A Requiem For Aaron

A Requiem For Aaron

Looking up at the stars
Everything seems so simple.
As the cold night air chills my white-stained lungs
I'm reminded of a better time in my life.
As they rumble past, my faded memories fly bye like shooting stars.
Sadness became part of my life as if woven into it by a spindle.
As my heartbeat slows, unknown poisons are absorbed like a sponge
Bringing a welcome reprieve from the pain and strife.

Unwanted knowledge brings unwanted pain
To an unwilling character in someone's sick little game.

I fear that when all is said and done,
When my blue sky turns dark.
That I'll look down from above
And not be able to see my mark.

And in the end
When our true colors are shown.
Mine will fade to black,
Leaving me forever alone.

Laying down on the grass
Looking at Orion's Belt.
Thinking about my past,
And remembering how it felt
When you slipped away
Everything happened so fast.
So now I'll wait for the night to change into day,
And turn what is left of this shell – into ash.

Pinker

In Pinker's article he discusses the difference between perscriptivist gammatical rules and descriptivist rules. Most of what he is discussing is that the perscriptivist rules on grammar are antiquated and mostly based on Latin rules. Like never splitting an infinitive. He explains that you can't split an infinitive in Latin, as he points out here:

"Julius Caesar could not have split an infinitive if he had wanted to. In Latin the infinitive is a single word like [facere], a syntactic atom. But in English, which prefers to build sentences around many simple words instead of a few complicated ones, the infinitive is composed of two words. Words, by definition, are rearrangeable units, and there is no conceivable reason why an adverb should not come between them"

He also points out the common mistake that most people make (and one we have discussed in class) about poeple using phrases like "between you and I" instead of the correct "between you and me."

I do agree with him when he says that something must be done. Becuase with the increasing number of perversions that the language is facing, it will not take long before everyone is back to speaking in monosyllabic caveman grunts and gesticulating to get their point across.

Faculty Interview

When asked about her take on whether or not literal meaning has falleninto disfavor and disarray in the academic community, Professor Rothrocksuggested that it was more of a case of evolution rather than disarray.According to her, language is an organic, living thing, and that thosewho say it has fallen into disfavor employ the rhetorical situationin a different way than she does. Genuine voice is hindered by rigidity of application, as well as traditional, historical constraints in the absence of the audience and purpose of each communication situation.Language itself has evolved to fit the audience of the situation it isused in. However, rigidity is sometimes required, if the situation callsfor it. Literal meaning is too confining, and the English language and its grammars need to be able to change shape.When asked if it was possible to fix the literal meaning using atextbook or other implements, she said that it needed to be taught in arhetorical sense , with a focus on audience and purpose dictating the style,not in the isolation of a classroom, with all the established rules as the only guide. Language loses power if it is used too literally. Much like politics, it can be seen as tyrannical if the rules are adhered to with such fervor. Language needs to therefore be flexible with each application. She goes on to state that the rules should be learned, and properly applied, but we should be wary of purist views, since language is the tool for communication that people use, and people are likewise organic and evolving.

Wallace (again)

After finishing my reading of Wallace's "Tense Present" my stand on what it is about is a little different. Yes he is still complaining, but not just because of the people making the definitions, he's complaining because no one seems to care about how the language is used anymore, hence when talking about Garner's Dictionary he says: "and his [Garner's] attitude about the fact that most Americans "could care less isn't scorn or disapproval " ". I AM aware that Garner's dictionary is not an actual dictionary but rather a wordy book on how to use the language, but I still stand on just about everything else I said.

Beason

Beason's article Ethos and Errors goes beyond looking at the errors that a writer makes, and instead focus' on how the errors that a writer makes impacts the reader. While there is no doubt that grammatical mistakes within an article, poem, or novel are (or at least can be) distracting to the reader, I think the bigger problem lies within the fact that if you hand 100 college students of varying majors the same article with multiple grammar mistakes; most students would not be able to identify a good portion of the mistakes!

Mistakes are (as Beason points out) often the product of a careless/hasty writer who just refuses to proofread his or her work. However, that hurts only them. Yes, it is annoying to the reader who has to stumble through the piece but it does not reflect anything about the reader or whether or not the reader gets the point. The only person it negatively impacts is the writer who comes off with a tarnished reputations. Again, the emphasis should go back to identifying the mistakes, and I do not just mean the reader should identify them, the writer is the one who should have identified them but it is important that the reader know HOW to identify the mistakes. In my opinion (and I know this review/summary is supposed to be objective) the more prevalent of the issues is being able to identify grammatical mistakes...beyond that, how one feels about those mistakes is irrelavent. Unless you're writing an article about how people feel about grammatical mistakes, in which case it is relavent and you are trying to show how little people in today's society care about grammar (which I think is Beason's point).

Writer's Choice Ch. 1

This has probably been the most helpful chapter I've read all year in relation to Grammar. It explained what a Subject Compliment was, it explained about predicates, it did these things without simply stating that the word/phrase was a predicate and simply expecting you to know what the hell that was. I don't know if we were supposed to blog on this chapter, but I did just incase. This is the kind of thing that is going to help me (and other's I'm sure) with their grammar. Theory isn't helping...I need the definitions, and example's. So hopefully, the semester will be full of more like this, otherwise I probably won't get everything I need from the class.

Review/Summary of Wallace's "Tense Present"

Ok, as I have not yet actually finished reading "Tense Present" I cannot speak for the article as a whole, but being only 10 pages into the article I felt compelled to say something already. What Wallace is talking about (so far) is questioning who comes up with the definitions that we "normal people" look up in the dictionary and take as concrete, and asking who appointed them or who the hell are they to tell me what this word means. The problem in doing that is that he, himself becomes (by his own admission) just as SNOOTY as they are, but quite a bit more pretentious in my opinion.

One thing that I have yet to come across is his reason for attacking the people who come up with the definitions. Is it that he came across a word that he didn't agree with? Does he not think that a cup looks like a cup or that a giraffe should be called a moose instead? He's right, no one appointed these people to come up with the definitions (unless you're going back to the time of Samuel Johnson, who was infact paid to write the first dictionary of the English Language), but the bigger question is who is he to condemn these people for trying to create some sort of understanding amongst the chaos that is the English language? Why is he so important or feel like his questions are so important that he needs to go and piss in someone's coffee? So far the entire article comes off as his way of trying to substantiate Garner's A Dictionary of Modern American Usage and, in my opinion at least, is one step short of Wallace strolling up to Garner and actually phallating the guy.

Insert pause here - I'm reading again....*Play Jeopardy Music*

Ok, I still haven't completed the reading yet, but I think I've got his main point. And that is that the English language is being diluted to rediculous amounts. And therefore, who's to say what the definition of a word is, since in about 5 years we will probably have about 15 more definitions for that word. My problem here is that, even though we must understand the way a word is being used to discern where it would go when diagramming a sentence, this article is more for a Linguistics class rather than a grammar class. We're not discussing why this word is or is not a noun due to its modern usage, but more or less bitching about language as a whole. And in doing so, seems to have as much of a political agenda as the people he's ranting about.

I do however agree with Wallace when he says that some R.M. (rural midwestern) terms are more suited for casual conversations, than their SWE counterparts. For example, he uses "Where's it at?" (R.M.) and "Where is it?" (SWE). The R.M. terms just seems to fit better when having a conversation between friends. I can however, see what he means with this article about language getting out of hand, as I too, have wanted to cave in the head of a teenager that once told me to "Chillax." Which I'm guessing is the equivalent of combining "chill out" and "relax" but just makes that person sound retarded. But again...is not that a question to be dealt with in a language class instead of grammar? Maybe I'm wrong, but I see small things that help (in relation to grammar) and the rest of the article just seems sophistry.