>>23 Thanks for your opinion. I'm almost certain that you're a native speaker of American English. The phrase "I don't wanna be debbie downer" is very American. I actually had to google about it.
>>1 Hi, Jesse. Welcome aboard! So you're a Caucasian American nicknamed "Jesse." I had thought it was a male-only name. But you said you're a woman. I said to myself, "What?!" So I googled the name and found that it was a name for men and women as well.
The poster at >>2 was actually asking you what kind of hyphenated American you are. I mean, are you Italian-American, Swedish-American, German-American, or what? If you prefer not to specify, then you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say here on 2-channel may be used against you in court or in front of Darth Vader.
As a nonnative English speaker, I welcome you warmly because we learners of English are in dire need of instructive inputs on the English language and the cultures of the English-speaking world from native speakers like you.
Anything you may say here will be very useful to us. I hope you'll enjoy being with us, as much as we enjoy being with you.
Looks like the original poster has vanished into thin air or is temporarily busy elsewhere.
If you guys are interested, I would like the rest of us to talk to one another until Jesse makes her glorious comeback.
I hope this thread will become a platform somewhat different from "Chat in English," where people talk mainly about sex (especially gay sex), food, and politics (especially atomic bombs, xenophobic ideas, and anti-Korean sentiments). The problem is, what do we have in common? What are some of the things that interest all of us? Are you, for example, interested in novels and movies?
>>36 You just called yourselves "foreigners." I thought the word offended all non-Japanese. Doesn't it offend you? In any case, some people from abroad do seem to dislike the word anyway. To avoid hurting anybody's feelings, I usually use either of the following, depending on the case:
(1) a non-Japanese, two non-Japanese (2) a person or people from abroad (OR from outside Japan) (3) international students (if they are students) (4) tourists from abroad (OR from outside Japan)
What words or phrases would you suggest we should use? Thanks.
>>37 It depends on the person, but from how I feel I'll leave you with this:
If you know the person's nationality, you can usually say it. "Foreigner" isn't offensive if it's said in English. If it's said in Japanese, then it feels somewhat offensive to use to a stranger.
>>38 Thanks for your input. I know that if I know a specific person's nationality, naturally I'll call them with an adjective denoting their nationality.
The problem is, what is the safest way to call a person or a group of persons from abroad whose nationality or nationalities you don't know? Do the phrases in (1) through (4) at >>37 work? Are they idiomatic?
I often have to translate official documents and translate what Japanese people refer to as "外国人" into English. And they never let me know what their nationalities are. I don't want to use the word "foreigner(s)" for fear that the word may offend some, if not all.
Okay, then, let me write a bit if nobody has time to pitch in. Even if no one reads what I have to say, I will talk to myself anyway.
About six months ago or so, I read "Romeo and Juliet" in the original. As just another Japanese, I naturally found it hard. But I tackled it anyway. I'd always thought it totally indispensable for serious learners of English to try Shakespeare in the original. Everybody knows why. Shakespeare, together with the King James Version of the Bible, constitutes a vital part of the English-speaking culture.
Okay, then, why R&J, why not "Hamlet" or "The Merchant of Venice" or "Macbeth"? Well, I think I'll tackle all other works of Shakespeare in the end, but I thought that it was a good idea for an almost absolute beginner of Shakespeare to begin with R&J. Why? I found that it had a plot most accessible to beginners. It's simple: it's well understandable even to junior high students. The plot basically revolves around Romeo and Juliet, falling in love despite the outrageous rivalry between their respective families. Desperate, they kill themselves in the end. That's about it. It's not as complex as "Hamlet," "Macbeth," or other works, most of which center around adult themes. (to be continued)
Continued from >>42 When reading literature, I don't care too much about its plot. If I did take any interest in plot, then I would start reading detective novels, sci-fi, or other best-selling novels. Instead, what I care more about is the rhythm and the beauty of the language used in the literature. I love language because of its musicality. I personally believe that there is nothing new under the sun. No novel can present anything new. Nothing a human can ever conceive is new enough. Even if any story really is complex and interest, so what? That's what I say. Instead, it's the melody of the language that matters -- well, at least to me.
Before tackling R&J, I had read "Hamlet" in the original. But I read it through only in a casual way, I mean, without consulting commentary books or dictionaries or grammar books designed for readers of documents dating back to the Elizabethan era. Ah yes, I did consult the OED and a few notes on the play but only quickly, not very carefully. So I only got a rough idea of the play.
But this time, with R&J, it was different. I read it rather seriously. I don't know how long I spent reading it, perhaps one or two months. For about two to three hours each day, maybe. I constantly consulted elaborate dictionaries and a grammar book designed for readers of documents dating back to ancient times. I had close at hand the famous Alexander Schmidt Shakespeare Lexicon, the well-known Abbot grammar book for Shakespeare readers, the Onions Shakespeare glossary, David Crystal's Shakespeare dictionary ("Shakespeare's Words"), Gordon Williams' Shakespeare's Sexual Language, the Arden Shakespeare R&J (an annotated R&J), and the Cambridge annotated R&J. Besides all those, I also had at hand the whole series of the Arden Shakespeare books. (to be continued on Part 3)
Why did I need all that? Well, when reading even a single play, I thought it was vital for me to read the very long notes of the Arden Shakespeare R&J. And, while reading it, I found lots of cross references to many other plays of the Bard of Avon. Naturally I was tempted to follow all those cross references, which guided me to most of the other plays by the Poet. And of course, I had to consult the Elizabethan English grammar (at least a few pages of it, if not all) and naturally I also had to consult the Alexander Schmidt dictionary, the OED, and other dictionaries as well.
So I was terribly busy. I thought that R&J was the most accessible to beginners like me of all the Bard's works. But still, it was hard enough for me. Despite all my pains, however, my study of the play was quite rewarding. R&J reportedly contains the most sexual allusions of all his works. That aspect attracted me a lot too. R&J is beautiful, full of both high-brow poetry and rather vulgar sexual and toilet allusions, and very funny too. I wish I could recite the whole play.
I won't stop at R&J either. I will read many other plays by the Poet too, if possible, all of them. I wish that, in reading and appreciating the Bard, I would some day in the distant future be able to emulate some of his brilliant musicality in language and start writing some poetry myself -- in English too. I suspect that before I can attain that level, the time will come for me to pass away, though. The path is way too long.
>>45 Yes, I'd like to try them both some day. But there's a long way for me go to before I can arrive there. Naturally I've once tried reading some passages of The Canterbury Tales in the original and read Beowulf through in its modern English translation.
I'm afraid that at that time at least, twenty years ago or so, I was not yet ready to appreciate them. I'll try them again one day, at least Chaucer in the original. But Beowulf? I've once tried studying it, but Old English grammar is too complicated to master. Yes, it may not be much more complicated than modern French, but still it's hard enough, especially because Old English doesn't attract me as much as modern French. Modern French is used everywhere in the world, while Old English is rarely found anywhere. It's almost useless, so that it's rather hard for me to keep motivating myself enough to keep studying it until I master at least its basic grammar. If I were still young and at school, I'd find a lot easier to spur myself on to do all that. But now, it's really hard.
But then again, I also know that Old English, as well as modern German and Old High German, as well as all the other Germanic languages, especially ancient ones, proves very important when you want to have a profound understanding of English. I love the comparative linguistics of Indo-European languages, although I've never got formal education in the field. All I've ever done in that field is reading this book and that and reading the etymological descriptions of this word and that. In any case, I wish I knew more of ancient languages, including Latin, Greek, and Old English.
Okay, then, let me try reading a few lines of "The Canterbury Tales." I've just hand-copied the following passage, together with some of the notes given in my annotated version of "The Canterbury Tales." Middle English is much more removed from modern English than Shakespeare but it's still not completely unintelligible. It looks a lot easier than Old English. But still, I'm positive that it will take me a long, long time to learn to appreciate Chaucer. But so far, so good. Although I don't understand it very well, I find his rhythm beautiful.
Fragment I (Group A) GENERAL PROLOGUE Here begynneth the book of the Tales of Canterbury
WHAN that Aprill with his shoures soote --- soote = sweet The droughte of March hath perced to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich licour Of which vertu engendred is the flour; 5 Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth -- eek = also? Inspired hath in every holt and heeth --- inspired = quickened? holt = wood? (cf. German Holz = wood) The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne --- croppes = shoots? Hath in the Ram his half cours yronne, And smale foweles maken melodye, --- foweles = birds 10 That slepen al the nyght with open ye (So slepeth hem nature in hir corages); --- priketh = incites? corages = hearts? Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages, And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes, To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes; 15 And specially from every shires ende Of Engelond to Canterbury they wende, --- wende = go The hooly blisful martir for to seke, --- blisful = blessed? seke = visit? That hem hath holpen whan that they were --- holpen = helped seeke. --- seeke = sick Bilful that in that seson on a day, 20 In Southwerk at the Tabard as I lay --- lay = stayed? Redy to wenden on my pilgrymage To Canterbury with ful devout corage,
>>48 lines 3-4 And bathed every veyne in swich licour Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
[Translation of the above by Everyman's Library] And bathed every sap-vessel in moisture, by virtue of which the flower is produced.
lines 7-8 the yonge sonne Hath in the Ram his half cours yronne,
[Translation by Everyman's Library] The young sun (i.e. the sun at the beginning of its annual journey) has completed the second half of its course in the Ram.
>>48 These 22 lines from The Prologue of "The Canterbury Tales" is read aloud in its original pronunciation on YouTube:
(1) How to Pronounce the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales in Middle English Slow to Fast! (about 7 minutes) --- This video demonstrates very slowly how to pronounce each word in its original pronunciation. Very helpful to those who want to actually practice the pronunciation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXMypzdWxsc
(2) Chaucer, The General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, read aloud in Middle English. (about 1 minute) -- This is a very beautiful recitation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lGJntNFFqo
The above dictionary entry says that this word "eek" means "also." It also indicates that the word resembles the Gothic word "●auk." It is also quite similar to the Modern German word "auch" (also). This is very interesting.
That, is an idiom. Idioms are phrases or Sentences that crop up in a culture. This Means that how the phrase is said will Differ from place to place and there is No real way of saying what's grammatically Correct, of at least in this example. This means we can only answer what is Correct in street or vernacular English, And in this example, both are.
Fuck, thus is getting into strange territory. By all logic it should be fine, But the world is not a logical place.you Could skirt around the issue by saying Something like "people from other Countries". Adapting that to whatever role You feel is right.
This was probably written in the 12th century, i.e. about 200 years older than the Canterbury Tales. The following text is a part of a story in the anthology. I'm not well versed in classical Japanese literature, but I understand most of it without annotation. I think most educated Japanese people understand it as well.
>>39 We have a saying in English: "You can please some of the people some of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time."
The only one I find a bit odd is (4), I'd honestly just say tourist.
If my previous post didn't make sense, calling somebody a foreigner in English is pretty much okay. But if you say ガイジン、 then it feels a bit wrong. It's the pronunciation, not the meaning.
>>42 I usually only read the threads in the mornings here, which is around 10-11 pm there. As >>59 commented, you're quite well read. I studied Middle-English for a bit for fun, the only thing I read was The Greene Knight though.
>>61 >>The only one I find a bit odd is (4), I'd honestly just say tourist.
Thank you for your input. The reason I wrote "tourists from abroad (OR from outside Japan)" as an option is that there are Japanese people living in Japan who are on a trip inside Japan. If you call anybody a "tourist," doesn't that concept include "a Japanese on a trip inside Japan"?
That's the problem. Of course, when you're just having a casual conversation, you don't have to worry about that kind of thing. The problem arises when you have to translate official and business documents, where they often mention 外国人 as a group of non-Japanese residents and tourists.
Dreas let me know in one of his posts that it's a good idea to call them "people from other countries." Yes, I consider that as an option. But in a long document, people would wish to use a variety of synonyms to avoid being monotonous. I'd like to know as many different words or strings of words to mean "foreigners" as possible.
In any case, you told me that it's quite all right to call them "foreigners." That's reassuring to know. Thanks for your valuable input again.
>>48 lines 7-8 The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne Hath in the Ram his half cours ★yronne★,
The word "yronne" looks interesting. If I understand correctly, the prefix "y-" is a corrupt form of "ge-", which is the prefix often used in modern and ancient German to form the past participle of a verb. Whenever I see this "y-" prefix used in any text, I say to myself, "Oh, this is beautiful. So the passage must be from a Chaucer or other Middle English text."
Since I don't have a Middle English Dictionary at hand, I've just searched the OED for "yronne". The quintessential dictionary says that it is the past participle of the verb which means "run."
The word "run" comes from Old English "rinnan." And this "rinnan" (the infinitive form) changed to "ronne" in Middle English (there is a document that uses the form in the 16th century at least). This infinitive also changed to "run", just like in modern English, in the 16th century.
Then the past participle of the verb "rinnan" changed to "yronne" in Middle English. This kind of information never tires me. The OED is my beloved. I wish I could ever get to know her through and through. But I know it's completely impossible. The world of knowledge is just vast -- vast.
And look at this verb "maken". Don't you guys think this verb looks beautiful? This is exactly like the modern German verb "machen". The OED says the verb "to make" took the forms of macan, macian, and makian in Old English. The etymology section of the OED goes on to say that the verb is cognate to the following:
Old Frisian makia, Middle Dutch ★maken★ (Dutch ★maken★), Old Saxon makon (Middle Low German maken), Old High German mahhon (Middle High German ●machen●, German ●machen●); (Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, June 2000)
>>48 line 16 Of Engelond to Canterbury they ●wende●,
The verb "wende" here is also interesting. Contemporary English does have the word "wend." The OED says the verb "wend" comes from the Old English "wendan". Its past tense and past participle forms were "went" in Middle English. And these forms "went" were then used as the past and the past participle forms of the verb "go."
That's why modern English has this inflection pattern: "go - went - went." This is another thing I've learned today. On the other hand, the original word inflection pattern "wend - went - went" then had to change itself to: "wend - wended - wended" to avoid conflicting with the pattern "go - went - went."
>>59 I'm not that well-read. Most high-school students learn about the anthology. My point was that the language is not so much different from modern Japanese.
The dictionary also says that one Saxon form of "whan" was "whanne." So "whanne" and "thanne" rhyme. That's good. It's just like in their modern English counterparts (when and then), which rhyme.
Anyway, as indicated at the beginning of this post, lines 1 and 5 begin with "Whan", which is responded to by "thanne" in line 10. Here, the basic plot is along these lines: WHEN such and such a season comes, THEN lots of people feel tempted to go to pilgrimages.
>>66 Talking about the slight differences between the ancient and the modern forms of a language, I once read through a modern (ancient) Icelandic grammar very quickly. I read it through but it was rather like scanning it, without trying to memorize the grammatical rules or words taught in it. Still it was quite clear to me that modern and ancient Icelandic are almost identical (Old Icelandic dates back to a millennium ago, if I remember correctly). The grammatical rules are almost the same, for one thing. For another, the forms of the words are also almost identical.
For example, suppose the Old Icelandic word meaning "word" is "woooorrrddde" (I'm just making it up). Modern Icelandic is something like "woooorrrddd". The only difference between them is the absence of the "e" in the modern Icelandic equivalent. Every word and every grammatical rule were the same way. There's not a single major difference in any element of the language. It's really amazing how conservative Icelandic people have been all these years (maybe for more than a millennium), consciously or unconsciously refusing to let their language change as did the English and the Japanese.
>>48 11 (So slepeth hem nature in hir ●corages●); 22 To Canterbury with ful devout ●corage●,
In the above lines, the word "corage(s)" is used twice. It is used to mean "spirit(s)" or "heart(s)" unlike in modern English. Etymological dictionaries say that the use of this word in the sense of "heart" and "spirit" comes from Old French usage. This Francophonic usage of the word "corage" is just one of numerous cases where Norman French-derived words are widely used in the English of old times, more widely than in today's English. When reading Shakespeare and other old literature, I very frequently find the prevalent usage of French-derived words.
Old literature also seems to contain more Germanic-derived words than today's English. Shown below are some examples:
6 Inspired hath in every ●holt and heeth 9 And smale foweles ●maken● melodye, 18 That hem hath ★holpen★ whan that they were
Note, in particular, the word "holpen." It is the past participle of the verb "helpen" (or "help" in modern English). The infinitive form "helpen" is similar to modern German "helfen", while the p.p. form "holpen" is similar to German "geholfen". I'm not familiar with Dutch, but I think their Dutch equivalents are even more similar, or in some cases, completely identical.
In this way, English in the old days (say, during the days of Shakespeare or Chaucer) contained more Germanic-derived words and Norman French-derived words than today's English. If that is so, I feel more tempted to study a little more (if not much more) of Old English, German, and other Germanic languages, especially ancient ones.
Continued from >>76 For the word "holpen," let me say a few more words. The Old English (or Anglo-Saxon) equivalent of "to help" was "helpan." Here's a list of the inflected forms of the verb in OE and its relatives.
line 12 --- Thanne longen folk to ●goon● on pilgrimages, (I guess this means "Then people long to go on pilgrimages.")
line 78 --- And [he] wente for to ●doon● his pilgrymage. (I guess this means "And he went to do his pilgrimage.")
The word "goon" in line 12 should mean "to go." It is similar in form to German "gehen." German: gehen - ging - gegangen OE: gan - ??? - ??? (I don't know.) ME: gon - ??? - ???
The word "doon" in line 78 should mean "to do." It is similar in form to German "tun." German: tun - tat - getat OE: don - dyde - gedon ME: don - ???
WRONG: German: tun - tat - getat CORRECT: German: tun - tat - ★getan★
By the way, the more I work on the English in the old days, the more keenly I feel the importance of a knowledge of German (and other Germanic languages) and Russian (and other Slavic languages). I'm rather familiar with Romance languages (especially French) but that's definitely not enough when trying to explore the historical development of the English language.
I'm sorry. Even though you said it was for documents I still didn't process it. Reevaluating your question, there's no harm in saying "tourists from abroad" when it is in writing.
WARNING: This is a very, very long post. If you (臭い米国人) or any other person feels discouraged to read it, please just ignore my post. No one is obliged to read or respond to it. Thank you.
Good. Those sound idiomatic. Thanks for your input. The problem (people may say, "Not again!") is that in some contexts, I have to specify those non-natives are people not native to Japan, rather than to any other country. If you are writing a document as a Japanese governmental agency, and if you say "nonnatives," then of course it means "people who are not Japanese."
But in some cases, we may see a document that doesn't specify who is writing it. But still the document says something along the lines of "★外国人★の方は〜してください" (which literally means "Foreigners are requested to do such and such a thing." Since the document is written in Japanese, readers assume that this word "外国人" (foreigners) means "people who are not Japanese."
But what if we translate it into English? Can we leave it at something like "★Foreigners★ are requested to do such and such a thing"? Remember that the document does not specify who is writing it. In that case, readers will wonder, "Who are they referring to as 'foreigners' here?" If the document happens to be in Japan, then the document is most probably understood to refer to "people who are not Japanese." But what if the document is distributed among many different countries -- and by the management of a company run by Japanese? The author of the document, who is probably writing under the name of the company's president, probably assumes that what they mean by 外国人 (foreigners) here is "people who are not Japanese."
So, when the document happens to be read in, for example, Tanzania, and if it has been authored by a company run by a Japanese, then the original phrase "外国人" (foreigners) should (if I understand it correctly) be translated as "non-Japanese." That's why I am obliged to translate "外国人" which Japanese people often use for business purposes (especially for purposes of circulation outside Japan) into "non-Japanese." The phrase "non-Japanese" may sound clumsy to native English speakers. I know that in many contexts, options (1) through (4) that you (臭い米国人) listed above sound much better and idiomatic . But the problem is that these contexts may change. You never know in which countries and in which contexts the document you are translating now may be used in the future.
Now, in conclusion, my question is, does "non-Japanese" in such contexts still sound un-idiomatic? What about "non-Japanese students, non-Japanese tourists, non-Japanese visitors, non-Japanese workers," and so on?
And what about "workers, products, etc. from outside Japan"? This phrase "outside Japan" cannot be rejected altogether because some Japanese companies do request us translators to use although it may sound a bit funny. If you're in Japan, then the phrase "overseas" naturally refers to "somewhere outside Japan." But what if it happens to be in Tanzania or the Netherlands? In that case, the phrase "overseas" is understood to mean "outside Tanzania or the Netherlands." But the author of the document in Japanese assumes that the phrase "海外" is understood as "outside Japan." In that case, I am obliged to use the phrase "outside Japan" even though it may sound a bit un-idiomatic in many contexts.
>>98 I realize your question took a lot of effort, so sorry for the curt reply. But yes in that case you are right to use "non-Japanese" and "outside Japan" and so forth. I gave you the generality and you were looking for the specifics. If you have to be specific, then yes it will sound different than the general terms, but it's no less valid.
"All non-Japanese working for 〇〇 Corporation are not required to observe Japanese holidays." Sounds just as natural as, "All foreigners working for 〇〇 Corporation are not required to observe Japanese holidays." With the first one being correct when it's information that doesn't stay in Japan, like you described.
[The possible significance of the prefix "fl-" as an indicator of something lightweight, hence moving, floating, etc.]
As a lover of language, I sometimes come up with a random idea about the English language. One such idea that has visited me one of these days is that the prefix (or rather, the initial word-beginning sound "fl-") might signify something lightweight, hence moving, floating, or otherwise.
Let me explain. Look at the words listed below. The list of words and definitions is from the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary (POD), 11th, 2013.
flaccid --- soft and limp flag flagellate -- to whip someone flagellum -- a long, thin projection which enables many single- celled organisms to swim flail -- to swing the arms or legs wildly flake -- a small, flat, very thin piece of something flame -- a hot glowing body of ignited gas produced by something on fire flannel -- a kind of softly woven woollen fabric flap -- to move up and down or from side to side flare -- a sudden brief burst of flame or light flash -- to shine with a bright but brief or irregular light flat -- habing a level and even surface flavour -- the distinctive taaste of a food or drink flea -- a small wingless jumping insect fledge -- (of a young bird) to develop wing feathers that are large enough for flight
flee -- to run away fleece -- the wool coat of a sheep; a soft, warm fabric with a pile, or a garment made from this fleet -- fast and nimble flex -- to bend a limb or joint flick -- to make a sudden sharp movement flicker -- to shine or burn unsteadily flight (fly) flimsy -- weak and fragile flinch -- to make a quick, nervous movement as a reaction to fear or pain fling -- to throw or move forcefully flint -- [My note: Note that when you hit flint stone with with something hard, it produces a sound that might sound like "flint." The word "flint" (and its etymological cognates( might have originated as an onomatopoeia. flip -- to turn over with a quick, smooth movement. flirt -- to behave as if to trying to attract someone sexually but without serious intentions flit -- to move quickly and lightly flitter -- to move quickly here and there float flocculent -- resembling tufts of wool flock -- a soft material for stuffing cushions and quilts, made of torn-up cloth or waste wool floe -- a sheet of floating ice
flue -- a passage in a chimney for smoke and waste gases fluent -- from Latin "fluere" (to flow) fluff -- soft fibres gathered in small light clumps (--> fluffy) fluid -- from Latin "fluere" (to flow) flummery -- empty talk or compliments (My note: It must be something light, not heavy.) flutter -- to fly unsteadily by flapping the wings quickly and lightly flux -- continuous change [from Latin "fluere" (to flow)] fly -- to move through the air fly -- a flying insect
From >>126, >>129, and >>133, I hope you can see what I meant when I said that to me, the suffix "fl-" evokes the concept of lightness, hence the concept of moving, floating, and quick change.
Let me again pick up some of the examples I gave above. Look at the words "flow" and "float." These words signify something light. Nothing heavy can "flow" or "float." It must always be light. The concept of "fly," too, signifies something light. Nothing heavy can fly. Only light things fly. Flies that bother you by attacking your favorite food fly in the air and they are also lightweight. They seem as if floating in the air. They also seem as if to flow through the air. How about this?
flagellum -- a long, thin projection which enables many single- celled organisms to swim
Flagella, too, must be lightweight. Otherwise, they can't enable small creatures to swim. Flakes are also light. That's why they can fly, float, and fly in the air. Flames of fire also evoke a sense of lightness. Otherwise they can't go this way and that so quickly. The same goes to the concepts of flares and flaring. Flannel is also lightweight. That's why they are soft. Flavor, too, must evoke a sense of lightness. Otherwise no flavor can "flow through the air" to get into your nostrils to make you smell. Flashing also evokes a sense of lightness. Otherwise no flashlight can emit beams that quickly. Fleas are also light. So are the feathers of a full-fledged young bird. To be able to flee, you should not be heavy. Fleece is naturally lightweight and soft. Fleet means "fast and nimble" and should therefore evoke a sense of something lightweight.
On and on and on my explanations may go. I think that what I meant to say is now clear.
So much for the possible significance of the suffix "fl-". Now let's move on to what the prefix "gl-" might signify in word formation. I don't know what professional linguists say, but to me at least, the prefix (or rather the initial sounds) "gl-" evokes a sense of light or brilliance.
Look at the words listed below:
(1) glacial (= relating to ice, especially in the form of glaciers) (2) glacier (3) glad (Being glad evokes a facial expression that shines.) (4) glamour (Glamor -- or an attractive and exciting quality -- is naturally brilliant.) (5) glance (When you glance at something, your eyes shine.) (6) glare (7) glass (Glass naturally shines.) (8) glaze (to fit panes of glass into a window frame)
(9) gleam (10) glee (11) glide (Gliding signifies an act of sliding on a slippery surface, which might reminds you of a shining surface, like ice, which shines.) (12) glimmer (13) glimpse (14) glisten (15) glitter (16) glitz (17) glory (glorify, glorious) (18) gloss (glossy) (19) glow (20) glower (to have an angry or sullen expression -- Note that an angry expression emits some kind of light. Every impressive or strong facial expression "shines" in some way.)
>>116 No problem, it's nice to answer something that's not in the 英語で雑談 thread.
>>117 He asks because you're well read, even among English natives. A lot of English natives don't care to read, which is why a lot of the "news" stories are so full of pictures.
>>147 Those are some interesting theories, have you looked at etymologies for all of those words? I am not a scholar but from my understanding, in order for a set of letters to be an affix, it has to have been defined as such in ancient writings, not in contemporary usage. By which I mean Latin, Greek, et cetera.
>>156 About etymology, I know what you mean. Yes, of course, we must not forget how each of those words must have looked and meant in the old days, not only in Greek and Latin but Old Icelandic, Gothic, Old High German, and so on. I have two important etymological sources at hand (one of which is the 20-volume OED) and have tried, whenever possible, to look into the older senses and forms of the words too. The senses of the words I cited above are from the POD, a modern English dictionary, but I put them there just for reference.
Now, even if the modern senses of words may be quite different from their ancient ones, I believe that it is still instructive to examine the words in terms of their modern senses as well. In doing so, I always try to grasp the most prevalent, the most dominant concept that each word seems to have, not a very specific, special, slang-like, or eccentric senses.
Take the example of the suffix "sl-". Suppose there is a word "sloxapp", which I don't think exists. But just suppose it exists. And suppose again that it is cognate with the Greek word "loxab", which I don't think exists either. Now, if the Greek word has no "s-" at the beginning, is it meaningless to talk about the suffix "sl-" at the beginning of the (imaginary) English word "sloxapp"? I don't think so.
How can it be meaningful? The point is that Greeks may have tended to drop the "s-" sound at the top because they were incapable of pronouncing "s" and "l" together (which may not be the case, but I am making this imaginary argument just to illustrate my point).
Now, while the Greeks may have been uncomfortable with pronouncing "sl-", so that they may have developed a new form "lox-", the English may have liked the form "sl-". It may be because the sound "sl-" (this sequence of "s" followed by "l") may have evoked in their minds a sense of lightweight-ness, hence motion and quick movement and floating, and so on.
That's what I wanted to emphasize. Each people (each nation or each dialectal group of people) has their own linguistic tastes. One ethnic group likes a particular group of sounds or strings of sounds, which another people may hate. What do they like and hate particular sounds or strings of sounds? For one thing, that may be because of the anatomy of their tongue, jaw bones, and so on. For another thing, partly due to their local climactic, geographic, and other conditions, they may have developed a particular system of tastes and worldviews. And it is these tastes and worldviews that may have affected their choice of sounds and strings of sounds, hence words.
In the course of our history, which may have lasted two million years, we must have used language. Just as modern people do, every ancient person must have accidentally or deliberately developed thousands of words in the course of their life. I myself have coined some words that I thought are appropriate. Some of them were accepted by some others around me. Many other words I coined were rejected by other people. In this way, through the two million years, we must have produced, chosen, and rejected sounds, strings of sounds, and words.
It is in this way that I imagine that the ancient English would have developed some notion of the suffix "sl-" somehow related to the concept of lightweight-ness, hence motion, quick movement, or floating.
I apologize for my awkward writing. I know my theory is not quite well organized and, besides, I am just a native speaker of Japanese, still struggling in my study of English. I hope that, even though I may be just babbling here, I may some day -- through all these humble and seemingly haphazard attempts -- manage to develop a beautifully organized set of theories.
>>158 >>the sound "sl-" (this sequence of "s" followed by "l") may have >>evoked in their minds a sense of lightweight-ness, hence motion >>and quick movement and floating, and so on. =====
Oops! What a blunder again! This argument was NOT about my argument on the "sl-", BUT on the "fl-". I mixed them up. I had developed another argument on the suffix "sl-", which I believe must have evoked in the minds of the English a sense of sliding or slipping.
Last night I wanted to talk about this "sl-" suffix too. This "sl-", just like the suffixes "fl-" and "gl-" that I discussed yesterday, seems as if it had originated as an onomatopoeia. Just pronounce "slide" or "slip." Don't their sounds evoke in you a sense of slipperiness or sliding motion? The sounds themselves seem as if they had meaning. This "S" sound, as you can see, can be made to last forever, like ssssssssssssss, just as the sound produced by snakes. This sound is, in this sense, quite different from, for example, G, which occurs abruptly like an eruption and doesn't last for more than a second. The sound L, too, lasts forever. Just pronounce LLLLLLLLL. It does last forever. Sadly this sound is hard for Japanese to pronounce.
Anyway, the sounds S and L are both long-lasting. And I suspect that this long-lasting nature of the sounds S and L is one factor that contributes to the evocation by the suffix "sl-" of a sense of sliding or slipperiness.
At >>157-159, I tried to argue that even the modern forms and senses of words containing a particular affix may be instructive. But I think I failed. I'm sorry.
What I really wanted to say was that, even when we confine our studies to modern times, say, only a period of three to four hundred years, we may argue that the English may have rejected or selected particular groups of sounds and strings of sounds, hence affixes, according to their tastes and characteristics derived from their particular anatomical, climactic, geographical, cultural, psychological, and/or other circumstances.
Taking again the example of "slaxxap". Suppose that word has existed from the 17th century having a particular sense that has persisted up until today. And suppose that the word is cognate with (ie sharing the same etymological origin as) the Greek word "laxabb".
Why did the English put the S sound at the beginning, while the Greeks did not? It may be because the English liked the string of sounds "sl-" for the reasons I described above. And the psychological and other characteristics of the English may have developed the supposedly original form "laxxabb" into "slaxxap" to suit their tastes. And why did they like that particular string of sounds (sl-)? It may be because the English language already had many other words starting with "sl-" meaning something related to the concept of sliding. With analogy, the English would have, a little before the 17th century, added the sound S at the beginning to harmonize the word with the others.
Well, now, then, I guess all my lengthy, pseudo-academic talk about affixes and other etymological stuff has bored you. (Or rather, there may be nobody left here.) So I'll resume my etymological discussions later on and get back to "Romeo and Juliet."
At first, R&J bored me. Or rather, all Shakespeare bored me. As a serious student of the English language, I've always thought that I should some day tackle Shakespeare in earnest. Whether I come to love him or not in the end, I thought I just had to study him if I really wanted to become a reasonably good speaker/writer of English.
But sadly, Shakespeare bored me. I tried reading "Hamlet" it in Japanese when I was a high school student. After only dozens of pages, I got so bored I just couldn't go on. I tried several other plays in Japanese. They again bored me. I tried Charles Lamb's "Tales from Shakespeare" in the original when I was, say, 30 or so. It didn't interest me much either. I then tried two dozens of pages or so of "Hamlet" in the original with some notes in its Arden Shakespeare edition when I was 40 or so. This time I realized the profound effect of Shakespearean language on modern English, but my reading of it, or rather my attempt at it, was not enough to incite me to go on studying it for more than ten hours.
When 777, another poster in this thread as well as elsewhere on this BBS for English learners, set up his own thread designed specifically for his commentary on "Hamlet." He did a good job for a month or two despite the malicious jealousy-filled attacks against him from morons. I was delighted to see him courageously tackle this world of Shakespeare, which seems almost esoteric to us ordinary learners of English. Shakespeare is tough enough even for students currently majoring in English literature and studying full time under the supervision of college professors. So much the harder for us, literature major or not, who graduated a long time ago from college.
Ah, yes, I remember, two years before that, I had heard two recordings of "Hamlet" and one recording of "Romeo and Juliet" on YouTube. These recordings are by volunteers and accessible to the public free of charge, but they are really well-made. The Shakespeare recording I liked best was that of "Romeo and Juliet" at the following link:
The above link directs you to the part of Romeo performed by my favorite actor. His voice is just beautiful and acts magnificently. How he voices his admiration for Juliet, who is standing on the elevated platform high above him!
This Romeo actor, together with the actor playing "Juliet," attracted me so much that I heard the entire performance of the play. I had never read R&J either in Japanese or in English. I had heard the performance in the original right away, while following the text displayed synchronously with the performance. Although I don't think I understood the language well enough, I think I grasped the essence, or rather, the heart of the language and performance. I fell in love with the performance and Shakespeare at that time. That is my first serious encounter with Shakespeare. That happened about three years ago.
There are several movie versions of "Romeo and Juliet" available on YouTube. The movie featuring Olivia Hussey and that featuring Leonardo DiCaprio are very famous but I don't like them. They just bore me. Here is one of the R&J movie renderings that I like:
I saw several other renderings on YouTube, but I can't seem to find them now. They must still be there. When I find them, I'll show you where they are.
>>162 Perhaps so. But the general consensus seems that the posters in this thread are either English natives, like myself, or are well read, such as >>157+ is.
>>166 I get what you're going at with your explanation, but you've obviously devoted more time to it than I have. So I don't really have a rebuttal for you.
However about the Romeo and Juliet thing, I don't think you, or anyone else for that matter, really needs to understand the particular works of older authors -- like Shakespeare for English or 夏目漱石 for Japanese -- in order to use the language well. This is coming from a person who did a thesis on 日本語の書き言葉の歴史、but at the same time has never bothered to read any of Shakespeare's works.
This is definitely a rant, but it's not direct toward you - sorry. I think it's great that you enjoy etymology, as I enjoy it as well, just that the general consensus for English is that one needs to study The Great Bard in order to really master the modern language. When in fact I feel that knowing the influence he had on the language itself is more than anyone needs, it is especially not more important than the modern grammar and usage of words. Just like I won't expect a native to know 契沖's criticism of 行阿's 仮名遣い in order to know if 多い is おおい or おうい。
>>167 Thanks for your response. You're right about our not having to have a deep knowledge of The Bard in order to use modern English well. My reasoning was not exact. As you say, it's important to know how and where Shakespearean language has influenced the subsequent development of English, hence the birth of modern English.
Actually I confess that whatever arguments I may have been making about my having to study Shakespeare and other classics in order to become a good English speaker is just a pack of excuses on my part. I need all these excuses to keep motivating myself. I desperately need them in order not to lead a lazy life. In fact I hate the modern world. Or rather, I hate whatever I see before my eyes. I hate people as I see them today. I hate them because of their laziness. I hate myself because I tend to be lazy and I'm not as motivated as I think I should.
What has essentially spurred me on to study English all these decades? I've always convinced myself that a good knowledge was a must for me to survive, to earn my living. Yes, my knowledge of English has fed me. But that's not all. Just to feed yourself in Japan doesn't take all the desperate, painful, clumsy, half-maddening, bull-like efforts that I have been making all these decades. What, then, has motivated me? It's because English, which is essentially *not* necessary in Japan to survive, at least not when I was young, keeps me feel as if I were not in this world that I hate. If I have to speak, write, hear, and read Japanese all the time, I quickly begin to feel that I am part of this maddeningly boring world. And why the classics, which are excruciatingly difficult for me? Why Shakespeare? It is because when reading Shakespeare I can savor the luxury of forgetting all about this ugly, idiotic modern world as I live today.
Of course I know the world must have been full of crap throughout the history, including the Japan in the days of The Tales of Genji and the England in the days of Shakespeare. I know that. But still I enjoy this forgetfulness I have when reading something remote from whatever I see and touch today.
Besides, when reading materials and expressing myself in English, I can strangely let myself do so very freely, more freely than when doing so in my mother tongue. That seems to be something that happens all the time to people in general. That happened to Samuel Beckett too, who was an almost complete bilingual: English and French. He wrote his works in both of the languages. He said he could express himself much better and more freely in French, his second language that he began to learn after the age of 10 or so. He said that when writing in English, he felt dragged along by the long history and conventions, whether good or bad, of his Irish traditions and things like that. When writing in French, he was free from all such nasty conventions.
I love "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevksy tremendously. I first read it in Japanese -- once. Then, several years later, I read it in English. I loved the English version so much that I read several other English versions by various translators. I even read it in a French version too. Altogether, I have read it 12 times maybe. And I have listened to two recordings of the novel on YouTube -- many times. As for the Blackstone Audio recording by professional actor Anthony Heald (which is now available on YouTube), I think I've listened to it dozens of times -- or even a hundred times maybe. But I don't listen to it very carefully. I always listen to it while walking, putting out my laundry, doing other household chores, or for some time in bed before going to sleep. So, of course, my listening to the recording is not enough to appreciate the whole of the novel.
But still, there are times when I think I do get to appreciate the profoundest meaning of what is written there. I can't help emphasizing that I love the novel itself as written by Dostoevsky, the recording as performed by Anthony Heald, and the English translation produced by Constance Garnett (a famous Russian-English translator about a century ago). These three elements have combined almost divinely to have produced this splendid masterpiece performance that I have been listening to with so much joy.
I think most British people are accustomed to American English through movies, TV shows, songs, etc. But how about American people? Do most native speakers of American English have no problem in understanding spoken British English?
depends on the accents. Ad you know, america is HUGE; this means that the words and way of speaking are sometimes quite different.
The UK is a fraction of its size, but is also diverse with a... Messy history.
The vernacular for the two languages can be quite different but the accent is usually easy enough to understand; But some accents from america and Britain are considered crude or unpleasant, such as cockney or the southern American accent.
>>171 I think the reason people can express themselves more freely in their non-Native tongues is because when learning the non-Native language, they will learn it in isolation. That is they aren't influenced by the societal norms of that language like when learning their Native tongues.
For example: a Spanish native learning English wants to talk about his black friend. Now in Spanish, black is "Negro" and is an everyday word. So when he looks up Negro online for an English equivalent, he might find that it is used to describe black people. However he does not learn that the word used like this has a sense of endearment if he is black as well, but otherwise it is seen as hate speech when used by non-blacks.
Thus even if this speaker is corrected, because he grew up in an area where English was not used by his community, he never got the imprint of "correctness" that society teaches children in using the language.
I wrote this part last before leaving, if it's confusing please let me know and I'll try to explain better in my next post.
>>173 Accents aren't really that bad for different versions of English. The one most natives struggle with however, is Indians speaking English. Indian English is vastly different in that it changes the grammar dramatically in addition to the accent people have. While going from British English to American English or its "derivatives" (Canadian English, Australian English, New Zealand English), there is almost no grammatical change only an accent on the words.
How about these British expressions? As for me, I only knew the meaning of bloke.
a bit of how's your father bloke brolly chuffed to be bits the dreaded lurgy gobsmacked grub's up kerfuffle knackered know your onions More tea vicar? skivvy sod off Sod's law takes the biscuit the bee's knee
>>177 I've heard several of these before, but for some I can't quite explain their meaning, so it's been a while. However these ones I remember well: bloke = fellow, person gobsmacked = surprised knackered = tired sod off = piss off/ fuck off the bee's knees = this is actually used in American English a lot too, it means something that's wonderful or excellent or the best of something.
>>179 I try to read it every morning. Dreas seems to reply a lot too, so at least two.
>>167 >However about the Romeo and Juliet thing, I don't think you, or anyone else >for that matter, really needs to understand the particular works of older authors >-- like Shakespeare for English or 夏目漱石 for Japanese -- in order to use the language well.
Maybe so. However, some knowledge about his works seems to be common one among educated native English speakers.
For example, the following phrases are frequently quoted in novels, movies, TV shows, etc.
To be, or not to be: that is the question.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Get thee to a nunnery.
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.
Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?
What's in a name? A rose by any name would smell as sweet.
>>181 I just wanted to produce a parody of the Shakespearean phrases presented by 777. No offense to anybody. Just an innocent joke.
(1) To be, or not to be: that is the question. ---> 渡米 oder not 渡米: das ist ein Problem. ["渡米" (tobei) means "go to America."]
(2) There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ---> There is more money to be hidden in a tax haven on the earth, Whore-ration, Than are dreamt of in your economics.
(3) Get thee to a nunnery. ---> Forget it with Sean Connery.
(4) All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. ---> All the world's a cage, and all the men and women merely prisoners.
(5) Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo? ---> Row me there, row me there! Wherefore dost thou not row me there?
(6) What's in a name? A rose by any name would smell as sweet. ---> What's in a game? A rise in scores in any game doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
(7) If music be the food of love, play on. ---> If a Muse be a fool for love-making, play around.
(8) Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? ---> Shall I condemn thee to summon the Devil?
When I said that there was a difference in vernacular, this is what I meant. Those would all be understood, but would also seem bizzare or out of place.
"Pensees" by Blaise Pascal SECTION XI THE PROPHECIES
692 When I see the blindness and the wretchedness of man, when I regard the whole silent universe, and man without light, left to himself, and, as it were, lost in this corner of the universe, without knowing who has put him there, what he has come to do, what will become of him at death, and incapable of all knowledge, I become terrified, like a man who should be carried in his sleep to a dreadful desert island, and should awake without knowing where he is, and without means of escape. And thereupon I wonder how people in a condition so wretched do not fall into despair. I see other persons around me of a like nature. I ask them if they are better informed than I am. They tell me that they are not. And thereupon these wretched and lost beings, having looked around them, and seen some pleasing objects, have given and attached themselves to them. For my own part, I have not been able to attach myself to them, and, considering how strongly it appears that there is something else than what I see, I have examined whether this God has not left some sign of Himself.
I see many contradictory religions, and consequently all false save one. Each wants to be believed on its own authority, and threatens unbelievers. I do not therefore believe them. Every one can say this; every one can call himself a prophet. But I see that Christian religion wherein prophecies are fulfilled; and that is what every one cannot do.
Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman -- a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.
>>167 Speaking of 夏目漱石, I recently read most(perhaps 80%) of his novels. To be honest, I was not impressed. The only novel I found mildly interesting is "坊ちゃん". I guess either I'm blind or he is overrated.
>>187 Yes, maybe he's overrated. Perhaps many people think Soseki Natsume must be a great writer because he's frequently quoted and that all school textbooks quote him.
As for me, I don't care what textbooks or the rest of the public say about Soseki Natsume. I don't know whether he is one of the most artistically talented writers or not. But I still like him because of the gentleness and love that his style evokes. He is gentle and loving to his readers. That's what matters. And I think that's why he's loved by his readers. He soothes the injured feelings of people. And I don't think many of his readers even care whether he's actually talented or not.
>>187 Probably you don't feel impressed by Soseki Natsume because you don't find his plots intriguing enough. Well, Soseki's novels are not the kind of works in which to seek plot. Soseki is interesting to read in terms of style. That's what matters, I think.
Basically, when I read literature, including Soseki, Shakespeare, and E. Bronte, I don't care about the plots they offer. All I care about is their styles: the beauty, rhythm, and musicality of their language. If you are seeking plot, then I suggest you stick to John Grisham and other contemporary best-selling novelists instead of reading Soseki or other classics. Classics are in general boring in plot, I guess.
>>187 Like I was saying before, I don't think natives need to know the particular works of the authors academia consider "greats". But like you pointed out in >>181 there are expressions from these "greats" that are used in common parlance. I suspect that 夏目漱石 has influenced Japanese in the same way with several expressions, but I can't really remember any at this moment.
In this world there are just you and me In the after-life we will just play Frisbee Because everybody there is very, very wealthy We won't have to suffer any more beggary You won't have to bring any dowry Occasionally we'll be able to afford some foolery
Who is watching us from beyond the sky? God? Buddha? A huge scientist looking into his telescope? Is the scientist sending us a gift of lullaby? Or is he trying to deprive us of our hope? Who in the world is that woman standing by? Is she by any chance also a misanthrope? Why do the two of them never cease to sigh? Do they not at all know how to cope? Why do they refuse to say to us "Hi"?
They are considering destroying us They have been bringing about a variety of ills About which we humans have to make much fuss Such as many an economic crisis that disables us from paying our bills And politicians have to be preoccupied with numerous problems to discuss With shadows of despair over people whom such a crisis kills
Once came a blonde nymph came dancing from Heaven Sitting down beside me, she smiled a mischievous smile Eternally captivating me as if with something finely woven Never did I dream this was the beginning of something vile
Twinkling eyes had she, with their magnetic allure Maddeningly soft and gentle was her voice Singing like a sensitive canary, offering me a powerful cure For my stubborn numerous diseases that had left me no choice
A picture beyond description was the slender fairy So heavenly splendid and brilliant was her beauty It even gave me a constant feeling of misery For I knew that divine appearances never last and were a rarity
Never could I believe or dream the goddess was real So ephemeral and unrealistic did she seem Nor did her glorious looks manage to heal My morbidly low and destructive self-esteem
Always did I believe her to be nothing but a hologram Never did I turn my eyes away from her features so fair Had I look away even for a second to talk with my neighbor Sam Sure was I to lose my eternal idol, who would vanish into thin air
So desperately profound and pathological was my passion Could I not help weeping and sobbing, missing her Five minutes after having to leave her at the end of the day's session I just had to, had to, and had to see her, never able to get sober
>>167 >This is coming from a person who did a thesis on 日本語の書き言葉の歴史、
As you know the Japanese writing system greatly changed just after the World War 2. They not only simplified Kanji(新字体)and reduced the number of Kanji(当用漢字), but also changed the use of hiragana(新かな使い). I think the main motivation of this "reform" is a desire to abolish Kanji and make the Japanese writing system into phonogramatic one. The idea was not new. Since the Meiji Restoration, some(or many) people began to think that Japanese language is inferior to Western ones, which I think is bovine feces. The idea was reinforced by the complete defeat of Japan by the US in WW2.
[Context: After hearing from Svidrigailov how her brother Raskolnikov confessed to Sonya the prostitute that he was the murderer, Dunya wants to leave but Svidrigailov refuses to let her go. Desperate, Dunya pulls out a revolver.]
Dunya raised the revolver and, deathly pale, her white lower lip trembling, her large black eyes flashing like fire, looked at him (Svidrigailov), having made up her mind, calculating, and waiting for the first movement from his side. He had never yet seen her so beautiful. The fire that flashed from her eyes as she raised the revolver seemed to burn him, and his heart was wrung with pain. He took a step, and a shot rang out. The bullet grazed his hair and struck the wall behind him, He stopped and laughed softly: "The wasp has stung! She aims straight at the head.... What's this? Blood?" He took out a handkerchief to wipe away the blood that was flowing in a thin trickle from his right temple;
(Fyodor Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment," pp.495-496, translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, 1992, Everyman's Library)
"Crime and Punishment" Sonya following Ralsolnikov even to the ends of the earth
As he [= Raskolnikov] bowed down the second time in the Haymarket, turning to the left, he had seen Sonya [= the prostitute: standing about fifty steps away. She was hiding from him behind one of the wooden stalls in the square, with meant that she had accompanied him throughout his sorrowful procession! Raskolnikov felt and understood in that moment, once and for all, that ★Sonya was now with him forever and would follow him even to the ends of the earth★, wherever his fate took him. His whole hearth turned over inside him... but -- here he was at the fatal place....
Fyodor Dostoevsky, "Crime and Punishment," Part 6, Chapter 8; translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, Everyman's Library, p.526
"Crime and Punishment" Near the end of the novel, Raskolnikov the prisoner sees nomadic yurts on the steppe. Then Sonya comes.
*******************
There, on the boundless, sun-bathed steppe, ●nomadic yurts● could be seen, like barely visible black specks. There was freedom, there a different people lived, quite unlike those here, there ★time itself seemed to stop★, as if the centuries of Abraham and his flocks had not passed. Raskolnikov sat and stared fixedly, not tearing his eyes away; his thought turned to reverie, to contemplation; he was not thinking of anything, but some anguish troubled and tormented him.
Suddenly ★Sonya★ was beside him. She came up almost inaudibly and sat down next to him. It was still very early; the morning chill had not softened yet. She was wearing her poor old wrap and the green shawl. Her face still bore signs of illness; it had become thinner, paler, more pinched. She smiled to him amiably and joyfully, but gave him her hand as timidly as ever.
"Crime and Punishment," Epilogue, translated by Pevear and Volokhonsky; Everyman's Library, p.549
>>194 Yes I know. I think that the only way Japanese could ever hope to leave 漢字 would be to use old 仮名. Since the language has a very restricted range of sounds, there's no way it can possibly use modern kana or latin letters beyond very specific cases.
I have a question to native English speakers here. The question is about this expression, "well received." If something is well received, I guess this usually means it has received a favorable reception. But if the subject of the sentence is "the attached quote," then could it mean it was received safe and sound via Internet as an attached file? I actually see this sentence somewhere on the net and wasn't sure what it meant. Could it be used to notify the sender of the quote that the recipient of the quote surely get the quote? Do you think the person who write "well received" to mean he/she received it safe and sound is a non-native English speaker?
>>199 I'm not a native speaker but I just wanted to quote a passage I had happened to find on the Internet that I thought might be similar to what you often see.
******** QUOTE ********
Someone suggests that we take turns quoting the best maxims about love that we know.
One of my girlfriends volunteers to go first: "This is one from Shakespeare," she says with a touch of pride. "Love all, trust a few."
>>200 Thanks for taking your time and reply. The meaning of "quote" is different from that of in the sentence. Quote in 199 means the amount of money you have to pay when you buy something.
According to dictionaries "well-received" means getting a good reaction from people. but what I saw was without a hyphen. And the quote here means an amount of money you would pay.
And sorry for the lack of the context. I know >>200 is almost as fluent as a native English speaker. I think I know his handle name although for some reason he's been anonymous recently.
>>198 Since Kanji has been a vital part of the Japanese language, I think if it had been abolished, it would have caused a tremendous damage to the language. Fortunately it is very unlikely that Kanji would be abolished in the foreseeable future. However, I think the aforementioned "reform" of the writing system inflicted, metaphorically speaking, scars on the face of an exquisite Japanese lady.
Reading the posts by the two of you (臭い米国人 and 777) from aside, I'd like to state here that I've always loved kanji but I've also been keenly aware of its great disadvantages as well.
At the age of seven, in the first days at elementary school, when I learned the very first kanji characters, I was thrilled. I fell so much in love with kanji that I just couldn't help practicing how to write each kanji until I learned it completely. Not only would I practice pronouncing each kanji, realizing its meaning, but also I would keep writing it in my notebook and on any scrap of paper that I happened to find at hand. While walking or in bed, I was still thinking of all the kanji characters that I had learned at school on the day and practicing writing them in space by using my finger as a pencil and using space as a piece of paper. It was about this way that I spent many more years after that. I could not help studying closely and memorizing every single kanji that I happened to meet. By the time I reached 18 or 20, as I recall, I am sure that I was one of the students who had learned the most kanji characters. I was that much in love with kanji.
But then again, I've also been keenly aware of the disadvantages of kanji -- at least for Japanese people. Why? For Chinese, kanji may be all right. Because the Chinese language has what they call 四声 (shisei), or the four word intonations, so to speak. For example, the pronunciation "ma" has, in Mandarin Chinese, four word intonations: ma1 (a high pitch maintained), ma2 (from low to high), ma3 (very low, with its pitch slightly rising), ma4 (from high to low). Here, I'm using these strange marks (ma1, ma2, etc.) because the standard notation of the four word intonations in its special codes may get garbled here. (to be continued)
[ Continued from >>208 ] Anyway, what I wanted to say was that in Chinese, because of its four different intonations for each kanji of Mandarin Chinese (and as many as six intonations for each kanji of Cantonese), they can easily tell each word (or kanji) from another by merely hearing it pronounced. The ancient Chinese which we Japanese imported in the sixth or seventh century should have been that way too.
The Japanese language, on the other hand, would have had no such word intonation system. With a very few exceptions, none of the Japanese words is distinguishable from another if their phonemes (or the word forms, so to speak) are the same. For example, in Japanese, 詩, 死, 師, 誌, 氏, 市, 士, 四, and so on are pronounced basically in exactly the same way. But in Chinese, they are pronounced at least in four different ways thanks to the four different word intonations (or tones). Chinese, therefore, should be well off in using kanji (or Chinese characters), while Japanese have a hard time at least when they have to understand each word simply by hearing it pronounced. (to be continued)
You might say, "But can't you tell which kanji another person is referring to by considering the context?" Oh, yes, of course, we can -- in some contexts anyway. But there are surely many situations where we can't. Take this example: "しについてのこうさつ" (shi ni tsuiteno kosatsu). When it is pronounced by a professional Japanese announcer, you can easily understand that they mean, "shi についての考察" (a study on "shi"). But even that professional announcer, who is a professional at pronouncing Japanese, can't make you understand whether they are referring to "死" or "詩." In that context, we have to consider these two possible phrases: 詩についての考察 (a study on poetry) and 死についての考察 (a study on death). Therefore, when we try to make the listener understand what specifically referring to, they are compelled to show a panel on which that particular phrase is written or saying "shi についての考察、つまり死ぬことについての考察" or "shi についての考察、つまり詩歌(しいか)についての考察." This is a great disadvantage that the culture of kanji has for us Japanese.
they are compelled to show a panel on which that particular phrase is written or 【to say】 "shi についての考察、つまり死ぬことについての考察" or "shi についての考察、つまり詩歌(しいか)についての考察."
>>208 (where I forgot to mention the meaning of each of these words: ma1, ma2, ma3, ma4)
(1) ma1 (or the word "ma" with its tone maintained at a high pitch) This word is written this way: 媽 (which means "mother")
(2) ma2 (or the word "ma" with its tone rising quickly) This word is written this way: 麻 (which means "to be numb")
(3) ma3 (or the word "ma" with its tone at a very low pitch, slightly going down and then slowly going up) This word is written this way: 馬 (which means "horse")
(4) ma4 (or the word "ma" with its tone going down quickly) This word is written this way: 罵 (to scold)
This way, even though these four words or Chinese characters are pronounced in exactly the same way if we don't consider their respective word intonations (or tones), they mean four distinct different things. These four words were introduced into Japanese with their tones not considered. It is there that a linguistic catastrophe, so to speak, occurred.
While in Chinese, the four words were used comfortably without confusion, in Japanese we have a hard time telling one from another. Hence, the confusion we have in telling "死についての考察" (a study on death) and "詩についての考察" (a study on death)), which I mentioned at >>210. And these are just two examples out of the millions of devastating confusions that we Japanese encounter every single day in our linguistic activities.
I encourage those of you who read Japanese to google some information by using the keywords: 同音異義語 (どうおんいぎご) and 混乱 (こんらん). You will see how Japanese and Koreans are having a hard time telling one word from another because their languages have no such tone system as Chinese that identifies each word simply with the tone (or word intonation) of each word.
Read this article: http://www.asyura2.com/12/asia14/msg/711.html (please replace the "sy" with the half-width "sy".)
This article reports the linguistic confusion experienced by contemporary Koreans during the 44 years with no use of Chinese characters. As you may already know, Koreans has officially limited its use of Chinese characters since 1946, while North Korea and Vietnam completely abolished their use of Chinese characters.
Anyway, the report says that due to the limited use of Chinese characters, there is a large gap in communication between the older generations used to using them and the younger generations who are not. Just like in Japanese, the Korean language has no such tone system as Chinese. Therefore, just like Japanese, Koreans can't tell one word from another if the words are not written in Chinese characters. There are consequently many cases where, when they are written in Hangul (or Korean alphabet) or just pronounced without indicating in which Chinese characters the specific word or words being referred to are supposed to be written, Koreans can't tell what exactly the speaker is referring to.
That is a very sad situation. Japanese often can't tell one word from another just by hearing them pronounced. They need the aid of Chinese characters actually written and indicated to them if they have to understand them. Young Koreans, on the other hand, don't know many Chinese characters, so that they can't tell one word from another either by hearing them pronounced or by reading the Chinese characters in which they are supposed to written, because they don't know the characters.
I don't know what is going on in Vietnam or North Korea. But, given that they totally abolished their use of Chinese characters several decades ago, they must be having a hard time. Most probably the only way out for them would have been to give up using words derived from Chinese, or to accompany each such Chinese-derived word or string of words with an affix or other additional information to help identify each such phrase.
>>207 That's a good thing. Those who restricted the number of kanji used in the media, schools, etc. were thoughtless. Can you imagine the government of the US restricting the number of English words used in the media?
>>214 I looked into Vietnamese before several years ago. What they use is a modified version of the Latin Alphabet. The marks above letters indicate the tone changes, because Vietnamese is tonal just like Chinese. So it's actually not too bad for them. But Korean I have no idea about, and I don't care to know. I know that sounds bad, but I don't like the language.
>>216 Well, it was the US who ordered Japan to create a 漢字表 that was less than 2000 characters post WW2. And honestly the government doesn't restrict it, of course, but each news company does restrict their use of vocabulary. The American news is written such that people who finished Middle-School can understand it. It's only select publications that will use vocabulary higher than that, such as The New Yorker and The Atlantic.
>>217 >it was the US who ordered Japan to create a 漢字表 that was less than 2000 characters post WW2.
I didn't know this, but I know that they did advocate the romanization of the Japanese script. It's obvious that they thought, because of kanji, only the elite could understand written Japanese. However, the lieracy rate of prewar Japan was very high, much higher than that of the US or the UK. http://www.nipponnosekaiichi.com/mind_culture/literacy_rate.html
>And honestly the government doesn't restrict it, of course, but each news company >does restrict their use of vocabulary.
You know that there's a big difference between an authoritarian control over the vocabulary and individual voluntary ones.
By the way, thanks to the modern technology, you can look up a dictionary by just clicking or touching the screen of a PC, a tablet, or a smart phone. A situation somewhat similar to that of IMEs.
I'm back! I'll have some free time over the weekend to do things with people, so if you need me, now's the time >>199 >>205 "But if the subject of the sentence is "the attached quote," then could it mean it was received safe and sound via Internet as an attached file? I actually see this sentence somewhere on the net and wasn't sure what it meant. Could it be used to notify the sender of the quote that the recipient of the quote surely get the quote? Do you think the person who write "well received" to mean he/she received it safe and sound is a non-native English speaker? "
In American English "well-received" means people like it- so if someone were to say, "the anime was well-received" he means people enjoyed it, and it got good reviews. In terms of using it for "it was received safe", anyone who uses it in that was is almost certainly a non-native speaker. I've never heard that used once in my entire life, not from anyone. You could say something like "I've received the package" but saying "the package was well-received" implies that when the mailman delivered the package to you, you started cheering and jumping with joy.
And I just want to make it said that anyone who implies that the US government restricts the vocabulary of newspapers, magazines excreta is talking utter babbling nonsense.
I would clarify, but simply put, such a scenario simply does not exist.
Furthermore, English does not typically need a large vocabulary, it's a language of "do you get what I mean?"
..Which is not to say of course the sheer number of English vocabulary isn't huge, and growing every day, but the vernacular is consistent not because people are dumb but because you generally don't need to say something like
"A digression that was ephemeral, unscrupulous and caused all those participant to astringe"
When you could just say "The conversation was tense."
The real reason the US wanted Japan to start using a romanticized script was that they (correctly) identified that a lack of communication was going to create more wars.
I understand there's a lot of culture behind Kanji, but I do genuinely believe that the world needs a consistent language.
I've seen some users on this website protest and say things like "how come you want to force English on Japan but won't even revise your own language to be more accessive" but that logic isn't true.
If someone were to propose a law that would revise the English alphabet to be more logical I would vote for it every time it appeared.
>>218 Romanization of the Japanese language has been advocated since 蘭学者 during 鎖国。 If I remember correctly, one of the MEXT meetings around 1900 for the reform of kana almost had a passing vote to drop kana entirely for Romanization.
Yes I understand there's a difference, but still if its large enough does it matter if the restriction is from a government or a corporation? Anything can be an authority. But I digress.
>>222 >The real reason the US wanted Japan to start using a romanticized script was that >they (correctly) identified that a lack of communication was going to create more wars.
I think even if the Japanese writing system was romanized, most Americans wouldn't learn Japanese. What about Germany? German is romanized of course, but the war occurred between Germany and the Allies. In any case, Japan has never fought a war since after the WW2 though it has not abolished Kanji.
>I understand there's a lot of culture behind Kanji, but I do genuinely believe that >the world needs a consistent language.
So you think the romanization will be an improvement of the Japanese langauage. I think the opposite is true for several reasons. Maybe I will explain them later. For now, it might suffice to make the following observation.
There's a saying in English: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think the Japanese writing system has a serious problem. It's not perfect, but it works. So far it has worked pretty good in spite of the bad "reform" as Japan's track record shows; Japan's economy is the third largest in the world, though its population is only 10% of China's and 30% of the US's. It has top-class science and technology. It has never fought a war since after the WW2. On the BBC Country Rating Poll conducted in 2013, Japan's rate of positive influence in the world was the fourth. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/2013%20Country%20Rating%20Poll.pdf
>>227 Good heavens no. It's the reason I began studying Japanese in the first place. I could have went with Chinese of course, but I didn't like the idea of tones. I know there's debate on whether Japanese is or not, I think there is, but not nearly as many tones as Chinese. Of course I'm talking broadly when using Chinese, Mandarin is of course standard. However all languages in China, that I know of, are tonal.
>>228 I think the simplified Chinese characters are awful. They are so simplified that I cannot recognize the corresponding original characters. I wonder if most Chinese people understand the original Chinese characters. Surely the simplified characters are easier to write by hand, but when you use a PC, writing the original characters is equally easy.
>>230 Hong Kong still uses the traditional characters. But I am pretty sure that the Chinese who are raised using simplified cannot make heads or tails of traditional. I had one Chinese friend who said she could not, but that's not indicative of it being a problem with all Chinese.
>>231 As you probably know, not only Hong Kong, but Taiwanese also use the traditional characters. The simplified characters hinders communication among them. It also hinders the understanding of the classical Chinese literature.
Tzu-kung asked about government. The Master said, Sufficient food, sufficient weapons, and the confidence of the common people. Tzu-kung said, Suppose you had no choice but to dispense with one of these three, which would you forgo? The Master said, Weapons. Tzu-kung said, Suppose you were forced to dispense with one of the two that were left, which would you forgo? The Master said, Food. For from of old death has been the lot of all men; but a people that no longer trusts its rulers is lost indeed.
(Translated by Arthur Waley, Everyman's Library, p.155)
This is an essay published in 1936. It's very short: about seven pages long in paperback format. Although that short, it seems to be very well-known. There's even a full-length Wikipedia article on that single short essay alone too.
I read it twice. Two years ago and last night. I like it. Just like other writings of his, this essay is written in very concise, plain English and yet in punchy, emotion-rich style, offering much food for thought, mainly in political, and maybe in philosophical terms as well.
He is said to have been over-serious and seems to have had a very hard life. Just reading his very short biography of one to two pages must be enough to impress you. Here I don't mean to say I agree totally to whatever he says. Frankly, my dear, I don't care a d**m whether he was right or wrong in his political thought. But I do take much interest in the life of anyone who devoted their entire life to a cause, whatever their beliefs might have been. Besides, his writing style, his plain English is a good example to follow for a learner of English like myself.
"I think even if the Japanese writing system was romanized, most Americans wouldn't learn Japanese. What about Germany? German is romanized of course, but the war occurred between Germany and the Allies. "
Completely untrue. This is wrong on multiple levels. Time has shown that closely-related languages are always the ones most learned. Take any statistic you will and you will find that the most common secondary languages are Spanish, german and french- not only because there are many immigrants from the countries where those languages are spoken but also because those languages are wonderfully simple. You want to know what major language is the least spoken in america? Japanese. You want to know why? Because it is the single most difficult language to learn. Chinese then korean are distant seconds.
This is why I say that your second point is also wrong. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." From what have I just told you, is japanese not broken? Is english not broken as well? This is the dawn of the internet- the single most important invention since the printing press. The internet is a near-permanent, wealth of infinite information. Arguably up to 70% is written in english.
If we want the internet to be a permanent, practical resource, languages should be adapted to fit its function. Standard romaji would make Japanese-english crossover infinitely more easy. And of course an edited english alphabet is also necessary. English isn't as broken as Japanese- but it is very close.
>>235 >You want to know what major language is the least spoken in america? Japanese. >You want to know why? Because it is the single most difficult language to learn. >Chinese then korean are distant seconds.
According to the following list of top foreign languages studied in the US schools, Japanese and Italian are almost of the same rank. The rank of Chinese is slightly lower than that of Japanese. The rank of Korean is almost at the bottom even though the Korean writing system uses the Korean alphabet called Hangul.
Marketability and ease of language are how the language cirriculae are decided in America. For example, Japanese was very popular in the 80s and early 90s because of your booming economy. As a result there are plenty of Japanese learning materials in English from that time period. As for now, the Chinese market is booming, so now many High Schools and Colleges are offering Mandarin learning materials.
German and French are still around simply because of the large number of settlers from countries that speak those languages. Spanish is considered the easiest, and of course so many Mexicunts come here and refuse to learn English. So it will not go away any time soon.
>>236 in school use =/= actual use or ease of use. I can ask various teachers in the high schools that surround me to teach me some Italian and they can because of it's use by immigrants; if I asked them to teach me Japanese though? Not a chance.
>>237 This is partially correct but there is the impact of difficulty. I could learn basic german in a week. I could learn Italian from the nice old lady down the street; I could learn all necessary for those languages free and out of school. If I wanted to learn japanese though? I would have to spend several years and thousands of dollars in resources and tutoring to be any level of acceptable.
And I would stay away from use of racial slurs, that doesn't exactly help your argument and Mexicans are some of the most rapid learners of english there are, and also make up a considerable portion of the american military academies. Don't believe the stereotypes!
>>238 According to the following site, Chinese, Japanese and Korean seem to be at about the same level of difficulty for native English speakers in learning these languages. Note that the Korean writing system does not use Kanji at all.
A user of the site says the Korean writing system has a problem that the Japanese writing system does not have.
>Vocabulary wise, I think Korean also presents a problem – Kanji might be more >difficult to learn, but I’d argue that they also make words easier to distinguish >from one another after you put in the effort to learn Kanji. With Korean, it seems >that a lot of the words seem very similar, so it seems almost impossible >(for me at the very least) to learn vocabulary by reading, because there’s no Kanji, >Korean words are not easily distinguishable from one another from their shapes.
I think a similar problem would arise if the Japanese writing system was romanized. Here comes the saying again; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>>238 Yes I noted that ease of language is another factor. With the advent of the internet it is very cheap to learn foreign languages, even for some esoteric languages. Look up Moses McCormick for an example of what I mean. Of course I'm not a native of any of the languages he has studied, but there is means to getting materials that were only two decades ago restricted to the ivory towers of academia.
I hadn't noticed I wrote that insult while proof-reading my post, my bad. Yes there are stereotypes, and yes there are exceptions. However, when personal experience has involved growing up around groups who fit the stereotype, it's hard to persuade somebody to think differently. In this case, yes I am referring to myself. But I am not going to get into my personal history over this.
You're not refuting my main point- that if it "ain't broke don't fix it" you've only shown that yes, they all all "broke".
I had already said that Korean, Chinese and Japanese are the hardest, Japanese is the hardest period.
Allow me to make a point of this- these languages are difficult because they A. Use symbols, and a great deal of them B. can be interpreted (to a certain extent) C. Are not closely linked with other languages; this is most pronounced in Japanese and least pronounced in Korean Chinese, while having the greatest number of characters, is probably the easiest of the trio to learn because it is so structural; Chinese grammar can be learned in a day. For this same reason is why Chinese works near perfect in machine translation with other Euro-american languages; plug in a sentence in chinese and the machine will spit out a near-perfect equal in english or vice versa. Korean is harder because its grammar is a bit more complicated however korean was modernized (well, as modern as the 15th century can be) and has a comparatively puny amount of common Hangul symbols. This helps ease of access greatly. Korean can be used in machine translation with some effort. Japanese is the hardest because it has a high number of Kanji (I would argue 2020 to read a wiki page) and a high number of Hiragana and katakana (adding up to around 100) Technically you could write everything in Hirigana (which would be a good idea in theory) but good luck reading that. (cont in a bit)
>>241 >You're not refuting my main point- that if it "ain't broke don't fix it" >you've only shown that yes, they all all "broke".
What exactly do you mean by "Japanese is broke"? Are you saying that Japanese is an uncivilized defect-ridden language (hence it should be reformed) because it is difficult for native English speakers to learn? Since when did English become the paragon of human languages?
O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright. It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night As a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear, ●Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear.● So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows As yonder lady o'er her fellows shows. The measure done, I'll watch her place of stand And, touching hers, make blessed my rude hand. Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight, For ●I ne'er saw true beauty till this night●.
>>244 >>Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear. Romeo and Juliet, 1.5.46
Notes for this line in Arden Shakespeare Third Series:
This continues the image of Juliet as an ornament too precious to be worn, of such worth that all earth cannot afford her, reinforcing the idea of an ethereal presence not best suited to the sublunary world of *use* and the deterioration of beauty.
Thirst for knowledge too intense for use, for earth too dear Hunger for beauty and nobility unbearably elevated, maddeningly enhanced for this cesspool of a world
Whenever I feel ready to immerse myself in the world of language and literature demonic voices of utility terrify me, saying it's all useless Whenever I am intensely impressed by the heavenly beauty of art the monotonous, mechanical reality and practicality drags me back into the usual spitoon Constantly irritated by electronics, television, the Internet, motorization, and the screeching cries of babies and infants, together with the insane noises of meaninglessly babbling middle-aged women and half-illegally reckless motorcycle riders I am doomed to work, work, and work, enduring all this monotony in this catastrophic country, in this entirely meaningless universe When will the Supreme Being pardon me and let me vanish into thin air, back to my good old quietude where the quintessential beauty of total, absolute nothingness prevails?
Watching his clock tick, tack, tick, tack all the time, He did nothing else He was too busy to do anything in the world He was jobless, staying in his patient's room, taken care of by his nurses and psychiatrists He was too noble to do anything in this cesspool of a world All he did was to watch and listen for the tick-tack of his clock Every single second was much too dear to him He was constantly terribly busy Trying desperately to live with the keenest awareness of the moment Yes, he was busy Yes, he was really busy He didn't even have time for sex, for reading, for listening to music, for small talk, for anything at all He was by far the busiest person constantly aware of the significance of his being at this corner of the universe Awareness was his profession Feeling this nothingness was his profession
He jests at scars that never felt a wound. But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun. Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon, Who is already sick and pale with grief That thou her maid art far more fair than she. Be not her maid, since she is envious: Her vestal livery is but sick and green, And none but fools do wear it. Cast it off.
ROMEO: It is my lady, O, it is my love! O, that she knew she were! She speaks, yet she says nothing. What of that? Her eye discourses, I will answer it. I am too bold, 'tis not to me she speaks. Two of the fairest stars in all the heaven, Having some business, do entreat her eyes To twinkle in their spheres till they return. What if her eyes were there, they in her head? The brightness of her cheek would shame those stars As daylight doth a lamp. Her eyes in heaven Would through the airy region stream so bright That birds would sing and think it were not night. See how she leans her cheek upon her hand. O, that I were a glove upon that hand, That I might touch that cheek!
ROMEO: She speaks. O speak again, bright angel, for thou art As glorious to this night, being o'er my head, As is a winged messenger of heaven Unto the white-upturned wondering eyes Of mortals that fall back to gaze on him When he bestrides the lazy-puffing clouds And sails upon the bosom of the air.
JULIET O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name, Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, And I'll no longer be a Capulet.
ROMEO Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
JULIET 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy. Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? It is nor hand nor foot, Nor arm nor face or any other part Belonging to a man. O be some other name! What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for thy name, which is no part of thee, Take all myself.
ROMEO I take thee at thy word. Call me but love and I'll be new baptized. Henceforth I never will be Romeo.
JULIET What man art thou that thus bescreened in night So stumblest on my counsel?
ROMEO By a name I know not how to tell thee who I am. My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself, Because it is an enemy to thee. Had I it written, I would tear the word.
JULIET My ears have yet not drunk a hundred words Of thy tongue's uttering, yet I know the sound. Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?
ROMEO Neither, fair maid, if either thee dislike.
JULIET How cam'st thou hither, tell me, and wherefore? The orchard walls are high and hard to climb, And the place death, considering who thou art, If any of my kinsmen find thee here.
ROMEO With love's light wings did I o'erperch these walls, For stony limits cannot hold love out, And what love can do, that dares love attempt; Therefore thy kinsmen are no stop to me.
JULIET If they do see thee, they will murder thee.
ROMEO Alack, there lies more peril in thine eye Than twenty of their swords. Look thou but sweet, And I am proof against their enmity.
JULIET I would not for the world they saw thee here.
ROMEO I have night's cloak to hide me from their eyes, An but thou love me, let them find me here. My life were better ended by their hate Than death prorogued, wanting of thy love.
JULIET By whose direction found'st thou out this place?
ROMEO By love, that first did prompt me to enquire. He lent me counsel, and I lent him eyes. I am no pilot, yet wert thou as far As that vast shore washed with the farthest sea, I should adventure for such merchandise.
Uncivilized has no part in this. "Civilized" is such an emotional word, you can brand anything "uncivilized" Here's the real problem- it's impractical. It's impractical for the people who learn it as a first language because it's so unbelievably complicated. Not only this but it is also only, and crucially spoken in one country. These flaws brand it unacceptable. Right now one of the most spoken languages on earth is English- and the one most spoken on the internet (this is very important) is also english, by an incredible majority.
Don't think I am so foolish that I think English is the best because I am american and a patriotic idiot. I am not so foolish. I said it before, and I will say it again, that English is in desperate need of a revision. It is an an absolute mess. Just an incredibly widespread mess. It is acceptably logical and perfectly practical, if that makes sense.
If we were to ignore practicality and just go with the most logical, functional language I would choose an artificial language every time, like for example Esperanto. Though even that could use some editing.
>>257 >It's impractical for the people who learn it as a first language >because it's so unbelievably complicated.
If it's so much complicated, why the literacy rate of Japan is over 99%?
I think you have two misconceptions about the Japanese language.
1) Because of Kanji, Japanese vocabulary is *far* more difficult to learn than learning English vocabulary.
2) Japanese is more difficult to learn for native English speakers than, say, Spanish because Japanese is *intrinsically* more complicated than Spanish.
First, I'll explain quickly why I think 1) is wrong. If you learn the very basics of Kanji(as shown here http://kanjialive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/intro-to-kanji.pdf ), which can be learned for one day, I think learning a kanji character, say, 快(which means "comfortable") is not very difficult compared to learning, say, a German word "Gemütlich" which also means "comfortable".
Many Japanese words are made by combinations of two or three kanji characters. For example, 難民, which means "refugees", where 難 means "difficulty" and 民 means "people". It's pretty easy to guess the meaning of 難民 once you know the meanings of 難 and 民.
Just because the English writing system uses only 26 characters does not mean it's easier to acquire English vocabulary than Japanese one.
Secondly, Spanish is easy to learn for native English speakers because English and Spanish belong to the same language family called the Indo-European languages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
High waving heather 'neath stormy blasts bending Midnight and moonlight and bright shining stars Darkness and glory rejoicingly blending Earth rising to heaven and heaven descending Man's spirit away from its drear dungeon sending Bursting the fetters and breaking the bars
All down the mountain sides wild forests lending One mighty voice to the lift giving wind Rivers their bands in the jubilee rending Fast through the valleys a reckless course wending Wider and deeper their waters extending Leaving a desolate desert behind
Shining and lowering and swelling and dying Changing forever from midnight to noon Roaring like thunder like soft music sighing Shadows on shadows advancing and flying Lightning bright flashes the deep gloom defying Coming as swiftly and fading as soon
>>260 Literary critics say that Emily Bronte was a great poet. If I remember correctly, Virginia Woolf went so far as to say that, even if Bronte's novel "Wuthering Heights" may fall out of people's mind some day, her poems will survive.
My English still irritatingly far from perfect, I unfortunately can't seem to appreciate the beauty of all of her poems. But I do think I understand the intense vigor of this particular poem "High Waving Heather." The punchy recitation on YouTube is a great help in savoring her powerful rhythm.
Note the numerous repetition of the "--ing" verb form (the present participle), which effectively depicts the velocity and intensity of the stormy blasts. In moonlit midnight, Emily would have often gone out of her cozy house, which would have been separated from any other nearby hamlet or neighbor dwelling in Yorkshire, into the vast heather-covered field. She never got married, never left her birthplace except for some very short periods, and died at 30. Most of her family members died very young, say, around the age she died herself. Her mother, her sister Charlotte Bronte the author, and her brother all died young. Her clergyman father was the only one who survived and lived long. (to be continued)
Emily was mannish. She was really intense, passionate. She loved dogs much better than she did people. She was so passionate that there was even a time when she struggled with a fierce dog and got much wounded. She would have fought the dog with her bare hands.
Her novel and her poems seem to have much in common. Reading her poems gives me a deeper understanding of her worldview and personality, which should have given birth to her quintessential novel.
Both her novel and poetry are intense, vigorous, beyond the norms of ordinary people. (I'm babbling a lot about her literature, but I'm not yet much versed in her literature. I know my limitations in my English ability and my understanding of any kind of literature in English.)
>>260 >>Man's spirit away from its drear dungeon sending >>Bursting the fetters and breaking the bars
Back to the poem "High Waving Heather." Note the above two lines. The stormy blasts blow wildly through the heather under the moonlit sky with the stars shining, with the moonlight, starlight, and the sight of the heather mysteriously blended together. The storm intensely blows away the people's spirit from their "dungeon" of little bodies, breaking their "fetters" and "bars."
This image of man's being imprisoned in a "dungeon," restrained by the "fetters" and "bars" seem to be repeated many times in much of her literature. I have noted it in several of her poems. Her soul would have been so intense and passionate that it would not have been satisfied with this particular mode of life in this monotonous universe. That is why she craved eternity, which she believed existed after her death. Here, she never was weak. She was not the kind of person who hated life because she was too weak to survive in this harsh world. On the contrary, she was much too intelligent, strong, and powerful for this mediocre mode of living. She was quite beyond all norms of humanity. That is why she could not help longing for the quietude of the eternal world of death.
Reading some essays by George Orwell, I found him using the word "good-bad" at least on several occasions. I'd never met the word. I find it interesting and funny. I don't know how widely it is used. Let me quote the definition of the word and the quotations containing it from the OED.
*******************
★good-bad★ adj. designating something which is simultaneously good and bad, esp. that is generally bad or inferior, but has redeeming characteristics, or is a particularly good example of an inferior thing; (also) relating to both good and bad.
(1) 1852 tr. R. de Maistre in Dublin Rev. Dec. 390 There is nothing so dangerous as ●good bad● books, that is to say, bad books written by excellent men deceived. (2) 1899 Chambers's Jrnl. 23 Sept. 674/1 Smugglers in the ●good-bad● old times pursued what they euphemistically called the ‘fair trade’. (3) 1933 A. Thirkell High Rising ii. 41 ‘●Good bad● books?’ ‘Yes. Not very good books,..but good of a second-rate kind.’ (4) 1949 M. Mead Male & Female xvii. 346 A frequent theme of modern movies is the ‘●good-bad●’ girl. (5) 2003 R. Feasey in M. Jancovich et al. Defining Cult Movies xi. 173 They do not reject or invert standards of good and bad taste, but rather distinguish between the ‘●good bad●’ movie and the bad movie which is simply bad. ======================== This entry has been updated (OED Third Edition, December 2014).
>>264 I'm a native and I don't understand poems, so I'd say it's nothing to worry about. However I feel you won't accept that, since you want to know how to read poems. Maybe you could find an English board where they discuss poetry?
>>265 We don't really use good-bad as far as I know. Instead what I hear is "X is so bad it's good" which has a meaning most similar to example 5. Otherwise from what I can recall is just using words like "mediocre" and "okay" to describe something which has a meaning similar to example 3. 1 is fine as it is, because it explains what it means by good-bad, but 2 and 4 would probably be written completely different.
>>266 Thanks, 臭い米国人, for both of your valuable inputs.
As for the poem, yes, you're right. If I do want to discuss it seriously with someone or ask somebody serious questions about it, I know there are other websites designed for those purposes. I also know that the best way is to join a course organized by Oxford University for part-time online students for a fee. Here in this thread, I have been writing these things without expecting responses from others. Yes, of course, I'd appreciate some, but I know I can't force them to respond to me. In the future I may take the university course.
As for the word "good-bad," I had had a vague feeling that it was no longer used, at least not widely. George Orwell was using the word in the 1930s and the '40s. I suspect the word was more prevalent in Britain than today. Or perhaps he was using the word while well aware that it was rarely used. Despite that, just a look at the word is, I think, enough to let the readers know what the author means.
I also know that huge numbers of words that the OED picks up are archaic, rare, total jargon, or otherwise of little importance, at least to the general public. But I do take interest in the fact that at some point during the long history of English there have been a period when a certain word was used widely or at least by one famous author, although it looks very rare or totally meaningless to us today.
>>267 I understand completely what you're saying. There's something very thrilling about learning the etymology of a word, and knowing words that were once used but aren't any more. It amazes me that sometimes you can use these words in current time, and although it will sound funny to hear, it can be understood what it means by context. As in your "good-bad" example. I guess the thrill to me in learning about old words and phrases is that even though they're not used today, and the language as a whole could be used completely differently, the fact that these words can still be understood by advanced speakers means the language hasn't changed as much as we think it has.
In a thread for Japanese learners of English here on 2-channel, one Japanese asked what this phrase means. I was positive it was some kind of typo or that some words are missing at the end of the phrase.
I was wrong. I googled it half unconsciously. Lo and behold, it's a popular phrase that seems to be widely circulating on social media.
****************
“Said no one ever” is an off-the-rack punchline designed to fall at the end of a deliberately absurd statement, inverting the meaning of what came before it and advertising the user as someone who is both clever and playful, as well as inside the tent with the rest of the cool kids.
The phrase is used as the punchline in a recent TV commercial for Carnival Cruise Lines, in an attempt to persuade millennials to take more sea-based vacations. Cruise ships are awesome ●said no one ever●, anyway my point is it’s time to stop using it.
Before the joke expired, use of “●said no one ever●” was just the evolution of sticking “not” on the end of a sentence, that childish craze of the late 1990s which was itself an extension of the playground game of bending double with laughter whenever someone said something and yelling “It’s opposites day!” in their face.
133 DIVERSION Being unable to cure death, wretchedness and ignorance, men have decided, in order to be happy, not to think about such things. (169)
136 The only good thing for men therefore is to be diverted from thinking of what they are, either by some occupation which takes their mind off it, or by some novel and agreeable passion which keeps them busy, like gambling, hunting, some absorbing show, in short by what is called diversion. (139)
198 When I see the blind and wretched state of man, when I survey the whole universe in its dumbness and man left to himself with no light, as though lost in this corner of the universe, without knowing who put him there, what he has come to do, what will become of him when he dies, incapable of knowing anything, I am moved to terror, like a man transported in his sleep to some terrifying desert island, who wakes up quite lost and with no means of escape. Then I marvel that so wretched a state does not drive people to despair. I see other people around me, made like myself, I ask them if they are any better informed than I, and they say they are not. Then these lost and wretched creatures look around and find some attractive objects to which they become addicted and attached. For my part I have never been able to form such attachments, and considering how very likely it is that there exists something besides what I can see, I have tried to find out whether God has left any traces of himself. (693)
Les Pensees, translated by A. J. Krailsheimer, 1966 (Penguin Books, p.59)
Chinese is, as I said before, wonderfully simplistic in it's grammar. However the number of characters, and the inability to interpret foreign words, prevents it from being any degree of practical
>Also, the most logical language would obviously be communicating via propositional logic. this is true. Maybe someday we'll have that tech. But not today.
>>259 This simply isn't true. German is easier to learn because you can import words from other languages, and uses the basic Latin alphabet, Which somewhere around 3 BILLION people use in their languages, either as first language or second.
Are you seriously arguing that it's easier to learn 10,000+ complicated symbols than 26 letters? You're simply not being realistic.
>Which somewhere around 3 BILLION people use in their languages,
What is your point in saying that?
>Are you seriously arguing that it's easier to learn 10,000+ complicated symbols than 26 letters?
You don't seem to know what you are talking about. First, only about 2,000(not 10,000) Kanji characters are taught in schools in Japan. Newspapers are written using only those characters with a small number of exceptions like place names.
Secondly, Kanji characters are ideograms, not phonograms like the Latin alphabet. Each Kanji character has a meaning while a Latin alphabet letter does not. In other words, a Kanji character can be viewed as a *word*. So it's absurd to compare the number of Kanji and the number of the Latin alphabet.
'Yes, of course, if it's fine to-morrow,' said Mrs. Ramsay. 'But you'll have to be up with the lark,' she added. (snip) 'But,' said his father, stopping in front of the drawing-room window, 'it won't be fine.' ●Had there been an axe handy, a poker, or any weapon that would have gashed a hole in his father's breast and killed him, there and then, James would have seized it.● Such were the extremes of emotion that Mr. Ramsay excited in his children's breasts by his mere presence; standing, as now, lean as a knife, narrow as the blade of one, grinning sarcastically, not only with the pleasure of disillusioning his son and casting ridicule upon his wife, who was ten thousand times better in every way than he was (James thought), but also with some secret conceit at his own accuracy of judgment.
James kept dreading the moment when he [= his father] would look up and speak sharply to him about something or other. Why were they lagging about here? he would demand, or something quite unreasonable like that. And if he did, James thought, then ●I shall take a knife and strike him to the heart.● He had always kept ★this old symbol of taking a knife and striking his father to the heart★. Only now, as he grew older, and sat staring at his father in an impotent rage, 【it was not him, that old man reading, whom he wanted to kill, but it was the thing that descended on him - without his knowing it perhaps: that fierce sudden black-winged harpy, with its talons and its beak all cold and hard, that struck and struck at you】 (he could feel the beak on his bare legs, where it had struck when he was a child) and then made off, and there he was again, an old man, very sad, reading his book. That he would kill, that he would strike to the heart.
>>276 Yes that's perfectly natural. Just don't buy into the bullshit of new pronouns idiots are trying to use like "xir/xe" and what not. No matter what you might hear from another English speaker, if you don't know the gender you would use a form of "they". It's also used when trying to be official on occasion.
>>279 >if you don't know the gender you would use a form of "they".
Thanks. I had suspected that a majority of native English speakers might have the same opinion as yours, If this is true, I guess English grammar has almost changed about the use of "they". As you probably know, most people would have said "I guess Leslie Smith did *his* best" before about 1980. Before the feminism movement started in the 1960s, "he" had been universally used as a gender-neutral pronoun.
I know that the singular "they" has been used since Chaucer's time. But as far as I know, it has been used only for a non-specific indefinite person like "nobody", "everyone", "someone", etc. Since such a pronoun is semantically plural, I think referring to it as "they" is not unnatural. However, I think referring to a specific definite person(like Leslie Smith) whose gender is unknown as "they" is quite a new phenomenon.
To the Lighthouse 1.17 (Mr. Bankes' monologue in the presence of his old friend, Mrs. Ramsay, at a dinner party with her big family)
It would have hurt her [= Mrs. Ramsay] if he [= Mr. Bankes] had refused to come. But it was not worth it for him. Looking at his hand he thought that if he had been alone dinner would have been almost over now; he would have been free to work, Yes, he thought, it is ●a terrible waste of time●. [snip] How trifling it all is, how boring it all is, he thought, compared with the other thing - work. [snip] What a waste of time it all was to be sure! Yet, he thought, she is one of my oldest friends. I am by way of being devoted to her. Yet now, at this moment her presence meant absolutely nothing to him: her beauty meant nothing to him; [snip] He wished only to be alone and to take up that book. [snip] He felt uncomfortable; he felt treacherous, that he could sit by her side and feel nothing for her. ●The truth was that he did not enjoy family life.● It was in this sort of state that one asked oneself, ★What does one live for? Why, one asked oneself, does one take all these pains for the human race to go on?★ Is it so very desirable? Are we attractive as a species? [snip] Foolish questions, vain questions, questions one never asked if one was occupied, Is human life this? Is human life that? One never had time to think about it.
>>280 I haven't studied about the history of using pronouns when unsure of gender. That does make sense though, as anecodotally I have noticed many technical books switching more to defaulting as "her" as it became later in the 90s and now the new millenia. I'm probably being a curmudgeon, but the choice of "he/her" should be the author's, not society's.
Double post, but... >>281 What is meant by these [snip]s? If it's omission, just end the previous sentence with ellepses (...) after the punctuation mark. Yes, he thought, it is a terrible waste of time... How trifling it all is... What does one live for?...Are we attractive as a species?...
>>283 Oh, I had seen - if I remember correctly - some people use a [snip] or a <snip> in the middle of a quoted passage to mean an ellipsis designed to shorten the quotation. And I had assumed it was standard usage of English. I was wrong, huh? Thank you for telling me.
>>Yes, he thought, it is a terrible waste of time... How trifling it all is...
Yes, that notation looks like a good idea, but I fear readers might then wonder whether the ellipses were made by the original author of the passage or by me (the quoter).
If I remember correctly again, some quoters use the following notation:
(1) Yes, he thought, it is a terrible waste of time [...] How trifling it all is [...] --- Here, the quoter means the ellipses are made by the quoter, not by the original author.
(2) Yes, he thought, it is a terrible waste of time... How trifling it all is... --- Here, the quoter means the ellipses are made by the original author of the passage.
After writing >>284, I scanned a couple of collections of literary commentaries containing lots of quotations. There I've found that some authors write as in (1), that is, three periods in brackets, while others write just three periods, as in (2). In both cases, the authors are quoting passages of literary works, while omitting some words in the middle of each quotation. They don't seem to be making distinctions between omissions made by the original author and those by the quoter.
In Japan, on the other hand, the general convention seems to be that they use the word 中略 (churyaku) to mean that the omission or ellipsis is being made by the quoter, not by the original author of the passage. Then, when there occurs three dots like this いや・・・ちょっと待ってくれ then it means that it is not the quoter but the original author of the passage that is making the omission.
Therefore, suppose you are reading a literary commentary and you come across a passage like this:
「いや・・・ちょっと待ってくれ」と恵三は言った。彼の表情は(中略)少し堅かった。
Then, the reader can clearly understand that the three dots (・・・) mean that the omission or ellipsis is made by the original author of the novel. Then the subsequent 中略 (churyaku) means that the quoter is omitting some words that the original author wrote.
>>284 I don't recall seeing a <snip> like that before. So if it's used, it must surely be new. It's always been the way I stated, or the way you pointed out with [...]. Very rarely there will be "TEXT OMITTED" as well. The last one is a very special case, and it has a sense of being used only in documents where clarity is the utmost importance, such as legal documents. I can't describe it beyond that , as I don't use it personally.
I did not know about 中略、so thanks for explaining that!
>>282 Here is a passage from a novel called "Rogue in Space" by Fredric Brown.
【CALL HIM by no name, for he had no name. He did not know the meaning of name, or of any other word. He had no language, for he had never come into contact with any other living being in the billions of light-years of space that he had traversed from the far rim of the galaxy, in the billions of years that it had taken him to make that journey. For all he knew or had ever known he was the only living being in the universe. He had not been born, for there was no other like him. He was a piece of rock a little over a mile in diameter, floating free in space. There are myriads of such small worlds but they are dead rock, inanimate matter. He was aware, and an entity. An accidental combination of atoms into molecules had made him a living being. To our present knowledge such an accident has happened only twice in infinity and eternity; the other such event took place in the primeval ooze of Earth, where carbon atoms formed sentient life that multiplied and evolved.】
>>282 (Continued) Since it was written in 1957, the thing is referred to as "he". In the present【Political Correctness 】world, perhaps it should be written as folows?
【CALL THEM by no name, for they had no name. They did not know the meaning of name, or of any other word. They had no language, for they had never come into contact with any other living being in the billions of light-years of space that they had traversed from the far rim of the galaxy, in the billions of years that it had taken them to make that journey. For all they knew or had ever known they was the only living being in the universe. They had not been born, for there was no other like them. They were a piece of rock a little over a mile in diameter, floating free in space. There are myriads of such small worlds but they are dead rock, inanimate matter. They were aware, and an entity. An accidental combination of atoms into molecules had made them a living being. To our present knowledge such an accident has happened only twice in infinity and eternity; the other such event took place in the primeval ooze of Earth, where carbon atoms formed sentient life that multiplied and evolved.】
Obscurest night involv'd the sky, Th' Atlantic billows roar'd, When such a destin'd wretch as I, Wash'd headlong from on board, Of friends, of hope, of all bereft, His floating home for ever left.
No braver chief could Albion boast Than he with whom he went, Nor ever ship left Albion's coast, With warmer wishes sent. He lov'd them both, but both in vain, Nor him beheld, nor her again.
Not long beneath the whelming brine, Expert to swim, he lay; Nor soon he felt his strength decline, Or courage die away; But wag'd with death a lasting strife, Supported by despair of life.
He shouted: nor his friends had fail'd To check the vessel's course, But so the furious blast prevail'd, That, pitiless perforce, They left their outcast mate behind, And scudded still before the wind. (to be continued)
[Continued] Some succour yet they could afford; And, such as storms allow, The cask, the coop, the floated cord, Delay'd not to bestow. But he (they knew) nor ship, nor shore, Whate'er they gave, should visit more.
Nor, cruel as it seem'd, could he Their haste himself condemn, Aware that flight, in such a sea, Alone could rescue them; Yet bitter felt it still to die Deserted, and his friends so nigh.
He long survives, who lives and hour In ocean, self-upheld; And so long he, with unspent pow'r, His destiny repell'd; And ever, as the minutes flew, Entreated help, or cried -- Adieu!
At length, his transient respite past, His comrades, who before Had heard his voice in ev'ry blast, Could catch the sound no more. For then, by toil subdued, he drank The stifling wave, and then he sank. [to be continued on Part 3]
[Part 3] No poet wept him: but the page Of narrative sincere; That tells his name, his worth, his age, Is wet with Anson's tear. And tears by bards or heroes shed Alike immortalize the dead.
I therefore purpose not, or dream, Descanting on his fate, To give the melancholy theme A more enduring date: But misery still delights to trace Its semblance in another's case.
No voice divine the storm allay'd, No light propitious shone; When, snatch'd from all effectual aid, We perish'd, each alone: But I beneath a rougher sea, And whelm'd in deeper gulfs than he. [End of poem]
This poem quoted at >>292-294 was really hard for me to understand. First, it contains a great many words I'm not familiar with and I had to consult my dictionaries numerous times. Second, many of those unfamiliar words are archaic. Third, although I already knew poems put rhythm and stylistic beauty before grammatical correctness (or idiomatic-ness), this particular poem was one of the hardest to understand, at least for me anyway, in terms of structure and grammar. Even after a couple of hours of study of this poem, some of the phrases still remain a mystery.
That said, I think I've managed to appreciate the approximate gist of the spirit of the poem anyway. The reason I tackled the poem is that it appears in my favorite, if very difficult, novel "To the Lighthouse" by Virginia Woolf. Fragments of the poem are quoted here and there in 3-5 of the novel. Woolf's novels are ridden with fragments of famous novels. Not only that, she writes her novels as if as long poems. "The Waves" is a full-length novel (about 250 pages long) but it reads exactly like a very long novel. It doesn't feel like an ordinary novel at all.
In any case, her novels are filled with famous novels and they read like long poems themselves. Whenever I find a fragment of a famous poem in any of her novels, I try to find the whole poem containing the fragment and read the whole poem through. Not only that, there are lots of allusions in her novels, including mythical heroes, so that it takes a very long time to read a single work of hers.
>>289-290 This passage feels like even today it would still be "he" because I get the impression that the author intended for the main character to be a man.
>>295 It's great that you enjoy these works, but I'm sorry to say the rhythm to this poem is one of the most basic that's taught here, at least when I learned poems. I'm sure you understand its structure now, but just to make it obvious, the structure is as follows:
1) I therefore purpose not, or dream, 2) Descanting on his fate, 3) To give the melancholy theme 4) A more enduring date: 5) But misery still delights to trace 6) Its semblance in another's case.
1) and 3) rhyme with the last word, and share the same number of syllables. 2) and 4) rhyme with the last word, and share the same number of syllables. 5) and 6) rhyme with the last word, and share the same number of syllables.
So every other line rhymes on the last word, and have the same number of syllables. Except the last two lines rhyme with each other and have the same syllable count.
>>296 Thanks, 臭い米国人, for your explanation of the poem. As a matter of fact, when I was trying to decipher the poem yesterday before making my last post here, I was so busy merely trying to decipher the meaning of each word, consulting my dictionaries literally fifty or even a hundred times, and trying to grasp the grammatical structure of each phrase or line, that I failed to notice the rhythm that you beautifully explained above.
Then, later last night, when I was browsing several passages of a book on the basics of poetry (entitled "Understanding Poetry" by Cleanth Brooks), I noticed the rhythm, which was quite obvious. I think I hadn't noticed the whole forest, busy with examining the single tree that was right before my eyes.
I also noticed only later last night that the poem dates back to the 18th century. No wonder the language itself felt a bit difficult to me, at least harder than poems written in the 19th and 20th centuries anyway. Dryden's poems, however, at least the ones that I've happened to read, are easier for me to understand even though they date back to the 17th century, being even older than this Cowper poem. And oh, John Donne is also rather hard for me because his language seems very archaic to me.
[Note by the quoter: The following quotation depicts the feelings and thoughts of Mrs. Ramsay, a middle-aged mother of eight children. She is staying for a summer vacation in a country cottage on the Isle of Skye (one of the Habrides, Scotland) rented by the family together with her children, her husband, and her several guests. She is sitting in the house, with her young son. She is hearing murmurs from another room. The murmurs are probably those of her husband and one of her guests. She also hears the voices of some of her children playing cricket outdoors. She also hears the soothing sound of the waves.
The following quote consists of one very long sentence. Or could it be called three sentences? (It looks like a single sentence divided into three segments by semicolons.) Even if they are three sentences, they are each very long anyway. Structurally, they are hard for me to understand. For me at least, to savor the delicate meaning of the passage, it takes a long, long time. But the effort is quite rewarding. It is just beautiful. Virginia Woolf is a genius of quietude.]
******** QUOTE ********
But here, as she [= Mrs. Ramsay] turned the page, suddenly her search for the picture of a rake or a mowing-machine was interrupted. The gruff murmur, irregularly broken by the taking out of pipes and the putting in of pipes which had kept on assuring her, though she could not hear what was said (as she sat in the window), that the men were happily talking;
(The long sentence is continued on the next post.)
this sound, which had lasted now half an hour and had taken its place soothingly in the scale of sounds pressing on top of her, such as the tap of balls upon bats, the sharp, sudden bark now and then, 'How's that? How's that?' of the children playing cricket, had ceased; so that the monotonous fall of the waves on the beach, which for the most part beat a measured and soothing tattoo to her thoughts and seemed consolingly to repeat over and over again as she sat with the children the words of some old cradle song, murmured by nature, 'I am guarding you - I am your support,' but at other times suddenly and unexpectedly, especially when her mind raised itself slightly from the task actually in hand, had no such kindly meaning, but like a ghostly roll of drums remorselessly beat the measure of life, made one think of the destruction of the island and its engulfment in the sea, and warned her whose day had slipped past in one quick doing after another that it was all ephemeral as a rainbow - this sound which had been obscured and concealed under the other sounds suddenly thundered hollow in her ears and made her look up with an impulse of terror. (Virginia Woolf, "To the Lighthouse," 1-3, Everyman's Library p.17-18)
>>298 [Structural analysis] I'm omitting the first sentence beginning with "But here," because it's short and easy to understand. Here comes the second, long sentence:
***************
The gruff murmur, irregularly broken by the taking out of pipes and the putting in of pipes which had kept on 【assuring her】, though she could not hear what was said (as she sat in the window), 【that】 the men were happily talking;
(Note: In the above phrase, the phrase "assuring her" is followed by "that + clause." And the above phrase as a whole is a noun phrase, if I may put it that way (I don't know what it is called exactly in grammatical or linguistic terminology). What I mean is that the above string of words as a whole has the main subject ("the gruff murmur") but it is not followed by a verb. Its verb, if I understand the whole long paragraph correctly, appears long, long afterwards. 9 lines later in my paper version of the novel. The verb of "the gruff murmur" is actually "had ceased."
>>299 [Structural analysis of the second segment of the long sentence]
【this sound】, which (1) had lasted now half an hour and (2) had taken its place soothingly in the scale of sounds pressing on top of her, such as (i) the tap of balls upon bats, (ii) the sharp, sudden bark now and then, 'How's that? How's that?' of the children playing cricket, 【had ceased】;
****************
If I understand it correctly, in this second segment of the long sentence, the phrase "this sound," appearing at the top, is the subject, which is followed by its verb "had ceased," appearing at the end.
>>299 [Third and last segment of the long sentence]
Here comes the third and last segment of this long sentence. It's by far the longest segment and pretty hard to analyze, for me anyway. Is it easy enough for educated native speakers, I wonder?
*******************
so that [AAA] ■the monotonous fall of the waves on the beach■, which ●for the most part● ★(1) BEAT a measured and soothing tattoo to her thoughts and ★(2) SEEMED consolingly to repeat over and over again << as she sat with the children >> the words of some old cradle song, murmured by nature, 'I am guarding you - I am your support,' [[[ but ●at other times● suddenly and unexpectedly, especially when her mind raised itself slightly from the task actually in hand, ]]] ★(3) HAD ◆no◆ such kindly meaning, ◆but◆ << like a ghostly roll of drums >> ★(4) remorselessly BEAT the measure of life, ★(5) MADE one think of the destruction of the island and its engulfment in the sea, and ★(6) 【WARNED】 her whose day had slipped past in one quick doing after another 【that】 it was all ephemeral as a rainbow - [BBB] ■this sound■ which had been obscured and concealed under the other sounds (i) suddenly THUNDERED hollow in her ears and (ii) MADE her look up with an impulse of terror.
>>280 If people don't know the gender of a person, like, if I were to say "x person invented the jet engine" I would say "he invented the jet engine." Keep in mind this would ONLY be used if I knew neither the person or the name, Or just the last name.
>>275 >You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Oh the irony.
I don't understand why you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll try to make myself as simple as possible:
Japanese, has lots of characters, lots of rules, and cannot properly import foreign words. It is also used by only japan as a primary OR secondary language.
English, while more complicated in it's grammar, can import foreign words with ease; as well as letters, and it's alphabet is a puny 26 characters, or 30 if you use adapted, improper ones.
It is used as a primary language or secondary languages by quite literally billions of people.
More importantly, it's alphabet, the Latin script, is used in other languages WELL over half of the world.
Additionally, well over half of the internet is written in english, and up to about 90% is written in the Latin script.
So, if I speak english, I will not only have a better chance to learn the languages of other places, use the internet, speak with other people, adopt new words, and educate others. This is why it's preferable.
However, it also needs a revision to be proper.
Do you understand me a little better now? I'm not trying to attack Japan or it's people.
>>276 Top expand on this a little, Mr. Or Mrs. Smith would in a casual setting default to he or him.
"They" and it's forms is also used, so you are correct in saying that, and possibly more so in a professional setting
If Leslie Smith was my future employer I would not want to screw up his gender!
I would myself use something along the lines of
"Dear Leslie Smith, I am interesting in applying for work positions in your company."- avoiding the use of any gender indicative words English is a language of avoidance in many ways.
>>302 I can't make heads or tails of this, but it's because of all of these extra symbols that are on the words. I imagine that you put them there? If so, what do all of them mean? We don't use a lot of symbols in English when analyzing texts, so to me I have no idea where to begin or end. We mainly use [ ] or ( ) when adding something the source originally omitted, and the ellepses for our own omission of the original work.
>>305 English is simply the language used by the world powers for this current time period. As late as the early 20th century, Latin was the dominant language for the sciences, and depending on how far back one goes, the dominant languages have included Italian, Egyptian, Greek, and Chinese. Had the interconnectivity started in another nation, the internet, we most likely would be striving to speak that language instead.
The ability to import words "properly", which is a vague term, has no relation to the ease of learning the language. Instead it has to do with grammatical and lexical similarities.
This last part I'm stating to you directly: please learn the distinctions between graphemes and phonemes, because you project that you don't know the difference. Your attacks on the character count as making the language impractical are baseless. They may -add- to the time to learn the language, but if they wielded a power over the language as much as you think they do, they would have been abandoned in favor of another way of writing thousands of years ago.
"Leslie" can be use for both male and female names. If you don't know the gender of a person called Leslie Smith, what pronoun do you use to refer the person?
I've just begun reading "The Great Gatsby." People say the author's language is really beautiful. I don't care about the plot but the beauty and rhythm of the language in novels. And yes, the reviewers were right: Fitzgerald is a great stylist.
******** QUOTE ***************
I [= the narrator of the novel, Nick Carraway] began to like New York, the racy, adventurous feel of it at night, and the satisfaction that the constant flicker of men and women and machines gives to the restless eye. I liked to walk up Fifth Avenue and pick out romantic women from the crowd and imagine that in a few minutes I was going to enter into their lives, and no one would ever know or disapprove. Sometimes, in my mind, I followed them to their apartments on the corners of hidden streets, and they turned and smiled back at me before they faded through a door into warm darkness. At the enchanted metropolitan twilight I felt a haunting loneliness sometimes, and felt it in others - poor young clerks who loitered in front of windows waiting until it was time for a solitary restaurant dinner - young clerks in the dusk, wasting the most poignant moments of night and life.
F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Great Gatsby," Chapter 3, Everyman's Library, p.48
Now a certain man was sick named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (...) When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. (...) Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. (...) Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. (...) Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in nme, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (...) When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept. Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him! (to be continued)
(continued) St. John 11:37- And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
Toward the middle of Chapter 4 of "Crime and Punishment," Raskolnikov the hero/murderer urges Sonya the harlot to read for him the above-quoted passage about the raising of Lazarus. She then reads it.
I've read the novel at least 12 times, most of the time in English. I've also listened to the reading of the novel by a professional actor at least 30 to 50 times.
Although not a Christian, this passage somehow impresses me a lot. God may be dead, but the beauty and the power of the Bible lives on. I may not believe in God but I do believe in the mysterious power of language. This world may be just a cesspool, constantly temping me to seek the quietude of nothingness, but the beauty of language remains a great source of solace, keeping me barely able to live on.
May God or the Universe bestow ye my brethren a similar source of solace!
55 Thirty spokes. Share one hub. Make the nothing therein appropriate, and you will have the use of cart. Knead clay in order to make a vessel. Make the nothing therein appropriate, and you will have the use of the clay vessel. Cut out doors and windows in order to make a room. Make the nothing therein appropriate, and you will have the use of the room. Thus we gain by making it Something, but we have the use by making it Nothing.
Bowed down then whole; Warped then true; Hollow then full; Worn then new; A little then benefited; A lot then perplexed.
Hence the sage grasps the One and is the shepherd of the empire. He does not display himself, and so is conspicuous; He does not show himself, and so is manifest; He does not boast of himself, and so has merit; He does not brag about it, and so is able to endure. It is because he does not contend that no one is in a position to contend with him. The way the ancients had it, 'Whole through being bowed down', is as true a saying as can be. Truly, it enables one to hand it back whole.
Lao-Tzu's "Tao Te Ching," Everyman's Library, p.71
>>322 You have good pronunciation. Especially the L's, which I know is hard for many Japanese. If you don't mind a nitpick, your W on will is pretty strong. We don't push out a lot of air for the W, it's about as much as あ or い instead of は行。 But honestly I only noticed it because of your microphone clipping from too much air hitting it.
If you, or anyone else, wants a collection of phrases to practice pronunciation, look up
>>307 I'm aware it's only around for the time being, but you forget that English has been lent a permanence because of it's scale, and because of the internet.
"The ability to import words "properly", which is a vague term, has no relation to the ease of learning the language. Instead it has to do with grammatical and lexical similarities. "
That's not true, It's an important part of being able to adapt one's own language to others and to make it "familiar" so to speak. It also makes it much more flexible. English evolves by importing other words. If I learn English, and need to describe something from my former language, I am completely able to just copy paste a word from my previous language into English. Alternatively, if I want to do something as simple as call someone by name, I can call Jason, Jason, not some hideous butchering of the pronunciation. "But English butchers pronunciations too!" Of course, but whereas there literally isn't an "l" sound in Japanese (not even getting into the fact that most Hiragana characters link two different phoneme) most English origin goofs come not from a lack of foundation but from a literal lack of ability in the English speaker. I can't speak Chinese because my vocal cords haven't adapted to the task, not because there is no letter for the "ess" sound or what have you. Sadly when importing words many people don't bother to change the spelling properly; this is why "a" makes about four different sounds. But this is an issue with the people, not the tool. and of course “lexical similarities” contribute greatly to ease of use.
"graphemes and phonemes" If I didn't know what they are (and I do) I could simply search them on the internet. Are you a professor, teacher or so? If not then you have little base to criticize me on this. I'm writing this all in vernacular English. I could go absurdly "scholarly" with this and use every overly long phrase, clause and word I possess but I won't because I shouldn't and I don't need to. I'm not hiding anything. Furthermore, don't insult your own audience, because that's not debate, that's just dumb. I have not spoken against you in the past, am not doing now, and will continue to not do so in the future. This is because I respect you as an (anonymous) person and will give you your fair time to prove your points. You should give the same respect to your opponent. At any time I could throw a hissy fit and refuse to talk with you and make a bunch of troll posts, but I'm not going to, because that would be dumb and I don't want to be dumb.
Now it's my turn to talk to you as a person. You can hold whatever opinion you want, so long as you can defend it in an educated way. But please man, don't be pretentious. Our posts are literally a click away from some dude spamming a thread with pictures of futanari catgirls being reamed senseless by tentacle aliens. This is not exactly the place to try and format a doctorate. I don't know why you still seem to think that I am somehow attacking you or your country. I am doing neither.
"Your attacks on the character count as making the language impractical are baseless. They may -add- to the time to learn the language, but if they wielded a power over the language as much as you think they do, they would have been abandoned in favor of another way of writing thousands of years ago. "
You literally just admitted that it makes the language impractical. You just said it adds time to the learning of the language. That's a hindrance. Maybe it's a small one (it isn't) but it is still a hindrance. We need as few hindrances as possible. And most (not all) "symbol" (logogram, morpheme, pictogram, ect ect) languages have been abandoned, modified, or adapted. The amount of people that use, as I stated before, just the Latin script completely surpass the languages that use the former. Romaji exists for a reason. It makes things simple, or at the very least, more simple. If you think that having a massive amount of Kanji somehow makes things easier, alright, can you prove it? But until you do so you can't honestly say that somehow memorizing some thousand plus Kanji in order to read a newspaper is easier than remembering the sounds of 26 characters, 30 in an edited alphabet.
About the only perks I see to Kanji are that you can read without knowing the sounds, which is a gimmick at best, and the fact that you can't have people insist that "no really, 'c' makes three sounds!" That's actually a bonus, but it doesn't matter really, because that's a quirk only found in English, not the languages that English stole from.
I also do not understand while you repeatedly criticize me and English's notoriously unreliable alphabet as if I somehow like that mess. I am criticizing it too. We need a better system. If you think that English needs a completely new alphabet before it could ever be practical, I could agree with you; but that's not very practical.
Remember, English doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better, which I firmly think it is. Are you arguing that Japanese is a better language? Why do you think this, if so? Why do you think otherwise?
>>333-336 I'm going to reply to these posts as they're separated.
>>333 I understand what you mean about needing to describe something and substituting the English word. But are you saying that Chinese is a bad language to use as a world language because you as the individual don't have the ability to produce certain sounds? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say for those last few sentences, if it's not that.
>>334 I'm sorry it comes off as a personal attack, and re-reading it I can easily see why it looks like that. It's just from how I understood it, what you had stated earlier sounded to me like you didn't know the difference between the two.
No, I'm not a scholar in Linguistics. The closest I have is my undergraduate essay in the history of Japan's writing system, which is saying almost nothing. I simply study Linguistics as a hobby, and most of what I've read is written in the "scholarly" way. So it's just a natural way for me to write. If we were talking about something else, I would most likely write differently, like I do when I've held conversations in the other English talking thread.
>>335 If my writing is what's giving the sense of pretentiousness, I wrote about that in the previous response. No, I did not say it was impractical. I said it adds time to learning it. With Japanese specifically, prior to widespread adoption of kanji, and even with it for a while, people would use certain variations of kana depending on the word they wanted to say. This is because of all of the homophones, and this is, in my opinion, what would happen again if kanji were to be abolished.
>>336 I'm fairly certain that most languages will have several ways to pronounce a letter, it's just English as it is today has a lot more peculiarities with them compared to most. Even Japanese isn't 100% 1-to-1, look at 新聞 where ん shifts to an "M" sound.
Thank you for clarifying, because up until this point I had thought you were saying English was a vastly superior language to others. So to me it felt like you were coming to this board to say "Sure I'll help you with English, because your own is terrible and you should get away from it ASAP."
Lastly, no I don't think Japanese is a better language. I think that there will always be more than one language, and honestly I feel that's for the best. This is because I'm a firm believer that language ties to culture, and they influence each other. So although there will be world languages, like how English is right now, as long as people maintain their unique cultures, there will be a lot of languages to learn.
>>332 >You haven't proved that I don't, you're just insulting people.
I have no intention to insult you. I'm just saying that you don't seem to have enough knowledge of the language to discuss the matter. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. Would you tell me how much you know about it?
>>343 I cannot see the video, but based on what the thread says, option three is my choice. Like what Ben Kovitz said in his answer, "is" should match with "thing" not "oranges", but since this is spoken instead of written, the actor probably forgot this and chose to agree with "oranges". As a result, they said "are" instead of "is" in the video.
Oops!! holiday is final until today of 3-Jan. I'll have to go to work tomorrow. I wonder why holiday always passes early. Now I'm feeling heavy. To begin with why this time of holiday are very short like this!! there're only 5 days between 30-Dec till 3-Jan. It's too short!!
>>347 Thank you for the link. After watching the scene a few times, I think that Gary Botnovcan is correct. The accepted answers would be right, and I agreed with them too, when given that sentence in isolation as text. I think that those answers didn't actually watch the scene, or didn't watch it carefully enough. Gary, on the other hand did, and his explanation is very good as to why the line was that way. It is intended to emphasize. So yes, the subject is the oranges.
>>349 Thank you. That is interesting. I have accepted Gary Botnovcan's answer. The question was posted about a year ago. At that time, the video was not yet deleted. I think Ben Kovitz probably saw it.
>>340 I... Don't exactly know how to answer this, I obviously can't give you a number out of ten. And even if, for the sake of the argument, I knew nothing about it at all, how does this make what I've said about english illegitimate?
wass up,ma bro&sis? this is my first writting. i'm 19 years old. i'm learning english every day. Cuz i wish go to america next year. how much i need money(\)for trip to america for 3week? if i did mistake in grammer in the text,can u tell me where is.
>>356 >wass up,ma bro&sis? >this is my first (writing). >i'm 19 years old. i'm learning english every day. >Cuz i wish (to) go to (America) next year. >how much (do) i need for (a)trip to america for 3week(s)? >if (there are) mistakes in gramm(a)r in the text,can u tell me >(what they are?) > >gn
>>369 I'm also a native speaker, and to me "I have a pollen allergy" also makes sense. "I'm allergic to pollen" sounds good and perhaps better, but for some reason the thought of it never entered my head. I think it's because I was just trying to correct the original post.
>>369 Cool, I didn't think there were many native speakers on here. Do you know/are you learning Japanese, too? What are your hobbies if you don't mind me asking?
>>371 Thanks for your correction. I believe that "I have hay fever" is more natural than "I'm allergic to pollen" when you have actually have hay fever.
>>373 Haha, thinking of someone saying the words "I'm allergic to pollen" in a monotone voice.
You're right, "I have hay fever" is much more natural. If it were a different context, say, where the topic is pollen, it would be the other way round.
Will you listen to me? A young mother cat came to my garden with her 4 little babys yesterday. The kittens were playing pleasantly there, the mother was watching over them in peace. She is a very beautiful cat and kittens are adorable. The scene was good like a picture! Hours later when I was there, they were moving to the garden of the next house in which an old cat phobia woman lives. I had a bad feeling seeing it as she is so strange and feared by neighbors Soon after, I found that they had disappeared completely, couldn't hear them at all. She might do ill to the cats. I can't sleep for worrying about them. I have no association with her. I dont know what to do for them.