Those are quotes about the efficacy of the right word, but still not the words themselves. I am looking for a better word itself. What those quotes tell me is that ANY word is a better word, just so long as it is used in its proper context.
Printable View
Those are quotes about the efficacy of the right word, but still not the words themselves. I am looking for a better word itself. What those quotes tell me is that ANY word is a better word, just so long as it is used in its proper context.
Look at what I wrote, please:
Why do you think I put ‘created’ and ‘better’ in inverted commas? Why did I also go on to say that, “Obviously it depends on what you mean by ‘better’”? I have never been obtuse enough to argue that one word is, per se, ‘better’ than another. That would be nonsense. However, I do believe that some words are BETTER IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT. You claim to disagree with this:Quote:
The words ‘created’ by Shakespeare are ‘better’ because he’s a better writer - he’s particularly skilled in their use.
Obviously it depends on what you mean by ‘better’ but surely Shakespeare’s contributions have enriched the language and therefore broadened the range of expression available? Thanks to Shakespeare, our linguistic world is bigger.
Now, how about you demonstrate your understanding of the books and articles I mentioned by considering the role of ideology?Quote:
Originally Posted by “SheykAbdullah”
There is no question that when one says 'he is warm', and that is the truth, than the word 'warm' is correct in this sense. You could not say 'hot' because they mean two different sensations. To use one in the place of the other is wrong because it represents miscommunication. Thus it is not a question of 'better' in a sense of more fitting, but possibly 'better' used in a sense of right vs wrong. I had assumed you meant better in a qualitative sense. Just as, to use my own mistake, I misused 'the shortest path possible.' To me this means efficient, but it was an incorrect use of the word to fit my meaning. 'Shortest' is not a worse word than 'efficient' here, it is just wrong.
When I say no word is better than any other in any sense I mean in regards to where it was taken from. No word is 'better' because a great writer created it or because someoe else created it, nor do writers create 'better' words. They just create words.
I would agree with that point. 'Superior' origins do not denote 'superior' worth. This goes for ideas as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
I just came back from my sanctuary Unnamable. But I'd better go back there straight away. :)
And in doing so, they make it easier for the rest of us to fine-tune our understanding of who we are. That’s quite a contribution in my eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
This paragraph really makes sense to you? I would use a little lesson I learn from the study of Law and Philosophy to tell you what a "statement of fact" is, but then I thought, why try to logically respond to a statement that is full of hatred for logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
And unfortunately, I agree with you. If you can try to ramble less and make more sense that would help me a lot, thanks. Just a request. And I wasn't trying to argue that you're not the best communicator in the world; I was trying to argue that your communication skill is less than inadequate.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
I see, I see. Now I know what better means. So instead of "better" (in literary value) I should have said, "more fitting". So the next time my mother asks me "who's a better cook, me or your father?" I should answer "No one mother; you should have asked 'who's the more fitting cook?', because 'better' doesn't mean more suitable, no, nor does it have anything to do with "qualitative", no, because SheykAbdullah told me that 'better' means something about "the sense of right vs wrong". Look mother, I have "proof":Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
Thanks for the english lesson SheykAbdullah. I thought it was ok to mean better in a qualitative sense; clearly I was wrong and you are right, it clearly is "a sense of right vs wrong".Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
And since you are quite the linguist, may I interest you in a definition from the Oxford dictionary? Perhaps they should take this one out and put your definition in.
Better. adj. The comparative degree of GOOD: more good, of greater excellence, of superior quality/ comparative of qualities or essential attributes/ more profitable, useful, or suitable for a purpose; more eligible or desirable.
Yes, I would also like to hear your response to THIS question. Somehow I find it hard to believe that you have read them. Sorry if I am wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unnamable
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIghtshade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
I think perhaps this argument has been siderailed and therefore we are taking the other out of his or her intended subject. My post was written in response to these.
The Unnamable's post regarding the influence of corporate culture came later, and I have not disagreed with it, thus I think as far as that goes we are at an impasse. We do disagree whether the impact of advertising on culture is negative. I merely maintain that there is no positive or negative development in culture, as far as those terms are concerned with value, but that is another discussion and I think for various reasons the current one has become muddled enough.
My posts up to this point have been concerned with the ones above listed. Mainly with the statement in the first post by Regedit that states that surely the words of Shakespeare are "better for the English language than those invented by rappers and stuff." Also that, "How does the good employment of English affect its development?"
Again with these two statements reiterated, and if I misunderstood them I am sorry for the conflict but they certainly seem to imply the possibility for a 'superior' (in value terms) variety of English, I reiterate that there is no "good employment" of English and that there is NO difference between the words of the rappers and the words of Shakespeare.
I am sorry if I have somehow misread those two sentences that say; "I read that Shakespeare was credited for at least 1000 new words in the Oxford dictionary. Surely that is better for the English language than words invented by rappers and ...stuff . Or has the trend been changed?" and saw the implication that rappers create inferior words to Shakespeare, however I think the way it is stated I can be excused from my mistake in interpretation.
I would like to ask everyone who is taking part in this discussion not to personalise their comments.
Many users of this Forum speak English as their second language and it is only natural that at times there will be occasions when misunderstandings or miscommunications happen.
If you find anyone's posts too disagreeable, please feel free to ignore them.
You are absolutely right. I have never said that I dislike literature, nor have I ever derided the contribution of authors to language. I have the utmost respect for the great figures of literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
For some reason it seems you have all taken my statements to be an attack upon literature. They are not. I am merely stating that no word, whether the "eternal crap" of rap or the enlightenment of Shakespeare, is superior to the other.
'Shank' and 'crack-whore' are both words that were not created by a literary genius, and they mean less than favorable things, but I can not think of anything that would describe the object and the personal situation that they describe better. If Shakespeare had come up with a word to describe these thing would it have been better than the words we currently use?
Perhaps we differ on a more fundamental level in our coneptions of value. I do not acknowledge that Shakespeare is better than "the eternal crap", as rap has been refered to here. To do so would be the same, in my view, as saying that Islam or Roman Catholicism is better than tribal Shamanism. They may have a longer history, more officially codified ideologies and even more philosophies than Shamanism does, they certainly contain a greater and more complex allegory, but are they better? You may think I am taking the conversation out of context by using these examples, but I assure I am not. You see both of these examples are drawn from staple institutions in culture, staples (at least in the past) much like language is.
As far as the question regarding ideology, what about ideology in language would you like to hear my opinions on? It is a rather broad subject, but one I do not think has much impact here. I do not disagree with anything said herein about the ability of language to influence culture, and this is probably the third or fourth time I have said it, I just disagree with your valuations of things.
Of course you cannot be excused for misinterpreting the question. Couldn't you see the three times I mentioned "literature" in critical places, and the fact that the title of the thread is "language and literature"? Don't you think it is a little bit wrong to exclude "literature" from an interpretation of a question that is entitled "language and literature"?
However "siderailed" this discussion is, your usage of the word BETTER is wrong (refer to my previous post); and the basic of all of your arguments are on criticising my usage of the word "good" and "bad", which I have clearly stated many times to be in the context of literary value. My final advice to you is, buy a dictionary or, if you have one already, use it. Use it before you start questioning other people's use of words. You can reiterate your arguments however many times you want, if it did not make sense before, it won't.
Now how about this question:?Quote:
Originally Posted by Unnamable
My understanding of the word better is not flawed at all. My post regarding whether you used better in a qualitative sense or in right vs wrong sense is not a misinterpretation of the word better.
The fact is that you made statements saying that words created in literature were better than the words created in rap, since you have said I understood them I say again, there is no better. It is a totally subjective term. I am sure there are many people that think that the words created by rappers are 'better' than the words created by Shakespeare, so to answer the question you asked, there is no 'good employment' of language so long as it communicates your point, thus there is no effect by using a good employment of langauge or not because there is no such thing.
If you want to explore the roles of ideology in language you have merely to look back over your own posts and see the role of the ideologue of literature protrayed. I attempt to have no ideology when exploring language. I am not saying I am succesful, but I try not to.
So to retierate my stance in simpler terms, no one has 'better' language, people just use it to their own ends and as those ends are different each group will employ the words suited to their own purpose.
In any case literature is a very subjective term, and since poetry is included in literature I vote that rap should be included as well since it is verbal poetry and to many more intimate and personal than any Romantic ode. Perhaps this is just another difference, we just view literature differently.
I am sorry if anyone feels personally attacked by my comments. I have not intended that to happen, I just disagree with your premise and I tend to get rather passionate with topics that interest me. However I think we have reached an impasse and perhaps further discussion will not be conducive to anything but enmity.
Since when has public opinion been the abrbiter of what is good! Popular does not necessarily mean 'good'. Look at 'Wham!' Yeah, EVERYTHING is subjective - but there is no rapper who is as 'good' as Shakespeare. Ridiculous. The man was a genius. There are some good lyrics out there, by all kinds of writers - but you can't start comparing em to Shakespeare. The man was the master. I am sure he has even influenced rappers - in fact what is the Eminem song where Dre repeats 'Remember me?' in a ghostly way- Hamlet influenced surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
Unfortunately we will never agree on this point.
Yes, -praise be to those who gave them to us. They have immeasurably added to my capacity to express myself. May I ask why you have a Graham Greene extract as your signature? Wouldn’t the words of a crack-whore do just as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
And unfortunately, we will never agree on this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
I have another question. I am a teacher and teach a set syllabus. If you were in charge of compiling that syllabus, would you be happy for it to contain no Shakespeare but lots of the work of Rap artists? These kinds of decisions are not hypothetical – they have to be made. If there is NO difference between the words of rappers and the words of Shakespeare, why should anyone choose one over the other?
No, and I knew you would ask this question, but I wouldn't. To tell you the truth I don't even listen to rap, but here is how I see the situation. Rap is a medium of entertainment and Shakespeare of medium of intellectual aheivment (now that is not to say that there is no intellectual rap, I am sure there is somehwere, but as I said I don't listen to it myself). So, I wouldn't put rap in an English Literature calss for the same reason I wouldn't put a Danielle Steele novel, or, to us another metaphor, for the same reason I wouldn't put a philly cheese steak on a classically French menu.
They both serve a different purpose and both need to be relegated and understood within their own context. I would not expect to see a cirriculum in English based on rap being succesful, just as I wouldn't expect a production of Hamlet in Madison Square Gardens to be as succesful as one by one of those rap artists. Now I am not saying that a Shakespeare play wouldn;t be succesful in this venue, but not nearly as.
So in short, I believe that everything has a context and should be viewed within that context, there are no superlative comparisons, no greaters and lessers, merely different intentions. After all, I wouldn't go to the French club in your school to practice my spanish, nor would I go to the Spanish club to practice my French. I think the comparison between Shakespeare and rap is similiar.
No because the stories about 'shank' and crack-whore' don't interest me. They wouldn't do as well not because of any inferiority but because they just don't interest me. I have this quote because it is one of my favorites from one of my favorite authors. If I liked rap or prostitution I don't see why I wouldn't use a quote from one of those sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Again (and I'm sorry if I am using food analogies a lot but I think it seems to be good, at least for my view of the discussion), I hate quiche and so I don't eat it, but I don't go around saying it is inferior to a hamburger because I do like hamburgers.
Besides, those words may not have allowed YOU to express yourself, but they have others. I've used them on occasion myself because they fit what I wanted better than anything else, but of course I gather you think somewhat less of my capacity to understand literature than I should hope.
As for the efficacy of those words, they exist to describe social phenomenon that are present today that were inadequately described before, at least on the non-academic level. Those words were created to fulfill a purpose and while that purpose may be less pleasant than we may like, it is necesary.
There are many words we use today whose origins are less stellar than we may like. For example, the word 'decimate' originally was used for punishment in the Roman Legions. If a memeber of a unit was determined to be guilty of some greate crime, such as cowardice, then that legion would draw lots and have one-tenth of all its persons killed, regardless of their original culpability. Snafu is another word that is used in polite society now but it's original meaning was as an acronym for Situation Normal, All F----- Up.
If I may add one more point, the difference in our essental views comes from the difference in what we do. You are an English teacher and for you it is good to view literature and language on a hierarchial scale. It creates a discriminating taste that allows you to select the literature and language of most educational benefit for people. I am an anthropologist and a linguist and so for me such discrimination disrupts my ability to make objective judgements on the state of both people and their use of language. It is good for me to roaden the definition of language and literature to include non-traditional forms so as to get a better understanding of those two topics. In the end we both serve different purposes and so will take different views accordingly.
In the end, as has been mentioned before, I view almost everything to be subjective. Almost everything has a place somewhere. In the end that is the difficulty of the society in which we live; reconciling vastly different and opposing views to create an operable, safe, and free whole.
You know I was being sarcastic before, right? Please don't insult the science. I have never studied linguistics myself, but I can't imagine that you are a linguist. You avoided the things that I say about literature; so you obviously are aware that I was discussing the literary point of view when I say 'better', and that acknowledging it now would make all of your points simply nonesense. So I understand your stance. You are right, we will never agree, because you refuse to understand what I am saying. And again, have you read the articles that Unnamable suggested yet? Let's hear your opinion on that. Let's make those articles the centre of our debate; it's the only chance I'll be able to figure out what you are on about.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
I have explained my stance and which of your points I take umbrage with. Mainly that there are words, in literature or not, that are bad. I say there are no bad words anywhere, merely words fitting a context. Rappers words are not worse than Shakespeare's, if you are using a context in which they are appropriate.
I am sorry if I didn't realize they were sarcastic, but this medium conveys sarcasm rather poorly.
You said you have never studied linguistics, then before you doubt my statement that I am I suggest you do.
And I have also given you a definition of the word "better" in the Oxford dictionary. You might not consider it a valid authority, but I do. One of its meanings was "more desirable" in terms of specific "attributes", or "more suitable for a purpose", thus, "more fitting" can legitimately be described as "better" if I made myself clear of what "purpose" or "attribute" I was talking specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
My doubt is unfounded due to my own lack of knowledge in this science, you are right. And I would not normally make such assumptions. But your lack of logical arguments and your avoidance of scientific research still cast doubts in my mind that you are a scientist at all; and linguistics is surely a science. If you would just give me an intellectual or scientific analysis of the articles mentioned; perhaps our positions will be clearer, and my doubts may finally be disproved. But so far, I have seen nothing to suggest that you have at least read them.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
Look, I am not going to write an analysis here for you on the articles and books mentioned because it is a waste of my time and beside the point of our discussion. I have never questioned their efficacy in this discussion and I won't. I didn't want to be so frank with you but there it is.
My point this entire time has been that you are mistaken to assume that there are better words and to say that there is no 'good employment' of any language aside from communicating clearly and that the words of rappers are not less effective (if this is what you intended to mean) in doing this than the words of Shakespeare, in literature or out of it. You may differ and that is your right, but I will always disagree with you. Words are either suitable or unsuitable for expression.
As to your questioning of my understanding of the word better, I asked if you meant 'better' in a qualitative sense or a factual sense. 'Better' can be used in both senses without violating your quoted definition of the word. For two examples,
'A right answer is always BETTER than a wrong answer'-a factual sense of the word better, i.e. better in a sense of right vs wrong, or more correct
'Duck a l'Orange is BETTER than my mom's meatloaf'-a qualitative sense of the word, i.e. better in a sense of superiority of worth.
Both are superlative comparisons of worth and Oxford's definition says that better is a superlative comparison of worth. I asked whether you meant better in the first sense or the second. If you meant better in the first sense than you would be right, there are words that are right in certain contexts and wrong in others. There are no 'better' words though, no matter who created them or who uses them. People either use words correctly or incorrectly.
If you can find one place in this conversation where I said I thought the Oxford Dictionary was wrong I will eat my shorts.
Again, my beef this entire time has been with this post of yours , here quoted again, which asks about the good employment of lanaguge (and to me it seems to mean both in literature and out; for this interpretation I would reference you to the fifth sentence, fourth through sixth lines of your original post, here bolded, which again is the only point made THUS FAR that I disagree with, and this despite the fact you have made incorrect, or at least inaccurate statements and examples along the way, but again to discuss them would be deviations from my point);
Again, there is no 'good' employment of language, only right and wrong, just as there are no 'better' words (and I assume you used the qualitative sense of 'better' because in the sentence that follows the next one you inquired about the 'good employment of language', implying directly that there was a qualitative purpose in the use of the term 'better' two sentences before.)Quote:
Originally Posted by REGIT
If I haven't talked about many of your points it is because they are asides, which is why I don't want to get into the articles about the power of linguistics to control masses of people, and because they are not in my point. As I said before, if you want to learn about ideology in language read your own initial post and you can see a working example of the ideology of the supremacy of literature, and think about that point and how it impacts your expression on a daily basis and the words you use and things you cite as well as your thoughts and actions, including the belief that rappers are inferior to Shakespeare, which is something else you imply.
I understand your question initially was related to literature and maybe you wnated this conversation to revolve around literature, but this post (again refering to the sentence in bold and also the question asked) seems to address the idea of using literature as a dipstick to measure language's development along qualitative lines, referring again to the question of how well a language is and has been employed.
In fact, if we wanted to discuss the good employment of a language in the first sense of the word 'better' I would say that while Shakespeare did a good job of employing language for his time if you were to take his words against a rapper today, for out dialect of English, the rapper employs language much 'better than Shakespeare does. Of course, in reversed situations the result is the opposite. 'Better' language employment is dictated by style and dialect, as far as the first definition of 'better' is concerned, and since neither the style nor dialect of modern English fits Shakespeare you have your answer.
Now it is up to you to determine if this is still 'better'. I say there is no 'better' in this question, merely differences. You may asnwer your own question however you please. I have merely given what I view as the facts, in response to a question.
As far as advertisers using language to control youths, you are right. However, if it was religion and governments doing it for thousands of years before them and so I don't view it as a problem. Language has ALWAYS been used to control people.
If I questioned the Unnameable's use of his student saying why doesn't Hamlet just buy Nikes and 'just do it' as an example of advertisers controlling youths via language it was only because I think it is a questionable example of the phenomenon. Perhaps there were other influences on the young kid saying that such as a traditional American impatience. I just thought the example was inconclusive, but perhaps it was a point I shouldn't have contested because it was an aside from my point.
It does not require you to disagree with something to be able to analyse it, only that you read and understand it. If you consider it a waste of time to show your understanding of the matter, then I would call your long posts an extreme waste of time. No, waste of effort, since you probably did not take too long to write all that nonesense. You can be frank, it's fine; I have been frank all the time; just try to ramble less.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
A discussion of those articles is outside of the scope of this conversation. That is why it would be a waste of time. The ability of a group of people to control a language does not impact the ability of a language to be employed in a good or bad way. There are no good or bad employments of a language. There is no good development of a language, and once more those were my only points.
You want me to analyze those articles for you and when I do you will nitpick my analysis until you can satisfy yourself that I do not understand them and that I am a total liar and an incompetent, and if I don't write them you will say I don't understand them. Your reaction will be the same in both cases, and so in the end what is the purpose of my analyzing them for you? So that I can write about a subject that is hugely vast just to get into another argument with you? This one has already been dragged beyond what was the original point I wanted to make, which was a response to your own question.
I have made many points in this discussion that I think would demonstrate that I have some knowledge of what I am talking about. If you look back at them I believe you will find that in this exchange between you and I, I am the only one to actually site occurances of a linguistic trend in reference to my arguments. You have merely called me a blundering idiot and attempted, falsely, to accuse me of not understanding the word 'better' and of saying, which I never did, that the dictionary was wrong. It is perhaps too bad for your argument that we were discussing Stylistics instead of Semantics.
In any case, I fail to see how refusing to address a topic that was not involved in my argument would prove that my argument is a waste of time and effort. I just wanted to say that there is no good employment of a language and there are no better words. If my first posts came off as an attack I am sorry, but as I said before I tend to get passionate about subjects that interest me.
However I do not see how this discussion, though it holds the title ever so precariously, can loose any more dignity and I refuse to devolve into meaningless name-calling. My father has always said he dislikes discussions because they too often turn into arguments and this is a perfect example of how right he was, on some occasions.
If anyone cares to continue the conversation in a more civilized, dispassionate tone I am more than likely to discuss it with them. If anyone wants to have a discussion on propoganda and manufacturing consent (to use the title of a book that I am suposedly unaware of) I would be happy to have it with them and if I have not participated in such a discussion up to this point in time it is because I have thought that I had nothing to add to them. I may have disagreed with the Unnameable's example and he may not like my definition of literature but he has the topic of the influence of media on a social level down very well and thre only complaint I could have with it is that perhaps he is a little less scientific than I would prefer, but as I said earlier we both serve different masters.
In any case I wipe my hands of this thread because it seems that the only thing that will satisfy certain individuals is a witch's trial. I am afraid that I will be dead whether I burn or whether I drown.
If one, following the meanings given in the Dictionary, understands that "better" means "more desirable" or "more suitable for a purpose" or "more useful for a purpose", then as long as one can identify what the specific purpose for using a word is, one can decide whether a word is more suitable/useful/desirable than an alternative or not, hence "better" than an alternative or not. Why is that so hard to comprehend? If I try to subtitute any one of these meanings in your statement, it might read something like this: "There are no words that can be more useful/suitable/desirable than another for a specific purpose." And this is MY point, in response to your point. I just want you to tell me how you can make that statement "there are no better words" given this meaning of the word "better". Just a small paragraph of explanation only on this point would be great. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
Those are very bold assumptions. I have only made comments about what you have written. But to make those assumptions about me, you must think that I am very predictable and inferior to you. How else do you know what I will do? Can you see the future? Or can you see straight through me? Which are you suggesting? You are the one who is throwing the real insults, concealed in the position of a victim, so much for being frank.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
Is that not for others to decide? I'd love to be able to write my own review too. And the fact that you have been asked to demonstrate your understanding of the articles means that some are not convinced of the intellectual level of understanding that you claim to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
SheykAbdullah, what name have I called you by that has offended you so? If I have accidently made a personal insult towards you, I do apologise. But I believe I only commented on your points. I don't think any name-calling has happened here yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah
Don't be so hasty now. You are the one who said that you will never agree with me (or that "we will always disagree"). I never said that I won't agree with you if you manage something more persuasive; I only said that the points that you make are bad, or at least not well-made or well-supported. But wipe your hands if you will; I understand.
I was wondering if you or anyone out there can tell me where to get reputable study guides / glossaries for E.A. Poe's "The man of the Crowd" and Charles Boudelaire's Essay "The Painter of Modern Life" I've gone through cliffnotes, york notes, you name it, and cannot find guides/glossaries for either of these central works (whch I'm studying in a university course on modernism). The Poe work for example has words which I've had a challenge to define precisely. It's easy to find study guides with good glossaries for more well known stories, like "The fall of the House of Usher" or "The Dubliners" but where do you go for the something like "The Man of the Crowd"????
I have to say that if a good word comes from a rapper, why not use it? That being said, I HATE rap music, and think it is a waste of time to listen to drum machines and the general low culture represented by rap. And I love Shakespeare!! I'll go with Shakespeare anytime!!
i don't think that words should be created by rappers. i mean i read this article in a magazine once, saying that since a lot of the slang terms in today's music have been added to a certain dictionary (i forgot which one) then justin timberlake and other rappers are now the equivalent of william shakespeare in today's times.
i had to disagree. i guess it comes with the image and profession thing. i mean, shakespeare is, well, shakespeare. no need to explain. but rappers. no discrimination here, but..
arrgh, i can't seem to make my point, but i hope you get it anyway.
good employment affects the development of language (?) maybe we should have definitions of language development?
sorry if i'm not making sense right now. i'm having one of my days. lol. :)
The English language is ILL. You can do a lot of DOPE things with it if you're good enough. I don't care what Shakespeare thinks, I'll continue to use both Ill and dope in that context because it's SICK!
What do you guys think about Homer Simpsons "D'oh" being added to the dictionary?