|
|
Post by Adam on Feb 6, 2010 11:36:10 GMT -1
O precious code, volume, tome,
Book, writing, compilation, work,
Attend the while I pen a pome,
A jest, a jape, a quip, a quirk.
For I would pen, engross, indite,
Transcribe, set forth, compose, address,
Record, submit–yea, even write
An ode, an elegy to bless–
To bless, set store by, celebrate,
Approve, esteem, endow with soul,
Commend, acclaim, appreciate,
Immortalize, laud, praise, extol
Thy merit, goodness, value, worth,
Experience, utility–
O manna, honey, salt of earth,
I sing, I chant, I worship thee!
How could I manage, live, exist,
Obtain, produce, be real, prevail,
Be present in the flesh, subsist,
Have place, become, breathe or inhale
Without thy help, recruit, support,
Opitulation, furtherance,
Assistance, rescue, aid, resort,
Favour, sustention, and advance?
Alack! Alack! and well-a-day!
My case would then be dour and sad,
Likewise distressing, dismal, gray,
Pathetic, mournful, dreary, bad.
Though I could keep this up all day,
This lyric, elegiac, song,
Meseems hath come the time to say
Farewell! Adieu! Good-by! So long!
To a Thesaurus – Franklin P. Adams, collected in Carolyn Wells, The Book of Humorous Verse, 1920
|
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Feb 6, 2010 13:32:16 GMT -1
While I agree with your main point, and you probably did it intentionally for comic effect, that post does read a little as though you were overly liberal with the right click > thesaurus option in Word, as some of my undergrads are wont to do *sigh* Not particularly. What I was doing though was thinking consciously about what words to choose, and whether they'd be understood. Writing something while second-guessing every other word is weird, almost like writing in a foreign language you don't know very well without the aid of a dictionary  |
|
|
|
Post by potia on Feb 6, 2010 16:59:31 GMT -1
Now, I've no problem with defining words that people don't understand. In fact, I welcome it: having to explain something clearly is a fantastic way of clarifying and ordering your own conceptions on the subject. Don't feel that you need to run to a dictionary, just ask. But I point blank refuse to just "dumb down" with no good reason. EDIT: Sorry, that's a bit vicious. "Intellectual gobbledegook" really set me off there. I understand where you are coming from Deiniol, I really do. Personally I'm not asking for dumbing down of ideas but use of language that will help those of us from a non-linguist background to understand what is being discussed to some extent at least. It's not easy to ask for an explanation of what is being said in a face to face conversation never mind on a forum even when you know explanations will happily be given.  |
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Feb 6, 2010 18:14:49 GMT -1
Now, I've no problem with defining words that people don't understand. In fact, I welcome it: having to explain something clearly is a fantastic way of clarifying and ordering your own conceptions on the subject. Don't feel that you need to run to a dictionary, just ask. But I point blank refuse to just "dumb down" with no good reason. EDIT: Sorry, that's a bit vicious. "Intellectual gobbledegook" really set me off there. I understand where you are coming from Deiniol, I really do. I should have a longer fuse  The things which seem to cause confusion aren't actually linguistic terminology (phrase structure rules anybody?), but philosophical/theological terms and concepts: an area in which I have about as much academic training as anyone else here (i.e. diddly squat). I only learnt all this stuff from reading too much inappropriate literature. I think it's worth mentioning that I'm not actually some academic sitting in a book-lined study in my ivory tower somewhere- I never even did any A-levels! I know what you mean. I'll confess that it's one reason why I often keep wikipedia open in the background, in order to clarify what obscure terms mean. It's particularly frustrating when you can remember the concept, but not the word that goes with it! |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Feb 6, 2010 21:32:34 GMT -1
I would love to see the discussions in everyday English, not Intellectual gobbledegook! Campaign for plain English, please! Cheers, Midori Define "everyday English" for me please? It varies from person to person, not two people have exactly the same idiolect (a personal understanding and usage of language) or vocabulary. As anyone who has read some of my blog will no doubt know that my personal style tends towards the prolix (overly wordy), and I use a great deal of recherché vocabulary. However, I don't do this consciously, nor even to make myself appear better-read than I am: those big, intimidating, complex words are simply assimilated into my personal lexicon to the degree that I don't realise that they might be unfamiliar to others. "Everyday English" varies as well as by context. When I'm at university, I hear conversations in which people use words like "exegesis", "paradigm", "aetiology" and "phoric" with relative impunity. At work, however, the level of discourse is rather lower, the most common word seems to be "faggot" (a word which most frequently comes from me, I hasten to add). Which is more "everyday": the well-informed discourse in academia, or the polyglottal profanity of a professional kitchen? Further, a lot of what is under discussion here and elsewhere is a specialised field, with its own terminology and jargon. It's not "intellectual gobbledegook", it's appropriate field-specific terminology. It's also frequently the only succint way of discussing something: to eschew technical vocabulary leaves one simply floundering in fuzzily-defined circumlocutions. It makes about as much sense as speaking of "the pointy end" in a discussion on naval technology. Now, I've no problem with defining words that people don't understand. In fact, I welcome it: having to explain something clearly is a fantastic way of clarifying and ordering your own conceptions on the subject. Don't feel that you need to run to a dictionary, just ask. But I point blank refuse to just "dumb down" with no good reason. EDIT: Sorry, that's a bit vicious. "Intellectual gobbledegook" really set me off there. Hooray!!!! I second this absolutely and now feel a bit craven. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 7, 2010 13:17:30 GMT -1
i see where Potia and Midori are coming from and to be honest have learnt a new word and what it means as a result of this thread already - theophany isnt something i think i can drop into a conversation at work though - however i think referring to religious terminology as 'intellectual gobbledegook' isnt helpful as these are after all english words, they are not entirely jargon and are perhaps the kind of thing we should be discussing more of here - mind you we do rather well in terms of having meaty discussions which i for one applaud.
on one hand i dont want people to feel alienated because the language used is unfamiliar and on the other i dont want to have people dumbing down either.
so perhaps we should just bear each other in mind; who we are reading and the context of the discussion and who will read what we are about to write.
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Feb 7, 2010 19:08:12 GMT -1
And there are some excellent online free dictionaries out there too: I acquire new words all the time as, I think, people who read widely and want to understand what they're reading do. ('Schwamerei' was last week's, 'a swarming mass obsession', like teenage girls with RPatz). I totally see where you're coming from Potia, and I think your new thread is a great idea. But I dislike the implication from some quarters that any post that uses 'intellectual' words which the reader doesn't understand is *therefore* nothing but meaningless nonsense. That's a recipe for never discussing anything weighty with precision and accuracy of self-expression.
|
|
|
|
Post by clare on Feb 7, 2010 20:59:38 GMT -1
My eyes slip off the linguistic stuff - and it seems that this site is very concerned with language - but it is up to the rest of us to talk about the stuff we want to. Trying to get to grips with the consciousness thread, which is central to any religious/spiritual foundation, I find I can’t be terribly bothered because it’s quickly become esoteric. These are important subjects and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be private conversations between specialists. But I welcome the opportunity to listen in and learn a bit from that conversation. It’s a cliché that a gifted teacher makes her work accessible and there’s no doubt that a great deal can be learned from specialists here.  |
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Feb 7, 2010 23:34:58 GMT -1
('Schwamerei' was last week's, 'a swarming mass obsession', like teenage girls with RPatz). Encountering that on your blog was a new one for me! :takes a deep breath: I know I'm going to sound like a dick here, but I still believe that the best way of acquiring new vocabulary is to look up stuff you don't know. You don't seriously think that mine of megli's or anybody else's big vocabulary comes from being sat in a classroom being taught a list of "obscure words for the intellectually precocious", do you? I encounter words I don't know all the bloody time, and yes, it is frustrating when reading something to come to a crashing halt because I encounter a word I can't work out from context. But, once I've gone and looked the word or concept up? It's no longer frustrating: it becomes rewarding. Someone uses a word I don't know, I go look it up and I've learnt something new. And when it happens in a forum like this, you have an unexpected bonus: you can actually ask the person who used the word what it means. You don't have that luxury when you're reading a book - and, frankly, if you don't encounter unfamiliar terminology in the books that you're reading then you're simply not reading enough. So fuck the Campaign for Plain English: I'd rather have a Campaign for Real English. I don't know if I've mentioned before that for four or so years I was a member of ADF (technically, I still am). I've learnt a number of useful lessons during that time: not least of them being their organisational motto "why not excellence?". This often comes across as arrogant, but the message I prefer to take from it is that it's a good thing to push yourself outside your comfort zone. |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Feb 8, 2010 0:10:40 GMT -1
My eyes slip off the linguistic stuff - and it seems that this site is very concerned with language - but it is up to the rest of us to talk about the stuff we want to. Trying to get to grips with the consciousness thread, which is central to any religious/spiritual foundation, I find I can’t be terribly bothered because it’s quickly become esoteric. Isn't that simply a recipe for stagnation and self-defeat? With great respect, and pushing what may have been a light-hearted comment, I'm not sure the best definition of 'esoteric' is 'going beyond what I personally can be arsed to follow at this moment in time'  By the bypass (though I would say this) I think the attention to language is an important corrective to the prevailing trends in pagan discussions, which as we all know tend to the saccharine and nebulous. In a context such as Brython and CF---and 'Celtic' things more generally--we are working with history and the records of the past, at least as part of what we do. And we can't do that in a kind of hermetically sealed isolation from language and its associated difficulties. |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Feb 8, 2010 7:33:33 GMT -1
I don't know if I've mentioned before that for four or so years I was a member of ADF (technically, I still am). ADF? (I am not reluctant to ask questions!  ) RR |
|
|
|
Post by Rion on Feb 8, 2010 9:26:32 GMT -1
:takes a deep breath: I know I'm going to sound like a dick here, but I still believe that the best way of acquiring new vocabulary is to look up stuff you don't know. You don't seriously think that mine or megli's or anybody else's big vocabulary comes from being sat in a classroom being taught a list of "obscure words for the intellectually precocious", do you? I encounter words I don't know all the bloody time, and yes, it is frustrating when reading something to come to a crashing halt because I encounter a word I can't work out from context. But, once I've gone and looked the word or concept up? It's no longer frustrating: it becomes rewarding. Someone uses a word I don't know, I go look it up and I've learnt something new. And when it happens in a forum like this, you have an unexpected bonus: you can actually ask the person who used the word what it means. You don't have that luxury when you're reading a book - and, frankly, if you don't encounter unfamiliar terminology in the books that you're reading then you're simply not reading enough. So fuck the Campaign for Plain English: I'd rather have a Campaign for Real English. I don't know if I've mentioned before that for four or so years I was a member of ADF (technically, I still am). I've learnt a number of useful lessons during that time: not least of them being their organisational motto "why not excellence?". This often comes across as arrogant, but the message I prefer to take from it is that it's a good thing to push yourself outside your comfort zone. ^ Seconded. Also, dictionaries. EDIT: ADF is probably Ár nDraíocht Féin, whose site can be found here. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Feb 8, 2010 11:45:10 GMT -1
My eyes slip off the linguistic stuff - and it seems that this site is very concerned with language - but it is up to the rest of us to talk about the stuff we want to. Trying to get to grips with the consciousness thread, which is central to any religious/spiritual foundation, I find I can’t be terribly bothered because it’s quickly become esoteric. These are important subjects and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be private conversations between specialists. But I welcome the opportunity to listen in and learn a bit from that conversation. It’s a cliché that a gifted teacher makes her work accessible and there’s no doubt that a great deal can be learned from specialists here. Makes sense to me... I too struggle with the linguistic stuff... I possibly place less importance on it than others, too... and that's all fine... in a community, conversations strike up between individuals and sub-groups... we drift in, contribute, read, listen as interest, time and motivation allow. But the record of debate and thinking is there for all to follow whenever people so choose. We can all start a conversation and we can all contribute... having a group of people with facility in academic and specialist terminology doesn't require us to either have the same facility (though we can acquire it if we so choose, it exists for a real purpose, not just to create an arcane priesthood) nor does it require us to participate in those conversations. (though being arrogant enough to believe I know something about everything and have worthwhile opinions about most things has always stood me in good stead ;D) |
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Feb 8, 2010 14:48:06 GMT -1
I don't know if I've mentioned before that for four or so years I was a member of ADF (technically, I still am). ADF? (I am not reluctant to ask questions! ) RR Rion's right, ADF = Ar nDraiocht Fein. Very big in the states, almost unheard of here. |
|
|
|
Post by Midori on Feb 13, 2010 20:57:27 GMT -1
OK,
Yes, Deinol, You did rather go off on one, but I am trying to stand up for those of us less academically and linguistically adept. I went to Uni. myself, but donkeys years ago and not in this kind of area.
I'm not dumb, neither did I ask for stuff to be 'dumbed down', and although I would fight to the death for your right to speak and write as you wish, I am pointing out that some of us can't keep up with the conversation.
Thesauri may be a blessing in certain cases, but they cannot always help. Also I feel that 'Fuck the Campaign for Plain English' was a little strong under the circumstances.
Please be a little kinder to us 'lesser mortals.'
Cheers, Midori
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Feb 14, 2010 10:49:07 GMT -1
OK, Yes, Deinol, You did rather go off on one, but I am trying to stand up for those of us less academically and linguistically adept. 'The Silent Majority'?!  The trouble with this, Midori, is it places everyone else in a bind, because we can't tell what you would consider to be too difficult or obscure for the 'less...adept', not being mind-readers. Does it mean using long words (how long is a long word?) or technical vocabulary when discussing a technical point? Does it mean debates or questions that you find hard to follow (and how can we know if you don't say on the thread in question)? Frankly, because you don't on the whole pipe up and say 'You've lost me', your comments on this thread give the impression that everything those of us at whom it is tacitly aimed have said is incomprehensible. (See Francis' reference to deleting his long post using phenomenology to address this consciousness-issue. Personally, I'd very much have liked to have read that, but it would no doubt have been hard to follow without some knowledge of what phenomenology is as a philosophical strategy. Mind you, there's always Wikipedia.) You might think it the easiest thing in the world not to use 'gobbledegook'---but the point is that for many of us, it isn't gobbledegook at all but familiar terms we use every day when we speak and write. It really isn't very easy to tell, therefore, what counts as gobbledegook in your eyes and what doesn't. Also, where does this 'standing up for the less adept' stop? (By the by, I'm intrigued how you yourself know what these silent individuals, suffering helplessly in the face of impenetrable jargon and presumably weeping hot tears of shame into their keyboards, can cope with intellectually---perhaps there's a seething exchange of PMs going on behind the scenes.) Does it extend to wanting us to not refer to books you haven't read, or to people you haven't heard of, or to subjects in which you have no interest? Does it mean any reference to language, academic books, Celtic literature, philosophy, theology, history? I trust not. So part of my point is that discussions are not intrinsically incomprehensible or valueless because a particular member of the board finds them so, though I can appreciate it must be frustrating to feel that some stuff is going over your head. I hope this isn't the case, but it's dispiriting to feel that the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of words we have contributed to this forum over the years have simply served to bamboozle you. BUT I must say that your recent comments are so global and non-specific that they come across as dripping with passive-aggression (e.g. that sideswipe about 'lesser mortals'), whether or not that was your intent: I'm sure it wasn't. It's very hard to respond to that in a constructive way that moves this forward for us all. |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Feb 14, 2010 15:40:34 GMT -1
On the subject of new words: I learnt 'to historiate' last night, which means 'to work a story into the surface of some material object'---like when you've got a stone pillar with four flat surfaces at the top where it meets the roof, and you carve four different biblical scenes onto those flat surfaces, like you see in lots of medieval cathedral crypts. They're then called 'historiated pillars'. Isn't that cool?! Anyway, I came across it and I looked it up---happens all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Midori on Feb 18, 2010 0:36:24 GMT -1
I think I'm going to give up on this discussion, as I cannot seem to get my point across without it seems, bring wilfully misunderstood.
When I was young, I was taught that it was rude to exclude people from conversations, by either talking over them, or using language in a way which was not understandable by all.
Call me old-fashioned, (Well, I am 62), but I was taught manners.
Cheers, Midori
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Feb 18, 2010 6:32:31 GMT -1
Fair do's. BUT... when you were young (and when I was young) conversations did not take place publicly on bulletin boards or forums within communities of large groups of people with different categories of interest and expertise. This conversation took place in a sub-forum specifically dedicated to theological discussion. people used theological terminology. No intent to exclude was present. However, the use of phrases such as Call me old-fashioned, (Well, I am 62), but I was taught manners. is *so* passive-aggressive as to leave readers with little room for conclusion but that it's back handed intent is to suggest that the other participants (more specifically those who use words you cannot be arsed to either ask the meaning of or look up, in the context of a technical discussion mind) were not taught manners. When I was young, I genuinely expected those who had reached the grand old age of 62 to have grown up and to behave in a manner that reflected this. |
|
)