bkbk
Member
Registered: Jun 2000
Location:
Posts: 594 |
 Re: Latin the language that died twice.
Sorry there's so many points to respond to, hence I may forget a few. (Is it me, or weren't we prev. able to scroll through the prev. posts to refer to them as we composed new ones? I know I can open up another window; but this brings a sligtly greater chance of crashing -- and then you lose all the text in your post!)
I wanted to start out w/the best comedy "pet peeve" I ever heard in my prev. post, but I got too wrapped up in the other stuff, but here goes; it's a little-known (I believe) gem from Jim Carrey (prob. a little "too risque" for his current aud.):
"I really have a pet peeve when you're in bed w/three women, right? And ... isn't it always the UGLIEST one who whispers in your ear: 'Save it for ME!'"
=============
Then someone seemed to take it as an article of faith that just because someone makes a long post (God forbid anyone has a lot of data on subjects!) they're "self-impressed." (I believe that was the phrase used.)
Ask yourself, then, how one who is NOT "self-impressed" supposed to get out all the relevant data for those reading that he can?
As I've covered on this site before (in the erroneously-named "Cameras & Lawsuits Everywhere One Day" thread -- I explained why in there):
"Brevity is the Soul of Wit."
And, largely, the CONVERSE.
(The subject is much deeper, and much more grave than I really want to get into here -- does it come across that I'm *trying,* I swear, to keep it light? -- so please give those pages a read when you get a chance.)
Here's a good spot to make note of my pet peeve of those who like to "correct" mis-attributions (I'm a human being, not a quotation thesaurus -- is it pretty clear to everyone that I make these posts off the top of my head, to save time, and w/no research?):
Try to concentrate on the SUBSTANCE of the quotation, which is 99.9% of the time MUCH more important than WHO "said it." (And please note that if the "who" is Shakespeare, the "marquee value" of his name is going to push the quote farther and wider than whomever 1st uttered it -- "that's just the way it is" as Mr. Hruce Bornsby, I believe, said. And please have the courage to note, however baleful, that "Great Minds Think Alike" [and, oh no; I've SO FORGOTTEN who said this, I have NO ONE to attribute it to] ... so the people who "string this together" across time are probably unlikely slouches. And, yes, you can include me in that group, if you must!)
==========
And speaking of "relevance, "here's a good spot to make note of the "Latin" polemic I brought up -- please DON'T confuse it for a plethora of languages, which the Tower of Babel story militates AGAINST.
quote:
Originally posted by lennonhead
I do not like to be long winded and I don't think anyone wants to read another long post  , but this is important:
<snip>
He didn't understand why the community was so blind to the importance of Latin. <snip>
Either the community doesn't understand or they are more concerned about money then the education of their children.
<snip>
Man, you call that long-winded? I'll show you long winded .... (jk)
(I swear, everyone, I really am trying to be brief!)
LIKE LATIN, teaching a "plethora of languages" (or even just ONE) must be PROVEN to have (hopefully great) educ. value. (Grrrr, I should have saved more of your text -- because I realize now I've forgotten some I meant to quote.) Please note in all of your text you never say WHY and/or give PROOF (hopefully incontrovertible) that the teaching of Latin is worthwhile. Hard evidence would be best. You mention at least twice that others did not understand -- but it is incumbent on those who DO understand to ENSURE those who DON'T do in fact SEE it.
This is actually a great prob. in educ. -- and may only be solved once computers are sophisticated enough to teach in multivarious ways (and/or w/the "Internet Colleges" now springing up):
I believe it's fairly been PROVEN (ooooops; I have no real evidence to present!) that there are a number of WAYS to teach any given thing -- but most teachers only know ONE WAY! (For ex. a student may be "more attuned auditorily than kinesthetically" -- so teach them THAT way.)
It's apparently frighteningly EASY TO ALIENATE peop. who learn one way by teaching some OTHER way.
This brings to mind a best-seller (!; hard to believe; "best-seller," BTW is only 50,000 copies; this is NOTHING out of 6 billion people, obviously -- and is quite diff. from a #1 of all-time best-seller [10,000,000 copies, currently]) some of you may have read:
"Innumeracy" (by John Dos Paulos?)
The guy is a math PROFESSOR! But it's CLEAR after reading only, say, 30pp. or so HE HAS NO CLUE AS TO RELEVANCE!!! He actually makes a stellar case that math should NOT be taught, rather than the converse.
One ex., for ex., he gives is that people gen. have no idea of the Earth's distance to the moon -- and they SHOULD know! And should NOT est. this incorrectly!
Sorry, folks, but the gen. pop. of non-geeks is going to read this and say:
Here's a guy w/no [expletive] clue!
And quickly put the book down.
This goes for music, too (which all people seem to naturally love, BTW, even w/out educ. -- just diff. kinds, paradoxically often giving rise to fights, rather than brotherhood): If you can submit a good paragraph, say, out of something like Douglas R. Hofstader's Nobel Prize-winning "Godel, Escher, Bach" that would prob. make a better case than just saying: it's important that it should be taught.
You have to be careful of proselytizing a subject that "is close to your heart" w/out rigorously discerning whether virtually all people in the gen. pop. will derive (great, hopefully) benefit from the subj. (Esp. if they may not "love" it as much as you do -- and it will kind of have to be crammed down their throats.) Such that huge amounts of resources will be committed to it.
THERE MUST BE REASON.
EVEN A SMALL CHILD IS BRIGHT ENOUGH TO ASK "WHY" -- the most crucial question in the universe (for all things, not just science).
EACH INDIV. HAS A "RIGHT TO KNOW" (and, in fact, the indiv. personality will UNLIKELY ACQUIESCE under ANY other conditions other than having a GOOD REASON WHY; this is "not only" for the indiv. involved -- but to BOLSTER the case "for others," who will inevitably also want to know WHY that subj. in partic. is being studied; each of us, like it or not, kind of has to "answer to" those around us in this way -- esp. friends & family, etc.) -- AND W/OUT KNOWING ***WHY*** (and I have not studied a lot of educ. theory -- but looking back on my school career, I'd have to say the shoe fits) REBELLION IS LIKELY GUARANTEED.
An educ. joke I like to make is: "They tried to teach me Spanish in High School ... but I showed them!"
Truly, though -- I was never given a REASON.
I WAS EXPECTED TO DO SOMETHING NO INTELLIGENT ADULT WOULD EVER DO: WASTE MY TIME ON SOMETHING I HAD NO PROOF WOULD EVER IMPROVE MY LIFE IN ANY WAY WHATEVER.
INDEED, I HAD EVERY REASON TO FEAR THAT IT MIGHT "DILUTE" THE "CLARITY" OF MY THINKING IN MY NATIVE TONGUE (and, sorry to report to the rest of the world, but reports of how life in the U.S. is so much better than living elsewhere -- despite the massive problems we are continually engaged in trying to improve -- I can't take the CHANCE this "might not" be right).
WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT RE-STRUCTURING SOMEONE'S BRAIN, THAT'S SOME SERIOUS TALK, AND IT SHOULD REQUIRE SERIOUS, SERIOUS ANSWERS TO WHAT ARE ONLY NORMAL OBJECTIONS, FEARS, CONCERNS, ETC.
Hey, last thing about computers, BTW.
BION, I saw Newt Gingrich, of all people, promote this idea (way back when):
We should give all people in the U.S. (sorry non-U.S.'ers, but lobby your gov't. for this!) a free laptop!
(He actually said "tax-credit," but I'd rather ENSURE NO people in the U.S., REGARDLESS of who they are, color of skin, etc. could ever even TRY to say they were denied this "digital divide" opportunity -- by actually putting one in their HANDS. NOW, however, they CAN say it -- and it CAN'T be disproven.)
Even if it cost us 47 trillion (and it wouldn't) ... wouldn't this be *the very best* reason EVER to "go into debt" -- to ensure (at least somewhat) prac. all of our citizens won't be left behind in the "digital divide"?
Prob. best done back when Newt was still around -- but, even today, prob. very useful. Still only 1/2 of the U.S. is on the Internet.
__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
|
)
03-06-2001 04:51 PM
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]