Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
no coincidence, surely:
isn't it accepted knowledge bro
that sexual orientation is destiny? -
Possibly National were planning to grow the pi by blowing on it -- although (as we have recently seen on another thread ), somewhat predictably, Key has had great difficulty formulating any coherent policy on blow.
Alternatively, if they were going to blow it up, it should be noted that that would leave them with nothing but pi in the sky. (Which would nevertheless have the advantages of being (i) a legal natural high, and (ii) a consistent approach for them.)
-
raise the GST rate from 12.5 per cent to 4Π per cent -- or, in other words, approximately 12.5663706143592 per cent
-- which would be a minimum bound, of course, since National keep saying they want to grow the pi.
-
If National has a long-term strategy, well...
given that Hide is the public face on this, that could (unfairly) limit the political capital that National stands to lose from the inevitable mess resulting from this clusterfuck of a process. As long as Labour struggles to be anything more than irrelevant in opposition, National doesn't actually need Act -- except as a convenient lightning Rod. -
...though it might help explain why so many cyclepaths are riddled with potholes.
-
(Still trying to formulate things more clearly...)
"literature" (again, including SF) is the name of both an artistic and an academic enterprise, and as a result, the notion of "canon" is also ambiguous:
{works that denizens of literature departments recognise as important}
is not the same subset as
{works that readers relate to}
even if we acknowledge that most lit dept lecturers are also producers of literature, and are reasonably well-read, so that their opinions count for something.Gatekeeping on publication should, ideally, be some reflection of potential reader interest -- but in practice, it is often an indirect and distorted reflection, as publishers and editors try to second-guess the reactions of readers who are not themselves publishers and editors. (Again, not saying this is an unnecessary process, nor that it is doomed to failure in any individual case; but it isn't guaranteed to succeed in producing a "canon" that accurately reflects the effect on a reader, either.)
-
So why should the literary world be any different?
... than SF, in terms of gatekeeping?
Paul, I don't think that was Islander's argument; the contrast made there isn't between SF and literature, so much as between "recognised serious literature" and "writing that engages and captures readers, regardless of whether it gets endorsed by academics".So, the thing literature (including SF) has that other academic fields don't is: readers (and more specifically: readers for pleasure).
That's even more true today, when you don't have to go through a publisher to reach a large audience, than 20 years ago."Gatekeeping" is pretty much equivalent to "peer review" in any academic field. (An important part of Islander's point, I think, is that gatekeeping in "literature" is almost by definition about dissecting the form of the text as an academic enterprise, or possibly focussing on the text<->author relationship, rather than considering the relationship between text<->reader, or even [and again, this becomes more generally possible in the electronic age] author<->reader.)
(Though I don't mean to imply that editors are unnecessary.)
-
Danielle, in reference to "teabagging":
"All together now:
Normal people don't do that kind of crap and so don't know of the other meanings."*blink*
What other meanings? -
That was kind of my point (I'm just not good at getting to it).
We have to be careful to distinguish between "original meaning", and "usual meaning" at a given time , though.
[e.g. what is recorded in surviving Old Norse or Old English texts = evidence for the usual meaning(s) at that time, not for any single "original meaning"!]Today, "an object used for drinking out of" is the prototypical current definition of cup: it's what anyone will immediately say if asked to define the word -- even if it's not the historical centre of meaning developments for the word; the meanings instead are mostly based around the 'rounded cavity' shape.
We know skoal meant 'cup' on most occasions of use at the time it was borrowed into Old English. But we don't and can't know the ultimate origin and function(s) of skoal (yes, we have some early attested uses, but that's not ever going to be a reliable enough sample to establish the full functional range). However, as its attested meaning overlaps considerably with that of English cup, it's likely to have been susceptible to the same kinds of meaning shift, which just happen to include the same kind of connection that was being held up by Robyn as being unlikely.
As native speakers, we don't have enough evidence to judge whether meanings were ever etymologically related. Fortunately, the question usually doesn't matter to us as users of the language.
Staying in the same semantic field, consider mug: 'an object used to drink out of'; 'a person's head or face'; 'a foolish person'; 'the act of attacking someone, usually for personal gain'.
It is likely that most native speakers of modern English do not actually connect any of these uses, regardless of whether there are any historical relationships.
Nevertheless, the first three uses, at least, represent meaning developments that are actually very common: connections between words signifying "(empty) vessel", "head" and "stupid person" are attested in many languages, and arise through a fairly obvious "head=empty" metaphor. (And the fourth meaning listed is also related, as an example of "making someone look weak and foolish".)
-
...though similarly, the etymological connection between the uses of cup as 'a sporting trophy' and 'a protective item of cricket gear' is not their common relationship to sport.
Such a claim would completely justify Robyn's "WTF?" reaction above.