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
Printable View
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