Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Matt Clara wrote:
>> Well, I'm saying it all reads like noise to me. But then again, I was
>> so disappointed in what passes for "school" in these parts when
>> "English" was revealed not to be a study in the structure of the
>> language (ie, linguistics), but warmed over psycho-analysis of
>> characters that don't even exist.
>
> There's a difference between the study of English Literature and the study
> of English Grammar.
Linguistics is much more rich than knuckle-whacking control freaks who
bitch about people who end sentences with prepositions.
> Most elementary schools focus on the later, with middle
> and some high schools focusing on both, and if the high school is big
> enough, then it becomes like college where you can elect to take either a
> literature or a grammar course. And "warmed over psycho-analysis of
> characters that don't even exist," as you put it, is akin to discussing what
> a photograph is about. You know, what's the story there, or the metaphor,
> that impacts the viewer. I may be biased, with two degrees in English
> Language and Literature, but I think it's a worthwhile effort.
Yeah, you are biased. As am I: I tend to favour the external reality
of the real world over the fictitious worlds created by humans with
limited imaginations. Shall we psycho-analyze the poet's true
intentions about his descriptions of a cup of coffee, or shall we just
drink the coffee and move on to more important matters?
> If nothing
> else, it teaches a person to be analytic and forces them to make sense of
> abstract ideas.
Piffle. Mathematics does a better job of this than any so-called
"English" class ever will.
Matt Clara wrote:
>> Well, I'm saying it all reads like noise to me. But then again, I was
>> so disappointed in what passes for "school" in these parts when
>> "English" was revealed not to be a study in the structure of the
>> language (ie, linguistics), but warmed over psycho-analysis of
>> characters that don't even exist.
>
> There's a difference between the study of English Literature and the study
> of English Grammar.
Linguistics is much more rich than knuckle-whacking control freaks who
bitch about people who end sentences with prepositions.
> Most elementary schools focus on the later, with middle
> and some high schools focusing on both, and if the high school is big
> enough, then it becomes like college where you can elect to take either a
> literature or a grammar course. And "warmed over psycho-analysis of
> characters that don't even exist," as you put it, is akin to discussing what
> a photograph is about. You know, what's the story there, or the metaphor,
> that impacts the viewer. I may be biased, with two degrees in English
> Language and Literature, but I think it's a worthwhile effort.
Yeah, you are biased. As am I: I tend to favour the external reality
of the real world over the fictitious worlds created by humans with
limited imaginations. Shall we psycho-analyze the poet's true
intentions about his descriptions of a cup of coffee, or shall we just
drink the coffee and move on to more important matters?
> If nothing
> else, it teaches a person to be analytic and forces them to make sense of
> abstract ideas.
Piffle. Mathematics does a better job of this than any so-called
"English" class ever will.
/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
Facebook
Twitter