobbits standing on the arms of giants I think:)

[osho]

Reading old literature is a great fascination since it wings our imagination far and wide in terms of space and time. I read today a little of life on the Mississippi by Marktwain, the old American classic novelist and I got moved and absorbed in the beauty and grandiloquent style he had written with and of course it is to old literature that I must turn to if I have to broaden my literary horizon and of course there is a great storehouse of ideas in old literature.

New literature has yet to summit the heights they have scaled and I really take pride in the fact that I have immensely read old literature, more than new ones

[hannah_arendt]

Mark Twain doesn`t seem to me so far away:) I have always been fascinated by texts such as "Beowulf" for example. I wrote my M.A about Bible translations, so it is a very big challenge. Mostly we don`t read religious texts so often. However, Bible is a masterpiece.

[osho]

The Bible is written beautifully and they used good vocabulary and yet I do not find anything deeply absorbing

[JCamilo]

by your nickname you may already know, but you seem to be working with the same ideas of Walter Benjamin, specially in the Narrator essay.

I would say, there is a lot of appeal for narratives, even if visual arts are taking space of everything. Cormac McCarty, for example is a great narrator, and we analyse well Neil Gaiman, we see he is a narrator.

[prendrelemick]

I never read any contempory stuff, simply because I don't know who to read - who's any good. I do read a lot of Greek Classics, and read around them and about them and find echos of them in other books. I find you eventually get into the groove, and start understanding the context more and more.

[kiki1982]

Conversely, reading books of te same era and country gives you a geenral understanding how people saw their society and the world in genera. Allowing for some bigotted opinions, of course... ;)

Reading with a modern conception of wht is right per se takes away from what you can really get from a work.

[hannah_arendt]

I read of course contemporary books but I always come back to the classics:)

[osho]

The trill of the classics is set in my memory and I find them ineffable and find no match. Read Wordsworth or Shelley, I do not mean written on the classic mold or model but they are nonetheless old literature and I find nothing to match them, the grandeur of their style and depth of their theme and the cadence, the spontaneity and the like

[prendrelemick]

I suppose the real problems start where you get a modern author setting a story in the past, and taking their modern attitudes with them. So you may get a white woman brought up in the pre-war deep south with impeccable modern attitudes towards racial equality, or a secular medieval philosopher. A character out of context. It is a kind of arrogance, a "we know best"ism, and is more prevelent than it used to be. Many books say more about the times of the writer, than the times it is supposed to be set in.

[osho]

Of course there is a philosophical problem when it comes to drawing a conclusion or making a point of judgement. Slavery were the norms at some epochs in time and the literature of the time justified it as it graded humans into the master and the servant based on their birth of nobility or lowliness. They had the belief that people born of a prosperous family has to do with their Karma and it is indeed their Dharma to satisfy themselves where they are in and serve those who were considered their masters.

When we look at this old literary source we scorn at the very foundation of their thoughts or their philosophical roots.

[kiki1982]

I suppose the real problems start where you get a modern author setting a story in the past, and taking their modern attitudes with them. So you may get a white woman brought up in the pre-war deep south with impeccable modern attitudes towards racial equality, or a secular medieval philosopher. A character out of context. It is a kind of arrogance, a "we know best"ism, and is more prevelent than it used to be. Many books say more about the times of the writer, than the times it is supposed to be set in.

Haha, those are exactly my thoughts! Authors of historic novels never quite get it right. I guess it's not their fault though, they don't know any better. Everyone is a child of their time. I'm sure I could find some inconcsistencies in PD James's Death comes to Pemberley, despite her reverence for Austen and the evident knowledge she has of the era.

Considering that arrogance. I agree. Who is to say that in 50 years, maybe 200 years, those people will not look back at the novels written now and say, 'Tssss, how [fill in biased social issue] those people were!' Yes, we have different ideas, but it's not worth thinking about whose are superior, it's merely about the differences.

[osho]

Haha, those are exactly my thoughts! Authors of historic novels never quite get it right. I guess it's not their fault though, they don't know any better. Everyone is a child of their time. I'm sure I could find some inconcsistencies in PD James's Death comes to Pemberley, despite her reverence for Austen and the evident knowledge she has of the era.

Considering that arrogance. I agree. Who is to say that in 50 years, maybe 200 years, those people will not look back at the novels written now and say, 'Tssss, how [fill in biased social issue] those people were!' Yes, we have different ideas, but it's not worth thinking about whose are superior, it's merely about the differences.


Values go with respect to time and time will fizzle out or devalue things we esteem now. Interests change and so do the philosophy of life and writing. Shakespeare's main objective was to entertain Tolstoy wrote to educate.

[PeterL]

Of course there is a philosophical problem when it comes to drawing a conclusion or making a point of judgement. Slavery were the norms at some epochs in time and the literature of the time justified it as it graded humans into the master and the servant based on their birth of nobility or lowliness. They had the belief that people born of a prosperous family has to do with their Karma and it is indeed their Dharma to satisfy themselves where they are in and serve those who were considered their masters.

When we look at this old literary source we scorn at the very foundation of their thoughts or their philosophical roots.

I don't scorn their thoughts. For example, slavery was not just allowed in the Bible, but it was approved by that god, so it is clear that they would accept and approve of slavery. That is just one of a great many older customs that have gone out of use. We probably should pay more attention to the older works.

[prendrelemick]

Acouple of points...


Interesting questions, Hannah, especially the last part. I used to think that works of literature should be assessed (I don't like the word 'criticised', it has too many negative connotations) purely on its own merits. While I still shy away from trying to use a text to surmise something about the author's life or state of mind, I now think no work should be taken in isolation. Everything, to my way of thinking, is part of a whole, part of the Zeitgeist, if you like, and the more a reader understands about the period in which the work was written, the more likely it is that he/she will come close to understanding the writer's intentions.

In fact, I think it is quite dangerous to read any 'old' work with modern sensibilities alone - and by 'old', I'd certainly include anything more than twenty, or even ten, years old. In case you are thinking I'm being too stringent in my timing, let me suggest to you that you think for example about the changes in attitudes to money as recently as 2008 following the financial crises that began in the autumn of that year. As for social attitudes, when I was a child, (granted a long time ago,:smile5:) the word 'divorce' was whispered in hushed and shamed tones. It seems to me that unless you have some understanding of the mores of the time the book/play/treatise was written, you will not fully understand the work.

It's odd but the nearer we are to the time the book was written in, the more out of date it seems. Probably because we don't expect it to be.


Reading old literature is a great fascination since it wings our imagination far and wide in terms of space and time. I read today a little of life on the Mississippi by Marktwain, the old American classic novelist and I got moved and absorbed in the beauty and grandiloquent style he had written with and of course it is to old literature that I must turn to if I have to broaden my literary horizon and of course there is a great storehouse of ideas in old literature.

New literature has yet to summit the heights they have scaled and I really take pride in the fact that I have immensely read old literature, more than new ones

Mark Twain is a good case in point. The word "Nigger" has been removed from the text in the latest edition for schools. I agree it is an offensive word and sharn't use it again here. But for his day, Twain's works were as progressive and as racially inclusive as you would find anywhere. He had no other word he could use at that time, it is what his characters would say. That is context and you need to know it when reading Huck Finn.

[hannah_arendt]

Recently I have bought "The castle of Otranto" and I am going to read it soon. However I have so many books to read that sometimes I don`t know which one choose.

[hannah_arendt]

Acouple of points...



It's odd but the nearer we are to the time the book was written in, the more out of date it seems. Probably because we don't expect it to be.



Mark Twain is a good case in point. The word "Nigger" has been removed from the text in the latest edition for schools. I agree it is an offensive word and sharn't use it again here. But for his day, Twain's works were as progressive and as racially inclusive as you would find anywhere. He had no other word he could use at that time, it is what his characters would say. That is context and you need to know it when reading Huck Finn.

I think that we shouldn`t remove any words from the texts.

[JCamilo]

The great narratives do not have the text fixed on the stone, hannah. (Albeit, the chage on Twain did no good, was rejected and in the end instead of calling a black man by a pejorative name used to call slaves, called a free black man by slave, which is as offensive or more).

[PeterL]

I think that we shouldn`t remove any words from the texts.

I strongly agree. Part of the allure of reading older works is seeing how a language has changed. Less than 100 years ago the word "nigger" was not pejorative; it was just one of the several words for dark skinned people. Alas, some people found it offensive, and we get the foolishness of pulling it out of a good novel.

[JCamilo]

The word nigger was pejorative, it was the reading public, white, that wasn't aware of this.

[kiki1982]

The word nigger was pejorative, it was the reading public, white, that wasn't aware of this.

As the public wasn't aware of the word being pejorative, it wasn't pejoritive therefore, was it. That's the whole point of language. Languages are not absolute things and words change their connotations. Hence the word 'nigger' was not found pejorative. It only became that when people started to avoid the word and use another instead (euphemism), maybe because they were embarrassed, maybe because they didn't approve of those who did say 'nigger'. Thus, the small group of non-approvers grew and the word 'nigger' became synonymous with those who did approve of black people's reduced value, racial quality and the like and thus the word got that connotation.

We shouldn't confuse our perception of issues, words and what-not with their historic meanings.

[PeterL]

The word nigger was pejorative, it was the reading public, white, that wasn't aware of this.

You are mistaken. First, for something to be pejorative, there must be intent. If the speaker or writer of a word does not intend it in a negative sense, then it is not pejorative. Second, nigger was not even a nasty term for dark skinned people until the 1950's. It could have been used as a nasty term as any word can be, but it simply was not.

[Calidore]

You are mistaken. First, for something to be pejorative, there must be intent. If the speaker or writer of a word does not intend it in a negative sense, then it is not pejorative. Second, nigger was not even a nasty term for dark skinned people until the 1950's. It could have been used as a nasty term as any word can be, but it simply was not.

That raises an interesting question of intent vs. reception. Is the word not offensive if the speaker doesn't consider it so but knows the target does and will be offended regardless? Seems to me that if the speaker knows the target will be offended, and uses the word anyway, telling himself, "It doesn't bother me, therefore nothing's wrong with it whatever he thinks", that's more self-absorbed arrogance than anything else.

Also, I'd argue that it was considered pejorative much earlier than the 1950s. The original title of Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None was changed for its 1940 U.S. publication for that reason.

[islandclimber]

You are mistaken. First, for something to be pejorative, there must be intent. If the speaker or writer of a word does not intend it in a negative sense, then it is not pejorative. Second, nigger was not even a nasty term for dark skinned people until the 1950's. It could have been used as a nasty term as any word can be, but it simply was not.

Sorry, you are mistaken. It was considered pejorative much earlier than the 1950s. In fact, from a Washington Post publication on the term:


In A Treatise on the Intellectual Character and Civil and Political Condition of the Colored People of the United States: and the Prejudice Exercised Towards Them (1837), Hosea Easton wrote that nigger "is an opprobrious term, employed to impose contempt upon [blacks] as an inferior race. . . . The term in itself would be perfectly harmless were it used only to distinguish one class of society from another; but it is not used with that intent. . . . [I]t flows from the fountain of purpose to injure." Easton averred that often the earliest instruction white adults gave to white children prominently featured the word nigger. Adults reprimanded them for being "worse than niggers," for being "ignorant as niggers," for having "no more credit than niggers"; they disciplined them by telling them that unless they behaved they would be carried off by "the old nigger" or made to sit with "niggers" or consigned to the "nigger seat," which was, of course, a place of shame.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/nigger.htm

And in 1904, Clifton Johnson (journalist) wrote about the opprobrious nature of the word, emphasizing it was used in the South precisely because it was more offensive than "coloured." Even the 1909 founding of the "National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People" shows that their preference for racial identity was "coloured" and not "nigger."

It was the 1950s and 60s when "Black" became the preferred racial identifier. "Nigger" had been considered offensive for at least 50 years, if not 100, by that point. It was certainly used pejoratively, with an intent to offend from around the turn of the century.

It is somewhat offensive to read misinformation being put forth about this term and how "harmless" or "innocent" it was just 60 years ago. This notion is categorically false. I suggest a little research before making such a claim.

[JCamilo]

You are mistaken. First, for something to be pejorative, there must be intent. If the speaker or writer of a word does not intend it in a negative sense, then it is not pejorative. Second, nigger was not even a nasty term for dark skinned people until the 1950's. It could have been used as a nasty term as any word can be, but it simply was not.

Mark Twain used it as pejorative already. It was a term to describe black slaves and he uses it to describe the behaviour of those who cannot see Jim more than an object. The obvious implication that is a being of inferior condition is all there.

And no, it was received as pejorative. The offense is in the ear of the receptor as well, after all, no theory of that describes the communicative process lay all production of significance on the person uttering the message.

Kiki:

Read well what I said: it was the reading public, white, that wasn't aware of this. The africans were well aware of this, but they are not part of the reading public, as slaves, they had no education. Do not mix the limitations of perception of a public plus the lack of power and expression of another with historical revisionism. The white population discovered that the africans felt bad with the word, it is not just a simplistic guilty feeling. It was a result of african-americans incorporation to america society, do not try to make it also a process of the white population.

[PeterL]

Mark Twain used it as pejorative already. It was a term to describe black slaves and he uses it to describe the behaviour of those who cannot see Jim more than an object. The obvious implication that is a being of inferior condition is all there.

And no, it was received as pejorative. The offense is in the ear of the receptor as well, after all, no theory of that describes the communicative process lay all production of significance on the person uttering the message.

Kiki:

Read well what I said: it was the reading public, white, that wasn't aware of this. The africans were well aware of this, but they are not part of the reading public, as slaves, they had no education. Do not mix the limitations of perception of a public plus the lack of power and expression of another with historical revisionism. The white population discovered that the africans felt bad with the word, it is not just a simplistic guilty feeling. It was a result of african-americans incorporation to america society, do not try to make it also a process of the white population.

Twain did not use the word nigger as a pejorative. He used it a general term for dark skinned people. Huck and Tom treated Jim as a person, and they were aware of his color. The reading public knew the word and they commonly used it a a general word. Any word can be used pejoratively, if the speaker or writer wishes to use it that way.

[islandclimber]

Twain did not use the word nigger as a pejorative. He used it a general term for dark skinned people. Huck and Tom treated Jim as a person, and they were aware of his color. The reading public knew the word and they commonly used it a a general word. Any word can be used pejoratively, if the speaker or writer wishes to use it that way.

They chose this particular word, amongst several other general terms. As is common knowledge "coloured" was much preferred at the time by the receptor of the term. The word was certainly chosen prior to others because it signified more contempt, derision and scorn, alongside the enslavement of the race. Semiotic analysis of the term and what it signifies to both producer and receptor shows this very early in its usage. Certainly by the time of Twain.

Gower in 1965 states that nigger is "the term that carries with it all the obloquy and contempt and rejection which whites have inflicted on blacks."

The Harlem renaissance writer Langston Hughes made his 1940 plea for omitting the "incendiary word" from all literature. "Ironically or seriously, of necessity for the sake of realism, or impishly for the sake of comedy, it doesn't matter . . . [African Americans] do not like it in any book or play whatsoever, be the book or play ever so sympathetic."

In his memoir, The Big Sea, Hughes also wrote: "The word nigger, you see, sums up for us who are colored all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America."

However, I do believe the removal of the word from this text is absurd. He was using it to accurately portray the era of the early 1800s in the South. Just reading the introduction illustrates this as he states that he uses, "the extremist form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect" and "the ordinary Pike County dialect." Both these dialects would certainly have used the word, so why censor it? We must understand the past. The word was prevalent, as was the notion of white superiority at the time. It is, however, a mistake to suggest that the word was not considered offensive until the 1950s. That's revisionist history at its worst.

[Emil Miller]

The word nigger is frequently used throughout the text, as one would expect, given the time at which it was written and that the protagonist is black.

However, it's not just the title that has been changed but 'the N-word' is used throughout.

Someone's gotta be joking.


http://imageshack.us/a/img822/125/41oknbuox1lsl500aa300.jpg

[JCamilo]

Twain did not use the word nigger as a pejorative. He used it a general term for dark skinned people. Huck and Tom treated Jim as a person, and they were aware of his color. The reading public knew the word and they commonly used it a a general word. Any word can be used pejoratively, if the speaker or writer wishes to use it that way.

Yes, it was as pejorative. He knew the meaning enough to avoiding using it but in the comical , steryitipical way he did in Huck Finn. I have no idea why you are insisting on trying to prove something everyone showed: nigger was always pejorative in the USA scenary.

[OrphanPip]

The idea that Huck Finn is racist because of the use of nigger is a bit of a strawman argument against those who are concerned about racial representation in the work.

Educators have pointed out that the use of the word, no matter its context, makes for a difficult learning environment for African American students, and so there is good reason either to exclude the work or censor it in a classroom environment with children. There is a lot of anecdotal accounts of black people feeling singled out when they are in a minority position in the classroom. Given the goals of high school education, teaching Huck Finn uncensored can be counterproductive.

Then there is a more academic line of criticism which has viewed the book as part of the affectionate, liberal orientated racism of the late 19th century that was part of the infamous minstrelsy tradition. The vaudeville black minstrel tradition would have white actors use black-face to parody the stereotypes of African Americans, and this same tradition of racial comedy plays out in Huck Finn. The work is implicated in 19th century racism even if it is speaking out against the more insidious manifestations of racism (i.e. slavery). Moreover, a work published a few decades after emancipation can hardly be viewed as radically progressive for criticizing slavery. There is good reason to acknowledge that Huck Finn is in many ways a racist text, and this is part of the work that should not be brushed aside. The racism of Huck Finn is but one element of an excellent work and it should be understood as part of the critical discussion surrounding it, which influences how we think of the culture that produced it and how we receive the novel. This is not an argument to censor the text, but a call to be conscientious about all the nuances of a majorly canonical text.

[kiki1982]

Sorry, you are mistaken. It was considered pejorative much earlier than the 1950s. In fact, from a Washington Post publication on the term:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/nigger.htm

And in 1904, Clifton Johnson (journalist) wrote about the opprobrious nature of the word, emphasizing it was used in the South precisely because it was more offensive than "coloured." Even the 1909 founding of the "National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People" shows that their preference for racial identity was "coloured" and not "nigger."

It was the 1950s and 60s when "Black" became the preferred racial identifier. "Nigger" had been considered offensive for at least 50 years, if not 100, by that point. It was certainly used pejoratively, with an intent to offend from around the turn of the century.

It is somewhat offensive to read misinformation being put forth about this term and how "harmless" or "innocent" it was just 60 years ago. This notion is categorically false. I suggest a little research before making such a claim.

Do you know what opprobrious means? It does not mean offensive (by extension only), it means expressing scorn, disgrace or contempt. You might call that offensve, but there is a difference. In its first sense it merely expresses the idea that blacks designated with the word nigger are a lower kind of human being, which is natural, seeing the timeframe. It was a fact that all non-Caucasian creatures were of lower value, however sad that may be. At this point the Germans were doing experiments in Namibia, I think it was. And the Laps were being measured by the Swedes. At any rate the term employed in the two quotes comes from people who are living past 1900, i.e. 20 years after Mark Twain and crucially about 40 years after the emencipation of the slaves.

The article you have so kindly provided a link to only tells me that, indeed, the word started to be used widely as a word of denigrating quality (worse than a nigger as a metaphor for something bad). Only much later do people start to associate that widely expressed inferiority with shameful behaviour, from a merely ethical point of view (the ablitionists). Whether those same people thought that black people were equal in everything to whites is doubtful. Why otherwise was there still segregation in the 1950s? The point is that people like Abraham Lincoln found slavery wrong because all humans were equal in God's eyes, they maybe freed them, but you didn't have to ask them to sit next to them on a bus. Blacks were still inferior and that wasn't even an offensive thought (not to the whites at least).
It is when people started to assocate the shameful idea of slavery with nigger (it is a slavery term) that it became offensive to everyone. I put this in itaics as this word has two different recipients: the white reader and the black + other different race ones. Naturally the latter group will find it offensive, and probably found it offensive, way before tthat seaped through the hard skulls of the white population. The whites did not consider that. The mabslavery wrong and that was where it stopped in all likelihood.

And yes, of course the black population would have found that offensive, but they we in the vast minority, so who cared? (to be blunt)




Read well what I said: it was the reading public, white, that wasn't aware of this. The africans were well aware of this, but they are not part of the reading public, as slaves, they had no education. Do not mix the limitations of perception of a public plus the lack of power and expression of another with historical revisionism. The white population discovered that the africans felt bad with the word, it is not just a simplistic guilty feeling. It was a result of african-americans incorporation to america society, do not try to make it also a process of the white population.

Of course the Africans were aware, but as I said above, they were not really a concern. Fristly there was wide-spread illiteracy (20 years after the Civil War) and secondly, the total US population was around 49 million. Do you think a mere 4 million blacks (in 1860, the population did not fluctuate too much from 1790 to 1860, always hovering around about 10-20% of the population who could have found that word offensive [and there are always exceptions] would have mattered? Most of the reading public is typically middle or high class with time to read. I don't know about the USA, but it would surprise me that that would have been very different. Middle and high class Americans were typically whites.

Words and languages are the products of people and if 80% of a population finds a word commonplace, indeed even uses it to tell their children off, I doubt whether 20% can change that.


By the way, I still don't understand what the problem with this word is if Twain clearly used it to say someing about his characters instead of calling black people that genuinely. But that's me.


The idea that Huck Finn is racist because of the use of nigger is a bit of a strawman argument against those who are concerned about racial representation in the work.

Educators have pointed out that the use of the word, no matter its context, makes for a difficult learning environment for African American students, and so there is good reason either to exclude the work or censor it in a classroom environment with children. There is a lot of anecdotal accounts of black people feeling singled out when they are in a minority position in the classroom. Given the goals of high school education, teaching Huck Finn uncensored can be counterproductive.

That's an interesting thought. I had never thought about it that way, but that's indeed a good point.

[JCamilo]

The idea that Huck Finn is racist because of the use of nigger is a bit of a strawman argument against those who are concerned about racial representation in the work.

Of course. It undeniable "Nigger" was negative, that Twain used it because it is one of the themes of the book, but the work itself is not racist. The entire censorship is dumb. There would be no problem to have a preface dealing with the use of the word, so the teachers could actually teach literature without a problem.

Kiki:


Of course the Africans were aware, but as I said above, they were not really a concern. Fristly there was wide-spread illiteracy (20 years after the Civil War) and secondly, the total US population was around 49 million. Do you think a mere 4 million blacks (in 1860, the population did not fluctuate too much from 1790 to 1860, always hovering around about 10-20% of the population who could have found that word offensive [and there are always exceptions] would have mattered? Most of the reading public is typically middle or high class with time to read. I don't know about the USA, but it would surprise me that that would have been very different. Middle and high class Americans were typically whites.

Words and languages are the products of people and if 80% of a population finds a word commonplace, indeed even uses it to tell their children off, I doubt whether 20% can change that.


By the way, I still don't understand what the problem with this word is if Twain clearly used it to say someing about his characters instead of calling black people that genuinely. But that's me.

Yes, they were not a concern. Of course, because a bunch of racists did it to them. And of course, we are talking about modern readers. Plus you are just repeating what I said and this shows the word was alreadynegative and it was already a matter of raising the white population awareness by the afrian social fight.

I have no problem with the word in Huck, but trying to imply the word is not racist is just as wrong as political correctness. The teachers must be able to reckon it and give to the kid the context, because that is teaching literature.

[islandclimber]

Do you know what opprobrious means? It does not mean offensive (by extension only), it means expressing scorn, disgrace or contempt. You might call that offensve, but there is a difference. In its first sense it merely expresses the idea that blacks designated with the word nigger are a lower kind of human being, which is natural, seeing the timeframe. It was a fact that all non-Caucasian creatures were of lower value, however sad that may be. At this point the Germans were doing experiments in Namibia, I think it was. And the Laps were being measured by the Swedes. At any rate the term employed in the two quotes comes from people who are living past 1900, i.e. 20 years after Mark Twain and crucially about 40 years after the emencipation of the slaves.

The article you have so kindly provided a link to only tells me that, indeed, the word started to be used widely as a word of denigrating quality (worse than a nigger as a metaphor for something bad). Only much later do people start to associate that widely expressed inferiority with shameful behaviour, from a merely ethical point of view (the ablitionists). Whether those same people thought that black people were equal in everything to whites is doubtful. Why otherwise was there still segregation in the 1950s? The point is that people like Abraham Lincoln found slavery wrong because all humans were equal in God's eyes, they maybe freed them, but you didn't have to ask them to sit next to them on a bus. Blacks were still inferior and that wasn't even an offensive thought (not to the whites at least).
It is when people started to assocate the shameful idea of slavery with nigger (it is a slavery term) that it became offensive to everyone. I put this in itaics as this word has two different recipients: the white reader and the black + other different race ones. Naturally the latter group will find it offensive, and probably found it offensive, way before tthat seaped through the hard skulls of the white population. The whites did not consider that. The mabslavery wrong and that was where it stopped in all likelihood.

And yes, of course the black population would have found that offensive, but they we in the vast minority, so who cared? (to be blunt)

I think it's pretty obvious I know what opprobrious means. My next post there, which you conveniently ignore, states the exact same thing you said, derision, contempt, scorn... Let's not be pedantic. Often opprobrious and offensive are linked and this is certainly a case where the link is justified. Shameful behaviour was associated with the term much earlier, as evidenced by the 1837 work quoted, long before Twain wrote. Also, in my next post I refer to Twain's introduction to Huck Finn where he nearly apologizes in advance for the dialectic used due to his desire to accurately portray the era and place. He certainly knew the term was pejorative at that time. The word has always been inextricably linked to slavery.

Besides this, I agree with you entirely. It was basically a question of "who cares" for certainly in the south the general populace did not, yet I think the term was certainly pejorative all the same, as it was a negative term associated with a race they thought to be created inferior, a race that was good for nothing besides enslavement. To argue that this word wasn't used pejoratively at the time is ludicrous. Though I don't think that is what you are doing.

I think my next post clearly states that I think the idea of revising these texts is absurd, as it portrays a part of history in a critical light. I agree with you. However, teaching it in school is problematic for the reasons OrphanPip pointed out. I suppose the question is how to determine where one must draw the line.

Sorry if this isn't perfectly coherent, it was typed on a phone. :p

[Drkshadow03]

Do you know what opprobrious means? It does not mean offensive (by extension only), it means expressing scorn, disgrace or contempt. You might call that offensve, but there is a difference. In its first sense it merely expresses the idea that blacks designated with the word nigger are a lower kind of human being, which is natural, seeing the timeframe. It was a fact that all non-Caucasian creatures were of lower value, however sad that may be. At this point the Germans were doing experiments in Namibia, I think it was. And the Laps were being measured by the Swedes. At any rate the term employed in the two quotes comes from people who are living past 1900, i.e. 20 years after Mark Twain and crucially about 40 years after the emencipation of the slaves.


I imagine if someone is suggesting a non-Caucasian is inferior or of lower value or deserving of scorn or disgrace because they're non-Caucasian that would be offensive.

[PeterL]

This thread is turning into an example of why people should read a lot more older literature. If people read things from just a couple hundred years ago, then they would realize that they are wasting time misunderstanding The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Unfortunately, there many other authors who wrote largely in colloquial American English of the 19th century CE, so it is difficult for some people to red how well Twain captured it, or enopugh so tht we can still read it while getting a good taste of how people actually spoke in informal settings.

The wikipedia article on Huckleberry Finn cites Please reference this as crit "#22235" in the
Lisa Cohen Minnick, Dialect and Dichotomy: Literary Representations of African American Speech. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2004 in reference to Jim's dialogue. I will read that, if I get a chance.

Few 19th century authors used more than a smattering of slang, and it appears that much of the colloquial language has been lost, and some is now misinterpreted. As an example, pn another board someone opined that foul language was as common then as it is now, but we know perfectly well that that is not true. After we get the time machines running we'll have to send some people back and see what they think of American English in the 1840's.

[stlukesguild]

Educators have pointed out that the use of the word, no matter its context, makes for a difficult learning environment for African American students, and so there is good reason either to exclude the work or censor it in a classroom environment with children. There is a lot of anecdotal accounts of black people feeling singled out when they are in a minority position in the classroom. Given the goals of high school education, teaching Huck Finn uncensored can be counterproductive.

Pip... I agree to a good extent. But then I wonder what the impact would be in a school in which the Black population was the majority... or in which there were no white students. I teach in a school that is nearly 100% Black and in which the term "nigger"... or rather "nigga" is continually thrown about... actually as something akin to "my dude" or "my man." On more than one occasion students will exclaim, "Mr. K, you my nigga," and Black teachers and principals have noted that such is a compliment... an expression of acceptance.

I bring this up because I find issues of race... or more so "color" are more complicated and prevalent in the context of the all "Black" school/community than I would have guessed. Students will speak of darker-skinned peers as "Black" "Choco" "Charcoal" "African" etc... and of lighter-skinned peers as "White". The skin color of a student is often an identifying element. When trying to identify another student, the kids will often say, "That dark boy?" "The light-skinned one?" Almost in the manner in which white students might identify another by hair color.

I bring up the issue because there are some educators... and a good many Black educators... who feel that the kids don't grasp the history of the term "nigger" and are themselves quite offended (rightfully so) by the manner in which the term has been co-opted by the kids.

By the way... you'll note I don't use the term African-American which is almost never used by my Black students or teachers/educators. A principal actually gave us a quote by Martin Luther King in which he rejected the term "African-American".

Then there is a more academic line of criticism which has viewed the book as part of the affectionate, liberal orientated racism of the late 19th century that was part of the infamous minstrelsy tradition. The vaudeville black minstrel tradition would have white actors use black-face to parody the stereotypes of African Americans, and this same tradition of racial comedy plays out in Huck Finn. The work is implicated in 19th century racism even if it is speaking out against the more insidious manifestations of racism (i.e. slavery). Moreover, a work published a few decades after emancipation can hardly be viewed as radically progressive for criticizing slavery. There is good reason to acknowledge that Huck Finn is in many ways a racist text, and this is part of the work that should not be brushed aside.

Here, you lose me Pip. You suggest the text is racist in something of a liberal stereotype of Black Americans. So how does Twain avoid this? Is he simply to avoid employing Black characters and the real racist slang of the era? Then would the results not be racist in the sense that TV shows of the 1950s were racist in that there simply were no Black Americans? I also have to wonder if you imagine that a novel like Lolita is a form of pedophilia because Humbert is a pedophile. In other words... are we again struggling with those who cannot differentiate between the art and the artist?

[JCamilo]

Peter, Nobody claimed Twain didnt use realistic coloquial language in his work and this realism is very relevant to the effect of the work, it is just claimed that slang was offensive already then, which have been proved enough for you to drop the ball instead of trying to suggest anyone how well read they should see. Of course, that was showed by islandclimber, with older literature which you seem to ignore. Ironic,isn't?

Stlukes:

My suggestion and what I did here is just giving the teacher the information to explain the use of the terms, the context of the work, etc. If the book is going to be adopted in schools no damage of if the publishers add notes or essays dealing with the theme.

[Drkshadow03]

[COLOR="#B22222"]
Here, you lose me Pip. You suggest the text is racist in something of a liberal stereotype of Black Americans. ... are we again struggling with those who cannot differentiate between the art and the artist? (Emphasis mine)

Given that he was referring to academic criticism that suggests the text is racist because it employs certain racist stereotypes and tropes prevalent during its time I don't see how this is an issue of being unable to differentiate the art from the artist.

[Darcy88]

I'm obsessed with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and so I read a lot of material from back then. I also read a lot of 19th century novels. I love many authors from the first half of the 20th century but not too many from the latter half. I'm sure there have been many great works written since then, but for some reason I prefer to cover the classics first.

[hannah_arendt]

I strongly agree. Part of the allure of reading older works is seeing how a language has changed. Less than 100 years ago the word "nigger" was not pejorative; it was just one of the several words for dark skinned people. Alas, some people found it offensive, and we get the foolishness of pulling it out of a good novel.

Words are constantly changing their meaning. There are many forms of it. For example, polish word 'maciora', now meaning 'sow', in the XIV century meant 'mother'. The same happens with 'nigger'. We shouldn`t cancel any words from the text because it distroys its meaning.

[hannah_arendt]

I think that we should start our adventure with literature from the very beginning. In this way, we could understand better many things.

[prendrelemick]

Mark Twain used it as pejorative already. It was a term to describe black slaves and he uses it to describe the behaviour of those who cannot see Jim more than an object. The obvious implication that is a being of inferior condition is all there.

.


Deleted. point already made.

Do fellow readers of Old Greek and Roman, find there is some corralation between the term "Barbarian" and "Nigger"? I mean in the journey the word takes. (there really is nothing new in this world.) It began as an onomatopoeia for the sound foreigners made when they spoke :- ba..ba..ba.., but became derogatory, meaning uncivilised and inferior. Then ( as with St Luke's nigga ) it alters slightly again and can mean untamed and strong.

There are other words of a similar ilk, like the biblical "Philistine."

[PeterL]

Words are constantly changing their meaning. There are many forms of it. For example, polish word 'maciora', now meaning 'sow', in the XIV century meant 'mother'. The same happens with 'nigger'. We shouldn`t cancel any words from the text because it distroys its meaning.


Yes, I was trying to point out that some people were imposing their recent meaning on the word, while it has a different meaning in Huckleberry Finn. And we especially shouldn't expunge words just because we don't happen to like the words.


I think that we should start our adventure with literature from the very beginning. In this way, we could understand better many things.

Yes, have you read the Enuma Elish in some form? The Gilgamesh Saga is an excellent exanple ot heroic literature, but I think that narrative technique has improved since then, but I can't be sure, because I have never read it in the original.

[JCamilo]

Do fellow readers of Old Greek and Roman, find there is some corralation between the term "Barbarian" and "Nigger"? I mean in the journey the word takes. (there really is nothing new in this world.) It began as an onomatopoeia for the sound foreigners made when they spoke :- ba..ba..ba.., but became derogatory, meaning uncivilised and inferior. Then ( as with St Luke's nigga ) it alters slightly again and can mean untamed and strong.

There are other words of a similar ilk, like the biblical "Philistine."

Sure, the process is very similar in all slangs, even modern like Warsies and Trekkies.

[hannah_arendt]

Yes, have you read the Enuma Elish in some form? The Gilgamesh Saga is an excellent exanple ot heroic literature, but I think that narrative technique has improved since then, but I can't be sure, because I have never read it in the original.

Unfortunetaly, I haven`t read it yet.

[PeterL]

Unfortunetaly, I haven`t read it yet.

There's still time. It's only been around for more than 4200 years, and there are a number of related stories in the Gilgamesh Cycle. The earliest known account of the Flood is in there. If you don't like the base original (a free download) , then you might look for Robert Silverberg's version that he put into a single organized novel. (Gilgamesh the King.

http://manybooks.net/titles/anon1100011000-8.html
http://archive.org/details/audio_poetry_101_2006
and there are others

[stlukesguild]

Do fellow readers of Old Greek and Roman, find there is some corralation between the term "Barbarian" and "Nigger"? I mean in the journey the word takes. (there really is nothing new in this world.) It began as an onomatopoeia for the sound foreigners made when they spoke :- ba..ba..ba.., but became derogatory, meaning uncivilised and inferior. Then ( as with St Luke's nigga ) it alters slightly again and can mean untamed and strong.

You find such evolution of the impact of terms quite frequently in the visual arts. "Gothic" was an insult in the time of Giorgio Vasari. He employed it in a manner meaning "like the Goths"... "Barbaric" and crude. "Baroque, "Rococo", "Impressionism", "Fauvism", "Cubism" etc... were all terms originating with critics intending to denigrate a new direction in art. The terms were rapidly co-opted by those artists that the critics intended to insult, and by today, all the terms are rather neutral... simply denoting a specific style. Currently there is an interesting painter, Odd Nerdrum, who has written several manifestos proudly proclaiming himself as a "Kitsch" painter. His intention is to declare that if that certain questionable aspects of Modernism are "true art" while other more conservative aspects of art are merely "Kitsch"... then he proudly proclaims himself a member of the latter camp.

[hannah_arendt]

There's still time. It's only been around for more than 4200 years, and there are a number of related stories in the Gilgamesh Cycler. The earliest known account of the Flood is in there. If you don't like the base original (a free download) , then you might look for Robert Silverberg's version that he put into a single organized novel. (Gilgamesh the King.

http://manybooks.net/titles/anon1100011000-8.html
http://archive.org/details/audio_poetry_101_2006
and there are others

Thank you very much for the links:)

[PeterL]

Thank you very much for the links:)

You are more than welcome. One of those is just someone reading a few paragraphs from the Enuma Elish. I didn't follow the other link, ut there are copies of translations of it online.

[hannah_arendt]

You are more than welcome. One of those is just someone reading a few paragraphs from the Enuma Elish. I didn't follow the other link, ut there are copies of translations of it online.

I will read it when I`ll have more free time:)

[jayat]

It seems to me that unless you have some understanding of the mores of the time the book/play/treatise was written, you will not fully understand the work.[/QUOTE]

I don't completely agree with that. When reading Hamlet I enjoied the main character pretended craziness as well as his great speeches about life and dead, his acrid or cynical analysis upon his perfidious uncle, Ophelia or the Queen, without having to think in which time that masterpiece was written or even if Shakespeare could have been influenced by Humanism. I enjoy the main text, the juice of their messages contained in brilliant written lines without paying to much attention which English King held the scepter between fifteenth and sisteenth centuries and what kind of wars he put up.

Actually, the real events are the same all the time: good times, bad times, crisis in each and every area, recuperation, splendorous times and falling again. The same items, the same paths, with arrows or gun pistols, with plough or tractors, using firewood to heat the water or gas from the pipes. Adding some extra information you may know, the New Critics and New Criticism School focused on the text of a work of literature and tried to exclude the reader's response, the author's intention, historical and cultural contexts, and moralistic bias from their analysis. The fact is the fortune not to be lack of cultural references which ennobles us and enlarges our minds by the grace of this old literarian documents.

[jayat]

How often do you come back to reading old literature? Do you have your favourite works? Do you think that contemporary reader can reach a full understanding of the main ideas?

Well, now I can read more than ever, what makes me shout for joy. Yes, I read 'Odyssey' by Homer two months ago and I was delighted. I am reading Shakespeare by the time. That will be my fifth drama after 'Hamle't, 'The Tempest', 'MacBeth', 'Midsummer Night's Dream' and, at the moment a comedy, 'Twelth Night'. This English writter has meant a change in my taste and my point of view in literature, definitely. It's a pleasure to read it, to enjoy every line of his characters which in most cases can be taken as quotes, aphorisms and real pearls of wisdom. Answering your last question, I think the reader could find all the ideas contained and well explained through all the figures of speech you wish. Yes, it's great to see things when getting on the back of those giants.

[hannah_arendt]

It seems to me that unless you have some understanding of the mores of the time the book/play/treatise was written, you will not fully understand the work.

I don't completely agree with that. When reading Hamlet I enjoied the main character pretended craziness as well as his great speeches about life and dead, his acrid or cynical analysis upon his perfidious uncle, Ophelia or the Queen, without having to think in which time that masterpiece was written or even if Shakespeare could have been influenced by Humanism. I enjoy the main text, the juice of their messages contained in brilliant written lines without paying to much attention which English King held the scepter between fifteenth and sisteenth centuries and what kind of wars he put up.

Actually, the real events are the same all the time: good times, bad times, crisis in each and every area, recuperation, splendorous times and falling again. The same items, the same paths, with arrows or gun pistols, with plough or tractors, using firewood to heat the water or gas from the pipes. Adding some extra information you may know, the New Critics and New Criticism School focused on the text of a work of literature and tried to exclude the reader's response, the author's intention, historical and cultural contexts, and moralistic bias from their analysis. The fact is the fortune not to be lack of cultural references which ennobles us and enlarges our minds by the grace of this old literarian documents.[/QUOTE]

I agree that you don`t have to know everything about the epoch to understand the work. However sometimes it`s worth finding some information about the context. Of course, you can read without any problems "Macbeth" but after reading a little bit about the background, you can find more details.

U. Eco developped his idea of the open work and it seems to be very interesting. The text should the most important. Nevertheless, sometimes critics try to find/ create things which aren`t present in the work.

[hannah_arendt]

Well, now I can read more than ever, what makes me shout for joy. Yes, I read 'Odyssey' by Homer two months ago and I was delighted. I am reading Shakespeare by the time. That will be my fifth drama after 'Hamle't, 'The Tempest', 'MacBeth', 'Midsummer Night's Dream' and, at the moment a comedy, 'Twelth Night'. This English writter has meant a change in my taste and my point of view in literature, definitely. It's a pleasure to read it, to enjoy every line of his characters which in most cases can be taken as quotes, aphorisms and real pearls of wisdom. Answering your last question, I think the reader could find all the ideas contained and well explained through all the figures of speech you wish. Yes, it's great to see things when getting on the back of those giants.


I am reading now "Lord of the Rings" with great pleasure. Following my husband`s advice, I don`t read more than 2-3 pages a day, making a ritual of this moment and trying to find as more as I can in the text.

[Goodman Brown]

In my readings I once read a book simply titled "The Greeks" and after reading it I retained ,or got the impression that the word Barbarian simply meant,,, NOT GREEK?? does anyone else have that meaning?????

[jayat]

Perhaps this book by Tolkien will be considered hereafter as one of the best written documents of the last century, although using an epical frame. I spent the last fourtnight to read Rhetoric and Poetics by Aristotle. Great analyses.

[jayat]

In my readings I once read a book simply titled "The Greeks" and after reading it I retained ,or got the impression that the word Barbarian simply meant,,, NOT GREEK?? does anyone else have that meaning?????

Greek people thought that foreigners talked uttering words which looked to them sounding something like 'bar...bar...bar...bar....'. All the people who when talking sounded like that were foreigner, not greek people. The noun comes from an onomatopeic common expression which described this hearing perception.

[hannah_arendt]

Greek people thought that foreigners talked uttering words which looked to them sounding something like 'bar...bar...bar...bar....'. All the people who when talking sounded like that were foreigner, not greek people. The noun comes from an onomatopeic common expression which described this hearing perception.

Has anybody ever read "Conan"? To tell you the truth I prefer "Solomon Kane" but the first image of Barbarian coming to my mind is Conan.

[jayat]

Has anybody ever read "Conan"? To tell you the truth I prefer "Solomon Kane" but the first image of Barbarian coming to my mind is Conan.

It's the truest one, the most typical one. So I'd rather prefer Conan. It's wilder and more primitive. Solomon Kane looks to me a middle-ages character, more modern and urban, isn't he?

[PeterL]

Greek people thought that foreigners talked uttering words which looked to them sounding something like 'bar...bar...bar...bar....'. All the people who when talking sounded like that were foreigner, not greek people. The noun comes from an onomatopeic common expression which described this hearing perception.

I also heard that etymology, but I jst decided to look it up, and the word is a little older.
barbarian
mid-14c., from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Greek barbaroi
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarian?s=ts

But it is quite possible that it was just that the same origin arose long before anyone spoke Greek.

[hannah_arendt]

It's the truest one, the most typical one. So I'd rather prefer Conan. It's wilder and more primitive. Solomon Kane looks to me a middle-ages character, more modern and urban, isn't he?

How do you understand the word 'primitive'?

Definetely, Solomon is completely different from Conan so it is very difficult to compare them.


If we discuss the origin of the words: very often I have heard that 'slavic' is connected with 'slavery'. However, at university, I was taught that it wasn`t correct.

[JCamilo]

Has anybody ever read "Conan"? To tell you the truth I prefer "Solomon Kane" but the first image of Barbarian coming to my mind is Conan.

I read it. It is grit, pulp, but some good enough histories. Mostly the first. The character is slighty more interesting on the tales, very simple, plain but useful.

[PeterL]

If we discuss the origin of the words: very often I have heard that 'slavic' is connected with 'slavery'. However, at university, I was taught that it wasn`t correct.

"Slave" and "Slav" were the same word about 1200 years ago.
Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English sclave < Medieval Latin sclāvus (masculine), sclāva (feminine) slave, special use of Sclāvus Slavic, so called because Slavs were commonly enslaved in the early Middle Ages; see Slav (dictionary.com)
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

I won't do all of the research again, but it was illegal for Christians to own other Christians. so they went to the pagan regions nearby and stole people for resale; those people were Slavs (so called after the Goddess Slava). I have seen the word "slave" as going back to the 9th century CE, but some sources show later dates.

[hannah_arendt]

"Slave" and "Slav" were the same word about 1200 years ago.
Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English sclave < Medieval Latin sclāvus (masculine), sclāva (feminine) slave, special use of Sclāvus Slavic, so called because Slavs were commonly enslaved in the early Middle Ages; see Slav (dictionary.com)
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

I won't do all of the research again, but it was illegal for Christians to own other Christians. so they went to the pagan regions nearby and stole people for resale; those people were Slavs (so called after the Goddess Slava). I have seen the word "slave" as going back to the 9th century CE, but some sources show later dates.

Thanks for your answer.

Unfortunately, Slavs are still very mysterious for us. There is in Poland a place called Biskupin but I think that it doesn`t have much in common in real settlements from this period in Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupin

[PeterL]

Thanks for your answer.

Unfortunately, Slavs are still very mysterious for us. There is in Poland a place called Biskupin but I think that it doesn`t have much in common in real settlements from this period in Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupin

No, that place was about 1000 years earlier. The taking od Slavs was mostly from about 400 CE until abouut 900 CE, by which time most had become Christians, so they became off limits for slavers.

[jayat]

How do you understand the word 'primitive'?

Definetely, Solomon is completely different from Conan so it is very difficult to compare them.


If we discuss the origin of the words: very often I have heard that 'slavic' is connected with 'slavery'. However, at university, I was taught that it wasn`t correct.

Sorry, well, I understand it as an acception of tribal (a society ruled by chieftains and some sort of shamans with very rudimentary technology, basic language and living in huts).

[jayat]

So Conan looks tribal, primitive, from neolithic times...and Solomon Kane lives in a more developed society. Conan definitely looks that he came from some sort of east countries or from the steppes of Eastern Europe...It's an impression.

[hannah_arendt]

It seems to me that Conan can be considered as as image of an Celt. He is also consisted of more than one character.

Solomon Kane is a puritan, child of a different time. This cycle is said to have been written earlier than "Conan".

[hannah_arendt]

No, that place was about 1000 years earlier. The taking od Slavs was mostly from about 400 CE until abouut 900 CE, by which time most had become Christians, so they became off limits for slavers.

If it comes to Poland, Biskupin is one of the earliest settlements. Unfortunately we don`t have here more remnants from this epoque.

[PeterL]

If it comes to Poland, Biskupin is one of the earliest settlements. Unfortunately we don`t have here more remnants from this epoque.

Biskupin predates Slavs being in that area. I didn't see any suggestion as to who lived there. I think they might have been Celts, but that's a guess.

[prendrelemick]

deleted

[hannah_arendt]

Returning to the main topic of this thread....

Do you think that it is possible to write a poem in latin, greek or any dead language? How could we understand it?

[PeterL]

Returning to the main topic of this thread....

Do you think that it is possible to write a poem in latin, greek or any dead language? How could we understand it?

There are many people who read and write in Lation, Ancient Greek, and other ancient languages. There also are some among them who write poetry in those languages., I have seen recently written Latin poetry, and I assume that there arre poems around in Ancient Greek, Babylonian, Ancient Egyptian (which I would love to see), and in other dead or extremely obscure languages.

a poetess
http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Elissa_Radke

contemporary Latin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_Latin

Seek and you will find.

[hannah_arendt]

Congratulations:)

However, don`t you think that writing nowadays, for example in Latin, doesn`t have much in common with Latin poetry?

I don`t doubt in your knowledge, language skills but haven`t you had any doubts that you look at Latin in a differente way from the people using it in ancient times?

I write in Polish, Spanish, very rarely in English. I have never tried Latin or Greek.

[PeterL]

Congratulations:)

However, don`t you think that writing nowadays, for example in Latin, doesn`t have much in common with Latin poetry?

I don`t doubt in your knowledge, language skills but haven`t you had any doubts that you look at Latin in a differente way from the people using it in ancient times?

I would think that I think of Latin as most non-native speakers of Latin would have. Native speakers sometimes have different ideas about a language.Unless you have some idea of what language is, then it , Latin, is just another language. I suppose that my greater knowledge of science would make me different from someone who lived in Rome under the kings, but they were humans, and I am a human, so we have a lot in common.

[hannah_arendt]

I would think that I think of Latin as most non-native speakers of Latin would have. Native speakers sometimes have different ideas about a language.Unless you have some idea of what language is, then it , Latin, is just another language. I suppose that my greater knowledge of science would make me different from someone who lived in Rome under the kings, but they were humans, and I am a human, so we have a lot in common.

What did make you to start writing in Latin? I had a similar idea with old-polish but I have never managed to do it.

[Cliffyboy]

How often do you come back to reading old literature? Do you have your favourite works? Do you think that contemporary reader can reach a full understanding of the main ideas?

Only just recently joined this most interesting of sites and what a fabulous and intriguing question to ask.

Just as an immediate gut reaction, I think so but I don't have the time and place of their then and now, yet feel the really great works deal with the themes and ideas and moral concerns common to us all. I need to think about it more.

I'll come back to you on this, if you don't mind, and I notice you've recently widened it to include languages. Greatly interesting.

[PeterL]

What did make you to start writing in Latin? I had a similar idea with old-polish but I have never managed to do it.


I, personally, do not use Latin except in small quantities. It is a perfectly good language, except that it is a bit out of date. Moderns languages are more streamlined with fewer verb forms and few, if any, noun forms. And the vocabulary is not as large as is necessary. English is much easier, and it has a huge vocabulary. But Latin is useful in ENglish; how else can one determin what the correct plural of "virus" is? The best plural is "viruses".

[kiki1982]

Modern languages are streamlined in a different way to old ones, which we find more normal. The idea (in my opinion) of old languages was that you could say a word which would include everything: the function in the sentence (case), number, gender, passive/active, aspect (past, present or future), where/when/etc. (with integrated prepositions), etc. Humans are lazy and have now got different words for everything. Mainly Germanic languages have this tendency. Romance languages such as French still have their different verb endings to determine aspect, while they do use auxiliary verbs to express certain of these aspects. The Russians still have two different verbs for active and passive.

All languages have their own merits of course, that's why poetry is so difficult to translate (it's either shape or contents, only very very rarely both), but you could probably express much much more in three Latin words than in three German ones.

[hannah_arendt]

I, personally, do not use Latin except in small quantities. It is a perfectly good language, except that it is a bit out of date. Moderns languages are more streamlined with fewer verb forms and few, if any, noun forms. And the vocabulary is not as large as is necessary. English is much easier, and it has a huge vocabulary. But Latin is useful in ENglish; how else can one determin what the correct plural of "virus" is? The best plural is "viruses".

I`ve learnt Latin at university for about 3 years. Then, when I was writing my M.A, I started to learn Greek but up to now I can read only. Maybe one day I`ll come back to it.
In comparison to Polish, English seems to be easier. However english vocabulary is much larger. According to Humboldt fo example, Polish doesn`t have future tenses (because of morphological point of view).

Latin gave many possibilities but seems to be too difficult to learn for many people. We all want to do everything quickle and without effort.

[hannah_arendt]

Modern languages are streamlined in a different way to old ones, which we find more normal. The idea (in my opinion) of old languages was that you could say a word which would include everything: the function in the sentence (case), number, gender, passive/active, aspect (past, present or future), where/when/etc. (with integrated prepositions), etc. Humans are lazy and have now got different words for everything. Mainly Germanic languages have this tendency. Romance languages such as French still have their different verb endings to determine aspect, while they do use auxiliary verbs to express certain of these aspects. The Russians still have two different verbs for active and passive.

All languages have their own merits of course, that's why poetry is so difficult to translate (it's either shape or contents, only very very rarely both), but you could probably express much much more in three Latin words than in three German ones.

Many contemporary language still have: aspect, cases etc. For example German has 4 cases and gives many possibilities of creating new words. In Polish, there is aspect whereas in English we use just the adequate tense.

Old languages (I don`t like the word 'dead') gave more opportunities to express yourself very briefly. Almost everything we have now, we have inherited. There is no doubt that our culture is creating new things all the time but we couldn`t do without Plato or Aristotle. Sometimes it seems to me that we are becoming more and more superficial and lazy.

[PeterL]

I`ve learnt Latin at university for about 3 years. Then, when I was writing my M.A, I started to learn Greek but up to now I can read only. Maybe one day I`ll come back to it.
In comparison to Polish, English seems to be easier. However english vocabulary is much larger. According to Humboldt fo example, Polish doesn`t have future tenses (because of morphological point of view).

Latin gave many possibilities but seems to be too difficult to learn for many people. We all want to do everything quickle and without effort.

I agree that Latin has lots of possibilities, but there are different forms for too many different things, while in English the same auxiliary word or ending would fit most places. I suspect that in ancient times few people even knew that some of the forms existed in the same way that some people now just speak in the present tense indicative.

One of the most convenient things about English is the ease with which one can add words. I have seen estimates that there are more than 650,000 words in English, but that number is debatable, and it is almost impossible to determine how many words there are in any language.

[hannah_arendt]

When it comes to Polish, many people uses cases with mistakes. It is more and more often now. English is easier. You can hear/ read it almost everywhere. I would say that it is a Latin of our times.

[PeterL]

When it comes to Polish, many people uses cases with mistakes. It is more and more often now. English is easier. You can hear/ read it almost everywhere. I would say that it is a Latin of our times.

And like Latin in Ancient times most people who use it do not know it well.

[hannah_arendt]

And like Latin in Ancient times most people who use it do not know it weell.

There is in Poland a year of the Polish with events promoting polish language. However, if people doesn`t read it won`t change anything in my opinion. The language is becoming more and more simple.

[Aylinn]

And like Latin in Ancient times most people who use it do not know it weell.
Since it takes a lot of effort to master a foreign language, it's unavoidable that people make mistakes. And many language learners either honestly believe that learning all the rules of grammar is beyond their grasp or think that it's too much of a hassle, hence it's sufficient for them if their command of a language is enough to communicate.

[hannah_arendt]

Since it takes a lot of effort to master a foreign language, it's unavoidable that people make mistakes. And many language learners either honestly believe that learning all the rules of grammar is beyond their grasp or think that it's too much of a hassle, hence it's sufficient for them if their command of a language is enough to communicate.

Making mistakes in the case of non-natives is something natural. I have been learning English since I was a child and I am not satisfied with my level. I am conscious that I make mistakes and probably I won`t ever speak as a native. However, recently I have noticed that many people next to me, native-Poles, commits terrible, I would say "stupid" mistakes speaking Polish.

[PeterL]

Since it takes a lot of effort to master a foreign language, it's unavoidable that people make mistakes. And many language learners either honestly believe that learning all the rules of grammar is beyond their grasp or think that it's too much of a hassle, hence it's sufficient for them if their command of a language is enough to communicate.

It takes a lot of effort to master a language, even if it is your first language. There are many native speakers of English who seem to think that learning all of the rules is beyond the. Or maybe they are not aware of all of the rules, and I don't mean nit-picking things like comma placement, but major matters like the subjunctive voice and all of the varieties of the past tense. I have even known people who only used the present tense, regardless of when something happened.

I have also known non-native speakers who try to apply rules from another language into English. There is another board that I frequent where one poster, who translates materials into his native language from English, tries to get pointers on what soemthing would actually mean or how it should be said in English.

[PeterL]

There is in Poland a year of the Polish with events promoting polish language. However, if people doesn`t read it won`t change anything in my opinion. The language is becoming more and more simple.

On the other hand, in the distant past most people didn't use their language to communicate anything except for simple matters, because that was all they did. And there were philosophers, mathematician, shamans, etc. who used the full breadth of the language for communicating complicated ideas. We shouldn't expect the majority of people to use language that they don't need, because they never even try to communicate complicated ideas. Even now, if you communicate with people who have complicated thoughts you will hear complex language structures.

[hannah_arendt]

It takes a lot of effort to master a language, even if it is your first language. There are many native speakers of English who seem to think that learning all of the rules is beyond the. Or maybe they are not aware of all of the rules, and I don't mean nit-picking things like comma placement, but major matters like the subjunctive voice and all of the varieties of the past tense. I have even known people who only used the present tense, regardless of when something happened.

I have also known non-native speakers who try to apply rules from another language into English. There is another board that I frequent where one poster, who translates materials into his native language from English, tries to get pointers on what soemthing would actually mean or how it should be said in English.

It`s very difficult to start thinking in different language without making cliches. When we translate a text, despite grammar and vocabulary, we should pay attention to cultural things too. Polish grammar, despite complicated cases, different endings for each person in tenses, is not so complicated. We have only 2 past tenses ("Past simple", "Past continous"). Earlier we had "Past Perfect" too but it dissapeared at the end of XIX century. However, I like use it sometimes.

[hannah_arendt]

On the other hand, in the distant past most people didn't us their language to communicate anything except for simple matters, because that was all they did. And there were philosophers, mathematician, shamans, etc. who used the full breadth of the language for communicating complicated ideas. We shouldn't expect the majority of people to use language that they don't need, because they never even try to communicate complicated ideas. Even now, if you communicate with people who have complicated thoughts you will hear complex language structures.

The problem here is that sometimes you can`t communicate with such people. I hope that cases won`t dissapear. We don`t have established word order so it would be difficult to understand each other.

It is natural that we describe things we know. That is why Robert Howard did a great thing describing barbarians in very simple language. Nowadays writers very often forgot about adjusting the language, a kind of decorum. I don`t know whether it happens in English but in Polish does.

[kiki1982]

Many contemporary language still have: aspect, cases etc. For example German has 4 cases and gives many possibilities of creating new words. In Polish, there is aspect whereas in English we use just the adequate tense.

Old languages (I don`t like the word 'dead') gave more opportunities to express yourself very briefly. Almost everything we have now, we have inherited. There is no doubt that our culture is creating new things all the time but we couldn`t do without Plato or Aristotle. Sometimes it seems to me that we are becoming more and more superficial and lazy.

Of course we still have those things like aspect etc., but as you also say, we can't express them briefly anymore. In English, you need three words to express 'I have done', in Russian you need one and in Latin too (I don't know about Polish, maybe a little more than Russian).

You are right that for Slaves it would become a problem to communicate without cases. Apart from the odd preposition; what's the difference in meaning only between 'a sem c nim' or 'a sem s on'? Granted, it sounds weird, but in terms of meaning, you'd probably understand. If on the other hand, you were to leave out a dative case in a long long sentence, the direct and indirect objects could get swapped around in hte mind of your listener. Chaos abound! ;)

German on the other hand has fixed word order. It's daughter language Dutch has got no cases anymore and we manage fine. The only real remnant of the old case system is our personal pronouns which are structured in two tiers like in English (although some linguists insist on a separate form for the third person plural dative, but that's nonsense). Germans could manage perfectly well without cases, I think and it's going that way. In spoken language, they don't use the genitive case anymore, but use 'von + dat.' instead.

But, may I ask, what do Poles do if they have to express a past perfective idea?

[PeterL]

The problem here is that sometimes you can`t communicate with such people. I hope that cases won`t dissapear. We don`t have established word order so it would be difficult to understand each other.

Cases are not necessary, if there are prepositions that make it clear what function a noun has. English only has cases for pronouns, and the lack does not create any problem.


It is natural that we describe things we know. That is why Robert Howard did a great thing describing barbarians in very simple language. Nowadays writers very often forgot about adjusting the language, a kind of decorum. I don`t know whether it happens in English but in Polish does.

I also find that many writers do not make their language fit the situation. Lovecraft was better than Howard at that, and Hemingway did that quite well in his dialogue. I find that a skilled writer can tell more about a character through dialogue than any other way. The vocabulary, pacing, sentence length, and sentence structures are important in showing how someone thinks. (see: Styles and Structures by Charles Kay Smith)

[Aylinn]

But, may I ask, what do Poles do if they have to express a past perfective idea?
There is no equivalent of Past Perfect in modern Polish. There was once, but it's obsolete now, so in order to express that something occurred before another action in the past you need to use conjunctions such as before. In other words, time clauses are used in such situations.

If you simply want to say that an action is completed, you add a prefix, e.g: "Robiłam" - I was doing. "Zrobiłam" - I have done.

[hannah_arendt]

Of course we still have those things like aspect etc., but as you also say, we can't express them briefly anymore. In English, you need three words to express 'I have done', in Russian you need one and in Latin too (I don't know about Polish, maybe a little more than Russian).

You are right that for Slaves it would become a problem to communicate without cases. Apart from the odd preposition; what's the difference in meaning only between 'a sem c nim' or 'a sem s on'? Granted, it sounds weird, but in terms of meaning, you'd probably understand. If on the other hand, you were to leave out a dative case in a long long sentence, the direct and indirect objects could get swapped around in hte mind of your listener. Chaos abound! ;)

German on the other hand has fixed word order. It's daughter language Dutch has got no cases anymore and we manage fine. The only real remnant of the old case system is our personal pronouns which are structured in two tiers like in English (although some linguists insist on a separate form for the third person plural dative, but that's nonsense). Germans could manage perfectly well without cases, I think and it's going that way. In spoken language, they don't use the genitive case anymore, but use 'von + dat.' instead.

But, may I ask, what do Poles do if they have to express a past perfective idea?

In German, cases has always been a problem for me. Now it`s over but it is very difficult. The same occurs with adjectives. At the very beginning it seemed to me complicated.

In Polish, we just use Past Tense. We don`t pay much attention which activity happened earlier. We use the word such as at the beginning, earlier, after etc.

[hannah_arendt]

Cases are not necessary, if there are prepositions that make it clear what function a noun has. English only has cases for pronouns, and the lack does not create any problem.



I also find that many writers do not make their language fit the situation. Lovecraft was better than Howard at that, and Hemingway did that quite well in his dialogue. I find that a skilled writer can tell more about a character through dialogue than any other way. The vocabulary, pacing, sentence length, and sentence structures are important in showing how someone thinks. (see: Styles and Structures by Charles Kay Smith)

It is very difficult to write a good dialogue. I`ve had a problem with it. Thanks for the title:)

[hannah_arendt]

There is no equivalent of Past Perfect in modern Polish. There was once, but it's obsolete now, so in order to express that something occurred before another action in the past you need to use conjunctions such as before. In other words, time clauses are used in such situations.

If you simply want to say that an action is completed, you add a prefix, e.g: "Robiłam" - I was doing. "Zrobiłam" - I have done.

Do you speak Polish? I am asking of sheer curiosity:)

[PeterL]

It is very difficult to write a good dialogue. I`ve had a problem with it. Thanks for the title:)

You are more than welcome. It is a good and useful book.

[Aylinn]

Do you speak Polish? I am asking of sheer curiosity:)

I am Polish. :)

[hannah_arendt]

I am Polish. :)

Miło mi:) Może przypadkiem też polonistką?

[Aylinn]

Nie, skończyłam filologię angielską. :)

[hannah_arendt]

Ja można powiedzieć, że jedno i drugie. Skończyłam polonistykę i jestem na drugim roku anglistyki:)

[kiki1982]

Cases are not necessary, if there are prepositions that make it clear what function a noun has. English only has cases for pronouns, and the lack does not create any problem.

You are right, on a general level, there is no need for cases, but wen you start looking at languages with and without, it seems rather to be the case that those which have them are allow themselves more freedom in word order. Those that don't must put the words always in the right order. Although I don't think that applies to Asian languages.

English has many many prepositions. 'To' is not the same as 'in' and 'onto' is not the same as 'on', or 'of' as 'from'. Latin for example had in + Acc. and in + Dat. German still has it (and has many others, dubbed Wechselprapositionen because they alternate cases between the Acc. and Dative depending on whether it's a direction or place). The Slavic languages have v which can mean 'in' or 'to'. 'In' is a simple case. If you say 'Ich sitze ins Kino', that's wrong, but the fact that you are sitting will denote that you really wanted to say 'Ich sitze im Kino'. But there must be situations where it's not so clear.
In Dutch we have no cases. But, we are tied to word order. I cannot at a whim change my direct and indirect objects around, because it would cause confusion or sound strange. Similarly in English, we cannot use a thing that is supposed to be a dative. 'I gave it the man' used to be right at some point (the man being dative). Now we have to say 'I gave it to the man'. In French too (also no cases) there is a mandatory order if you have a sentence where I and DO have been substituted by personal pronouns. Otherwise the IO is marked by à.

German seems to be an exception to this, in that it has strict word order, but still has cases. They are not necessary in spoken laguage, although you are grateful that there is something like cases when you are reading something which is quite long. Otherwise it would be hard to work out who is doing what at times.

The Slavic languages on the other hand have many more possibilities to throw the word order around, depending on what is the most important. English does the expressing in another way, of course.

Both systems have their charms. :)


There is no equivalent of Past Perfect in modern Polish. There was once, but it's obsolete now, so in order to express that something occurred before another action in the past you need to use conjunctions such as before. In other words, time clauses are used in such situations.

If you simply want to say that an action is completed, you add a prefix, e.g: "Robiłam" - I was doing. "Zrobiłam" - I have done.

Shame. Seems unwieldy at times, although maybe the fact that it has become obsolete meant it wasn't used in the first place.
It's a peculiar thing, those perfective infinitives, but you get used to it. You start to miss them in other languages.


In German, cases has always been a problem for me. Now it`s over but it is very difficult. The same occurs with adjectives. At the very beginning it seemed to me complicated.

Since I live in Germany, I'm permanently subjected to them, so m knowledge is getting quicker. The problem is getting them out properly when talking. I'm ver good at writing, but talking is bad. Although everyone says we speak such good German (maybe compared to other people, but still). Cases and grmmar are my baby. I love that! :blush:

[hannah_arendt]

If you know grammar and vocabulary writting isn`t so complicated but I cannot start thinking in German:) However it is very logical, almost ideal language for philosophy for example.

We have gone to linguistic matters, so I have one question connected with stresses in English. I have been thinking whether you consider this element as important?