Please, PLEASE,
go to your local comics agent and purchase the first two volumes of Alan Moore's SWAMP THING graphic novel, "THE SAGA OF THE SWAMP THING" and "LOVE AND DEATH" Supposing there's some group of you, oh, I don't know who, out there at the same college or university, you could split the cost 3-ways! Or more!
This is mostly a favor to yourselves. The issue with the little Walt Kelly "pogo" aliens speaking thick cartoon polyglot is worth the price of admission alone and they're stunning on your bookshelf.
2.23.2006
2.22.2006
pretentious pronunciation
it's a sign of education and culture to be able to pronounce foreign words with the 'proper' accent. i always pause when ordering a wrap: should i pronounce 'boursin' as 'boor-sin' (the americanized way), or 'boor-s[highly nasalized I]' (the french way)? i usually opt for 'cheese spread'. ditto for croissant.
but you'll never hear a professor pronounce the t in 'Foucault.' we need to know they have the education to know how it's supposed to be pronounced. some go so far as to glottalize the 'r' in 'Derrida.' and the difference between the 'a' in 'ash' and the 'a' in 'father' is very pronounced in 'Althusser'.
but it's an english speaking class. we haven't read the texts in french. we have no claim to linguistic authenticity. there are certainly enough non-english words in the language that we have no qualms about pronouncing english-ly. what gives?
i think words have always been a status symbol. the idea of 'proper' changes over time and given context. 'pronounced as in the native language of the word/name' hasn't always been the same as 'proper', i imagine. but when 'proper' (whatever it means) is linked to education, style, intelligence, the use of words takes on more meaning than simply their meaning.
but you'll never hear a professor pronounce the t in 'Foucault.' we need to know they have the education to know how it's supposed to be pronounced. some go so far as to glottalize the 'r' in 'Derrida.' and the difference between the 'a' in 'ash' and the 'a' in 'father' is very pronounced in 'Althusser'.
but it's an english speaking class. we haven't read the texts in french. we have no claim to linguistic authenticity. there are certainly enough non-english words in the language that we have no qualms about pronouncing english-ly. what gives?
i think words have always been a status symbol. the idea of 'proper' changes over time and given context. 'pronounced as in the native language of the word/name' hasn't always been the same as 'proper', i imagine. but when 'proper' (whatever it means) is linked to education, style, intelligence, the use of words takes on more meaning than simply their meaning.
Poly Glot Boarding House
I just regained partial custody of my Oxford English Dictionary so I think the fun can begin.
I'm going to start here an expedition after the meaty core of the word 'recognize' which can likely be stretched out forever. Suggest you all join me.
Re-Cognize :
The most common use of this word, I think, is in the sense of
"to perceive to be identical with something previously known"
or even more generally as in the case of, "I think I recognize somebody in that line-up"
But that's in definition #5... definition #2 reads "... to revise, correct, amend."
It can also have the sense of "to acknowledge" in cases where a statement or viewpoint that's presented has already been in consideration.
The word seems to have meanings that could be applied to several cognitive stages in the learning process. It's even appropriate to say that something might be recognized for the first time, in certain ways.
So, let's look at "Cognize" only. How many other words are there with that root?
We have PRE-Cognize, "To Know BeforeHand".
the root 'Cognize' in these two words seems to be dealing in part with the relationship between knowledge and experience... Recognition, after a fashion, could be generally defined as "Knowledge after experience" and Precognition as "Knowledge prior to an experience," Where the "Experience" would be of the type to lend the Knowledge in question.
There's no Pro-Cognize.
No Sub-Cognize.
There is no verb "Uncognize" listed here but we do have the adjective "Uncognizable". This would be a word that means something more than "Unrecognizable". The precognition of an uncognizable is equally impossible. Here's an event which imparts no knowledge an object of which no knowledge can be gained. Because it can't be cogn-ized.
The verb cognize doesn't correspond with the process of 'cognization' but 'cognition'. Which looks a lot like a word that might be short for "Cooperative Ignition"
Who wants to pick it up there? I only brought the 2nd volume (P-Z) upstairs with me, so I can't look up cognize or ignition or cog or any of those bits.
good night and wise dreams
I'm going to start here an expedition after the meaty core of the word 'recognize' which can likely be stretched out forever. Suggest you all join me.
Re-Cognize :
The most common use of this word, I think, is in the sense of
"to perceive to be identical with something previously known"
or even more generally as in the case of, "I think I recognize somebody in that line-up"
But that's in definition #5... definition #2 reads "... to revise, correct, amend."
It can also have the sense of "to acknowledge" in cases where a statement or viewpoint that's presented has already been in consideration.
The word seems to have meanings that could be applied to several cognitive stages in the learning process. It's even appropriate to say that something might be recognized for the first time, in certain ways.
So, let's look at "Cognize" only. How many other words are there with that root?
We have PRE-Cognize, "To Know BeforeHand".
the root 'Cognize' in these two words seems to be dealing in part with the relationship between knowledge and experience... Recognition, after a fashion, could be generally defined as "Knowledge after experience" and Precognition as "Knowledge prior to an experience," Where the "Experience" would be of the type to lend the Knowledge in question.
There's no Pro-Cognize.
No Sub-Cognize.
There is no verb "Uncognize" listed here but we do have the adjective "Uncognizable". This would be a word that means something more than "Unrecognizable". The precognition of an uncognizable is equally impossible. Here's an event which imparts no knowledge an object of which no knowledge can be gained. Because it can't be cogn-ized.
The verb cognize doesn't correspond with the process of 'cognization' but 'cognition'. Which looks a lot like a word that might be short for "Cooperative Ignition"
Who wants to pick it up there? I only brought the 2nd volume (P-Z) upstairs with me, so I can't look up cognize or ignition or cog or any of those bits.
good night and wise dreams
2.08.2006
usage of the week
i finally got around to taking a syntax class, so of course i'm hearing all kinds of fun terms like 'recursion'.
i wonder if anyone out there in blogland has heard of this invented usage: Recurz.
as in: "If you define a verb phrase that way, then this rule can't recurz."
it seems to be a back-formation from 'recursion' and distinct from the more conventional usage.
'recurs,' i suppose, should be a "real" word, as in, "the dream recurs every few days."
'recurz' is listed at www.marsb.com as one of dozens of alternative spellings for 'recur,' but almost all other google hits are in foreign languages.
i wonder if anyone out there in blogland has heard of this invented usage: Recurz.
as in: "If you define a verb phrase that way, then this rule can't recurz."
it seems to be a back-formation from 'recursion' and distinct from the more conventional usage.
'recurs,' i suppose, should be a "real" word, as in, "the dream recurs every few days."
'recurz' is listed at www.marsb.com as one of dozens of alternative spellings for 'recur,' but almost all other google hits are in foreign languages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
