Moral judgements... (longish)
jasmine
(snippage)
> I'm kind of bored with most of the older art forms.
Hmmm...
I am sorry for you that you don't enjoy works dated before the Middle
Ages (and quite frankly, it seems as if you don't really like any
painting executed prior to 17th century Dutch works, but that could be
blind nationalism re: Halls and Rembrandt).
>Anything before the middle ages is
> mostly rubble dug up. Once you've seen 10 Venus/Athena/Zeus statues, you
> really have seen them all.
I disagree with your over-simplification of these early works. I will
grant you that many pieces have been "dug up," however to classify them
as "rubble" is truly uncalled for.
"Older art forms" consist of more than statuary. For the moment we will
pretend that architectural feats such
as the Ishtar Gate, the Stepped Pyramid and the Parthenon,
various objects such as the painted chest and death mask from King Tut's
tomb, and _Octopus Jar_; and paintings/frescoes
such as those from Lascaux, _Standard of Ur_, Egypt's _Geese of
Medum_, and the Pompeiian frescoes simply do not exist.
I notice that you not only limit yourself to one of the plastic arts,
but also limit it to the areas and time of Classical Greek and Roman
civilisations. As I only have enough time to discuss one of the three
subject matters you mentioned, I'll choose Venus (Aphrodite).
First I must ask you, what of the other Venuses? Venus figures such as
the _Venus of Willendorf_ (my personal favourite) and the marble dolls
of the Cyclades?
A brief history of Aphrodite/Venus statues:
The first (found) Hellenistic nude Aphrodite date back to the 5th and
6th C. BCE. They are rare as a result of a cultural taboo depicting
nude females. One of the few surviving figures is from the 6th C, and
is the
handle of a mirror. It looks more Egyptian (proportions etc.) and less
Hellenistic. Another early Aphrodite is the 5th C. _Esquine Venus_,
which I am told is a copy of a bronze Isis. I think the bronze was
lost, but as with so many classical sculptures, it was copied by various
sculptors into marble. With each copy, the artists embellished the
figure (fuller breasts, smaller waist, wider hips, etc.).
About 20 years after _Esquine_, bronze figures of turbaned
girls were created, and the classical figure was nearly transformed.
Ideal equilibrium through these figure's stance was realised (one leg
slightly bent to give the illusion of walking).
In the mid 4th C. Praxeletes created the _Knidian Aphrodite_, portraying
the goddess about to enter a ritual bath. The piece looks very natural
and unaffected and real. _Knidian_ spawned the _Capitoline Aphrodite_
and _Medici Venus_, however,
both are posed in a self-conscious manner, thus solving the realities of
a prudish society (it's amazing what well-placed hands will do to a
work).
One of the other _Knidians_ was the basis for the _Venus of Arles_ and
_Thespian Aphrodite_, where the goddess has draped legs and nude
torso. The most famous of these Aphrodites is the _Aphrodite of Melos_
(and is, Frans, I think the one you are referring to). Look at her
proportions in comparisons to _Arles_ and _Capitoline_. Her artist's
ability to chisel the plains is seemingly effortlessly.
Looking at the smaller bronzes you can find a wealth of themes,
including Aphrodite putting on a necklace, the goddess with Mars'
girdle, and of course, Venus emerging from the waves.
It is a well known fact that Praxiletes' statues of Aphrodite were
copied by other artists over and over again. However, if you take the
time to look at them you will notice that they are very different from
one another. Think of them as sisters--the observer sees a family
resemblance, but it is their personalities that set them apart. I am
left with the impression that you cannot see past her physical being,
thus totally missing the subtleness which sets one statue apart from
another. Have you really looked at the sculptor's hand and the emotion
he puts into the pieces? If you did you would not make such a cursory
statement as the one above.
> The paintings from the middle ages are technically quite bad,
How are you defining the technical points of painting?
I fear I am going to have to dispute this. I had a bit of trouble
wrapping my mind around possible time frames (depending on who's
speaking, the period could include Early Christianity and Byzantine with
Mediaeval, Romanesque and Gothic works), but here goes:
In the plastic arts, the naturalism found in the Antique period went
through a de-naturing of sorts. The older fashions were influenced by
Barbarians' styles and the resulting style is *not* the negation of the
older imagery. Instead, it was the product of a new world view brought
into effect by
the emergence of Christianity. It may have been the portrayal of the
transformation from the Late Antique to subsequent styles. I think this
can be said for painting as well. To compare Classical works to those
produced in Early Christianity would be like comparing peas to
peanuts--both are legumes, and begin with "p", but that's all.
When I think of painting during these periods, I automatically lump in
mosaics, illuminations and frescoes.
I believe that the ornamental mosaics which evolved during Early
Christianity was a direct result of Constantine's (and subsequent
emperors') desire to advertise, instruct and edify citizens into the
Christian faith. In this medium, colours cannot be blended or
modelled as with paints, and it does not allow for clean lines.
As far as manuscripts go, the ones that survive today are primarily
those done by copyists, who are often *not* artists. If the original
had a squiggle here, he will put a squiggle in the same place (is it a
wonder why versions of the same book have the same mistakes?). The key
to these
documents was simplicity. Some of the copyists added their own thing
with quick, impressionistic strokes and the like. People were
portrayed only as iconic narratives. By the Early Mediaeval period a
complicated interchange of influences made themselves apparent in the
illuminated works. In the north, copyists and artists were trained in
the Hiberno-Saxon manner of pattern-making (look at the _Book of
Lindisfarne's_ ornamental or carpet pages: it is an intricate web of
serpentine interlacing fantastical animals who devour each other. The
work has a type of rhythm conveying both motion and change).
One of my personal favourites of this time is _St. Matthew_ from the
"Ebbo Gospels," which might be an interpretation of the same subject
matter from the "Coronation Gospels." The calmness in the classical
"Coronation" work is broken in the frenetic energy and effort the artist
has taken to capture the saint's inspiration.
As far as painting goes, I found that the style many frescoes mimicked
the mosaics produced. By the 11th C., monumental painting really came
into its own. For example, in _The Adoration of the Magi_ found in
Tahull, Spain the image is simple, strong and direct. The lines of
each figure partition them into distinct, modelled areas, almost
breaking each portrait into individual parts. In a weird way it reminds
me of
Gris' _Still Life_.
> and can't be understood without a firm grasp of mystic symbolism.
Bah! Most of the works that I know of have a narrative--whether they be
in manuscripts, steles or mosaics. Usually you can find something that
says "The Emperor Justinian" or "Christ as the Shepherd" or whatever
on the face of the work (oooh, that is sooo mystic).
> The later stuff (Renaissance and later) is closer to us, but even here I
> find that much of the paintings are technically not very good. An
> interesting thing in itself ("Look, this guy cannot realistically paint
> hands.") but not really satisfying.
Interesting, you happen to criticise what many artists think of as the
hardest thing of the human form to paint.
Just, curious, but do you find the hands in _The Madonna of the Rocks_
poorly rendered?
Now, don't get me wrong, but everyone is entitled
to have a preference and like what s/he likes, but making sweeping
statements about "rubble" and "technically bad" when it isn't
true, and still presenting it as the truth....well, that's just not
kosher (imo).
I think in general you are having trouble seeing art as a progression
from one style to another. Artists react to what is going on around them
and what came before them. To simply dismiss not merely a
painting/statue, but an entire genre and/or period only illustrates (no
pun intended) your lack of understanding of the works and the artists.
jasmine
Frans Buijsen
> Hmmm...
>
> I am sorry for you that you don't enjoy works dated before the Middle
> Ages (and quite frankly, it seems as if you don't really like any
> painting executed prior to 17th century Dutch works, but that could be
> blind nationalism re: Halls and Rembrandt).
It's not quite that absolute. When I said "I'm bored with the older art
forms" I meant anything pre-20th century (!). The "most of" is relevant.
I have experienced all this mostly thru visiting mmuseums throughout
Europe and the USA (to a much smaller degree).
In my country that introduces a hard to avoid bias (other than
nationalism): much of the stuff on display is 17th century and shortly
after that, and then a bunch of impressionist paintings from the 19th
century (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
These works, while sometimes quite good, don't evoke very much in me.
The impressionists sometimes manage to impress (pun) me, but the 17th
century stuff I regard more or less from a distance: I can see whether I
like it or don't like it, but it does not mean much for me.
As a matter of fact, I like some of the early Renaissance Italian
fresco's I have seen in Sienna and Assisi more. Their beautiful bright
colours, coupled with the strong narrative content, is quite nice.
> >Anything before the middle ages is
> > mostly rubble dug up. Once you've seen 10 Venus/Athena/Zeus statues, you
> > really have seen them all.
>
> I disagree with your over-simplification of these early works. I will
> grant you that many pieces have been "dug up," however to classify them
> as "rubble" is truly uncalled for.
Again, I mean this mostly from the way I have seen these things: in
museums, often located at archeological sites.
Most of the ancient artifacts are special for the sole reason that they
are very old, not so much because they are particularly beautiful.
Any given archeological site museum is filled little ditties found
there, ~95% of which I find fairly uninteresting.
I generally tend to go through this sort of museum fairly quickly, even
though I still like to visit them.
> "Older art forms" consist of more than statuary. For the moment we will
> pretend that architectural feats such
> as the Ishtar Gate, the Stepped Pyramid and the Parthenon,
> various objects such as the painted chest and death mask from King Tut's
> tomb, and _Octopus Jar_; and paintings/frescoes
> such as those from Lascaux, _Standard of Ur_, Egypt's _Geese of
> Medum_, and the Pompeiian frescoes simply do not exist.
> I notice that you not only limit yourself to one of the plastic arts,
> but also limit it to the areas and time of Classical Greek and Roman
> civilisations. As I only have enough time to discuss one of the three
> subject matters you mentioned, I'll choose Venus (Aphrodite).
My travels in ancient lands have been focused around the Mediteranean,
as you correctly deducted, so I will limit my comments to that.
The Parthenon is the only of those I have visited. For me, there's just
not enough left to appreciate whatever it may have been. If you go there
now , you see a facade of columns behind which there is essentially no
building. The facade is pretty, for sure, but how am I to judge its
value if more than half of it is gone?
This is my main problem in most of these archeological sites .
(NOTE: I am a layman in both architecture and painting (or any other
art), though seriously more knowledgeable in architecture).
The best archeological site, by a large margin, I have seen is Efese in
Turkey (see: Paul's letters in the Bible). This is quite amazing, since
you can still experience the shape this 250,000 people city had 2000
years ago.
The most impressive building from before them Renaissance I have seen is
the Aya Sofia in Istanbul (particularly considering how much before the
Renaissance it is).
> First I must ask you, what of the other Venuses? Venus figures such as
> the _Venus of Willendorf_ (my personal favourite) and the marble dolls
> of the Cyclades?
[Venus history snipped]
Well, that's simple, although possibly disappointing: I don't know what
these particular ones. I was commenting on the things I've seen on
vacations on archeological sites and museums around the Mediterranean.
I don't dispute that there are a number of very beautiful works there,
but these are few and far between (as they are in today's art, but
today's just-so-and-so art doesn't have the added value of being 2000
years old).
> > The paintings from the middle ages are technically quite bad,
>
> How are you defining the technical points of painting?
>
> I fear I am going to have to dispute this. I had a bit of trouble
> wrapping my mind around possible time frames (depending on who's
> speaking, the period could include Early Christianity and Byzantine with
> Mediaeval, Romanesque and Gothic works), but here goes:
I mean anything up to the start of the Renaissance, 14th C or so.
> In the plastic arts, the naturalism found in the Antique period went
> through a de-naturing of sorts. The older fashions were influenced by
> Barbarians' styles and the resulting style is *not* the negation of the
> older imagery. Instead, it was the product of a new world view brought
> into effect by
> the emergence of Christianity. It may have been the portrayal of the
> transformation from the Late Antique to subsequent styles. I think this
> can be said for painting as well. To compare Classical works to those
> produced in Early Christianity would be like comparing peas to
> peanuts--both are legumes, and begin with "p", but that's all.
[More of this snipped for brevity]
> > and can't be understood without a firm grasp of mystic symbolism.
>
> Bah! Most of the works that I know of have a narrative--whether they be
> in manuscripts, steles or mosaics. Usually you can find something that
> says "The Emperor Justinian" or "Christ as the Shepherd" or whatever
> on the face of the work (oooh, that is sooo mystic).
I was thinking along the lines of "The daisy flower signifies the
innocence of the Virgin Mary" (I'm making that up, but the guides I
sometimes bother to read when visiting these exhibits are full of this
kind of stuff). I'm not always in the mood to interpret painting in the
light of such very alien symbolism.
> > The later stuff (Renaissance and later) is closer to us, but even here I
> > find that much of the paintings are technically not very good. An
> > interesting thing in itself ("Look, this guy cannot realistically paint
> > hands.") but not really satisfying.
>
> Interesting, you happen to criticise what many artists think of as the
> hardest thing of the human form to paint.
I agree that that was hardly a random pick, but I have also, for
example, seen a painter who liked to paint still lifes, but could not
paint a fish worth shit. It was quite amusing at the time (in the big
Art Historical museum in Vienna of which I have managed to forget the
name.
> Now, don't get me wrong, but everyone is entitled
> to have a preference and like what s/he likes, but making sweeping
> statements about "rubble" and "technically bad" when it isn't
> true, and still presenting it as the truth....well, that's just not
> kosher (imo).
I didn't mean to portray anything as THE TRVTH. For me, it's quite clear
that whenever people start talking about their appreciation of art,
opinions and personal preferences are the rule rather than the
exception.
I also don't like to imbed everything I write in "IMHO"s and "I think"s,
but that's more a matter of style.
> I think in general you are having trouble seeing art as a progression
> from one style to another. Artists react to what is going on around them
> and what came before them. To simply dismiss not merely a
> painting/statue, but an entire genre and/or period only illustrates (no
> pun intended) your lack of understanding of the works and the artists.
That's not what I was trying to say. Instead: I have seen enough of the
old masters, and am not particularly interested anymore. Instead, I am
much more fascinated by much modern art, despite claims that "this isn't
real art".
--
Frans Buijsen (frans dot buijsen at tip dot nl)
You, on the other hand, are obviously crazy. This is a scientific fact
that is instinctively and intuitively obvious to all peoples of all
races, creeds, and colors, and in all walks of life. Your opinions are
not relevant to the issues of your mental capacity, but rather are dead
horses which are *N*O*T* to be flogged.
(MC 900 ft Jesus, Tiptoe through the Inferno)
Steven Mix
Frans Buijsen wrote in message ...
>jasmine (jas...@sprint.ca) said:
>> On 4 Aug 1998 Frans Buijsen went:
>> > I'm kind of bored with most of the older art forms.
> I have seen enough of the
>old masters, and am not particularly interested anymore. Instead, I
am
>much more fascinated by much modern art, despite claims that "this
isn't
>real art".
Pollock, Rothko, DeKooning, are all fascinating. Like Picasso, they
all
emerged from representational imagery, and progressed by varying
degrees through different levels of abstraction to reach their final
form.
Sort of a history of art in its modern entirety, wrapped up in the
singular career
of each artist. And Pollock's career was indeed quite short. The
black-and-
white films of him working on those gigantuan canvases laid across his
warehouse studio floor, with that ubiquitous cigarette dropping ashes
into the
paint -- it's pure magic poetry just to watch him at work -- that
intensity in his
mind -- his knowing when he goofed, and how to roll with it, or write
it off as a
total loss and start anew, with another hugely inhuman blank white
surface.
And some of these guys suffered. Not just the ridicule (not as bad as
the early
Impressionists took it, though), but the poverty. I forget which one
it was, in the
New York school, maybe Pollock, who was so broke he could not buy
canvas,
and used the pillowcases off his own bed instead. That *Have to do
it*. Read
*The Horse's Mouth* by Joyce Cary, 1944. It's very funny. The movie
was ok.
Something changed in the 60's and later. The instant media. The
dealers
(though the Impressionists were up against the same hurdles there, not
able
to exhibit their early work). The
anything-goes-because-it's-all-art,-especially-
if-it-makes-me-money promoters' ethic. Warhol I think gave us a lot
of that one.
I just get really irritated with it, so I have not been to a MOMA in
years. The
open studios are ok, but it all just seems to follow the same mold. I
t tends
toward ugly, offensive, glaring, remnants of shock value in a time
when nothing
is shocking anymore. Modern sculpture is the worst of it.
Municipalities just
eat this stuff up, dropping big, cold obnoxious flat pieces of iron
painted some
hideous color scheme and covered with bird crap in the oddest little
corners
of unused public space, for which they pay many thousands of taxpayer
dollars.
Bart station art.
None of these artists suffer for their craft. Rather they seem to be
quite
comfortable, fully-recognized and compensated during their lifetimes,
even
in their very early years, well-fed by the dealers who whore their
work
around like it's worth the vast sums of cash that go flying around in
pursuit
of it. It just seems so damned...un-art.
But I overly rant. Time will sort it. It just seems so dead to me.
For going on
thirty, forty years now. Especially the two-dimensional mediums.
Christo was
a fresh breath for a while. And that Asian woman (Mai Lin?) who did
the
Vietnam Memorial Wall, and the MLK fountain. And she was fresh, just
a
kid really, when they chose her for the wall. Beautiful. Incredibly
moving
how it touches the veterans, day in and day out, so publicly, on such
an
intimate level. That's art, for the ages. After the veterans are
gone,
genealogists will be visiting that wall for centuries to come,
emotional
inspiration will never cease there.
Alas, after say, Wayne Thiebaud, (whom I like) ca. late '70's, I am
just
not taken by much of what I've seen. Maybe I just don't know it.
Likely.
Steve
[please disagree, and give me some good new flat, still, art]
Frans Buijsen
> Pollock, Rothko, DeKooning, are all fascinating. Like Picasso, they
> all
> emerged from representational imagery, and progressed by varying
> degrees through different levels of abstraction to reach their final
> form.
For some reason, DeKooning means nothing to me. Pollock is fascinating
in the weird kind of way much of modern art is for me: what you see is
just a random bunch of paint drips, but somehow it looks like all the
drips are there for a purpose. Really weird.
> I just get really irritated with it, so I have not been to a MOMA in
> years. The
One of my visits to New York was when I went with my architect brother
to see a Rem Koolhaas exhibition at MoMA (a flimsy excuse, but good
enough IMO).
That's one of the things that's great about MoMA: there's many things
going on simultaneously there.
However, at the time there was also a large exhibition about the life of
some painter who specialized in white paintings. Just that, various
types of canvas painted white, or left white. This was apparently quite
a big shot.
The most irritating about it was that the exhibitors, or the painter, I
don't know, didn't even bother to give any sort of justification for
this. Just rooms and rooms full of empty white canvases. I ran thru it
all at an amazing pace, interrupted when I broke into laughter when one
of the "paintings", also completely white, differed from all other by
being displayed horizontally instead of vertically.
> None of these artists suffer for their craft. Rather they seem to be
> quite
> comfortable, fully-recognized and compensated during their lifetimes,
> even
> in their very early years, well-fed by the dealers who whore their
> work
> around like it's worth the vast sums of cash that go flying around in
> pursuit
> of it. It just seems so damned...un-art.
I don't mind the artists making a good living, or even a bundle, but I
agree with you that the art world is thriving on hype and fake. From
what I see, much of the art produced is bought for tax deduction reasons
by people that can be most favourably described as "nouveau riche" and
as "the mob" at worst.
When people start worrying about the value of their investment,
something is not quite right.
> Christo was
> a fresh breath for a while. And that Asian woman (Mai Lin?) who did
> the
> Vietnam Memorial Wall, and the MLK fountain. And she was fresh, just
> a
> kid really, when they chose her for the wall. Beautiful. Incredibly
> moving
> how it touches the veterans, day in and day out, so publicly, on such
> an
> intimate level. That's art, for the ages. After the veterans are
> gone,
> genealogists will be visiting that wall for centuries to come,
> emotional
> inspiration will never cease there.
I was very impressed by the Vietnam Memorial Wall too.
Christo seems to be a very 20th century kind of guy, where most of his
art is actually media play. I once saw some very nice footage about
shrink wrapping Pacific Islands and running a 5-mile curtain thru the
hills though. Still, that kind of thing is best appreciated when seen on
TV.
Steven Mix
Frans Buijsen wrote in message ...
>> Pollock, Rothko, DeKooning, are all fascinating. Like Picasso, they
>> all
>> emerged from representational imagery, and progressed by varying
>> degrees through different levels of abstraction to reach their final
>> form.
>
>For some reason, DeKooning means nothing to me. Pollock is fascinating
>in the weird kind of way much of modern art is for me: what you see is
>just a random bunch of paint drips, but somehow it looks like all the
>drips are there for a purpose. Really weird.
Willem DeKooning (1904-?) abstracted the female form into really
hideous, glaring color and brush stroke schemes. He named them
"Woman" and showed graphic frontal nudity in pose, but with almost
unrecognizable heavy paint strokes. Invariably the women are smiling.
He used models from magazines for the smiles. Those smiles, and the
wide open eyes jump out from the paintings, which seem angry, intense,
in execution. But the smiles, it's disturbing to look at, because it goes
back and forth from pseudo-joy (the magazine model happy look) to
the contradiction in the painting style. It's not a pleasant experience to
study them, but they are gripping.
Pollock was not random. His swirls were carefully, if quickly, executed.
He had about 20 cans of different colors of paint around him and the
canvas, and he would walk all over the canvas and around it, swirling
the paint, not dripping or throwing it. It reminds me of watching Jimi
Hendrix play the Stratocaster, it's a dance, with the artist in complete
control of his motions and totally in step with the rhythm of the piece.
And everything was covered in paint in Pollocks huge canvases. Barely
any white space was left. The *empty* areas you see are lighter colors
laid down underneath darker ones. His color and structure balance is
amazing, especially on such a huge scale.
Mark Rothko impresses me just like Pollock, though their styles are
as different as night and day. Rothko used only 1 or 3 elements, though
still on a grand scale, a huge red rectangle, for instance, but all done
with controlled brush or roller strokes and soft edges, while maintaining
a single abstract perfectly balanced form. His work is gorgeous, and
instantly recognizable.
>
>> I just get really irritated with it, so I have not been to a MOMA in
>> years. The
>
>One of my visits to New York was when I went with my architect brother
>to see a Rem Koolhaas exhibition at MoMA (a flimsy excuse, but good
>enough IMO).
>That's one of the things that's great about MoMA: there's many things
>going on simultaneously there.
>However, at the time there was also a large exhibition about the life of
>some painter who specialized in white paintings. Just that, various
>types of canvas painted white, or left white. This was apparently quite
>a big shot.
>The most irritating about it was that the exhibitors, or the painter, I
>don't know, didn't even bother to give any sort of justification for
>this. Just rooms and rooms full of empty white canvases. I ran thru it
>all at an amazing pace, interrupted when I broke into laughter when one
>of the "paintings", also completely white, differed from all other by
>being displayed horizontally instead of vertically.
That's hilarious! I've seen too much of this too. What bothers me is
that it did not stop when the 1960's were over. Things mostly just
got ugly from there.
[snip]
>
>I don't mind the artists making a good living, or even a bundle, but I
>agree with you that the art world is thriving on hype and fake. From
>what I see, much of the art produced is bought for tax deduction reasons
>by people that can be most favourably described as "nouveau riche" and
>as "the mob" at worst.
>When people start worrying about the value of their investment,
>something is not quite right.
Very, very well said. Not that artists must starve, and only be recognized
as great after death like Van Gogh. I way overstated there. You said what
I wanted to.
[snip]
>
>I was very impressed by the Vietnam Memorial Wall too.
>Christo seems to be a very 20th century kind of guy, where most of his
>art is actually media play. I once saw some very nice footage about
>shrink wrapping Pacific Islands and running a 5-mile curtain thru the
>hills though. Still, that kind of thing is best appreciated when seen on
>TV.
Christo's Running Fence took years and dozens of people to
complete. At several points the project was in danger of being
abandoned because of the need to get permission from hundreds
of ranchers to erect the curtain across their lands. The big issue was
the cows being able to cross the pastures for grazing while this huge
white fence was in the way. Another unanticipated disaster that
nearly broke the whole continuity of the piece was high winds on
some bluffs nearly ripping the nylon fence apart. They finally got it up
for 2 weeks in 1976, running 24 1/2 miles over empty rolling hills. I
think they made a complete film of it. Too bad they did not have
Imax back then.
His Islands wrapped in Pink Tutus came later, but I don't think they
were as good, in concept or actual viewing experience.
Steve
jasmine
> jasmine (jas...@sprint.ca) said:
> > On 4 Aug 1998 Frans Buijsen went:
> It's not quite that absolute. When I said "I'm bored with the older art
> forms" I meant anything pre-20th century (!).
If that is what you meant, it sure wasn't what you typed. The paragraph
appeared as such:
> have visited it on each of the 3 times I was in NYC, but the other 2
> times the exhibit was much less interesting. Then again, I have failed
> to visit the Metropolitan Museum on each occasion: I'm kind of bored
> with most of the older art forms. Anything before the middle ages is
> mostly rubble dug up. Once you've seen 10 Venus/Athena/Zeus statues, you
> really have seen them all.
You went immediately from your boredness with "older art forms" to a
blanket statement on art produced pre-middle ages (and again, the years
vary with the person, but I think it is fairly safe to say that the MA
ended long before the 20th C.) I (and at least one or two others) took
it as a sweeping condemnation of anything before the 17th C.
(snip)
> I have experienced all this mostly thru visiting mmuseums throughout
> Europe and the USA (to a much smaller degree).
I'm interested to know which ones you've been to. I'm sure that some of
the works I have alluded to were in the galleries you visited.
> (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
What? It's not pronounced "Smith?" Please, don't insult me.
> These works, while sometimes quite good, don't evoke very much in me.
That's fine. There are movements out there that that don't turn my crank
either.
> The impressionists sometimes manage to impress (pun) me,
:)
(snippage)
> The facade is pretty, for sure, but how am I to judge its
> value if more than half of it is gone?
Granted. I guess I am (un)lucky to see the beauty in things regardless
of their current state. (and no, I am not a "the glass is half-full"
type of person.)
> This is my main problem in most of these archeological sites .
> The most impressive building from before them Renaissance I have seen is
> the Aya Sofia in Istanbul (particularly considering how much before the
> Renaissance it is).
Yes, it's lovely. I even named two of the fuzzy beasties after it
(Who'd have known that Sofia would turn out to be a Zeus?)
(snippage)
> I'm not always in the mood to interpret painting in the
> light of such very alien symbolism.
Forgive me, but if you have a guide, all you are doing is reading
someone else's viewpoints (right or wrong), not interpreting symbols
(it's laid out for you).
(snip)
> For me, it's quite clear
> that whenever people start talking about their appreciation of art,
> opinions and personal preferences are the rule rather than the
> exception.
The thing is, I didn't read what you wrote as someone who appreciates
anything artistic of the pre-17th C--just someone who slams it. As you
can tell, I don't appreciate it when someone, who has a cursory grasp of
a subject (be it art, medicine, economics, whatever), makes broad,
sweeping statements in a way that can be interpreted as THE TRVTH.
In a subjective area such as art or music appreciation, I think it is
important to pepper things with qualifying statements. Otherwise some
poor do-do out there who has never seen a statue by Praxeletes or
listened to acid rock (or whatever) will think that it isn't worth
worth experiencing.
jasmine
--
Those who hear not the music think the dancers mad.
Frans Buijsen
> If that is what you meant, it sure wasn't what you typed. The paragraph
> appeared as such:
>
>
> You went immediately from your boredness with "older art forms" to a
> blanket statement on art produced pre-middle ages (and again, the years
> vary with the person, but I think it is fairly safe to say that the MA
> ended long before the 20th C.) I (and at least one or two others) took
> it as a sweeping condemnation of anything before the 17th C.
OK, I see what you mean. I was trying to condense my opinions into too
few words there.
> > I have experienced all this mostly thru visiting mmuseums throughout
> > Europe and the USA (to a much smaller degree).
>
> I'm interested to know which ones you've been to. I'm sure that some of
> the works I have alluded to were in the galleries you visited.
Oof, I really don't remember them all. Make it most of the main museums
and archeological sites in Holland, Berlin, Vienna, Paris, Florence,
Rome, all of Umbria (Italy), Athens, the Pleiades Islands, Crete,
Turkey, New York, Washington.
You're probably right about my knowing several of the works you
mentioned. I was having some trouble identifying them by their English
names.
And again, I didn't mean to say they universally are bad. More that the
really good works are a minority, and even those have limited meaning
for me.
> > (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
>
> What? It's not pronounced "Smith?" Please, don't insult me.
It was a joke: I have yet to hear anyone whose native tongue isn't Dutch
pronounce it correctly.
> > I'm not always in the mood to interpret painting in the
> > light of such very alien symbolism.
>
> Forgive me, but if you have a guide, all you are doing is reading
> someone else's viewpoints (right or wrong), not interpreting symbols
> (it's laid out for you).
Yes, but I would not be able to interpret these symbols at all
otherwise, because they simply do not have the intended meaning for me.
Nor is it always obvious that they have a special meaning.
> In a subjective area such as art or music appreciation, I think it is
> important to pepper things with qualifying statements. Otherwise some
> poor do-do out there who has never seen a statue by Praxeletes or
> listened to acid rock (or whatever) will think that it isn't worth
> worth experiencing.
I have little hope for anyone who'd base their opinion on such matters
on some random set of Usenet posts.
--
Frans Buijsen
piranha
>On 11 Aug 1998 Frans Buijsen went:
>
>> (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
>
>What? It's not pronounced "Smith?" Please, don't insult me.
i'm not sure that was an insult. i haven't yet heard a
single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
you'd make me happy if you could. :-) and yes, i realize
it's hard for an english-speaing tongue to do so, neither
the 'v' nor the 'gh' sounds are native to english. but
it usually gets just pronounced as if he was english, and
i have a peeve about maintaining foreign names; they're
part of the identity of a person for me. probably unrea-
listic, i know.
-piranha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Lundquist
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
> i haven't yet heard a
> single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
> you'd make me happy if you could. :-) and yes, i realize
> it's hard for an english-speaing tongue to do so, neither
> the 'v' nor the 'gh' sounds are native to english.
I for one have never in my life heard 'Van Gogh' pronounced by
anyone but an English speaker, and I don't have much in the way of
pronunciation options until I have a model for the correct way
to say it. <shrug>
Not being one to take on unreasonable challenges, I remain,
--
Jill Lundquist ji...@cs.colorado.edu
"I mean, I LIKE flake-baggery and fruit-o-rama, but I like TOUGH-MINDED
flake-baggery and fruit-o-rama." -MWB
jasmine
> You're probably right about my knowing several of the works you
> mentioned. I was having some trouble identifying them by their English
> names.
I know, that can be a problem.
> And again, I didn't mean to say they universally are bad. More that the
> really good works are a minority,
It would be lovely to live in a world where the majority of works
produced were really good, but alas it doesn't happen that way. Besides
in a way it's the really poorly rendered/written/created pieces which
gives us the opportunity to enjoy the really well done ones (does that
make sense?).
> It was a joke: I have yet to hear anyone whose native tongue isn't Dutch
> pronounce it correctly.
Yeah, well, I'm told that my pronunciations can be fairly good--if I
only knew what I was saying :)
> > In a subjective area such as art or music appreciation, I think it is
> > important to pepper things with qualifying statements. Otherwise some
> > poor do-do out there who has never seen a statue by Praxeletes or
> > listened to acid rock (or whatever) will think that it isn't worth
> > worth experiencing.
>
> I have little hope for anyone who'd base their opinion on such matters
> on some random set of Usenet posts.
Notice my use of the term "do-do."
And it isn't solely usenet posts, it can also be television or overheard
conversations.
In my mind it's kind of like the Kit-Kat instructions thread--state the
obvious for the benefit of those who cannot figure out what should be
obvious or cannot make logical leaps (freshly made coffee/tea usually
equals hot coffee/tea (unless you are having it iced/cold)), much to the
annoyance of those people who have two brain cells to rub together.
Siobhan
suddenly said:
>In article <35D50605...@sprint.ca>, jasmine <jas...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>>On 11 Aug 1998 Frans Buijsen went:
>>
>>> (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
>>
>>What? It's not pronounced "Smith?" Please, don't insult me.
> i'm not sure that was an insult. i haven't yet heard a
> single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
> you'd make me happy if you could. :-) and yes, i realize
> it's hard for an english-speaing tongue to do so, neither
> the 'v' nor the 'gh' sounds are native to english. but
> it usually gets just pronounced as if he was english, and
> i have a peeve about maintaining foreign names; they're
> part of the identity of a person for me. probably unrea-
> listic, i know.
BC can sorta do it, thanks to a three-month business trip to
Amsterdam. Zie jokes that the proper pronounciation is Van
<cough>O<choke>.
You'd think after hearing various family members babble away in
Irish I'd be able to make some of those noises.
Siobhan
...Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.interlog.com/~siobhan} sio...@interlog.com
convergence IV site {http://www.interlog.com/~converg4}
Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.
Frans Buijsen
> In article <6r6t6s$4...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
> piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > i haven't yet heard a
> > single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
> > you'd make me happy if you could. :-) and yes, i realize
>
> anyone but an English speaker, and I don't have much in the way of
> pronunciation options until I have a model for the correct way
> to say it. <shrug>
OK, then. The "Van" is pronounced as written, but with the 'a' as in
"barn". The "Gogh" is pronounced differently: you got the "o" right, bit
both the 'g' and the 'gh' are pronounced with a harsh 'g' -- as if
you're clearing your throat (really!).
If you want to pretend to be from the south of The Netherlands, you may
move the sound from your throat to the back of your mouth.
BTW, some of these things can be really hard to pick up this way. I once
had a similar discussion (via email) over the pronunciation of my
name[1]. Later, I met some these people in real life:
They: "So how do you pronounce your name?"
Me: "buisen"
They: "Ah, so it is 'bough-son'?"
Me: "Yeah <sigh>."
[1] the [ui] vowel does not exist in English (it's like "oeil" in
French).
Richard Romero
<6r0538$7ok6$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>Frans Buijsen wrote in message ...
>>> On 4 Aug 1998 Frans Buijsen went:
>>> > I'm kind of bored with most of the older art forms.
>> I have seen enough of the
>>old masters, and am not particularly interested anymore. Instead, I
>am
>>much more fascinated by much modern art, despite claims that "this
>isn't
>>real art".
>
>
>all
>emerged from representational imagery, and progressed by varying
>degrees through different levels of abstraction to reach their final
>form.
I think there was an initial objective to the abstract school which is being
more or less lost as the artists wink from the world.
You may recall the mythical "beat" pad and the coffee houses where
philosophy and poetry was the draw and the coffee was sublime, especially in
America where the other, common coffee was more like dirty water instead of
the liquid heart of the bean. I wasn't aware then, but I recall its like
from my youth here in california where the coffee and conversation was
nurtured into us by the greybeards among beads with flowers and long hair.
There I first heard of Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstien, Husserl, Sartre, and all
the rest in a Jungian dream of lights and incense. I think there was
something born of those earlier beat conversations, where the then-young
artists dared all, picking up on the impressionist's cue, projecting the
idea into abstract purity of each of the visual elements in search of the
absolute form of each. Almost science. The lost meme was synthesis, I
suspect, but that sysnthesis begs for a catalyst. It is what is said by
white canvasses. It may have been what Christo was aiming for. The hyper
realism offered up as the synthesis by those who thought simply, sans
catalysis, was technically brilliant but empty, without progression, without
*life*. Red Herrings, like false prophets, happen. The world will produce
the catalyst eventually, though civilization crumples from the effort.
~Richard
--
When all the world has been and seen
These tokens of our mortal dream
http://home.att.net/~smokymountain/
Dr. Brat
>In article <35D50605...@sprint.ca>, jasmine <jas...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>>On 11 Aug 1998 Frans Buijsen went:
>>
>>> (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
>>
>>What? It's not pronounced "Smith?" Please, don't insult me.
I'm sure it's not an insult. And the proper response is "not without
getting my monitor all wet."
>
> i'm not sure that was an insult. i haven't yet heard a
> single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
> you'd make me happy if you could. :-) and yes, i realize
> it's hard for an english-speaing tongue to do so, neither
> the 'v' nor the 'gh' sounds are native to english. but
> it usually gets just pronounced as if he was english, and
> i have a peeve about maintaining foreign names; they're
> part of the identity of a person for me. probably unrea-
> listic, i know.
Not only unrealistic, but not confined to Americans and Canadians. Lots
of people don't pronounce names right and not just Van Gogh. It always
amuses me to hear the French or the Polish mangle perfectly good English
names. Then there's always the time I went to a conference in Prague to
find myself labeled as "Coughlanova." I didn't really mind, but I thought
it a bit ironic that they'd take a perfectly good Irish name and Czechize
it. Of course, at least the Czechs can pronounce it. The Poles never had
a prayer of getting it right. But I don't mind, because I'm sure the
Irish would scream at how I pronounce it.
In fact, I was at the doctor the other day and the nurse said "you spell
your name in? I spell mine an. And don't you hate it when people say
'cofflin'?" I looked at her oddly and she caught herself. "Oh, do you
pronounce it 'cofflin'? I say 'coglin'." Oh my, but I hated it when I
was a kid and people pronounced my name that way! But actually, both are
just variations on the original which is unpronouncable to most Americans.
Elizabeth (rambling again)
Eugenia
>In article <35D50605...@sprint.ca>, jasmine <jas...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>>On 11 Aug 1998 Frans Buijsen went:
>>
>>> (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
So, us poor culturally and linguistically inferior Americans can
either pronounce it according to the rules of the local language
(American English), or attempt and probably mangle the Dutch
pronounciation anyway.
Webster's dictionary gives both pronounciations as "correct".
>>What? It's not pronounced "Smith?" Please, don't insult me.
>
> i'm not sure that was an insult. i haven't yet heard a
> single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
> you'd make me happy if you could. :-) and yes, i realize
> it's hard for an english-speaing tongue to do so, neither
> the 'v' nor the 'gh' sounds are native to english. but
> it usually gets just pronounced as if he was english, and
> i have a peeve about maintaining foreign names; they're
> part of the identity of a person for me. probably unrea-
> listic, i know.
>
> -piranha
[Anybody else find this kind of funny in an ironic sort of way?]
If we're talking about dead guys, unless there's a recording
of Van Gogh introducing himself, it's just a guess anyway, and
mostly irrelevant in the written form because the reader without
the benefit of hearing the "proper pronounciation" gets to assign
a pronounciation to the name.
This is about the time I start calling him "Vincent, the painter
dude who cut off his ear..."
Robert Blackshaw
>
> In article <6r6t6s$4...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
> piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
> > you'd make me happy if you could. :-) and yes, i realize
> > it's hard for an english-speaing tongue to do so, neither
> > the 'v' nor the 'gh' sounds are native to english.
>
> anyone but an English speaker, and I don't have much in the way of
> pronunciation options until I have a model for the correct way
> to say it. <shrug>
>
>
with a hard V
Danke u velde
Bob
--
"Since when was genius found respectable?"
E. B. Browning
Robert Blackshaw
> >>On 11 Aug 1998 Frans Buijsen went:
> >>
> >>> (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
> >>
>
> getting my monitor all wet."
>
> >
> > single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
> > you'd make me happy if you could. :-) and yes, i realize
> > it's hard for an english-speaing tongue to do so, neither
> > it usually gets just pronounced as if he was english, and
> > i have a peeve about maintaining foreign names; they're
> > part of the identity of a person for me. probably unrea-
> > listic, i know.
>
> of people don't pronounce names right and not just Van Gogh. It always
> amuses me to hear the French or the Polish mangle perfectly good English
> names. Then there's always the time I went to a conference in Prague to
> find myself labeled as "Coughlanova." I didn't really mind, but I thought
> it a bit ironic that they'd take a perfectly good Irish name and Czechize
> it. Of course, at least the Czechs can pronounce it. The Poles never had
> a prayer of getting it right. But I don't mind, because I'm sure the
> Irish would scream at how I pronounce it.
>
> In fact, I was at the doctor the other day and the nurse said "you spell
> your name in? I spell mine an. And don't you hate it when people say
> 'cofflin'?" I looked at her oddly and she caught herself. "Oh, do you
> pronounce it 'cofflin'? I say 'coglin'." Oh my, but I hated it when I
> was a kid and people pronounced my name that way! But actually, both are
> just variations on the original which is unpronouncable to most Americans.
>
then there is Buchanan (can have fun with that) and Carnegie where
people genearlly put the emPHAsis on the wrong syLABle.
Victor Eijkhout
> >> (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
> i haven't yet heard a
> single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
Since the 'g(h)' sound is subject to wide regional variation
in the Netherlands there is a good chance that a native
Dutch speaker would mispronounce the name. FSVO 'mis'.
If you want to be really nitpicky ...
I have no idea why we're talking about van Gogh.
--
Victor Eijkhout
"The Navy began running shipboard applications under Microsoft Windows NT [..]
The ship had to be towed into the Naval base at Norfolk, Va., because
a database overflow caused its propulsion system to fail [...]" (GCN)
Heck
>> In fact, I was at the doctor the other day and the nurse said "you spell
>> your name in? I spell mine an. And don't you hate it when people say
>> 'cofflin'?" I looked at her oddly and she caught herself. "Oh, do you
>> pronounce it 'cofflin'? I say 'coglin'." Oh my, but I hated it when I
>> was a kid and people pronounced my name that way! But actually, both are
>> just variations on the original which is unpronouncable to most Americans.
ObWEBTV: mE toO DuDE!!!
My last name is Heck. It's a simple name. 4 letters. It is an
English word, although in reality the name dates back to The
Netherlands, and before that Germany. People bearing the name have
been in the US since the 1740's, since that is when my great-grandsire
got off the boat in Philadelphia.
Yet I get every variation on the name you can imagine. Hack. Neck.
Hock. Beck.
No, it's Heck. H-E-C-K.
And I've heard every joke that can be made about my name. Please,
spare me the humor.
ObWonderment: Beth is adopting my last name. She states she is sick
of being Le Duck. (ObFrenchCanadian: LeDuc)
- heck
Ted Gavin
1998 18:34:11 -0400, j...@comms2.calstate.edu (Heck) wrote:
>ObWEBTV: mE toO DuDE!!!
>
>My last name is Heck. It's a simple name. 4 letters. It is an
>English word, although in reality the name dates back to The
>Netherlands, and before that Germany. People bearing the name have
>been in the US since the 1740's, since that is when my great-grandsire
>got off the boat in Philadelphia.
>
>Yet I get every variation on the name you can imagine. Hack. Neck.
>Hock. Beck.
>
>No, it's Heck. H-E-C-K.
>
>And I've heard every joke that can be made about my name. Please,
>spare me the humor.
>
>ObWonderment: Beth is adopting my last name. She states she is sick
>of being Le Duck. (ObFrenchCanadian: LeDuc)
>
I had a friend whose middle initial was "S". Like in Harry S Truman.
Not short for anything, just the letter. The reason. Her mother's
maiden name was "Savage". It was to be her middle name. Her last
name is Czech for "turnip". Her first name is French for "Beloved".
They did *not* want a daughter named "Beloved Savage Turnip".
Ted, Throat-Warbler Mangrove, perhaps?
Ted Gavin
---------
Q:"So, in this case (the Clinton-Lewinsky matter) was there "Deep Throat"?"
A:"Tim, let's not go there..."
-An exchange between Tim Russert,Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, CNBC-98/08/16
Victor Eijkhout
> My last name is Heck. [...]
> the name dates back to The
> Netherlands, and before that Germany.
> ObWonderment: Beth is adopting my last name. She states she is sick
> of being Le Duck. (ObFrenchCanadian: LeDuc)
She could translate it to Den Hartog (Dutch) or Herzog (German).
Both of which would give you oodles of enjoyment in the pronunciation
department.
I occasionally translate my name. Oakwood. Three centuries ago
it was German anyway: Eichholz.
Andreas Tovornik
>>Dr. Brat wrote:
>>> In fact, I was at the doctor the other day and the nurse said "you spell
>>> your name in? I spell mine an. And don't you hate it when people say
>>> 'cofflin'?" I looked at her oddly and she caught herself. "Oh, do you
>>> pronounce it 'cofflin'? I say 'coglin'." Oh my, but I hated it when I
>>> was a kid and people pronounced my name that way! But actually, both are
>>> just variations on the original which is unpronouncable to most Americans.
>
> ObWEBTV: mE toO DuDE!!!
>
> English word, although in reality the name dates back to The
> Netherlands, and before that Germany. People bearing the name have
> been in the US since the 1740's, since that is when my great-grandsire
> got off the boat in Philadelphia.
>
> Yet I get every variation on the name you can imagine. Hack. Neck.
> Hock. Beck.
>
> No, it's Heck. H-E-C-K.
I've come to the point of not caring how my name gets
butchered a long time ago. If something is addressed
to someone at my place of residence with a surname
that differs from mine by even only one letter, it's
clearly not for me. I'm not reading someone else's
mail especially if it's junk mail...
How they pronounce it is entirely up to the pronouncers
if they get it different from the way I'm used to hearing
it. Ignorance is punishable only by playing dumb. Tele-
marketers frequently get me saying, "Sorry, wrong number..."
That's Fronkunsteen...
--
'dreas...tbtw#5 If you want something bad enough, you will get it.
VictoriaTaxi#15 When you get it, you may wonder why you wanted it.
It's not my fault! There are things, though, that you never wanted or
Sniggling since 1992 needed but they end up as very pleasant surprises.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>>Dr. Brat wrote:
>>> In fact, I was at the doctor the other day and the nurse said "you spell
>>> your name in? I spell mine an. And don't you hate it when people say
>>> 'cofflin'?" I looked at her oddly and she caught herself. "Oh, do you
>>> pronounce it 'cofflin'? I say 'coglin'." Oh my, but I hated it when I
>>> was a kid and people pronounced my name that way! But actually, both are
>>> just variations on the original which is unpronouncable to most Americans.
>ObWEBTV: mE toO DuDE!!!
>My last name is Heck. It's a simple name. 4 letters. It is an
>English word, although in reality the name dates back to The
>Netherlands, and before that Germany. People bearing the name have
>been in the US since the 1740's, since that is when my great-grandsire
>got off the boat in Philadelphia.
>Yet I get every variation on the name you can imagine. Hack. Neck.
>Hock. Beck.
>No, it's Heck. H-E-C-K.
>And I've heard every joke that can be made about my name. Please,
>spare me the humor.
>ObWonderment: Beth is adopting my last name. She states she is sick
>of being Le Duck. (ObFrenchCanadian: LeDuc)
Welcome to the club -- even with a seemingly prosaic last name like Humphrey,
it still surprises me at the number of people who can't spell it. (Even
worse, no one remembers the former Vice President who shared that name, so I
can't use that on the clueless.) Either the "e" gets dropped, or the "r" and
"e" switch places, or someone substitutes an "n" for the "m". I'm not
complaining too much, though -- Dale's happy to have to only put up with that
problem, after getting away from her maiden name: Coffaa. So far, the number
of variants I've seen of _that_ name are into the high three digits...
--PLH, wot's in a name, anyway?
Warren Cheney
>>Dr. Brat wrote:
[last name mangling]
>ObWEBTV: mE toO DuDE!!!
>
>My last name is Heck. It's a simple name. 4 letters. It is an
>English word, although in reality the name dates back to The
>Netherlands, and before that Germany. People bearing the name have
>been in the US since the 1740's, since that is when my great-grandsire
>got off the boat in Philadelphia.
>
>Yet I get every variation on the name you can imagine. Hack. Neck.
>Hock. Beck.
>
>No, it's Heck. H-E-C-K.
>
>And I've heard every joke that can be made about my name. Please,
>spare me the humor.
>
>ObWonderment: Beth is adopting my last name. She states she is sick
>of being Le Duck. (ObFrenchCanadian: LeDuc)
I'm assuming hyphenation was shot to hell rather rapidly.
(BTW, congratulations. Posting so soon?)
-----Warren (y'all _know_ what happens to my last name *cringe*)
Corinne (age 5): "Daddy, what do I say to a boy who says he's in love with me?
Melanie (age 9): "I'd tell him to get a life."
Warren Cheney Can't stand spam? http://www.cauce.org
Robert Blackshaw
>
> Heck (j...@comms2.calstate.edu) writes:
> >>Dr. Brat wrote:
> >>> In fact, I was at the doctor the other day and the nurse said "you spell
> >>> your name in? I spell mine an. And don't you hate it when people say
> >>> 'cofflin'?" I looked at her oddly and she caught herself. "Oh, do you
> >>> pronounce it 'cofflin'? I say 'coglin'." Oh my, but I hated it when I
> >>> was a kid and people pronounced my name that way! But actually, both are
> >>> just variations on the original which is unpronouncable to most Americans.
> >
> >
> > My last name is Heck. It's a simple name. 4 letters. It is an
> > English word, although in reality the name dates back to The
> > Netherlands, and before that Germany. People bearing the name have
> > been in the US since the 1740's, since that is when my great-grandsire
> > got off the boat in Philadelphia.
> >
> > Yet I get every variation on the name you can imagine. Hack. Neck.
> > Hock. Beck.
> >
> > No, it's Heck. H-E-C-K.
>
> butchered a long time ago. If something is addressed
> to someone at my place of residence with a surname
> that differs from mine by even only one letter, it's
> clearly not for me. I'm not reading someone else's
> mail especially if it's junk mail...
>
> How they pronounce it is entirely up to the pronouncers
> if they get it different from the way I'm used to hearing
> it. Ignorance is punishable only by playing dumb. Tele-
> marketers frequently get me saying, "Sorry, wrong number..."
>
> That's Fronkunsteen...
>
IMHO only one way to spell it (Chatnoir?) but I'm asked
every damn time.
Before we unlisted the telephone (Ah blissful dinner times)
it was hard to keep from breaking up when Florence would
suddenly develop a thick accent and claim that she was
only the maid and the family was in Europe. No don't
call back next week, they won't be home for months.
When I answered, naturally I was the veddie proper
butler. Same story.
Bezel
Ted Gavin <tedg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>They did *not* want a daughter named "Beloved Savage Turnip".
What utterly short-sighted people. I would *love* to be named
Beloved Savage Turnip.
--Bezel (I could be the Witful Turnip's
flighty and spoiled younger sister)
piranha
Victor Eijkhout <eijk...@prancer.cs.utk.edu> wrote:
>pir...@gooroos.com (piranha) writes:
[frans buijsen said this:]
>> >> (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
>
>> i haven't yet heard a
>> single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
>
>Since the 'g(h)' sound is subject to wide regional variation
>in the Netherlands there is a good chance that a native
>Dutch speaker would mispronounce the name. FSVO 'mis'.
i cheerfully accept approximations; pronunciation isn't
an exact science. but completely altering it is unkind
IMO. and i am being kind; mostly it seems so ignorant --
if i can learn 7 or 8 languages, surely the average per-
son can learn to pronounce the names of famous people of
foreign nationalities, just approximately? people who
_use_ the name, that is, i am not actually demanding that
everybody knows of van gogh.
from the rest of the thread it seems that they're not
doing a lot better with something as simple as "heck",
tho, so i am clearly expecting too much.
oh well, it's a peeve anyway, nothing more. (you can un-
knot your panties anytime, eugenia.)
spelling is a different story entirely. english badly
needs a spelling reform, but i won't hold my breath; i'm
watching what the germans do with theirs first anyway.
>If you want to be really nitpicky ...
absolutely. :-)
>I have no idea why we're talking about van Gogh.
cause frans and jasmine were having a conversation about art,
and jasmine thought he was insulting her by suggesting she
would probably not be able to pronounce "van gogh".
how have you been, anyway? long time no see.
Eugenia
>In article <om3eauq...@prancer.cs.utk.edu>,
>Victor Eijkhout <eijk...@prancer.cs.utk.edu> wrote:
>>pir...@gooroos.com (piranha) writes:
>[frans buijsen said this:]
>>> >> (can you say "Van Gogh"? No? I thought not.).
>>
>>> i haven't yet heard a
>>> single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
>>
>>Since the 'g(h)' sound is subject to wide regional variation
>>in the Netherlands there is a good chance that a native
>>Dutch speaker would mispronounce the name. FSVO 'mis'.
>
> i cheerfully accept approximations; pronunciation isn't
> an exact science. but completely altering it is unkind
> IMO. and i am being kind; mostly it seems so ignorant --
> if i can learn 7 or 8 languages, surely the average per-
> son can learn to pronounce the names of famous people of
> foreign nationalities, just approximately? people who
> _use_ the name, that is, i am not actually demanding that
> everybody knows of van gogh.
>
> from the rest of the thread it seems that they're not
> doing a lot better with something as simple as "heck",
> tho, so i am clearly expecting too much.
>
> oh well, it's a peeve anyway, nothing more. (you can un-
> knot your panties anytime, eugenia.)
Why? This is getting funnier all the time.
I don't know about this "van gogh" person, but I kind of recall
the identifier on my silly posts is "Eugenia", not "eugenia".
I learned to type using shift keys, should I consider people who
don't use one ignorant?
Heck
Cheney) wrote:
>On 18 Aug 1998 18:34:11 -0400, j...@comms2.calstate.edu (Heck) wrote:
>
>>>Dr. Brat wrote:
>
>[last name mangling]
>
>>of being Le Duck. (ObFrenchCanadian: LeDuc)
>
> I'm assuming hyphenation was shot to hell rather rapidly.
Leduc-Heck. Heck-Leduc. Bleah.
But our earthlink address is leheck. (Heck was taken)
> (BTW, congratulations. Posting so soon?)
We're doing things wierd (what else is new) - honeymoon is in late
September. We had too many things to do in the next couple of weeks
for us to be able to enjoy a honeymoon now. Besides, most of the
places we want to go are in the middle of a nice humid August - we
thought we'd hold off until the weather cooperated with us.
For those who don't pay attention to s.s.c - wedding was last
Saturday, the 15th. It worked out to be exactly what we wanted.
>-----Warren (y'all _know_ what happens to my last name *cringe*)
Well, yeah, there is that.
omphalo...@my-dejanews.com
be tolerated. i would ask you a question but i can't use question
marks. it's people like you that give the usenet a bad name. /grin/
--craig
the doctors x-rayed my head and found nothing.
-Dizzy Dean (1911-1974)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
omphalo...@my-dejanews.com
last names but all I could come up with was:
1. Check Duel
2. Cluck Heed
3. Duck Leech
4. Cud Heckle
Oh well, it was worth a try!;)
> Well, yeah, there is that.
>
--Craig
The doctors X-rayed my head and found nothing.
Jo Walton
ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "Lorre" writes:
> I've had approximately one person in 44 years want to pronouce my name
> Loray (in my presence,anyway), and I guess I have Peter Lorre to thank
> for it. To my thinking it's a rather strange spelling for the pronunciation.
Oh.
I've never met or heard of anyone with that name except Peter Lorre.
So tell me, how do you pronounce it?
"Lor"???
I have problems with people who cannot hear "Jo" - which is a very easy
name, only two letters. They repeat "Joan" or "Joy" or even "Jane". I
have to spell it more often than one would imagine. I never have
problems with my surname though, I've heard that there was some ancient
US TV program with people called Walton which made it well known. I
don't think I've ever had it misspelt on reservations or things ordered
on the phone or anything.
When Ken and I split several people asked me if I'd be going back to
my horrible former name. I don't think it took me 20 seconds to decide.
I mean if I liked it I'd have kept it in the first place.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
Robert Blackshaw
>
> In article <35DAD260...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "Lorre" writes:
>
> > I've had approximately one person in 44 years want to pronouce my name
> > Loray (in my presence,anyway), and I guess I have Peter Lorre to thank
> > for it. To my thinking it's a rather strange spelling for the pronunciation.
>
> Oh.
>
> I've never met or heard of anyone with that name except Peter Lorre.
>
> So tell me, how do you pronounce it?
>
> "Lor"???
>
> I have problems with people who cannot hear "Jo" - which is a very easy
> name, only two letters. They repeat "Joan" or "Joy" or even "Jane". I
> have to spell it more often than one would imagine. I never have
> problems with my surname though, I've heard that there was some ancient
> US TV program with people called Walton which made it well known. I
> don't think I've ever had it misspelt on reservations or things ordered
> on the phone or anything.
>
made reservations at the Lord Elgin. His surname is Stevens,
imagine his surprise upon being greeted as M. St. Evens.
Heck
( How Beth and I should combine our last names of Leduc and Heck)
>
> I was gonna suggest using an anagram made from both of your
> last names but all I could come up with was:
> 1. Check Duel
> 2. Cluck Heed
> 3. Duck Leech
> 4. Cud Heckle
> Oh well, it was worth a try!;)
Cudle Heck.
Missing a d, but I like it.
- heck ("Hi, I'm Mr Cudle Heck.")
Empress of Blandings
>On 18 Aug 1998 18:34:11 -0400, j...@comms2.calstate.edu (Heck) wrote:
>>ObWonderment: Beth is adopting my last name. She states she is sick
>>of being Le Duck. (ObFrenchCanadian: LeDuc)
> I'm assuming hyphenation was shot to hell rather rapidly.
Hey, you guys should've gone with "Heckleduc".
--
____
Piglet \bi/ Momentum! A paying market for metrical poetry.
pig...@piglet.org \/ http://www.piglet.org/momentum
Empress of Blandings
>I've had approximately one person in 44 years want to pronouce my name Loray (in
>my presence,anyway), and I guess I have Peter Lorre to thank for it. To my
>thinking it's a rather strange spelling for the pronunciation.
For the "Loray"? I thought he was "Lorr-ee". Or am I misunderstanding you?
>My sister's first name is Kedron. Pretty clear cut, I'd say, even if it's
>strange. Kedron is biblical, a valley and river bore the name, within Ahab's
>kingdom, also spelled Kidron. She got Kedgron, Kendrin and who knows what other
>hideous variations. When she was around 12 they called her "shoes" because her
>nickname was Ked or Keddie, and a popular sneaker brand at the time was Keds.
Hee. Seen _Wag the Dog_? "Good Ol' Shoe"
Michael Sullivan
> --Bezel (I could be the Witful Turnip's
> flighty and spoiled younger sister)
You'd just *like* that, wouldn't you.
Michael
Frans Buijsen
> j...@comms2.calstate.edu (Heck) writes:
> > ObWonderment: Beth is adopting my last name. She states she is sick
> > of being Le Duck. (ObFrenchCanadian: LeDuc)
>
> Both of which would give you oodles of enjoyment in the pronunciation
> department.
ObIAmNotMakingThisUp: the largest sex toys chain in The Netherlands is a
family business, founded by Mr. Hertog, and names after his wife
Christine: Christine Le Duc.
--
Frans Buijsen (frans dot buijsen at tip dot nl)
You, on the other hand, are obviously crazy. This is a scientific fact
that is instinctively and intuitively obvious to all peoples of all
races, creeds, and colors, and in all walks of life. Your opinions are
not relevant to the issues of your mental capacity, but rather are dead
horses which are *N*O*T* to be flogged.
(MC 900 ft Jesus, Tiptoe through the Inferno)
Warren Cheney
wrote:
>In article <35DAD260...@cnsvax.albany.edu>
> ls...@cnsvax.albany.edu "Lorre" writes:
>
>> I've had approximately one person in 44 years want to pronouce my name
>> Loray (in my presence,anyway), and I guess I have Peter Lorre to thank
>> for it. To my thinking it's a rather strange spelling for the pronunciation.
>
>Oh.
>
>I've never met or heard of anyone with that name except Peter Lorre.
>
>So tell me, how do you pronounce it?
"Fred."
*pause*
[begin flashback, cue harp music]
Oh, all right, it was late, it was a cool evening out on
John and Maria's porch during Wineboink and Kristen was power-
shooting mulled wine out her nostrils because of some correlation
between calculus and sex, I mean, what _else_ does calculus have
any relevance to besides sex(1), but anyways, *that's* what it sounded
like from a distance. Or was that the corks in my ear, he wondered,
thoughts falling much like the leaves that Sunday morning in the
back yard...
[sound of needle being ripped off record]
-----Warren ((1)or kamikaze squirrel trajectories)
Jo Walton
> Hee. Seen _Wag the Dog_? "Good Ol' Shoe"
One of the many things that impressed me about that film was that
the songs were plausible as songs - I _liked_ them.
gw...@my-dejanews.com
pir...@pobox.com wrote:
> i cheerfully accept approximations; pronunciation isn't
> an exact science. but completely altering it is unkind
> IMO. and i am being kind; mostly it seems so ignorant --
This feels unpleasantly like snobbery to me - I'm guilty of
it often enough myself, but I'm trying to wean myself off
it. Ignorance only becomes culpable if one could reasonably
expect knowledge, and I feel your expectations go beyond the
reasonable.
> if i can learn 7 or 8 languages, surely the average per-
It may be that you have more than the average level of talent
for that sort of thing. (In fact, if my dim recollection is
correct of having read somewhere that English is not your
first language, then you consistently demonstrate that talent.)
> son can learn to pronounce the names of famous people of
> foreign nationalities, just approximately? people who
> _use_ the name, that is, i am not actually demanding that
> everybody knows of van gogh.
Well if we're sticking to names we know, I can think offhand
of four perfectly reasonable ways to pronounce "piranha". I
don't see how I could be expected to know what pronunciation
is "correct".
And I don't really have a problem with a conventional
Anglicisation or Americanization of "Van Gogh", any more than
with conventional pronunciations of "Aeschylus" or "Cicero",
however inauthentic they may be.
> [.........]
> spelling is a different story entirely. english badly
> needs a spelling reform, but i won't hold my breath; i'm
I disagree, for all sorts of reasons, but I'm not sure this
is the time or the place to go into them.
(Of course, having deliberately chosen a name virtually no-one
will know how to pronounce, I probably don't have much cause
to butt in on this topic.)
gwyddwr
(that's "gweethe-oor")
Jo Walton
> gwyddwr
> (that's "gweethe-oor")
Gosh. What language is that? I'd assumed it was Welsh or OW and hence
"gwith-oor". Is it Cornish? Breton? Something entirely off the wall
that just looks like a p-Celtic language?
Allison Turner
> In article <6rh3b5$30g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gw...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> > gwyddwr
> > (that's "gweethe-oor")
>
> Gosh. What language is that? I'd assumed it was Welsh or OW and hence
> "gwith-oor". Is it Cornish? Breton? Something entirely off the wall
> that just looks like a p-Celtic language?
I thought it was Welsh "gwith-oor" too, but figured there were local
pronunciations that accounted for the difference. Isn't the "y" in some
words pronounced "ee" in some parts of Wales, but not others? Or do I
have that wrong?
-Allison
(No, I don't speak Welsh.
On the net, the only thing one can assume about others is that they're
'merkin nerds with pretentions to foreigness; one is right more often than
not...)
omphalo...@my-dejanews.com
gw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> gwyddwr
> (that's "gweethe-oor")
>
Thank you!!!! I've been tryin' to figure out how to pronounce
your name for months!!! Alright, now we're gettin' somewhere!
O.K. ... So how do you pronounce Trygve? (Sorry if I mis-spelled
the name, that's how I remember it though! :) ).
--Craig (Horrible with names, but I never forget a face!)
Click here to Join the Fight Against Spam!
http://www.cauce.org
Janet Kegg
> spelling is a different story entirely. english badly
> needs a spelling reform, but i won't hold my breath; i'm
> watching what the germans do with theirs first anyway.
What are the Germans doing anyway? Is there a Web site? :-)
It's way too late for a real spelling reform for English. Bill Bryson does
a good job of explaining why in his book :The Mother Tongue:. If we adopted
a phonetic spelling (and just whose pronunciation would be made the
standard anyway) for our language it would not be long before literature
printed in the old style would be near incomprehensible to casual readers.
And much meaning that we glean from the traditional spellings would be lost
to us.
A sample of reformed spelling from the :Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
English Language: --
Menshond abuv wos the revyzed orthografi kauld _Nue Speling (NS)_, wich wos
sed to be 'moderatli strikt' in uezing egzisting leters, combined with the
so-kauld dygrafik prinsipl, to repreezent the sounds of the langwej.
Inishali developt by the Sosyeti in 1910, the sistem is shoen in this
paragraf in its most reesent vershun as publisht in _New Spelling 90_"
Dhis paragraf and dhe nekst uez dhe preevyus vurshon ov NS, publisht in
1948. Dhis vershun iz much strikter in traking dhe soundz ov dhe langgwej,
and its ues ov 'dh' for dhe voist 'th' (az in 'then' in tradishonal
speling) iz a noetabl feetuer. [...]
'Fraid such doesn't appeal to me at all.
-- Janet
Lauren Holmes
wrote:
[Buncha fab stuff, but I'm responding to the Empurpled One. I don't
know where the original post is, and I'm about 700 posts behind.]
Re: pronouncing Van Gogh:
Poisson de Barnee says:
>> i'm not sure that was an insult. i haven't yet heard a
>> single american or canadian pronounce that name correctly.
>> you'd make me happy if you could. :-)
Well, I remember being astounded back in college when a Dutch friend
taught me how to pronounce it. I couldn't believe it was so different
from what I'd always thought. Bunch of spit-forming sounds, if you
ask me. Must be why nobody speaks Dutch but the Dutch.
--Hhhhhcccchhhhlauren
Shirley Hicks
Yeesh -- that took work. (Wubbawubbawubba)
If such a system came into use, I think we'd be contesting regional
variations in pronunciation and how that translates into the assigned
values of the letters pretty quickly. Classic Canuck handles just a few
those words differently, let alone classic Newf, of classic Aussie.
I can see parallels between latin as a unifying language of the Roman
Empire and it's ultimate evolution into the romance languages, italian,
french and spanish.
Shirley
--
"I *have* indulged in those delectable bits of heaven that Bev has
prepared and feel no compunction in announcing - "Bev Roolz"."
-- Ocean Gypsy
Jo Walton
beto...@sover.net "Allison Turner" writes:
> I thought it was Welsh "gwith-oor" too, but figured there were local
> pronunciations that accounted for the difference. Isn't the "y" in some
> words pronounced "ee" in some parts of Wales, but not others? Or do I
> have that wrong?
No. "y" is usually "uh" in Welsh (as the u in fun) but sometimes a short
"i" (as in "in") but never "ee". "I" is "ee", and "u" can be if it's at
the end of a word. I've never come across a regional variation of that,
I suppose it's possible, but it would be a bit odd.
> (No, I don't speak Welsh.
Well I don't either, not to speak it, but I don't have any problem
pronouncing placenames. I sometimes have trouble articulating the
rules because I "just know".
In Walesboink Shirley was doing really well with placenames until
we went past Ystradgynlais. :]
> On the net, the only thing one can assume about others is that they're
> 'merkin nerds with pretentions to foreigness; one is right more often than
> not...)
I think the tea-towels of twenty simple Welsh words sell mostly to that
market.
theurgy
>In article <6rejib$j...@excalibur.gooroos.com> piranha wrote:
>
>> spelling is a different story entirely. english badly
>> needs a spelling reform, but i won't hold my breath; i'm
>> watching what the germans do with theirs first anyway.
>What are the Germans doing anyway? Is there a Web site? :-)
Ach, such a qwestion!
The Germans disappoint greatly. First they went through a great deal of
Teutonic analysis and soul-searching. None was to be found, in keeping
with the postwar spirit. Then the bureaucrats, abetted by assorted
"experts" came up with a list of "improvements" and "revisions", which had
to pass muster. Slowly resistance developed, because in addition to some
much-needed cleaning up of oddities, new spelling arose that were
etymologically absurd. The rules for compound nouns and verbs were
revised, introducing lots of new ambiguities. Then the literary
heavyweights entered the fray, claiming personal pain at seeing the mother
language thus abused. Much wailing and public gnashing of teeth abounded.
Some school districts started adopting the new orthography, others
didn't. A lawsuit was brought, questioning the authority of the anointed
board to recommend and the state to implement said "reforms". In due time
the supreme court decided that the state and the appointed boards do have
that authority.
On the whole I'd say that the present reform is a failure: it's too
radical to gain the support of the traditionalists and too conservative to
accomplish much improvement or simplification. It is, in short, a reform
designed by a committee; of anal retentives at that.
Felicitations,
M. they should just adopt English. Basta.
theurgy
>A sample of reformed spelling from the :Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
>English Language: --
>Menshond abuv wos the revyzed orthografi kauld _Nue Speling (NS)_, wich wos
>sed to be 'moderatli strikt' in uezing egzisting leters, combined with the
>so-kauld dygrafik prinsipl, to repreezent the sounds of the langwej.
>Inishali developt by the Sosyeti in 1910, the sistem is shoen in this
>paragraf in its most reesent vershun as publisht in _New Spelling 90_"
>Dhis paragraf and dhe nekst uez dhe preevyus vurshon ov NS, publisht in
>1948. Dhis vershun iz much strikter in traking dhe soundz ov dhe langgwej,
>and its ues ov 'dh' for dhe voist 'th' (az in 'then' in tradishonal
>speling) iz a noetabl feetuer. [...]
>'Fraid such doesn't appeal to me at all.
Isn't it amazing how attached we become to what is long familiar to us?
There is, of course, no standard other than our preference to judge what
is appealing or not in the way we spell our language. Objectively the
above paragraphs are clearly a better phonetic spelling of the sounds in
spoken english, yet most people are aghast to see such, and consider any
attempt to seriously change spelling to match sounds as demented.
Yet consider lieutenant, pterodactyl, and ghoti.
Felicitations,
M. pronounced "VEEblefetzer"
gw...@my-dejanews.com
J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <6rh3b5$30g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gw...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> > (that's "gweethe-oor")
>
> "gwith-oor". Is it Cornish? Breton? Something entirely off the wall
> that just looks like a p-Celtic language?
I knew this was going to cause problems; we're back to
the question of acceptable approximations. It is Welsh,
and I think we probably pronounce it quite similarly; I
was trying to convey the quality of the vowel and the
fact that the 'dd' is a voiced fricative, and let the
length of the vowel worry about itself.
(Actually, if my understanding is correct - which is far
from guaranteed - the exact length of the vowel is a
matter of debate, anyway. Depending on who you read,
it's short, long, or "medium". But I suspect you know a
lot more about this than me; my marks on the Welsh paper
in finals were very mediocre, and it was all a long time
ago...)
gwyddwr
(If ASCII had an 'eth', I'd have been holtmathr)
Andreas Tovornik
> In article <6rejib$j...@excalibur.gooroos.com> piranha wrote:
>
>
>> spelling is a different story entirely. english badly
>> needs a spelling reform, but i won't hold my breath; i'm
>> watching what the germans do with theirs first anyway.
>
> What are the Germans doing anyway? Is there a Web site? :-)
>
> a good job of explaining why in his book :The Mother Tongue:. If we adopted
> a phonetic spelling (and just whose pronunciation would be made the
> standard anyway) for our language it would not be long before literature
> printed in the old style would be near incomprehensible to casual readers.
> And much meaning that we glean from the traditional spellings would be lost
> to us.
>
> English Language: --
[Sample snipped]
I recall reading an article several years ago about a reformed
alphabet called _unifon_ where each of the forty letters of the
alphabet corresponds to its own sound. Using such a system, all
you need to do is spell phonetically. Of course the sound of a
short "e" differs from New Zealand to Newfoundland, but I think
it could work given a generation. You'd get rid of a lot of
ambiguity that way, and names like "Cholmondely" would cease
to confound those who have never watched Tennessee Tuxedo...
--
'dreas...tbtw#5 If you want something bad enough, you will get it.
VictoriaTaxi#15 When you get it, you may wonder why you wanted it.
It's not my fault! There are things, though, that you never wanted or
Sniggling since 1992 needed but they end up as very pleasant surprises.
gw...@my-dejanews.com
J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk wrote:
> No. "y" is usually "uh" in Welsh (as the u in fun) but sometimes a short
> "i" (as in "in") but never "ee".
My head is beginning to hurt. I only ever actually studied
medieval Welsh (in fact, "gwyddwr" was just my attempt at
modernising something I'd originally seen as "g6idwr"), and
I'd been blithely assuming the vowel quantities I'd learned
for that had been retained.
I'm stunned. When did they change? I mean, how do you
pronounce "dyn"? Or "ty"?
gwyddwr
Jo Walton
> In article <903682...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
> J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > No. "y" is usually "uh" in Welsh (as the u in fun) but sometimes a short
> > "i" (as in "in") but never "ee".
>
> My head is beginning to hurt. I only ever actually studied
> medieval Welsh (in fact, "gwyddwr" was just my attempt at
> modernising something I'd originally seen as "g6idwr"), and
> I'd been blithely assuming the vowel quantities I'd learned
> for that had been retained.
>
> I'm stunned. When did they change? I mean, how do you
> pronounce "dyn"? Or "ty"?
Dyn and Ty have little hats over the vowel ^ to indicate that it is
loooong and thus indeed "ee". That's a different letter to me, sorry,
you're right, and one can't do little hats in ascii.
(Circumflexes is a lovely word but in Welsh they're called little
hats, het fach, which is also fun. :)
I was assuming it came from "gwydd", meaning "presence" and was
thus rather clever, but now I come to look in the dictionary
before I make a fool of myself I see that there is indeed a word
"gwy^dd" (gweeth) meaning a loom or plough (sometimes I think
this Welsh dictionary hates me. Loom or plough? Get a grip and make
your mind up already, language!) There's also "gw^ydd", meaning "a
goose" - or it could be a participle from gwybod, meaning something
like "knowing". This is fun. There's also a literary word for trees
(that's used in the expression about not seeing the wood for them
but not in conversation) that's something along those lines, but this
useless dictionary doesn't have it.
So, a goose, a loom, a plough, presence or knowing one, Gwyddwr?
(That sounds like the first line of a damnably gnomic poem,
especially as in Welsh, which delights in gnomic poetry, it would be
"Gw^ydd, gwy^dd, gwy^dd, gwydd, gwyddwr, Gwyddwr". That's like a
tongue twister.)
ElissaAnn
[on the origin of Gwyddwr's name]
>I was assuming it came from "gwydd", meaning "presence" and was
>thus rather clever, but now I come to look in the dictionary
>before I make a fool of myself I see that there is indeed a word
>"gwy^dd" (gweeth) meaning a loom or plough (sometimes I think
>this Welsh dictionary hates me. Loom or plough? Get a grip and make
>your mind up already, language!)
In English, the word for loom comes from an old English word meaning "tool."
Maybe it's the same for Welsh, and then the meaning of tool broadened to mean
specific tools, but loom and plough didn't get their own words. Or am I
stretching this too far?
There's also "gw^ydd", meaning "a
>goose" - or it could be a participle from gwybod, meaning something
>like "knowing". This is fun. There's also a literary word for trees
>(that's used in the expression about not seeing the wood for them
>but not in conversation) that's something along those lines, but this
>useless dictionary doesn't have it.
Wise geese loom and plough in the woods.
>"Gw^ydd, gwy^dd, gwy^dd, gwydd, gwyddwr, Gwyddwr".
That's easy for you so say...
Elissa
--
"Sacred and Profane" (debut CD by The Salomone Trio)
will be in the record stores September 1!
http://members.aol.com/salomone3/cd.html
The Witful Turnip
>In article <35dc092f....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Ted Gavin <tedg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>They did *not* want a daughter named "Beloved Savage Turnip".
>
>What utterly short-sighted people. I would *love* to be named
>Beloved Savage Turnip.
>
> --Bezel (I could be the Witful Turnip's
> flighty and spoiled younger sister)
Seester !
Bev "wondering what the folks were named....."
*************************************************************************
Bev <be...@interlog.com>
"Why focus on a lifetime when I don't know how long I've got?
All I know I have is this moment, right here." - Piglet
Fight spam email, join http://www.cauce.org/
*************************************************************************
gw...@my-dejanews.com
J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk wrote:
> I was assuming it came from "gwydd", meaning "presence" and was
> thus rather clever,
I'm rather taken with the idea of being present as myself, but
that wasn't what I originally had in mind.
> but now I come to look in the dictionary
> before I make a fool of myself I see that there is indeed a word
> "gwy^dd" (gweeth) meaning a loom or plough (sometimes I think
> this Welsh dictionary hates me. Loom or plough? Get a grip and make
> your mind up already, language!) There's also "gw^ydd", meaning "a
> goose" - or it could be a participle from gwybod, meaning something
> like "knowing". This is fun. There's also a literary word for trees
> (that's used in the expression about not seeing the wood for them
> but not in conversation) that's something along those lines, but this
> useless dictionary doesn't have it.
>
> So, a goose, a loom, a plough, presence or knowing one, Gwyddwr?
Actually, you haven't exhausted the possibilities yet.
According to the GPC:
gw^ydd (1) n. presence
gw^ydd (2) n. goose; (fig. simpleton)
tailor's iron
part of a scythe
gw^ydd (3) a. wild, uncultivated
gw^ydd (4) n. grave, burial mound
gwy^dd (1) n. trees, wood, timber
plough-frame
loom
gwy^dd (2) n. (variant of gwe"ydd, female weaver (also weaver of words))
gwy^dd (3)
or gw^ydd (5) n. knowledge, science
gwy^dd (4) n. (variant of gwedd, face)
Oddly enough, although I knew it was ambiguous, it didn't
occur to me that anyone would take it as anything other than
gwy^dd (1) (like in gwyddbwyll).
gwyddwr
(Silvester? Woody?)
Bezel
The Witful Turnip <be...@interlog.com> wrote:
>In article <6reiac$4dt$1...@katie.vnet.net>, be...@vnet.net (Bezel) wrote:
>>In article <35dc092f....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Ted Gavin <tedg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>They did *not* want a daughter named "Beloved Savage Turnip".
>>
>>What utterly short-sighted people. I would *love* to be named
>>Beloved Savage Turnip.
>>
>> --Bezel (I could be the Witful Turnip's
>> flighty and spoiled younger sister)
>
>Seester !
>
>Bev "wondering what the folks were named....."
Our father was Perspicacious Aesthetic Turnip, mountaineer, physicist,
and renowned the world over for the beauty of his embroidery, and our
mother was Ardent Ingenious Turnip (nee Headstrong), prominent
neonatologist and the person to whom the leaders of nations turned in
times of crisis for calm, sensible advice.
--Bezel (or at least that's the way
I remember it)
Lara
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[of last & first names]
>When Ken and I split several people asked me if I'd be going back to
>my horrible former name. I don't think it took me 20 seconds to decide.
>I mean if I liked it I'd have kept it in the first place.
see, i can't imagine being called anything other than Lara Gose. should i
ever marry, i don't see anything that would compel me to change my last
name to be the same as my spouse's, and i'm not even certain that
hyphenating it would be appealing. heaven forbid, but what if i got
hitched to someone whose last name is even more problematic in the realm
of spelling and punctuation than my own? 'Gose' hardly trips off the
tongue, and adding something to it would surely only make people stammer
over my name even more than usual.
--
*Lara Gose* Comparative Literature*Indiana University* My views, not IU's.*
"You have a death wish, Bill. I have one, too, but
it's directed at other people."
-- Lucia, _The Opposite of Sex_
jasmine
> should i
> ever marry, i don't see anything that would compel me to change my last
> name to be the same as my spouse's, and i'm not even certain that
> hyphenating it would be appealing. heaven forbid, but what if i got
> hitched to someone whose last name is even more problematic in the realm
> of spelling and punctuation than my own?
I have often mused about marrying someone with a longer/more
difficult-to-pronounce-family-name than my own...and then hyphenate the
two. Most of my friends think I have some sort of weird sadistic streak
in me because of it. Perhaps I will find someone with no vowels in his
last name (making up for the over-abundance of vowels in mine)....
jasmine
Bezel
Lara <lg...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <903550...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
>Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[of last & first names]
>
>>When Ken and I split several people asked me if I'd be going back to
>>my horrible former name. I don't think it took me 20 seconds to decide.
>>I mean if I liked it I'd have kept it in the first place.
>
>name to be the same as my spouse's, and i'm not even certain that
>hyphenating it would be appealing. heaven forbid, but what if i got
>hitched to someone whose last name is even more problematic in the realm
>tongue, and adding something to it would surely only make people stammer
>over my name even more than usual.
TDG's last name is just like mine; short, pronouncable, and commonly
mis-spelled by one letter. No major usability tradeoff to consider.
It *is* weird considering having a different last name, but I do like
the idea of sharing a last name with a spouse, and it's (unfortunately)
a lot easier for me to change mine. Also, my last name has only been
in the family since our Ellis Island landing a couple of generations,
whereas TDG can trace his family back quite a ways. Not to mention the
fact that if he changed his last name to mine, the result would be
- er - ethnically improbable (for those reading this who don't know my
name or his, imagine something like 'Billy Ray Goldstein').
I think it's more of an issue if one plans to have kids, because then
there are these other people who have to be named *something*. I don't
really want us to be Mr. Jones, Ms. Smith, and the little Joneses, I
abhor hyphenation, naming half of the kids one thing and half another thing
seems unnecessarily complicated, and so on. If we never do have kids it'll
be less of an issue, but I don't know for sure right now if we will or
not and by the time I'm sure I'm having one it'll (surely, knock on
wood, s.s.m. engagement/pregnancy curses aside) be too late to conveniently
make the change.
--Bezel (knock knock knock)