An assortment of texts are studied which show how standards in Classical Latin were affected by popular forms. (Bishop) Gregory of Tours wrote a history in the 6th century - in Latin but he apologised that he hadn't been properly instructed in grammar. The important thing, though, is that works were written, and that they are comprehensible.
at least gregory was honest!
graffiti can be incomprehensible to a reader, but it doesn't mean that the statement it makes isn't honest. i'm looking forward to r3 'jazz on 3's union of jazz/graffiti discussion, (though it's probably two potentially huge subjects briefly skimmed over, but smoothly presented).
'mendacious' Geoffrey of Monmouth) was geoffrey what we might refer to as 'controversial' today, as he presumably bucked previous trends in some way...?
the versions of 'history' differ wildly and much is theory and speculation. It's a matter of studying all the sources and finding how far they agree with each other, or whether one was simply getting its information from an earlier text.
maybe re presenting the same info, but under a different author's name? sometimes style over content applies, sort of 're formatting', or changing the book cover in contemporary times! i am interested in an artist who in the 60s, required students to pulverise a specific art historical and crititical text, by literally chewing it. he was fired from st martins, when he returned the book to the art school library, in compressed form, conveyed within (several) jam jars. i can't help but admire his passion and commitment! especially the wider point he made in the importance of choosing one art historical criticism over another/ over and above the importance of his own career and income, and even though theoretically, ideally books shouldn't be destroyed.
and then the universities were founded, and that was the end of it, as far as women were concerned, until about 1910.
shocking though this piece of historical info is, it gets more and more shocking as you get older....not less! it's not common knowledge that historically, religion may have ever helped the education of women, and certainly not to equal standards of male religious scholars!
i am interested in the rise and rise in the 2000s, of the phrase which often precedes remarks, 'i have to say'. i think it's become very oddly used, often to state quite monotonous, unremarkable, bland contributions.
at work perhaps it's actually used to support the idea that the speaker is towing the line politically, might hope to reflect professional reticence, and align to pecking orders.
whereas informally, rather than revealing something difficult, truely controversial, or confessional 'i have to say' can also be typically disappointing imv.
when the expression first evolved, i found i mistakenly braced myself, due to the implied urgency in 'i have to'!
then i got used to what i find a more robotic, or habitual useage, and learned to expect no drama, and perhaps only trivia instead of any controversy. it was, and probably still is popular in media language, though its useage can vary. it might aim to be more assertive, for instance, i can imagine mr gove using it for instance, as well as more casual female presenters on friendly day time tv shows.
i'm sure my pet fascination probably says more about me, than anything about the phrase itself, from a linguistic perspective. perhaps 'i have to say' says most about my own interpretation of the early 21st c. my mental response to the phrase can be 'who told you that you 'had to'?, and even 'when did you lose all autonomy'? also a rather aggressive 'big deal' .........mainly as 'i have to say' rarely sounds worthwhile somehow, or authentic, as i find what follows invariably disappoints, after the drama implied in 'i have to'.
at least gregory was honest! graffiti can be incomprehensible to a reader, but it doesn't mean that the statement it makes isn't honest. i'm looking forward to r3 'jazz on 3's union of jazz/graffiti discussion, (though it's probably two potentially huge subjects briefly skimmed over, but smoothly presented).
'mendacious' Geoffrey of Monmouth) was geoffrey what we might refer to as 'controversial' today, as he presumably bucked previous trends in some way...?
the versions of 'history' differ wildly and much is theory and speculation. It's a matter of studying all the sources and finding how far they agree with each other, or whether one was simply getting its information from an earlier text.
maybe re presenting the same info, but under a different author's name? sometimes style over content applies, sort of 're formatting', or changing the book cover in contemporary times! i am interested in an artist who in the 60s, required students to pulverise a specific art historical and crititical text, by literally chewing it. he was fired from st martins, when he returned the book to the art school library, in compressed form, conveyed within (several) jam jars. i can't help but admire his passion and commitment! especially the wider point he made in the importance of choosing one art historical criticism over another/ over and above the importance of his own career and income, and even though theoretically, ideally books shouldn't be destroyed.
and then the universities were founded, and that was the end of it, as far as women were concerned, until about 1910.
shocking though this piece of historical info is, it gets more and more shocking as you get older....not less! it's not common knowledge that historically, religion may have ever helped the education of women, and certainly not to equal standards of male religious scholars!
i am interested in the rise and rise in the 2000s, of the phrase which often precedes remarks, 'i have to say'. i think it's become very oddly used, often to state quite monotonous, unremarkable, bland contributions.
at work perhaps it's actually used to support the idea that the speaker is towing the line politically, might hope to reflect professional reticence, and align to pecking orders.
whereas informally, rather than revealing something difficult, truely controversial, or confessional 'i have to say' can also be typically disappointing imv.
when the expression first evolved, i found i mistakenly braced myself, due to the implied urgency in 'i have to'!
then i got used to what i find a more robotic, or habitual useage, and learned to expect no drama, and perhaps only trivia instead of any controversy. it was, and probably still is popular in media language, though its useage can vary. it might aim to be more assertive, for instance, i can imagine mr gove using it for instance, as well as more casual female presenters on friendly day time tv shows. i'm sure my pet fascination probably says more about me, than anything about the phrase itself, from a linguistic perspective. perhaps 'i have to say' says most about my own interpretation of the early 21st c. my mental response to the phrase can be 'who told you that you 'had to'?, and even 'when did you lose all autonomy'? also a rather aggressive 'big deal' .........mainly as 'i have to say' rarely sounds worthwhile somehow, or authentic, as i find what follows invariably disappoints, after the drama implied in 'i have to'.
Comment