linguistics versus philology
Ezra Quincy
I recently found two definitions in the New Shorter Oxford that leave me
wondering what difference there may be in the connotations of the words
'linguistics' and 'philology':
# philology n.
# 2 _spec_. The branch of knowledge that deals with the
# structure, historical development, and relationships of a
# language or languages. L17.
# linguistics n.
# The branch of knowledge that deals with language.
They seem to me to be two ways of saying the same thing, with one more
wordy than the other. Would anyone care to comment?
Don Phillipson
news:gbj3ou07ikkam0fql...@4ax.com...
>
> I recently found two definitions in the New Shorter Oxford that leave me
> wondering what difference there may be in the connotations of the words
> 'linguistics' and 'philology':
>
> # philology n.
> # 2 _spec_. The branch of knowledge that deals with the
> # structure, historical development, and relationships of a
> # language or languages. L17.
>
> # linguistics n.
> # The branch of knowledge that deals with language.
Most academic practitioners 100-200 years ago
called their discipline philology. Most academic
practitioners in the last 50 years (and very nearly
all today) call their discipline linguistics. The
factual content and the methods of the discipline
have changed in the last 200 years.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
dphil...@trytel.com.com.com.less2
Gary Vellenzer
ezraq...@earthlink.net says...
"linguistics".
Gary
Bob Cunningham
But the composition of the words suggests the converse. "Linguistics"
clearly implies only a relationship with language, while "philology"
implies a love of a wide range of knowledge.
From _Webster's Third New International Dictionary_:
philology
1 : study of literature that includes or may include
grammar, criticism, literary history, language history,
systems of writing, and anything else that is relevant to
literature or to language as used in literature :
literary or classical learning
Peter T. Daniels
In the late 20th century the difference could be encapsulated thusly:
Linguistics is the study of language, philology is the study of texts.
Philology is considerably broader; modern linguistics was initially a
development of "comparative philology." I just happen to have gotten
Strevens's little collection of Inaugural Lectures of British professors
in the field, five of them from 1957 to 1962; the first, by W. Sidney
Allen, whose title was Professor of Comparative Philology but who was
actually the first Professor of Linguistics in Britain, discusses the
differences.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Gary Vellenzer
exw...@earthlink.net says...
Origin is irrelevant to meaning. Only usage determines meaning.
When a word is coined, it's a good idea to make the origin conform to
the intended meaning. But both these words have been in use for over 200
years, and their meaning has changed vastly during that time.
Gary
The Lincolnshire Poacher
>> I suppose that "philology" may be being defined as a subset or branch of
>> "linguistics".
>
>But the composition of the words suggests the converse. "Linguistics"
>clearly implies only a relationship with language, while "philology"
>implies a love of a wide range of knowledge.
>
>From _Webster's Third New International Dictionary_:
>
> philology
> 1 : study of literature that includes or may include
> grammar, criticism, literary history, language history,
> systems of writing, and anything else that is relevant to
> literature or to language as used in literature :
> literary or classical learning
>
I believe this definition is one of the best I have read of philology.
Philology was the study of language in the broadest sense. Linguistics
as we know it today is more scientific. Furthermore, linguistics
focuses on the "synchronic" aspects of language, i.e. the structure
and function of language, rather than the "diachronic" which deals
more with the history of the use of the language. I'm not really doing
service to those terms with my definitions, but I think that is the
general idea.
Bertilo Wennergren
> In the late 20th century the difference could be encapsulated thusly:
> Linguistics is the study of language, philology is the study of texts.
> Philology is considerably broader;
Then you must mean that philology nowadays (in the 21st century...) also
deals with the spoken language, not just with texts. Otherwise philology
would seem to be considerably narrower than linguistics (that deals with
both spoken and written language, as well as signed).
--
Bertilo Wennergren <bert...@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Jouni Filip Maho
>
[snip]
>
If you can, try to locate the following article:
Margaret E. Winters & Geoffrey S. Nathan. 1982. "First
he called her a philologist and then she insulted him." IN: The
joy of grammar: a festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley,
pp 351-365. Edited by Diane Brentari, Gary N. Larson &
Lynn A. Macleod. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Highly amusing, and illuminating.
---
Jouni Maho
Per C. Jorgensen
news:alsr6q$lv0$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > Philology is considerably broader;
>
> Then you must mean that philology nowadays (in the 21st century...) also
> deals with the spoken language, not just with texts. Otherwise philology
> would seem to be considerably narrower than linguistics (that deals with
> both spoken and written language, as well as signed).
My understanding from usage is that philology is a broader field because it
draws upon extra-linguistic disciplines and dimensions, such as literature,
history, etc. Simplistically speaking, linguistics as a modern subject is
a project to establish a science of language, while philology retains
the "fuzziness" :-) of the humanities
This is at least my understanding of linguistics versus philology, as well
as lingvistikk versus filologi in my native Norwegian.
Yours,
Per
Peter T. Daniels
I mean that it's the philologists who do things like establish the texts
of inscriptions and documents, compile the reference materials, and so
on (which is not in the linguist's brief), and then get down to the fun
part of the business, which is extrapolating from the always-limited
textual evidence to the reconstruction of the social, cultural,
religious, and intellectual life of the earlier literate societies.
mike
news:MPG.17ebb4017...@news.easynews.com:
this must be a "linguistics" rule. it's not relevent to philological
research is it?
>
> When a word is coined, it's a good idea to make the origin conform to
> the intended meaning. But both these words have been in use for over
> 200 years, and their meaning has changed vastly during that time.
so, a word is a word, but it shouldn't be a word when no one thinks it's a
word anymore. but, who is making the rules? the deal is is that
"linguistics" hasn't done anything for the study of language as a human
activity... though it doesn't need to, limited to studying sound patterns
as it does, and disaffected from the broader culture... except for what the
better researchers bring with them into the discipline. but there has to be
a general study which integrates human activity with human speech...
something which goes beyond the simplistic notion of a "speech organ" in
the brain. as long as we have the concept 'meaning', we're going to need a
guide to meaning.
>
> Gary
>
mike
news:imq3ouoqateoijb9k...@4ax.com:
linguistics invents grammar, but grammar is not language... it's speaking
and writing.
mike
news:3D820E...@att.net:
lingustics is to language as auto-engineering is to transportation:
lingustics is almost a science and will allow a rigourous approach to
talking about speech and reading, when it determines what speech and
writing consists of. linguistics is the art of the grammar. grammar is a
way of looking at how language appears to us as speech and writing. the
content of linguistics is the generalization. this shows that linguistics
is a subset of traditional logic.
mike
news:alsugt$qun$1...@readme.uio.no:
hey! how could history and literature be extra-lingustic, since they are
creations within language, and linguistics deals with more general
patterns of presentation?
philology is the study of language. to say that it isn't is like saying
that sociology has replaced history as a description of human activity.
the "logos" in philology is the word-way, the path which allows
association. linguistics is just an attempt to coordinate traditional
grammar with articulation.
Gary Vellenzer
orang...@aol.com says...
do you still use the word "silly" to mean "blessed"?
> >
> > When a word is coined, it's a good idea to make the origin conform to
> > the intended meaning. But both these words have been in use for over
> > 200 years, and their meaning has changed vastly during that time.
>
> so, a word is a word, but it shouldn't be a word when no one thinks it's a
> word anymore. but, who is making the rules? the deal is is that
> "linguistics" hasn't done anything for the study of language as a human
> activity... though it doesn't need to, limited to studying sound patterns
> as it does, and disaffected from the broader culture... except for what the
> better researchers bring with them into the discipline. but there has to be
> a general study which integrates human activity with human speech...
> something which goes beyond the simplistic notion of a "speech organ" in
> the brain. as long as we have the concept 'meaning', we're going to need a
> guide to meaning.
>
I can't follow this at all.
Gary
Bob Cunningham
said:
> Ezra Quincy wrote:
> > I recently found two definitions in the New Shorter Oxford that leave me
> > wondering what difference there may be in the connotations of the words
> > 'linguistics' and 'philology':
> > # philology n.
> > # 2 _spec_. The branch of knowledge that deals with the
> > # structure, historical development, and relationships of a
> > # language or languages. L17.
> > # linguistics n.
> > # The branch of knowledge that deals with language.
> > They seem to me to be two ways of saying the same thing, with one more
> > wordy than the other. Would anyone care to comment?
> In the late 20th century the difference could be encapsulated thusly:
> Linguistics is the study of language, philology is the study of texts.
The definitions Ezra quoted were from a dictionary that was published in
the late 20th Century (1993 to be exact).
Your encapsulated assertions seem to do too much encapsulating, with the
risk of leaving an innocent reader unaware of the relationship between
philology and linguistics in the late 20th Century.
But the following is somewhat better:
> Philology is considerably broader; modern linguistics was initially a
> development of "comparative philology." I just happen to have gotten
> Strevens's little collection of Inaugural Lectures of British professors
> in the field, five of them from 1957 to 1962; the first, by W. Sidney
> Allen, whose title was Professor of Comparative Philology but who was
> actually the first Professor of Linguistics in Britain, discusses the
> differences.
I'm not sure what that last paragraph is supposed to be telling us,
though. It seems rather unhelpful to say you have a set of lectures but
then not tell us anything about what they said.
If you meant to imply that your encapsulations and/or your assertion that
'modern linguistics was initially a development of "comparative
philology"', are from Allen's lecture, you didn't make that sufficiently
clear. Making an assertion and then saying you have some lectures isn't
at all the same as saying that your assertion is based upon the lectures.
With your arrangement of thoughts, the statement about the lectures is a
non sequitur.
There are good guides to English usage that might help you avoid such
disorganized exposition. You can find references to some of them in an
extended version of Mark Israel's alt.usage.english FAQ at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/aue_related/full_faq_with_int_links.html>.
mike
no, i'm thinking that usage is determined after the fact. that the usage is
part of the meaning.
>
>> >
>> > When a word is coined, it's a good idea to make the origin conform
>> > to the intended meaning. But both these words have been in use for
>> > over 200 years, and their meaning has changed vastly during that
>> > time.
>>
>> so, a word is a word, but it shouldn't be a word when no one thinks
>> it's a word anymore. but, who is making the rules? the deal is is that
>> "linguistics" hasn't done anything for the study of language as a
>> human activity... though it doesn't need to, limited to studying sound
>> patterns as it does, and disaffected from the broader culture...
>> except for what the better researchers bring with them into the
>> discipline. but there has to be a general study which integrates human
>> activity with human speech... something which goes beyond the
>> simplistic notion of a "speech organ" in the brain. as long as we have
>> the concept 'meaning', we're going to need a guide to meaning.
>>
> I can't follow this at all.
guides available at park headquarters.
>
> Gary
>
Bob Cunningham
said:
But the definitions that Ezra quoted were from a dictionary that was
published in 1993. I have little doubt that the Oxford University Press
lexicographers based their definitions upon their best assessment of
current usage.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Both definitions are poor and sloppy. The differences are:
PHILOLOGY LINGUISTICS
=======================================================
fascinating boooring
requires knowledge requires knowledge of
of many areas inconsequential trivia
deals with all aspects deals with microscopic
of language & culture slices of language
topics appeal to a topics appeal to a
broad readership few fellow bores
philologists know linguists are ignorant
linguistics of philology
philologists are linguists are uptight
cool cats wannabe "scientists"
Nuff said.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Philologist
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Peter T. Daniels
You make less sense when writing conventional prose than when writing
... whatever it is you usually write.
There are plenty of resources for you to consult and discover how much
linguists have contributed to studying "language as a human activity."
You might begin with the classic anthologies edited by Harry Hoijer and
Dell Hymes in the 1950s and 1960s respectively, and follow on from
there.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:22:14 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net>
> said:
>
> > Ezra Quincy wrote:
>
> > > I recently found two definitions in the New Shorter Oxford that leave me
> > > wondering what difference there may be in the connotations of the words
> > > 'linguistics' and 'philology':
>
> > > # philology n.
> > > # 2 _spec_. The branch of knowledge that deals with the
> > > # structure, historical development, and relationships of a
> > > # language or languages. L17.
>
> > > # linguistics n.
> > > # The branch of knowledge that deals with language.
>
> > > They seem to me to be two ways of saying the same thing, with one more
> > > wordy than the other. Would anyone care to comment?
>
> > In the late 20th century the difference could be encapsulated thusly:
>
> > Linguistics is the study of language, philology is the study of texts.
>
> The definitions Ezra quoted were from a dictionary that was published in
> the late 20th Century (1993 to be exact).
How many times do people have to be cautioned about accepting
definitions of technical terms from general-purpose dictionaries?
> Your encapsulated assertions seem to do too much encapsulating, with the
> risk of leaving an innocent reader unaware of the relationship between
> philology and linguistics in the late 20th Century.
Is there one?
What you call "encapsulated assertions" was intended to be epigrammatic,
even memorable. One of these days I'll be composing a 2000-word
encyclopedia entry on "Philology" that will explicate the epigram.
> But the following is somewhat better:
>
> > Philology is considerably broader; modern linguistics was initially a
> > development of "comparative philology." I just happen to have gotten
> > Strevens's little collection of Inaugural Lectures of British professors
> > in the field, five of them from 1957 to 1962; the first, by W. Sidney
> > Allen, whose title was Professor of Comparative Philology but who was
> > actually the first Professor of Linguistics in Britain, discusses the
> > differences.
>
> I'm not sure what that last paragraph is supposed to be telling us,
> though. It seems rather unhelpful to say you have a set of lectures but
> then not tell us anything about what they said.
Considering that when I wrote that I had read half the first one, I
don't think anything I said about their content would have amounted to a
hill of beans in this crazy world of ours.
Having now read the first three of them, I could say more, but there's
no reason to.
> If you meant to imply that your encapsulations and/or your assertion that
> 'modern linguistics was initially a development of "comparative
> philology"', are from Allen's lecture, you didn't make that sufficiently
> clear. Making an assertion and then saying you have some lectures isn't
> at all the same as saying that your assertion is based upon the lectures.
> With your arrangement of thoughts, the statement about the lectures is a
> non sequitur.
No, it's a suggestion of where to look for a discussion of the topic.
> There are good guides to English usage that might help you avoid such
> disorganized exposition. You can find references to some of them in an
> extended version of Mark Israel's alt.usage.english FAQ at
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/aue_related/full_faq_with_int_links.html>.
I'll stick with Strunk and White, thank you, and Fowler for the details.
Peter T. Daniels
Do you really think that every time they publish a new edition or a new
format or a new size of dictionary, they reconsider every entry? It
would be an amusing exercise to trace a word back through the printings
and sizes to see when, if ever, its definition was changed to reflect
"current usage."
Peter T. Daniels
There are far more exceptions Only if they are descended
to this rule than there are from the great temple of
adherents to it. unlearning on the banks of
the Charles. Linguists of
previous generations were
expected to master a language
area as well as theory.
> philologists are linguists are uptight
> cool cats wannabe "scientists"
>
> Nuff said.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Ben Zimmer
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> > Your encapsulated assertions seem to do too much encapsulating, with the
> > risk of leaving an innocent reader unaware of the relationship between
> > philology and linguistics in the late 20th Century.
>
> Is there one?
FWIW, Alton Becker has called for a "new philology" in his collection of
essays, _Beyond Translation: Essays toward a Modern Philology_ (Univ. of
Michigan Press, 1995). He draws on the work of the Spanish philosopher
and philologist Jose Ortega y Gasset (who wrote of "una nueva
filologia"). For instance, in a piece on "text building" in Javanese
wayang kulit (shadow-puppet theatre), Becker writes:
-------------
These assumptions [about what a text is and how it is made meaningful]
have their roots in traditional philology, modified and expanded by the
insights of modern linguistics, ethnography, psychology, and Javanese
aesthetic theory itself into what might be called a modern philology.
[...] As an intellectual discipline, philology can be defined as the
text-centered study of language. Philologists have traditionally set
themselves the task of making ancient and foreign texts readable. [...]
In a multicultured world, a world of multiple epistemologies, there is a
need for a new philologist -- a specialist in contextual relations -- in
all areas of knowledge in which text building (written and oral) is a
central activity: literature, history, law, music, politics, psychology,
trade, even war and peace.
-------------
mike
thanks, pizza...i take this as a complement, considering you're a man who
makes a buck off words. but, i'm not selling.
>
> There are plenty of resources for you to consult and discover how much
> linguists have contributed to studying "language as a human activity."
this is your opinion, and your opinion is kinda open to discovery.
> You might begin with the classic anthologies edited by Harry Hoijer and
> Dell Hymes in the 1950s and 1960s respectively, and follow on from
> there.
peter, as usual you are using a large moveable object as protection for
your sally into the field... sacrificing linguistics to the slings and
arrows of barbarian skum like me so you can strike a pose. when was the
last time you read hymes? he's a philologist! one of the last of the 17th
century language collectors.
you're forgetting that i'm probably older than most of you are and had this
stuff as fresh course material when i was a kiddie. it's ok to rethink the
entire concept of language and linguistics... it's not against the law to
ask how these concepts got invented... authors of language literature had
constantly to rethink the concept of language. it's not that they were told
to do this, it's because they had decent classical educations. when have
you ever asked what language is, or even been able to follow one of your
own thoughts into the pit of language before you crashed in shame and
guilt, your daily presentation of self flashing before your eyes? i asked
you once if you knew Malcolm at Cornell and had heard him talk of
Wittgenstein. you answered back by mentioning Ludwig's brother and Malcolm
what's it, the musician. you don't seem to be lingustic by nature...
linguistic the way you are musical anyway. i suppose you were just afraid
to talk about W. though, and choked up.
if you were to think of the word "sit" how far would you get towards
personally understanding how both a concept and word evolved out of the
physical thing which we call sitting? -- this is the sort of thing Dell
would have wanted to talk about with you -- he wouldn't really have cared
about your compilations --
i think you'd get as far as visualizing someone sitting, and that you'd
suddenly remember something about dinner and confuse dinner with the sitter
and the thoughts you had about him, and you'd suddenly spill your rum punch
on the rug.
mike
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:22:14 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@att.net> said:
>>
>> > Ezra Quincy wrote:
>>
>> > > I recently found two definitions in the New Shorter Oxford that
>> > > leave me wondering what difference there may be in the
>> > > connotations of the words 'linguistics' and 'philology':
>>
>> > > # philology n.
>> > > # 2 _spec_. The branch of knowledge that deals with the
>> > > # structure, historical development, and relationships of a #
>> > > language or languages. L17.
>>
>> > > # linguistics n.
>> > > # The branch of knowledge that deals with language.
>>
>> > > They seem to me to be two ways of saying the same thing, with one
>> > > more wordy than the other. Would anyone care to comment?
>>
>> > In the late 20th century the difference could be encapsulated
>> > thusly:
>>
>> > Linguistics is the study of language, philology is the study of
>> > texts.
>>
>> The definitions Ezra quoted were from a dictionary that was published
>> in the late 20th Century (1993 to be exact).
>
> How many times do people have to be cautioned about accepting
> definitions of technical terms from general-purpose dictionaries?
very funny. this chop house lives on websters... everyone ignoring that
technical terms have no meaning outside their realm... for instance using
websters or OED to define "time"... language people should be more careful.
and this from the people who don't realize that "sci.lang" means only
"language of science", a carnapian cat-nap, and not the "science of
language".
>
>> Your encapsulated assertions seem to do too much encapsulating, with
>> the risk of leaving an innocent reader unaware of the relationship
>> between philology and linguistics in the late 20th Century.
>
> Is there one?
we call it "history", peter, and it allows us to trace the growth of a
concept. "intellectual history" is maybe even more apt.
>
> What you call "encapsulated assertions" was intended to be
> epigrammatic, even memorable. One of these days I'll be composing a
> 2000-word encyclopedia entry on "Philology" that will explicate the
> epigram.
the Home Handiman's Encyclopedia has an entry on "philology"?
>
>> But the following is somewhat better:
>>
>> > Philology is considerably broader; modern linguistics was initially
>> > a development of "comparative philology." I just happen to have
>> > gotten Strevens's little collection of Inaugural Lectures of British
>> > professors in the field, five of them from 1957 to 1962; the first,
>> > by W. Sidney Allen, whose title was Professor of Comparative
>> > Philology but who was actually the first Professor of Linguistics in
>> > Britain, discusses the differences.
>>
>> I'm not sure what that last paragraph is supposed to be telling us,
>> though. It seems rather unhelpful to say you have a set of lectures
>> but then not tell us anything about what they said.
>
> Considering that when I wrote that I had read half the first one, I
> don't think anything I said about their content would have amounted to
> a hill of beans in this crazy world of ours.
this is a nice touch... philosophic even. "encapsulation" also involves
pre-imaging the reader before you post.
>
> Having now read the first three of them, I could say more, but there's
> no reason to.
that bad? well, you've got your ann rice.
>
>> If you meant to imply that your encapsulations and/or your assertion
>> that 'modern linguistics was initially a development of "comparative
>> philology"', are from Allen's lecture, you didn't make that
>> sufficiently clear.
there was nothing else but this for us to think, you remember? it was so
odd, in fact, that i thought it was just peter talking to himself.
> Making an assertion and then saying you have some
>> lectures isn't at all the same as saying that your assertion is based
>> upon the lectures. With your arrangement of thoughts, the statement
>> about the lectures is a non sequitur.
>
> No, it's a suggestion of where to look for a discussion of the topic.
not in the Home Handiman's Encyclopedia?
>
>> There are good guides to English usage that might help you avoid such
>> disorganized exposition. You can find references to some of them in
>> an extended version of Mark Israel's alt.usage.english FAQ at
>> <http://home.earthlink.net/~exw6sxq/aue_related/full_faq_with_int_links
>> . html>.
>
> I'll stick with Strunk and White, thank you, and Fowler for the
> details.
whaa, haaa, haaa! this is very funny. peter, i can see why you walk around
with that look of wounded dignity -- at least he didn't suggest the grammar
and usage sections of websters.
mike
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
pizza, OED showz only usage. if they allow a new quoted usage, then they
print it in the suppliments... the idea is that whatever they offer is far
current enough!
mike
cool! the missing parts of Beowulf!
"...master a language as well as theory"... now, why does this sentence
seem very odd?? "Theory of Latin"? no? you mean "linguistic theory"? how
many generations back has there been such a thing? -- do you mean they had
to master "rhetoric"?
mike
news:3D827DF2...@midway.uchicago.edu:
this is the reason philology is in held in contempt. overinflation of
dubious concepts such as "law", "music", "politics", etc., not that they
aren't real, but it's that, in every dialog they are used in they are
special terms: their meaning is modified by the content of the dialog. they
have no universal meaning and yet OyG is showing them as weapons of a
Universal Truth.
philology is the instrument of philosophy. philology provides nothing but
method, philosophy itself says nothing about truth. the power of philosophy
is the power of thought itself. philology is thought as the self-conscious.
Bob Cunningham
said:
[ . . . ]
> Do you really think that every time they publish a new edition or a new
> format or a new size of dictionary, they reconsider every entry?
Yes, in the case of one dictionary at least.
From the Preface to _The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_, in a
portion discussing how the dictionary was developed:
Every entry was written afresh, taking into account the
linguistic evidence of the Dictionary Department's extensive
quotation files and computer databases. Many new words and
senses were added, and all were reviewed in the light of
social and political changes.
Why would they lie about a thing like that?
> It
> would be an amusing exercise to trace a word back through the printings
> and sizes to see when, if ever, its definition was changed to reflect
> "current usage."
Quoting again from the Preface to _NSOED_:
The book was a replacement for the third edition of the Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary, but does not represent a direct
revision of its text. The New SOED editors returned to the
Oxford English Dictionary itself (in later stages the second
edition of 1989, originally the first edition of 1884-1928 and
its four-volume Supplement of 1972-86), and reabridged,
conflated, revised, restructured, added, and updated.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
[...]
>you're forgetting that i'm probably older than most of you are
You're not. You're about the same age as a good many of us, give
or take five years or so either way.
[...]
mike
@enews.newsguy.com:
well, age before beauty, so i'll be older.
anyway, i was reading about language stuffs when i was 9, that'd be 1955,
and i read hymes in 1964. he paints a pretty picture.
mb
>
> PHILOLOGY LINGUISTICS
> =======================================================
> fascinating boooring
> cool cats wannabe "scientists"
> Nuff said.
It's all absolutely true. However, it leaves one with kind of a
pol-corr worry: whatever happened to the fuzzy border?
mike
news:9cc8f152.0209...@posting.google.com:
harvested and sold for political insulation.
Charles Riggs
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:
...
>Nuff said.
Yes, I'd say you covered all the bases, and covered them well.
Charles
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> > Both definitions are poor and sloppy. The differences are:
> >
> > PHILOLOGY LINGUISTICS
> > =======================================================
> > fascinating boooring
> ...
> > cool cats wannabe "scientists"
> > Nuff said.
> It's all absolutely true. However, it leaves one with kind of
> a pol-corr worry: whatever happened to the fuzzy border?
My provocative synopsis lists the extremes of both disciplines. In
reality, it is a broad Philology <---> Linguistics continuum or
spectrum with many fuzzy practitioners between the two extremes who
are gradually approaching one another.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Linguistic Philologist
Bob Cunningham
said:
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:22:14 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net>
> > said:
[ . . . ]
> > > In the late 20th century the difference could be encapsulated thusly:
> > > Linguistics is the study of language, philology is the study of texts.
> > The definitions Ezra quoted were from a dictionary that was published in
> > the late 20th Century (1993 to be exact).
> How many times do people have to be cautioned about accepting
> definitions of technical terms from general-purpose dictionaries?
How many times do people need to be reminded that major dictionary makers
employ well-qualified consultants to be responsible for definitions in the
various special fields? I would much rather trust a definition from
_NSOED_ than from a Usenet poster whose credentials are unknown or whose
definition may be idiosyncratic even if the poster is supposedly qualified
to comment. I'm sure that definitions in _NSOED_ are given much more
careful scrutiny than are many opinions posted in sci.lang.
mike
news:aid6ou4u47gkg84n8...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 23:49:12 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@att.net> said:
>
>> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
>> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:22:14 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> > <gram...@att.net> said:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
>> > > In the late 20th century the difference could be encapsulated
>> > > thusly:
>
>> > > Linguistics is the study of language, philology is the study of
>> > > texts.
>
>> > The definitions Ezra quoted were from a dictionary that was
>> > published in the late 20th Century (1993 to be exact).
>
>> How many times do people have to be cautioned about accepting
>> definitions of technical terms from general-purpose dictionaries?
>
> How many times do people need to be reminded that major dictionary
> makers employ well-qualified consultants to be responsible for
> definitions in the various special fields?
this is totally naive, but fun. you've no business using a technical term
outside its realm anyway; it's against the law. "language" is a technical
term.
> I would much rather trust a
> definition from _NSOED_ than from a Usenet poster whose credentials are
> unknown or whose definition may be idiosyncratic even if the poster is
> supposedly qualified to comment.
this is magnificently unscholastic, although the usenet seems to be
populated with information technology professionals whose primary degree
was taken in sports.
> I'm sure that definitions in _NSOED_
> are given much more careful scrutiny than are many opinions posted in
> sci.lang.
romantically obtuse. all in all, you've done nothing but bitch about
something which is obviously over your head. you don't need a dictionary,
you need a college education.
>
>
Bob Cunningham
That's complete nonsense. A great many technical terms have entered the
main stream of English and have acquired modified meanings in the process.
It's up to the technician to learn the meanings of words that have
migrated and changed meanings, or risk being unable to communicate with
the population at large.
> it's against the law. "language" is a technical term.
(Sentences begin with capital letters. Most people learned that in about
the third grade. What happened with you?)
It may be a technical term, but it's also a very common word in the
language of Everyman.
> > I would much rather trust a
> > definition from _NSOED_ than from a Usenet poster whose
> > credentials are unknown or whose definition may be
> > idiosyncratic even if the poster is supposedly qualified
> > to comment.
> this is magnificently unscholastic, although the usenet
> seems to be populated with information technology
> professionals whose primary degree was taken in sports.
(The word "Usenet" doesn't take the definite article, and it's always
capitalized.)
You're apparently pretty good at kicking around generalities in order to
avoid saying anything useful. What's unscholastic about quoting a
definition of a linguistics term from a dictionary that uses a linguistics
scholar to ensure accuracy of definitions in his field?
> > I'm sure that definitions in _NSOED_ are given much
> > more careful scrutiny than are many opinions posted in
> > sci.lang.
> romantically obtuse.
"Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently unscholastic"? How
about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing style?
> all in all, you've done nothing but bitch about
> something which is obviously over your head. you don't need a dictionary,
> you need a college education.
(I'll bet it felt good to get that smelly shit out of your system.)
If you want to say something substantial, please explain why you think you
know what education I've had.
It's clearly not over my head to compare definitions of "linguistics" and
"philology" in order to try to understand why a dictionary would say that
one definition of "rhotacism" is used in linguistics and another in
philology.
Incidentally, if you ever decide to go back to college -- if you've ever
been to a college -- and do some refreshing, I suggest you try to learn
something about punctuation. You should especially seek help with
learning to avoid comma splices (also known as run-on sentences).
Peter T. Daniels
> It's clearly not over my head to compare definitions of "linguistics" and
> "philology" in order to try to understand why a dictionary would say that
> one definition of "rhotacism" is used in linguistics and another in
> philology.
I.e., once again you oozed into sci.lang without saying why the problem
was a concern?
John Wells is credited with coining "rhotacism" for its use in
describing English dialects.
Per C. Jorgensen
> hey! how could history and literature be extra-lingustic, since they are
> creations within language, and linguistics deals with more general
> patterns of presentation?
What are 'general patterns of presentation'?
I meant extra-linguistic not in the sense of not pertaining to language,
but not pertaining to (modern) linguistics. I am also not sure whether
history in the sense of what has happened is a 'creation within language',
but the discipline of history *might* of course be said to be so...
> linguistics is just an attempt to coordinate traditional
> grammar with articulation.
Huh?
Yours,
Per
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> "Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently unscholastic"?
> How about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing style?
Heh-heh. Good shot, Bob.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Ben Zimmer
Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> It's clearly not over my head to compare definitions of "linguistics" and
> "philology" in order to try to understand why a dictionary would say that
> one definition of "rhotacism" is used in linguistics and another in
> philology.
Is that how this got started? Here are the NSOED definitions you gave
us:
----------
1 Ling. Excessive use or distinctive pronunciation of the phoneme /r/
(repr. by the letter r); spec. use of the burr or uvular r. M19.
2 Philol. Conversion of another sound, esp. the phoneme /s/ (repr. by
the letter s), into the phoneme /r/ (repr. by the letter r). M19.
----------
I think the NSOED editors are using the "Ling." and "Philol." markers
to differentiate between the synchronic and diachronic senses of
"rhotacism". The synchronic sense is concerned with the use of /r/
among speakers of a language at a particular point in time, while the
diachronic sense is concerned with historical sound changes in a
language that resulted in /r/. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
Linguistics gives an example of the diachronic sense:
----------
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/573033
rhotacism
Replacement by r. Thus, in the history of Latin, a single s, as in the
infinitive suffix -se, was generally rhotacized between vowels: e.g.
rege-se 'to rule' > regere (cf., with a preceding consonant, es-se 'to
be').
----------
Now among US linguists at least, this kind of sound change falls under
the purview of "historical linguistics". But historical linguistics
is an outgrowth of the Neogrammarians (Junggrammatiker) of the late
19th century, who posited sound changes based on the philological
comparison of texts. In the UK, one is more likely to hear this kind
of historical text-based study referred to as "philology"-- hence the
NSOED's usage.
--Ben
mike
news:c59a6ad2.02091...@posting.google.com:
> mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns92884DD096EFB...@66.75.162.201>...
>
>> hey! how could history and literature be extra-lingustic, since they
>> are creations within language, and linguistics deals with more general
>> patterns of presentation?
>
> What are 'general patterns of presentation'?
the non-mystical.
>
> I meant extra-linguistic not in the sense of not pertaining to
> language, but not pertaining to (modern) linguistics. I am also not
> sure whether history in the sense of what has happened is a 'creation
> within language', but the discipline of history *might* of course be
> said to be so...
>
>> linguistics is just an attempt to coordinate traditional grammar with
>> articulation.
>
> Huh?
gesundheit!
"articulation" is the stuff of "phonetics".
>
> Yours,
> Per
>
mike
news:3D83B991...@sonic.net:
> Bob Cunningham wrote to mike <orang...@aol.com>:
>
> [...]
>
>> "Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently unscholastic"?
>> How about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing style?
>
> Heh-heh. Good shot, Bob.
>
you must be easily satisfied. no one else here is, especially this "bob"
character who can't tell a clause from a pause.
but, kudos to you, cause the "Heh-heh" works really well when you want to
seem sophisticated without seeming queer.
Skitt
> (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
>> mike wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> you're forgetting that i'm probably older than most of you are
>>
>> You're not. You're about the same age as a good many of us, give
>> or take five years or so either way.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
> well, age before beauty, so i'll be older.
>
> anyway, i was reading about language stuffs when i was 9, that'd be
> 1955, and i read hymes in 1964. he paints a pretty picture.
Well, I was reading in 1935, but not about language stuffs. Not even in
English language. So what?
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
JGuy
me grab the Oxford. The first use of
"linguistics" appears to have been in 1837,
but as "linguistic." Whewell: We may call
the science of languages linguistic, as it
is called by the best German writers.
I have here some articles in English, some
in French, dating from around the middle of
the 19th century, and none uses the term
"linguistic(s)" or "linguistique". They use
"philology" instead.
So I turned to the 1900 Larousse encyclopaedia:
Linguistique: étude historique et comparative
des langues. Syn.: philologie comparée,
grammaire comparée, etc. -- The Larousse calls
it a "natural science."
Then there is a lengthy article on "linguistique"
the gist of which being that linguistics differs from
philology in its emphasis on language comparison
and reconstruction, i.e. you cannot do linguistics
without comparing languages, you can philology.
It is clear to me that the meaning has changed
over the years, first coined around 1840 to
mean the _comparative_ study of languages.
Nowadays, however, it seems to cover about anything
about language, from phonology to theories about
language(s), even skirting its original meaning,
_comparative_ linguistics.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> > Bob Cunningham wrote to mike <orang...@aol.com>:
> > [...]
> >> "Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently unscholastic"?
> >> How about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing style?
> > Heh-heh. Good shot, Bob.
> you must be easily satisfied.
Sure am, lower-case mike. An 18-year-old Mexican chick would do.
Even an immaculate Negro babe. I'm easy.
> no one else here is, especially this "bob"
> character who can't tell a clause from a pause.
Bob is, unfortunately, the whipping boy for a number of regulars. But
he's a smart dictionary dude whose analytical and computer skills make
a semi-literate youngster like you look like a retard.
> but, kudos to you, cause the "Heh-heh" works really well when you want
> to seem sophisticated without seeming queer.
And in return half a *kudo to you for being so perceptive (for a
change). I not only seem to be but *am* sophisticated (and that
without being queer -- not that there would be anything wrong with
that).
[* indicates a hypothetical construction; but you knew that.]
Listen, l-c mike, in case you want to add variety to your stock of
mildly insulting characterizations of people you argue with, you're
welcome to use the variants below I constructed from yours and Bob's:
"totally naive"
"totally obtuse"
"totally unscholastic"
"totally sophomoric"
"romantically obtuse"
"romantically naive"
"romantically unscholastic"
"romantically sophomoric"
"magnificently unscholastic"
"magnificently naive"
"magnificently obtuse"
"magnificently sophomoric"
"pitifully sophomoric"
"pitifully naive"
"pitifully obtuse
"pitifully unscholastic"
Cool, eh? No need to thank me.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.maledicta.ORG/
mike
nonsense is fun, and no one's saying anything original here anyway.
>
>> it's against the law. "language" is a technical term.
>
> (Sentences begin with capital letters. Most people learned that in
> about the third grade. What happened with you?)
you aren't very language oriented are you? not very creative?
>
> It may be a technical term, but it's also a very common word in the
> language of Everyman.
everyman is a statistical proposition. so is language.
>
>> > I would much rather trust a
>> > definition from _NSOED_ than from a Usenet poster whose
>> > credentials are unknown or whose definition may be
>> > idiosyncratic even if the poster is supposedly qualified to
>> > comment.
>
>> this is magnificently unscholastic, although the usenet
>> seems to be populated with information technology professionals whose
>> primary degree was taken in sports.
>
> (The word "Usenet" doesn't take the definite article, and it's always
> capitalized.)
i'm supposed to care that you couldn't recognize what i was writing and had
to ask peter for an explanation?
>
> You're apparently pretty good at kicking around generalities in order
> to avoid saying anything useful.
for me, i say very useful things about language. you're saying
uninteresting things about me. i suggest you get in touch with your inner
child and date.
> What's unscholastic about quoting a
> definition of a linguistics term from a dictionary that uses a
> linguistics scholar to ensure accuracy of definitions in his field?
it's beyond comprehension! it must have something to do with the more
interesting discussion of how language differs from speech and writing.
>
>> > I'm sure that definitions in _NSOED_ are given much
>> > more careful scrutiny than are many opinions posted in sci.lang.
>
>> romantically obtuse.
>
> "Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently unscholastic"?
> How about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing style?
ah, this is the source for this lamitude. you wanna look at how moronic
your writing is:
>> What's unscholastic about quoting a
>> definition of a linguistics term from a dictionary that uses a
>> linguistics scholar to ensure accuracy of definitions in his field?
this is moronic. you're inventing something called "lingustic scholar"
(dubious... what exactly do you mean here? scholar of linguistic or a
scholar who uses language?" probably "lingustics scholar" is what you want?
... and you're contrasting this wonder with "dictionary", an anonymous word
list directed towards no one in particular... pretending that dictionary
and inclusion in a dictionary actualized some concept, when all it does is
recognize a sound and an association. "definitions" must be plastic by
definition. nothing has a name of its own. however, supposing that you find
some expert in his field? what is his relation to the dictionary and the
word? suppose he's like you, with an agenda?
>
>> all in all, you've done nothing but bitch about
>> something which is obviously over your head. you don't need a
>> dictionary, you need a college education.
>
> (I'll bet it felt good to get that smelly shit out of your system.)
this is very expressive, but i notice that you are inclosing it between two
buttocks. are you capricorn? capricorns are really into the backside... so
much so that they don't think that anything else is as really as important
as their backsides. i know a great astrologer called Dave Tholen, and i can
invite him to talk to the group about astronomical confabulation in the
postings of orangie.
>
> If you want to say something substantial, please explain why you think
> you know what education I've had.
what is "substantial" for you? someone else's paycheck? the attention given
to creative people at your expense? help me out here.
>
> It's clearly not over my head to compare definitions of "linguistics"
> and "philology" in order to try to understand why a dictionary would
> say that one definition of "rhotacism" is used in linguistics and
> another in philology.
i like this. but, i think that there's no need, unless you are doing
linguistics yourself and find a need for the concept. in that case you're
allowed to revise the meaning of the term to include any special case.
"rotacism" is a work term, and work terms have different meanings in
different discussions.
>
> Incidentally, if you ever decide to go back to college -- if you've
> ever been to a college -- and do some refreshing, I suggest you try to
> learn something about punctuation. You should especially seek help
> with learning to avoid comma splices (also known as run-on sentences).
i don't want to write like you. your writing style prevents you from
thinking. you already know everything there is to think, because you know
it can be written.
please don't reply. you're not a nice person.
>
>
mike
@sonic.net:
> mike wrote:
>
>> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> > Bob Cunningham wrote to mike <orang...@aol.com>:
>
>> > [...]
>
>> >> "Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently unscholastic"?
>> >> How about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing style?
>
>> > Heh-heh. Good shot, Bob.
>
>> you must be easily satisfied.
>
> Sure am, lower-case mike. An 18-year-old Mexican chick would do.
> Even an immaculate Negro babe. I'm easy.
well, i hope you're a lesbian then, cause i don't see you finding
satisfaction with them laughing at you behind your back.
>
>> no one else here is, especially this "bob" character who can't tell a
>> clause from a pause.
>
> Bob is, unfortunately, the whipping boy for a number of regulars. But
> he's a smart dictionary dude whose analytical and computer skills make
> a semi-literate youngster like you look like a retard.
"smart dictionary" is totally easy, and fits your niceties nicely. it's
also a very stupid thing to say.
>
>> but, kudos to you, cause the "Heh-heh" works really well when you want
>> to seem sophisticated without seeming queer.
>
> And in return half a *kudo to you for being so perceptive (for a
> change). I not only seem to be but *am* sophisticated (and that
> without being queer -- not that there would be anything wrong with
> that).
well, it's kind of a whore house sophistication, which is ok in a whore
house, and maybe that's what you think's going on here...
>
> [* indicates a hypothetical construction; but you knew that.]
>
> Listen, l-c mike, in case you want to add variety to your stock of
> mildly insulting characterizations of people you argue with, you're
> welcome to use the variants below I constructed from yours and Bob's:
>
> "totally naive"
> "totally obtuse"
> "totally unscholastic"
> "totally sophomoric"
>
> "romantically obtuse"
> "romantically naive"
> "romantically unscholastic"
> "romantically sophomoric"
>
> "magnificently unscholastic"
> "magnificently naive"
> "magnificently obtuse"
> "magnificently sophomoric"
>
> "pitifully sophomoric"
> "pitifully naive"
> "pitifully obtuse
> "pitifully unscholastic"
>
> Cool, eh? No need to thank me.
getting other people to be creative is thanks in itself.
>
mike
news:am0hl2$1knde$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de:
wuz talking to the other dude. you be too old, kain't see connections no
more.
what's the deal? all you guys just sit around and think true thoughts and
play intellectual ping pong with usenetoids?
out of respect, i'm not going to review your web page, because it seems
constructed as a private thing for you and your friends.
gher'z myn: members.aol.com/orangiemike
Bob Cunningham
Thank you. I find that quite interesting, helpful, and plausible.
Thanks also for telling me there's a _Concise Oxford Dictionary of
Linguistics_. However, I'm sorry to see that a reviewer at amazon.com
don't give it a very good grade. (
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192800086/qid=1032062816/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5494417-3671125?v=glance&s=books
).
(I wish someone would tell me again how to boil a URL of that sort down to
a simpler form that still gets the job done.)
The reviewer says:
This is a good book for linguistics majors, especially if you
intend to go to grad school. The book has definitions of just
about every word I've needed to look up, but sometimes the
definitions aren't very clear and are worded in the same
difficult jargon that makes you need to look these words up
in the first place. Longer definitions would be helpful. But
in cases where words learned in class need clarifying, it
does offer another explanation. Overall, it's worth the price,
but I'll be on the lookout for other linguistics dictionaries
that have clearer explanations.
What do you think of it, Ben? Is it best suited for someone who has known
and understood the definitions and just needs a memory refresh?
At the price of $11.17 for 400 pages, it seems to be worth a shot.
Ben Zimmer
Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> Thanks also for telling me there's a _Concise Oxford Dictionary of
> Linguistics_. However, I'm sorry to see that a reviewer at amazon.com
> don't give it a very good grade. (
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192800086/qid=1032062816/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5494417-3671125?v=glance&s=books
> ).
>
> (I wish someone would tell me again how to boil a URL of that sort down to
> a simpler form that still gets the job done.)
Copying and pasting the URL at one of these sites wiil do the trick:
http://tinyurl.com/
http://makeashorterlink.com/
> The reviewer says:
>
> This is a good book for linguistics majors, especially if you
> intend to go to grad school. The book has definitions of just
> about every word I've needed to look up, but sometimes the
> definitions aren't very clear and are worded in the same
> difficult jargon that makes you need to look these words up
> in the first place. Longer definitions would be helpful. But
> in cases where words learned in class need clarifying, it
> does offer another explanation. Overall, it's worth the price,
> but I'll be on the lookout for other linguistics dictionaries
> that have clearer explanations.
>
> What do you think of it, Ben? Is it best suited for someone who has known
> and understood the definitions and just needs a memory refresh?
I think it's a fine reference and should be comprehensible to a.u.e.
regulars regardless of their background in linguistics.
> At the price of $11.17 for 400 pages, it seems to be worth a shot.
Why bother when you can read it for free on xrefer.com?
http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?volid=50
The site also has The Oxford Companion to the English Language, The
New Fowler's Modern English Usage, and The American Heritage
Dictionary of Idioms, all easily searchable.
--Ben
mike
>
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> Thanks also for telling me there's a _Concise Oxford Dictionary of
>> Linguistics_. However, I'm sorry to see that a reviewer at amazon.com
>> don't give it a very good grade. (
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192800086/qid=1032062816
>> /sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5494417-3671125?v=glance&s=books ).
try the Routledge word list of lingustics concepts, people, and names. it's
got a pretty cover.
mike
dang, boy! that's good writin' yer done here.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192800086/qid=1032062816/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5494417-3671125?v=glance&s=books
> ).
>
> (I wish someone would tell me again how to boil a URL of that sort down to
> a simpler form that still gets the job done.)
I just found this last night:
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Bob Cunningham
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in
> news:3D83B991...@sonic.net:
> > Bob Cunningham wrote to mike <orang...@aol.com>:
> > [...]
> >> "Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently unscholastic"?
> >> How about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing style?
> > Heh-heh. Good shot, Bob.
> you must be easily satisfied. no one else here is,
In order to make an assertion that "no one else here is", you must have
taken a poll. I would find it interesting to learn the numerical results
of that poll.
Since you apparently like to conduct polls, why don't you poll the
alt.usage.english readership to see how many of them approve of writing
sentences that don't begin with a capital letter?
Daniel Seriff
(in message <Xns9289B515171D4...@66.75.162.198>):
> this is very expressive, but i notice that you are inclosing it between two
> buttocks. are you capricorn? capricorns are really into the backside... so
> much so that they don't think that anything else is as really as important
> as their backsides. i know a great astrologer called Dave Tholen, and i can
> invite him to talk to the group about astronomical confabulation in the
> postings of orangie.
Promoting the spread of the chatrum CANCER that is Dave Tholen?
I hope this is just a rhetorical device.
--
Daniel Seriff
Bears are crazy. They'll bite your head if you're wearing steak on it.
- SG
Bob Cunningham
[ . . . ]
> > Thanks also for telling me there's a _Concise Oxford Dictionary of
> > Linguistics_. However, I'm sorry to see that a reviewer at amazon.com
> > don't give it a very good grade.
> dang, boy! that's good writin' yer done here.
The way things like that happen is first you say, based on the overall
grade given to the book, "reviewers don't", then you find that there's
only one reviewer, so you change "reviewers" to "reviewer" and neglect to
change "doesn't" to "don't".
Tony Cooper
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> Since you apparently like to conduct polls, why don't you poll the
> alt.usage.english readership to see how many of them approve of
writing
> sentences that don't begin with a capital letter?
None of *your* sentences began with a capital letter.
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Jacques Guy
> None of *your* sentences began with a capital letter.
Ack! My knowledge of the alphabet and of grammar is gone!
Please enlighten me. Bob Cunningham had written:
>In order to make an assertion that "no one else here is", you must have
>taken a poll. [snip]
Either "I" is not a capital letter, or "In order to... taken a poll."
is not a sentence. Alas, my befuddled brain cannot remember which
is which. Help. pretty please.
Bob Cunningham
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> said:
> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Since you apparently like to conduct polls, why don't
> > you poll the alt.usage.english readership to see how
> > many of them approve of writing sentences that don't
> > begin with a capital letter?
> None of *your* sentences began with a capital letter.
You're probably basing that statement upon a little-used definition of
"capital". Most people will understand it to mean, with reference to
letters, what _W3NID_ gives as one of its meanings:
of or conforming to the series A, B, C, etc. rather than
a, b, c, etc.
Your statement is apparently in the same class as the one I used to hear
in high school:
You say you know that girl, but you don't, because you don't
have sex with her.
So far as I know, all of my sentences begin with a capital letter.
And I've known a great many females who(m) I never had sexual intercourse
with.
Bob Cunningham
Tony Cooper is probably having fun with a definition of "capital letter"
that pertains to the ornate works of art that served as letters to precede
paragraphs in illuminated manuscripts of the Middle Ages. One of the
several definitions of "capital" refers to such letters.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" wrote:
> > mike wrote:
> >> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> > Bob Cunningham wrote to mike <orang...@aol.com>:
> >
> >> > [...]
> >
> >> >> "Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently unscholastic"?
> >> >> How about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing style?
> >> > Heh-heh. Good shot, Bob.
> >> you must be easily satisfied.
> > Sure am, lower-case mike. An 18-year-old Mexican chick would do.
> > Even an immaculate Negro babe. I'm easy.
> well, i hope you're a lesbian then, cause i don't see you finding
> satisfaction with them laughing at you behind your back.
As usual, your non-sequitur reply lacks any trace of logic, mikey.
Plus you type like old people fuck.
> >> no one else here is, especially this "bob" character who can't
> >> tell a clause from a pause.
> > Bob is, unfortunately, the whipping boy for a number of regulars.
> > But he's a smart dictionary dude whose analytical and computer
> > skills make a semi-literate youngster like you look like a retard.
> "smart dictionary" is totally easy, and fits your niceties nicely.
> it's also a very stupid thing to say.
Sure is: What you just wrote ("smart dictionary") is indeed a very
stupid thing to say. Lemme help you:
"He's a {smart} {dictionary dude}." See how that works, moron?
"Smart" is the adjective that modifies "dictionary dude." Moronic
mike's parsing: "He's a {smart dictionary} {dude}." Are you allowed
out on the street alone, or are there always a couple of burly guys in
white coats accompanying you?
> >> but, kudos to you, cause the "Heh-heh" works really well when
> >> you want to seem sophisticated without seeming queer.
> > And in return half a *kudo to you for being so perceptive (for a
> > change). I not only seem to be but *am* sophisticated (and that
> > without being queer -- not that there would be anything wrong with
> > that).
> well, it's kind of a whore house sophistication, which is ok in a
> whore house, and maybe that's what you think's going on here...
As usual, your non-sequitur reply lacks any trace of logic. Oh, I
said that already. Well, think of the repetition as positive
reinforcement, pedagogy-wise. "[I]t's kind of a {whore} {house
sophistication}" -- what a very stupid thing to say. What's a "house
sophistication"? Never mind; don't bother to explain.
> > [* indicates a hypothetical construction; but you knew that.]
> >
> > Listen, l-c mike, in case you want to add variety to your stock of
> > mildly insulting characterizations of people you argue with,
> > you're welcome to use the variants below I constructed from yours
> > and Bob's:
> > "totally naive"
> > "totally obtuse"
> > "totally unscholastic"
> > "totally sophomoric"
[...]
> > Cool, eh? No need to thank me.
> getting other people to be creative is thanks in itself.
My simple rearrangement of eight words may look like a creative
achievement to a moron like you, mike, but my fingers did it
mechanically, bypassing the brain, without firing a single synapse. A
clinical moron could have done it just as well.
Speaking of whom, even clinical morons press the key with the word
SHIFT on it while pressing another key to produce CAPS at the
beginning of sentences and when typing the first letter of a name.
How come you -- a non-clinical moron -- are incapable of performing
this {simple} {motor task}? Marching to a different drummer, are we?
Premature senility? Sophomoric pseudo-sophistication? Aping e.e.?
Being a pigheaded jerk? Or are you just an annoying asshole?
Whatever the answer, I don't care. I've read several of your inane,
sloppy & wacky posts to Bob and Petey and Googled a bit in other
newsgroups. You're the ideal toy for Mr. "Time-on-my-hands"
Valentine, Dr. Franke, or sadistic T*ny C**per. Fortunately, I'll be
too busy for the next couple of years to joust with a witless &
lanceless moron like you. ĄAdiós, pendejo!
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
M A L E D I C T A
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
Matti Lamprhey
>
> Tony Cooper is probably having fun with a definition of "capital letter"
> that pertains to the ornate works of art that served as letters to precede
> paragraphs in illuminated manuscripts of the Middle Ages. One of the
> several definitions of "capital" refers to such letters.
Which one? I always thought they were known as "swash caps."
Matti
Peter T. Daniels
"Always"?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Matti Lamprhey
"Always" in the sense that there was never a time when I thought that the
items were differently named. I naturally suspect that I was born with that
knowledge, but the proof is proving elusive.
Matti
Evan Kirshenbaum
> If you can, try to locate the following article:
>
> Margaret E. Winters & Geoffrey S. Nathan. 1982. "First
> he called her a philologist and then she insulted him."
Who was it who first used
Kim called Sandy a Republican. Then she insulted him.
Kim called Sandy a Republican. Then *she* insulted *him*.
? My old prof, Ivan Sag, liked to use that as an example of a
sentence that drastically changes meaning based on intonation. His
other favorite example was
I thought he was a *spy*!
I *thought* he was a spy!
But this would have been (shortly) after 1982, so it must have been
old by then given the above title.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |network-wide use of encryption, but
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle
|key distribution, is a useless
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |farce.
(650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer
Bob Cunningham
said:
> mike wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Or are you just an annoying asshole?
By George, I think you've got it.
Bob Cunningham
> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote...
_NSOED_ seems to support that use of "swash":
swash /swQ<longs>/ a. & n.3L17.
[Origin unkn.]A adj.
1 Inclined obliquely. L17.
2 Printing. Designating characters, usually cursive capitals,
having flourished strokes. L17.
B n. Printing. An extended ornamental flourish on a cursive
(esp. capital) letter. L17.
But the definition of "capital" I referred to is in _W3NID_:
capital
3 [...] b of a letter : comparatively large, clear, or
elegant in form and in print like the majuscule letters of
ancient inscriptions and consequently regarded as
especially fit for use in initial position
So by those definitions a capital letter is a swash capital.
I've learned a new term; thank you.
Skitt
[to Skitt]
> out of respect, i'm not going to review your web page, because it
> seems constructed as a private thing for you and your friends.
Whew! I was so worried that you might review it!
> gher'z myn: members.aol.com/orangiemike
Don't worry -- I won't even glance at yours.
Tony Cooper
You're way off. None of your sentences began with a capital letter.
One of your sentences ended with a capital letter.
Tony Cooper
news:3D8511...@guess.where...
Would it help if I had written "None of *your* sentences began with "a
capital letter"?
You are new here, and have a right to be confused. Others are more used
to my sometimes-if-not-usually" inane attempts at humor.
Jacques Guy
> Would it help if I had written "None of *your* sentences began with "a
> capital letter"?
Aaaah! The usual confusion between signified and signifier
as Saussure has it, between the map and the terrain, as
Korzybski does, the moon and the finger according to
Zhuangzi. None of my sentences begins with an egg either
but I can remember one beginning with egg. Hofstadter
does it too when he writes about self-referencing, but he
doesn't do it on purpose, just plain old muddle-headedness.
Mike Lyle
As long as you don't swash your buckler too heartily.
Mike.
mike
61580.news.dfncis.de:
> mike wrote:
> [to Skitt]
>
>> out of respect, i'm not going to review your web page, because it
>> seems constructed as a private thing for you and your friends.
>
> Whew! I was so worried that you might review it!
you really haven't a clue who i am. you might have learn't something,
though you haven't learnt anything from the review of your website i've
already given you.
>
>
>> gher'z myn: members.aol.com/orangiemike
>
> Don't worry -- I won't even glance at yours.
well, the only thing you have to offer is your body. you should have more
confidence in your intellectual ability! my page is just a couple of modern
classical music pieces... you'd probably be able to wade through them
without too much discomfort.
mike
y'all shur cain. it's real pretty!
but, seriously, sir, i do that sort of thing often, and sometimes, cause
i'm mostly writing music, i write phonetically by mistake. it's pretty
dumb, but real, and an educated reader is always able to figure out what's
what. what cracks me up though is how some readers get stuck at the crack
in the sidewalk and can't step over.
mike
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 23:25:52 GMT, mike <orang...@aol.com> said:
>
>> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in
>> news:3D83B991...@sonic.net:
>
>> > Bob Cunningham wrote to mike <orang...@aol.com>:
>
>> > [...]
>
>> >> "Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently
unscholastic"?
>> >> How about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing style?
>
>> > Heh-heh. Good shot, Bob.
>
>> you must be easily satisfied. no one else here is,
>
> In order to make an assertion that "no one else here is", you must have
> taken a poll. I would find it interesting to learn the numerical
results
> of that poll.
i sure did! based on spectral analysis, most everyone else is just
bitching cause i'm not saying the right things.
>
> Since you apparently like to conduct polls, why don't you poll the
> alt.usage.english readership to see how many of them approve of writing
> sentences that don't begin with a capital letter?
why would i worry about this kind of critique? the educated reader
doesn't need caps to know that a sentence is a thought module, because
the educated reader is reading for concept, not Conclusion To Respond To.
fuk usage gruppen. i'm writing for sci.lang: usage groups worry about not
making mistakes. science is about making more than as many mistakes as
you can to find out what works.
mike
news:3D8476...@worldnet.att.net:
peter! not the caps worn by southern arty types, the type ornament! he need
only have thought of swash caps for as long as he'd known the concept,
which might have been 4 minutes or 40 years.
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote
> you really haven't a clue who i am.
Should I care? I know that you can't write very well.
> you might have learn't something, though you haven't learnt
> anything from the review of your website i've already given you.
There was nothing to learn. You were absolutely correct that it was created
for a limited readership.
>>
>>> gher'z myn: members.aol.com/orangiemike
>>
>> Don't worry -- I won't even glance at yours.
>
> my page is just a couple of modern classical music pieces...
Modern classical. Sort of a contradiction in terms, ain't it.
mike
news:01HW.B9A97FCB0...@news-server.austin.rr.com:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 22:48:13 -0500, mike wrote
> (in message <Xns9289B515171D4...@66.75.162.198>):
>
>> this is very expressive, but i notice that you are inclosing it
>> between two buttocks. are you capricorn? capricorns are really into
>> the backside... so much so that they don't think that anything else is
>> as really as important as their backsides. i know a great astrologer
>> called Dave Tholen, and i can invite him to talk to the group about
>> astronomical confabulation in the postings of orangie.
>
> Promoting the spread of the chatrum CANCER that is Dave Tholen?
>
> I hope this is just a rhetorical device.
don't worry, i'm not going to bring the dark one in in a suitcase. the
Arch-Elders are safe here in guy-land... though it would be a wonder to see
speech-engineers -- essentially tholens, but involved in a subject which
has no obvious content of the sort which astronomers always have with sky
objects; and which lack of content causes linguists-who-aren't-language-
teachers to worry about whether thought and speech are the same thing -- to
see these word engineers go head on with the brilliant social critic Dave
Tholen.
i doubt that tholen could feel comfortable here in sci.lang, could
understand that language could be talked about beyond reciting parts of
speech and usage rules.
mike
news:3D8440AD...@sonic.net:
> mike wrote:
>
>> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" wrote:
>
>> > mike wrote:
>
>> >> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> >> > Bob Cunningham wrote to mike <orang...@aol.com>:
>> >
>> >> > [...]
>> >
>> >> >> "Totally naive", "romantically obtuse", "magnificently
>> >> >> unscholastic"? How about "pitifully sophomoric" for your writing
>> >> >> style?
>
>> >> > Heh-heh. Good shot, Bob.
>
>> >> you must be easily satisfied.
>
>> > Sure am, lower-case mike. An 18-year-old Mexican chick would do.
>> > Even an immaculate Negro babe. I'm easy.
>
>> well, i hope you're a lesbian then, cause i don't see you finding
>> satisfaction with them laughing at you behind your back.
>
> As usual, your non-sequitur reply lacks any trace of logic, mikey.
> Plus you type like old people fuck.
well, rey, i suppose you have to help them by moving slower than normal?
i'm not in the industry.
>
>> >> no one else here is, especially this "bob" character who can't
>> >> tell a clause from a pause.
>
>> > Bob is, unfortunately, the whipping boy for a number of regulars.
>> > But he's a smart dictionary dude whose analytical and computer
>> > skills make a semi-literate youngster like you look like a retard.
>
>> "smart dictionary" is totally easy, and fits your niceties nicely.
>> it's also a very stupid thing to say.
>
> Sure is: What you just wrote ("smart dictionary") is indeed a very
> stupid thing to say. Lemme help you:
>
> "He's a {smart} {dictionary dude}." See how that works, moron?
> "Smart" is the adjective that modifies "dictionary dude." Moronic
> mike's parsing: "He's a {smart dictionary} {dude}." Are you allowed
> out on the street alone, or are there always a couple of burly guys in
> white coats accompanying you?
aw, yur so smart. you mean he's smart and he's a dictionary-dude, which
must be a complement on the streets of holywood? my mistake.
>
>> >> but, kudos to you, cause the "Heh-heh" works really well when you
>> >> want to seem sophisticated without seeming queer.
>
>> > And in return half a *kudo to you for being so perceptive (for a
>> > change). I not only seem to be but *am* sophisticated (and that
>> > without being queer -- not that there would be anything wrong with
>> > that).
>
>> well, it's kind of a whore house sophistication, which is ok in a
>> whore house, and maybe that's what you think's going on here...
>
> As usual, your non-sequitur reply lacks any trace of logic. Oh, I
> said that already. Well, think of the repetition as positive
> reinforcement, pedagogy-wise. "[I]t's kind of a {whore} {house
> sophistication}" -- what a very stupid thing to say. What's a "house
> sophistication"? Never mind; don't bother to explain.
sorry, what's needed here? "whore-house"? i thought that my articulation
took the sex out of whorehouse and made it less an object of interest: made
it emblematic.
>
>> > [* indicates a hypothetical construction; but you knew that.]
>> >
>> > Listen, l-c mike, in case you want to add variety to your stock of
>> > mildly insulting characterizations of people you argue with, you're
>> > welcome to use the variants below I constructed from yours and
>> > Bob's:
>
>> > "totally naive"
>> > "totally obtuse"
>> > "totally unscholastic" "totally sophomoric"
>
> [...]
>
>> > Cool, eh? No need to thank me.
>
>> getting other people to be creative is thanks in itself.
>
> My simple rearrangement of eight words may look like a creative
> achievement to a moron like you, mike, but my fingers did it
> mechanically, bypassing the brain, without firing a single synapse. A
> clinical moron could have done it just as well.
i suppose your fingers do alot of things you'd like to believe weren't done
by yourself.
Peter T. Daniels
It just seems odd that someone would come to a quite recent term in
typography before coming to the term long used in describing mss.
"illuminated capitals."
mike
y'all good ol' boys gotta go find somebody easier to lynch? sorry i ain't
give you a nice day.
Peter T. Daniels
Not at all. The significant word in both "Printing" uses is "flourish."
Swash capitals are by definition not ordinary capitals.
> I've learned a new term; thank you.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> mike wrote:
> > "Skitt" wrote
>
> > you really haven't a clue who i am.
>
> Should I care? I know that you can't write very well.
>
> > you might have learn't something, though you haven't learnt
> > anything from the review of your website i've already given you.
>
> There was nothing to learn. You were absolutely correct that it was created
> for a limited readership.
>
> >>
> >>> gher'z myn: members.aol.com/orangiemike
> >>
> >> Don't worry -- I won't even glance at yours.
> >
> > my page is just a couple of modern classical music pieces...
>
> Modern classical. Sort of a contradiction in terms, ain't it.
Only if you give it a mikey sort of interpretation; but we've already
been introduced to the brace notation that makes all things clear:
{modern} {classical music}.
mike
news:am2rih$254er$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de:
> mike wrote:
>> "Skitt" wrote
>
>> you really haven't a clue who i am.
>
> Should I care? I know that you can't write very well.
if you can't read well enough to read what i write, then i suppose i
wouldn't write anything you could read.
>
>
>> you might have learn't something, though you haven't learnt anything
>> from the review of your website i've already given you.
>
> There was nothing to learn. You were absolutely correct that it was
> created for a limited readership.
well, you can always watch tv. i think you like crappy english comedy?
the kinds that allow twits to feel superior?
>
>>>
>>>> gher'z myn: members.aol.com/orangiemike
>>>
>>> Don't worry -- I won't even glance at yours.
>>
>> my page is just a couple of modern classical music pieces...
>
> Modern classical. Sort of a contradiction in terms, ain't it.
not if you know anything about music. you know the concept "classical
jazz", i suppose? and how it is a recognition of enduring forms?
mike
peter, you're a hypocrite but that's your appeal. you know very well that
you recognize the term when you blather in rec.music.classical, and you
know very well that my music is modern classical. shame on you (but you
like that, don't you?)
here -- if you want to sound intellegent about me, critique my music:
otherwise, you're just a music mouse nibbling at cheese.
mike
ah. most people aren't interested in the history of typography and
graphics, so i'm not surprised that someone would only know the concept
through adobe type manager or some other modern source. remember that
most people don't know that there was a (happy) time when there were no
capitalizations at all. i suppose that captializations were invented as a
compromise, responding to the need for a greater number of literate
people, for a new and less able class of scribes.
what did you find to be the history and meaning of letter capitalization?
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> mike wrote:
> if you can't read well enough to read what i write, then i suppose i
> wouldn't write anything you could read.
Oy!
[snip]
>>> my page is just a couple of modern classical music pieces...
>>
>> Modern classical. Sort of a contradiction in terms, ain't it.
>
> not if you know anything about music. you know the concept "classical
> jazz", i suppose? and how it is a recognition of enduring forms?
Let's start with part of a dictionary entry for "classical" and its
connection with jazz:
3 a : of or relating to music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries
characterized by an emphasis on balance, clarity, and moderation b : of,
relating to, or being music in the educated European tradition that includes
such forms as art song, chamber music, opera, and symphony as distinguished
from folk or popular music or jazz
Perhaps you meant "classic".
I know that there is "The Classical Jazz Quartet". They do jazz takeoffs on
classical (in the proper sense) music pieces -- you know -- like those of
Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky and such.
The dictionary quote above would allow a certain use of "modern classical
music", provided it truly is in the "educated European tradition ...". If
that is what you meant, you used the term properly.
mike
news:am3176$2886b$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de:
> mike wrote:
>> "Skitt" wrote:
>>> mike wrote:
>
>> if you can't read well enough to read what i write, then i suppose i
>> wouldn't write anything you could read.
>
> Oy!
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> my page is just a couple of modern classical music pieces...
>>>
>>> Modern classical. Sort of a contradiction in terms, ain't it.
>>
>> not if you know anything about music. you know the concept "classical
>> jazz", i suppose? and how it is a recognition of enduring forms?
>
> Let's start with part of a dictionary entry for "classical" and its
> connection with jazz:
fuk the dictionary, "classical jazz" is used on the street for anything
from Ellington to Monk these days. "classical" means that a form exists...
that's all it could mean... that there is a class order and that it can be
replicated.
>
> 3 a : of or relating to music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries
> characterized by an emphasis on balance, clarity, and moderation b :
> of, relating to, or being music in the educated European tradition that
> includes such forms as art song, chamber music, opera, and symphony as
> distinguished from folk or popular music or jazz
>
> Perhaps you meant "classic".
no, i used the term "classical" as a specific choice to distinguish a body
of music which is still in the repertoire ("classic jazz" is a genre term
for radio market use), and a kind of reference against which modern pop
music calling itself jazz can be identified.
>
> I know that there is "The Classical Jazz Quartet". They do jazz
> takeoffs on classical (in the proper sense) music pieces -- you know --
> like those of Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky and such.
sounds like crap.
>
> The dictionary quote above would allow a certain use of "modern
> classical music", provided it truly is in the "educated European
> tradition ...". If that is what you meant, you used the term properly.
"classical music" exists for every type of music; there's a classical
country and western too. classical is only meant to refer to an object
created by referencing a class. specifically, my music is classical because
it uses traditional forms (symphony, string quartet, pas de deux) used in
concert halls presenting classical musics, and involving a music concerned
with only the music values themselves. this distinguishes my symphonic
music from symphony orchestra (an instrument) music used for film score --
there are classical film scores, but the object of a film score is to
enhance film values.
i would like a better definition of classical and a decent definition of
music.
Tony Cooper
> The dictionary quote above would allow a certain use of "modern
classical
> music", provided it truly is in the "educated European tradition ...".
If
> that is what you meant, you used the term properly.
It's about time for you to lay a "in my 50 years in America I've never
come across that term" type of statement here. You know perfectly well,
Skitt, that if anyone says they like modern classical music you know
exactly what they are talking about: music in the style of what we call
"classical" but composed recently.
Ludwig (What?) von , Johann (Joe Fingers) Sebastian, Joe Lullaby, and
George (Schatzie) Fredrick, didn't write or play classical music. They
wrote and played modern or contemporary music. If mike (lower case
and register) writes modern classical music that survives, it will
someday be kind-of-old classical-style music, and then classical music.
>Perhaps you meant "classic".
Not all classical music is classic. I'm sure there was a bunch of
rather bad music written a long time ago that will never achieve the
status of "classic".
mike
113505.news.dfncis.de:
> "Skitt" <sk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:am3176$2886b$1@ID-
>
>> The dictionary quote above would allow a certain use of "modern
>> classical music", provided it truly is in the "educated European
>> tradition ...". If that is what you meant, you used the term properly.
>
> It's about time for you to lay a "in my 50 years in America I've never
> come across that term" type of statement here. You know perfectly
well,
> Skitt, that if anyone says they like modern classical music you know
> exactly what they are talking about: music in the style of what we
call
> "classical" but composed recently.
>
> Ludwig (What?) von , Johann (Joe Fingers) Sebastian, Joe Lullaby, and
> George (Schatzie) Fredrick, didn't write or play classical music. They
> wrote and played modern or contemporary music.
thanx tony, for this. probably they were contemporary to the point of
being a john williams, for the crowd... the crowd paid to hear music
then, not "go to concerts".
> If mike (lower case
> and register)
thanks for including me in the adolescent! typically, i'm thought much
younger, though i don't know what case you are intending for me, if it's
to be lower. probably a family thing.
> writes modern classical music that survives,
! not a chance.
> it will
> someday be kind-of-old classical-style music, and then classical music.
>
>>Perhaps you meant "classic".
>
> Not all classical music is classic. I'm sure there was a bunch of
> rather bad music written a long time ago that will never achieve the
> status of "classic".
but which gets played more and more on "classical music" stations,
probably because the listeners are mostly using the station as aural
wallpaper, and because the programmers have masters in music but aren't
musical. ("I Hummel a happy tune")
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> The dictionary quote above would allow a certain use of "modern
>> classical music", provided it truly is in the "educated European
>> tradition ...". If that is what you meant, you used the term
>> properly.
>
> It's about time for you to lay a "in my 50 years in America I've never
> come across that term" type of statement here. You know perfectly
> well, Skitt, that if anyone says they like modern classical music you
> know exactly what they are talking about: music in the style of what
> we call "classical" but composed recently.
Yes, that may be, but is that what he was talking about?
> Ludwig (What?) von , Johann (Joe Fingers) Sebastian, Joe Lullaby, and
> George (Schatzie) Fredrick, didn't write or play classical music.
> They wrote and played modern or contemporary music. If mike (lower
> case and register) writes modern classical music that survives, it
> will someday be kind-of-old classical-style music, and then classical
> music.
>
>> Perhaps you meant "classic".
>
> Not all classical music is classic. I'm sure there was a bunch of
> rather bad music written a long time ago that will never achieve the
> status of "classic".
Absolutely. I did not listen to any of the music on his site, so I don't
know what he really meant to say. Since he has visited my Web page, and I
have some classic jazz available on it, I was suspecting that that was what
he was talking about. Not that it really matters. He was being a tad
unpleasant, so I became a bit more critical of his unusual writing style.
Tony Cooper
> > If mike (lower case
> > and register)
>
> thanks for including me in the adolescent! typically, i'm thought much
> younger, though i don't know what case you are intending for me, if
it's
> to be lower. probably a family thing.
Given your posting style, I'm not surprised that this confused you.
Upper case letters are capital letters, and lower case letters are
un-capitalized letters.
Peter T. Daniels
It's certainly not my original research, but the first ones marked what
we think of as paragraphs. In Charlemagne's day, when Alcuin came up
with "Caroline minuscule," the ancestor of our roman types, a series of
more imposing styles were available for titles, headers, or to mark just
the beginnings of things: inscriptional, uncial, half-uncial. Different
schools, different scribes handled them differently.
Peter T. Daniels
> > I know that there is "The Classical Jazz Quartet". They do jazz
> > takeoffs on classical (in the proper sense) music pieces -- you know --
> > like those of Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky and such.
>
> sounds like crap.
Sounds like Jacques Loussier or Swingle Singers. Or maybe Uri Caine
(whom I've managed to avoid so far).
mike
uri caine! let's mutiny! (i've never even heard of them). but, to my mind
G. Solti does the same kind of lazy-swinging tricks that the Swingles used.
let's make a new catagory of "classy classical" and include in it every
mainstream classical musical thought and performance generated in the
1980's.