OK, so this isn’t the Sunday Roast, but I figured I’d at least let give you an explanation this time as to why you’re not getting what you’re all starting to rely on.
I have an exam tomorrow that I have to do some frantic last minute revision for. Yes, I could have done revision and/or written the Roast during the day, but, well, I woke up late and then went into town for coffee.
Much more fun than revision and, if I’m being truly honest here, much more fun than writing the Roast!
I shan’t keep you hanging in there too long though. You have my word that when I get home from the exam tomorrow I shall knuckle on down and write you that Roast. And now, I am off to do what I should have been doing for the last few weeks, which is revise English Language like crazy. To think, I paid and volunteered for this torture!
English language!
Sexy.
Yes, English Language. Because I decided, in my infinite wisdom, that two degrees were not enough and I needed that English A-level to make my life complete.
Not sexy. Stupid.
Ha, I’ve been considering taking English Language A-level (got my BA Ancient History & Archaeology last year) just to ’round things off’. Thanks for reminding me that it involves pesky exams 😉
Good luck with the exam! *patiently awaits the roast*
I guess good luck then! Looking forward to tomorrow.
Ooh Mallory, you’re another Archaeologist!
And thank you everyone for the good luck wishes. I should be more scared right now considering the hour of revision I’ve done (whilst watching the Grand Prix *eek*) but I’m strangely not worried.
Which is in and of itself worrying me. But not enough to drive me to last minute revision… AH, it’s ten o’clock. What could I possibly learn at this late hour?
Everyone needs an English Language degree. (Said with the utmost hypocrisy, as I am without.)
It is definitely sexy.
Wow Rich, you’ve really got a thing for the English Language!
I have to admit that I have had the odd “ooh, I want to do an English degree” moment, though I’m leaning more toward the literature side than the language. But sexy? I know plenty of English students and sexy isn’t the first word that springs to mind (with a few notable exceptions of course 😉 )
The English language is sexy though. I could wax on all day about all the wonderful things it enables us to do — not least of all communicate effectively. Literature (the study of) is just boring in comparison.
And I don’t care what you look like, if you’re studying English (Linguistics would be even better) then you’ve got a better than average chance of me falling deeply in love with you.
I am a freak and I’m not ashamed of it!
But literature is the study of the expression of language!
(Though to be fair, the division between the two isn’t as big as a lot of people try and make it out to be).
I think I’m too much of a prescriptivist to get excited about the study of literature. e.e. cummings just makes me want to cry.
I’m a lot more interested in how the language has and is evolving, how our understanding and use of it has evolved. Lexemes, phonemes and morphemes are what turn me on, not all that artistic expression bollocks.
On the way to work this morning, I was reading about how babies learn English, and how their vocabulary evolves over their younger years. Did you know that between the age of 2 and 4, babies learn over 2,000 words? Reading about how a 2 year old’s understanding of language evolves in just 2 years was fascinating to me.
And how a child’s answer to a question like “What’s a shoe?” or “What’s an umbrella?” evolves as they learn – from merely associating it with their environment (“A shoe is for Mummy’s feet”, “An umbrella is black”) to having a real understanding of the definition (“A shoe protects your feet”, “An umbrella protects you from the rain”). That is what really interests me.
I’ll always love reading literature, but I’ll never be able to get excited about actually studying it, I don’t think.
Language and the betterment of our set of words and their use if a fantastically sexy thing. I love language. Not enough to study it. But I love words and wordplay. I love to see out words that aren’t used nearly enough. I love to interject words that aren’t used nearly enough into everyday conversation. Whether it be for comedic effect or not.
In no means do I hold a masterful command of the language. My grammar is horrendous, my punctuation, criminal. Though my spelling is exquisite, though sometimes riddled with typos. (Note: There is direct correlation to number of typos and hours of sleep).
That say, I eagerly await the roast. As I do all good posts from good writers. 🙂
I incipient know exactly what palliate you discomfit mean. I like to omnipresent do that specious too!
Rich – you’re a perscriptive who is interested in how language is still evolving? 😐
I love the use of language myself but at the end of the day it is the expression of that language, the literature, that floats my boat though. I do think it’s a dangerous road to go down to classify it that “artist expression bollocks”. You couldn’t have the works of e.e. cummings (who frankly leaves me as cold as James Joyce does) without a solid understanding of the language. WHY does cummings leave you cold though, that’s the question you need to be asking yourself. Is it because in his literature he is pushing the boundaries of your language and making you feel uncomfortable as you are forced to rethink how you thought words fitted together?
It’s not language or literature. It’s language AND literature.
(listen to me sounding like a sodding English major!)
Evolving in good ways. “lol dats cool” is bad (but interesting) evolution, but adding new words to our existing lexicon, and finding new ways of expressing ourselves, is interesting to me. I’m willing to accept that language is evolving, I’m just wary of the ways it could go. Perhaps I’m just a selective prescriptivist. Or maybe I’m not a prescriptivist at all. It’s something I probably need to think about a little more, because I find myself contradicting myself sometimes, as you rather astutely observed.
I agree literature’s not bollocks. It’s just wholly uninteresting to me. And I don’t think they’re as closely related as you do, not in the way I think of the study of literature, at least. The line is fine though, I’ll concede that.
I like to read a book. It’s the words that do it to me, and the story. I don’t enjoy tearing it apart and looking at the symbology, and all that. I think perhaps I don’t like the subjectivity of that kind of examination. I prefer to see things in a more exact light — there’s no disputing a wonderfully constructed sentence, but people could debate the symbology of a particular phrase for years without coming to an answer.
My beef with e.e. cummings is not because he’s pushing the boundaries of anything, it’s because he ignores the boundaries. I’m all for experimentation and whatnot — particularly with poetry, I think of that as more of a “freeform” form of literature than, say, a novel — but Mr (or should that be “mr”, the tit) cummings just does nothing for me. That said, I know sod all about poetry really, so it’s an area I’m not really qualified to comment on.
Pingback: Bright Meadow » Monday Meal: The canadian army makes war to the mentally sane people
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one Rich, or take it elsewhere over a cup of coffee.
I’m the same as you in that I love language. But I also love literature and the things people can do with words. Most poetry leaves me cold so I guess I don’t love it THAT much but…
Damn it, now I want to keep studying English!
We should definitely take this elsewhere and discuss it over coffee sometime. We’ve been talking about doing this for ages now, and it will happen some time, if it’s the last thing I do. :p