Language and literature

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.

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.

---

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

You said you have never studied linguistics, then before you doubt my statement that I am I suggest you do.

---

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.

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);

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REGIT

There is a thread started earlier discussing the significance of the size of a vocabulary. It gave me a few questions. It seems to me that the development of language goes hand in hand with the development of scientific and cultural collectives belonging to that language and their literatures. Vice versa, it must also be that the growth of a language is fed by its bad usage. I want to ask: as it is arguable that the quality of a literature is a reflection of the quality of the vocabulary of its language, is the quality of the vocabulary of a language a reflection of how well it is employed and has been employed? 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?

How does the good employment of a language affect its development?

---

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.)

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

I just wanted to say that there is no good employment of a language and there are no better words.

---

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

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?

---

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

I have made many points in this discussion that I think would demonstrate that I have some knowledge of what I am talking about.

---

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

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.

---

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.
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?