MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
How Fast Do Languages Change? (Linguistics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37 ... 48, 49, 50  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But I still maintain that his claims that it would be obvious to all if it weren't for the machinations of the "Middle English Mafia" and that the typical 21st century citizen can read Chaucer without some sort of gloss are just transparent tosh.

All I have ever said is that it's no more difficult than this or that form of English that people have more or less trouble with. There is no one thing that even "Plain English" means.

But while a class full of students, say, might need some encouragement to see through the spelling, they don't need a glossary full of spurious translations. (There's a statistical analysis around here somewhere that quantifies the help-or-hindrance of a glossary from an edition of Canterbury Tales.)
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

After reading Dan's analysis (and without any previous training) once the penny drops, any one of us can go on and read a piece of Middle English text without the need for translation.

To be fair, this is all Mick's idea: I (was a Wittgensteinian but) never looked at Chaucer before reading THOBR. But, of course, it's my lack of training that made it such a piece of piss.

Bernie will now proceed to post various texts in Middle English on which to test us.

By all means. Although we've done this before, on the Flying Chaucers thread. Most recently, the "orthodox" posting on YouTube actually differed from the literal transliteration more than my unprepared first guess.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I was a Wittgensteinian


'Fraid I never took to River Cottage personally.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The nettle beer is OK, but nothing to write home about.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
Bernie, are you saying that it has escaped your notice that suit/suite/suitor/pursuit/sue... is all about what goes together, attends, follows, follows from...?

I didn't dig up some archaic meaning: I looked, saw soote, thought of suit and saw how it fitted perfectly -- without concocting an otherwise unknown word meaning sweet and without contradicting the sweete that does occur after it

I am, of course, familiar with "suit" as both a verb and a noun. I am totally unfamiliar with it as an adjective. To convince me that it really is not an archaic meaning you will need to produce at least two citations of its adjectival use in contemporary English (and for this purpose we can say anywhere from Shakespeare on counts as contemporary)

I can hardly believe no one else saw it. But then, the whole industry is dedicated to how different Middle English is, how it has to be translated or glossed to be understood. People have learned -- and see -- what they've been taught.

You have had an insight. Congratulations. No irony intended. But I still think you have drawn a global conclusion that is plain wrong. I do not believe that there is a "Middle Ages Industry" which is dedicated to preventing the world seeing Chaucer as he really is. I think that you are imagining a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

What you now ought to do is follow on from this good insight and "do a new Coghill" - but the right way. Herewith a pre-order for my copy as soon as you publish.
Send private message Send e-mail
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Bloody hell. I thought Linguistic Rectitude was a big enough obstacle.

To convince me that it really is not an archaic meaning you will need to produce at least two citations of its adjectival use in contemporary English

Do you analyse these posts to make sure they're in English? Or do you just read them? There must be unfamiliar terms here, made-up ones, typos. How come you can interpret them correctly from the context?

Oh, maybe you can't.

It's old, Bernie. And it's poetry. There might not be another example of suit in this context in all the rest of written English. But it's kind of important to be able to say and understand things that have never been said before: that's what it means to speak the language.

Yes -- as we keep saying -- some things have changed since Chaucer's day and a) by just reading what he says, we can get a genuine idea of what they are, to our delight, amusement and illumination; but we know b) because it's so straightforward to read it, that all those changes amount to bugger all in the way of language change.

I do not believe that there is a "Middle Ages Industry" which is dedicated to preventing the world seeing Chaucer as he really is. I think that you are imagining a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a balls-up.

The Middle English Industry is all the time and effort invested in this especially tumultuous "Middle" phase of development: defining it, describing it, reconstructing it, recording it, disseminating it, having children learn it by rote, producing glossaries and translations for it, loving it, slipping it into all manner of TV shows, historical re-enactments, quizzes... all of it emphasizing this remarkable transition from so-very-different to pretty-much-what-we-are-used-to.

What you now ought to do is follow on from this good insight and "do a new Coghill" - but the right way. Herewith a pre-order for my copy as soon as you publish.

A non-Coghill, methinks: he represents the worst excesses in the whole industry, dunny?

I have considered doing a complete transliteration... maybe on a website... maybe this one... but the point is that you could do the same thing yourself, Bernie: it's as plain as day!
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Over on the Crying Wolf thread...

I wrote:
then selecting for cuteness would bring along its tameness soote.


And did anybody notice the Chaucerian influence?.

Don't know why I bother...
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I noticed it but then it's my job to root out people who think they're amusing and point out (not often, it tends to outrage recipients to the point of leaving) that writing amusingly is a rare attribute, possessed only by me on this site currently. Jocularity (which is what most of you go in for most of the time) is a bonding exercise that insecure people do in social situations and should not be confused with being amusing.

However, people who have some generalised talent for originality can, by the simple act of conscious self-denial, actually develop the ability to be amusing -- which is a small corner of the Creative Empire. The process is an interesting one, involving not writing a particular "joke", then noting that somebody else duly posts it, you seeing that it was not funny because not actually original, spotting the twist that would have rendered it so, noting it is now too late etc etc.

I will be watching for the results.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But I wasn't trying to be amusing... I was simply trying to be jocular, in an attempt to bond with my fellow contributors in order to ameliorate my insecurity.

Bugger... done it again.

I will take your masterly advice on board and try to develop my ability to amuse... in the meantime you may just have to put up with my jocularity.

On a serious note; writing (except for really boring technical stuff) is still rather new to me, so I do appreciate your criticism.

You never know... I might one day develop a talent for it.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:
it's my job to root out people who think they're amusing and point out (not often, it tends to outrage recipients to the point of leaving)...


So how did you know I wouldn't be outraged?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I read it with a wink rather than a smirk... and wondered why you didn't spell it 'suit'.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I did initially... then changed it to 'soote' thinking it more likely to attract the attention of some of our more elderly contributors.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
I did initially... then changed it to 'soote' thinking it more likely to attract the attention of some of our more elderly contributors.
That's funny!
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I read it and saw nothing odd. What does that mean?
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
I read it and saw nothing odd. What does that mean?
Oh, for Pete's sake.
Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37 ... 48, 49, 50  Next

Jump to:  
Page 36 of 50

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group