by dunsscot 22 Replies latest jw friends
Jayhawk,
You're welcome. My public education didn't come with Latin lessons either. I just happen to enjoy languages and found an old Latin textbook at Goodwill.
Iay inkthay atthay Igpay Atinlay isay uchmay oremay unfay anywayay, on'tday ouyay?
Ginny
:in oculo porci = in a pig's eye
in alto stercore = in deep shit
He takes Stephanus's comments cum grano salis, with a grain of salt.:
Very good, Ginny. But I euphemistically translate in alto stercore as "in deep doo-doo."
Bonus question: magna cum laude and the other phrases that I submitted are all examples of what rhetorical device?
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Dunsscot,
Not knowing your intent, I don't see that your phrases are a clear and cohesive example of any particular rhetorical device. Parallelism, perhaps?
Is a degree or a knowledge of Latin and rhetorical devices somehow a proof of intelligence?
Big long words name little things.
All big things have little names
Such as life and death, peace and war
Or dawn, day, night, hope, love, home.
Learn to use little words in a big way.
It is hard to do,
But they say what you mean--
Use big words.
That often fools little people.
--Arthur Kudner
Ginny
:Dunsscot,
Not knowing your intent, I don't see that your phrases are a clear and cohesive example of any particular rhetorical device. Parallelism, perhaps?:
Let me phrase the question this way. What do summa cum laude and magna cum laude have in common rhetorically? What types of rhetorical devices are they? Is that better?
:Is a degree or a knowledge of Latin and rhetorical devices somehow a proof of intelligence?:
A knowledge of Latin or any foreign language is only evidence of a particular kind of intelligence. But Howard Gardner and Robert J. Sternberg show that there are many different types of intelligence. I am only asking this question for fun. Are you having fun yet? :-)
Pope Scotus
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Dunsscot,
A knowledge of Latin or any foreign language is only evidence of a particular kind of intelligence. But Howard Gardner and Robert J. Sternberg show that there are many different types of intelligence.
I disagree that a knowledge of Latin or any foreign language is evidence of a particular kind of intelligence. It is more likely evidence of schooling or exposure to other languages and cultures. In Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Howard Gardner focuses on poetry and literature in his chapter on linguistic intelligence; foreign languages are given only a mention in passing.
In my reading of his work, Howard Gardner's main point is that reason, intelligence, logic and knowledge are not synonymous. Neither is academic success the only criterion to measure intelligence.
I am not familiar with Robert J. Sternberg, so I looked him up on the net. I found this especially interesting:
He points out, as does Dr. Gardner, that traditional educational systems value "componential" intelligence most highly, and that tests are designed largely to assess this type of intelligence--composed primarily of linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities. Two other kinds of intelligence, "contextual" (the source of creative insight) and "experiential" (the "street smarts" of intelligence) are of enormous value to society, yet not reinforced nor given much opportunity to develop in many traditional classrooms. Dr. Sternberg's wit and playful sense of humor keep his audiences laughing as he presents powerful information and practical suggestions for educating students more broadly for a world in great need of creative thinkers and those who enjoy completing tasks to the best of their ability.
I have enjoyed reading Howard Gardner's books, and given the reference to Sternberg's wit and playful sense of humor, I think I will enjoy his work, too. Thank you for mentioning him.
I am only asking this question for fun. Are you having fun yet? :-)
I have mixed feelings. The part of me that is playful and competitive and curious would like to give the right answer to your question.
Another part of me does not want to play your game because based on what I've seen of your writing elsewhere on this board, I don't quite believe your question is just for fun. If I give what you consider a wrong answer, I wonder if you will gloat over me as you have over AlanF because you know Latin and he does not? I suspect your intent. Wouldn't it be easier if we just compare S.A.T. and I.Q. scores and get it over with?
I've looked through the Handbook of Rhetorical Devices, and I'll give your question one last go. Even though summa cum laude and magna cum laude are adverbial phrases, perhaps you consider them an example of hyperbaton?
When . . . writing . . . all the natural instincts are at work the way some people play a musical instrument without a lesson and, others, even as children, understand an engine.LILLIAN HELLMAN, An Unfinished Woman, as quoted in Frames of Mind
Ginny
Ginny,
:Dunsscot,
quote:A knowledge of Latin or any foreign language is only evidence of a particular kind of intelligence. But Howard Gardner and Robert J. Sternberg show that there are many different types of intelligence.
:I disagree that a knowledge of Latin or any foreign language is evidence of a particular kind of intelligence. It is more likely evidence of schooling or exposure to other languages and cultures. In Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Howard Gardner focuses on poetry and literature in his chapter on linguistic intelligence; foreign languages are given only a mention in passing.:
I think that the knowledge of A foreign language or several such tongues most certainly signals some type of linguistic intelligence. Admittedly, those individuals who have been taught foreign languages from an early age or who have been exposed to different cultures from youth on may acquire languages that the average guy or girl would not acquire. But I have personally witnessed both sides of the coins when it comes to language acquisition. There are some people who could take French 101 ten times and still not get it. Conversely, I had two professors as an undergraduate, who grasped foreign languages quite easily. These gentlemen were exceptional when it came to language acquisition. What is so strange about one person being more intelligent in one area of life than another? I know certain folks who pick up math concepts just like THAT. But I am not one of those individuals. But I could run circles around most mathematicians all day when it comes to learning languages and understanding the way they work internally. I also easily grasp theories and philosophical concepts. Not everyone can perform these activities with such ease. Gardner's theory seems to allow for the type of intelligence I am positing.
:In my reading of his work, Howard Gardner's main point is that reason, intelligence, logic and knowledge are not synonymous. Neither is academic success the only criterion to measure intelligence.:
I agree.
:I have enjoyed reading Howard Gardner's books, and given the reference to Sternberg's wit and playful sense of humor, I think I will enjoy his work, too. Thank you for mentioning him.:
You're welcome. I think you would really like Sternberg's works on the triarchic theory of mind and learning styles. These two books have profoundly shaped my view of intelligence. It seems that intelligence is much more multifaceted than was once thought.
quote:I am only asking this question for fun. Are you having fun yet? :-)
:I have mixed feelings. The part of me that is playful and competitive and curious would like to give the right answer to your question.
Another part of me does not want to play your game because based on what I've seen of your writing elsewhere on this board, I don't quite believe your question is just for fun.:
It really IS for fun!
:If I give what you consider a wrong answer, I wonder if you will gloat over me as you have over AlanF because you know Latin and he does not? I suspect your intent. Wouldn't it be easier if we just compare S.A.T. and I.Q. scores and get it over with?:
First, I do not put a lot of stock in S.A.T. or I.Q. scores. Remember Sternberg and Gardner? :-) Secondly, I "gloated" over AF's lack of proficiency in a certain area because he is AF. I was also making a general point that I hope he eventually grasped. AF himself is often extremely picky when it comes to criticizing the WT. He has also established himself as a jack of all trades vis-à-vis the WT. In other words, he has employed Greek, Hebrew and now Latin resources to discredit the WT and her representatives. But he shoulda stayed on the porch when it came to challenging Duns in Latin. I have now been studying Latin for a few years and have taken advanced courses in this classical language. Duns has read Virgil, Catullus, Petronius, and even a little Cicero. I am now primarily focusing on ecclesiastical Latin. So, AF did not know who he was messin' wit' when he decided to git off the porch and run with the big dawgs. But I promise not to gloat this time.
:I've looked through the Handbook of Rhetorical Devices, and I'll give your question one last go. Even though summa cum laude and magna cum laude are adverbial phrases, perhaps you consider them an example of hyperbaton?:
In a general sense, you are correct. Both phrases are examples of hyperbaton. More specifically, they are anastrophized prepositional phrases. But anastrophe is a form of hyperbaton. Therefore, I will give you credit. Behold! No gloating.
Cordially,
Big Dog
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
I also love this passage from Virgil's Aeneid concerning the Greeks:
Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera (credo equidem) vivos ducent de marmore vultus.
Translation: Others shall more delicately hammer out bronze statues--as if they were breathing--(indeed I believe it) and they will bring forth living faces from marble.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Dunsscot:
I think that the knowledge of A foreign language or several such tongues most certainly signals some type of linguistic intelligence.
You're very funny. You say that knowledge of one or more foreign languages most certainly signals some type of linguistic intelligence. "Some type of linguistic intelligence" could mean anything--average, below average, or above average linguistic intelligence.
I agree that there are people who grasp foreign languages quite easily. I don't, however, judge a person's linguistic intelligence by how many languages he knows. Take for example our colleagues in Norway. Besides knowing several dialects of Norwegian, Kent, Jan, and Norm also speak Swedish, Danish, German, and English. Do they have higher levels of linguistic intelligence than you, me, or Jayhawk? Or have the exposure and schooling factors come into play?
Let's suppose a diplomat speaks several foreign languages. He is not especially good with foreign languages, but worked very hard to master them to further his career. Does his knowing one or more foreign languages clearly signal a higher linguistic intelligence?
I hope you understand my point. Knowledge of one or more foreign languages is not in itself a clear signal of higher linguistic intelligence.
As for S.A.T. and I.Q. scores, neither do I put a lot of stock in them. I mentioned them only because it seemed to me that you have been strutting around the board like a banty rooster, displaying your proficiency in Latin like a bright red cockscomb, while making snide remarks about another poster's level of education. If you consider academic accomplishments a measure of a person's intelligence, I figured we could save some time and find out who is big dawg. (Please excuse the mixed animal metaphors. )
. . . But he shoulda stayed on the porch when it came to challenging Duns in Latin. . . . So, AF did not know who he was messin' wit' when he decided to git off the porch and run with the big dawgs.
So you're more knowledgeable in Latin than AlanF--whoooeeee! As it says in the Desiderata, "If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself." Or as Will Rogers puts it, "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects."
In a general sense, you are correct. Both phrases are examples of hyperbaton. More specifically, they are anastrophized prepositional phrases. But anastrophe is a form of hyperbaton. Therefore, I will give you credit. Behold! No gloating.
You're O so generous, Dunsscot. Anastrophe wasn't listed in my Rhetorical Handbook, so I looked up both terms online. Here are the results:
Latin Definitionshyperbaton
departure from normal word order; the separation of companion words to achieve a dramatic effect or a particular sound
This is something up with which I will not put.
anastrophe
The inversion of normal word order:
That is something up with which I will not put.
I suppose you're going to go Medieval on me now, eh?
Woof, woof,
Ginny the Bitch
Ginny,
:Dunsscot:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that the knowledge of A foreign language or several such tongues most certainly signals some type of linguistic intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're very funny. You say that knowledge of one or more foreign languages most certainly signals some type of linguistic intelligence. "Some type of linguistic intelligence" could mean anything--average, below average, or above average linguistic intelligence.:
Please allow me to clarify and tweak my comments above. They were admittedly vague. When I used the word "knowledge," I had a high level of proficiency in mind as well as the effort involved in learning the language. I might also add that one's situation in life must also be taken into consideration. Has the student passed the critical learning period when he or she acquires another language? Is he or she learning a foreign language that is dead? The student then has no culture to immerse himself or herself in directly. In your terms, I am talking about people who are above average when it comes to speaking or reading other languages.
:I agree that there are people who grasp foreign languages quite easily. I don't, however, judge a person's linguistic intelligence by how many languages he knows. Take for example our colleagues in Norway. Besides knowing several dialects of Norwegian, Kent, Jan, and Norm also speak Swedish, Danish, German, and English. Do they have higher levels of linguistic intelligence than you, me, or Jayhawk? Or have the exposure and schooling factors come into play?:
I do not know if Kent or Jan possess more linguistic intelligence than you, me or Jayhawk. But I can say that I have witnessed both sides of the coin. Some people have to be given a 'C' and shuffled through Latin 101/102. Others end up taking Greek 3 or 4 times and then finally give up. Some can barely learn the alphabet of the Hebrew or Arabic language. Others, however, just grasp these languages and become R-3s on the reading proficiency scale. I think my friend Rolf Furuli (University of Oslo) is quite intelligent when it comes to languages. I also know professors who can carry on conversations (fluently) in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German, French, Japanese, and so on. Most individuals, even if they were exposed to these cultures and had the requisite schooling still could not accomplish this task. I have even heard of students who spent all semester trying to learn how to conjugate a French verb. They go home frustrated and in tears almost. It seems that some people more easily learn languages than others. They grasp syntax, morphology, phonology and grammar. I think these individuals have a unique type of intelligence.
:Let's suppose a diplomat speaks several foreign languages. He is not especially good with foreign languages, but worked very hard to master them to further his career. Does his knowing one or more foreign languages clearly signal a higher linguistic intelligence?:
What if he is fluent in one or more languages or can actually teach three or four languages?
:I hope you understand my point. Knowledge of one or more foreign languages is not in itself a clear signal of higher linguistic intelligence.:
I agree. My comments pertain to ease of acquisition, fluency and proficiency as well as the ability to acquire foreign languages after one passes the critical language period.
:As for S.A.T. and I.Q. scores, neither do I put a lot of stock in them. I mentioned them only because it seemed to me that you have been strutting around the board like a banty rooster, displaying your proficiency in Latin like a bright red cockscomb, while making snide remarks about another poster's level of education. If you consider academic accomplishments a measure of a person's intelligence, I figured we could save some time and find out who is big dawg. (Please excuse the mixed animal metaphors. ):
AF probably had a better education than I did. He certainly went to a prestigious school. Moreover, while I chided him about Latin and you fail to see that it is a male thing and an AF/Duns thing, I have not simply "strutted around" because I "know" Latin. Would you like to go toe to toe in Greek or Hebrew? :-) How about philosophy or theology? I am also now working on my German proficiency. Yes, I think I do possess linguistic intelligence. Especially when it comes to foreign languages. I also think I possess a high degree of conceptual intelligence. Duns is an INTP.
Academic accomplishments do not mean that much to me either. Education, something that is not directly tied to scores and grades (IMHO), is what counts in my book. A number of people have taken Latin courses. How many know how the language functions internally? How many know about linguistic principles in general? I would be willing to put my education against your education any day. I have acquired more knowledge about different fields up to this point in my life than you may ever acquire in your lifetime. So there, there! :-)
:So you're more knowledgeable in Latin than AlanF--whoooeeee! As it says in the Desiderata, "If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself." Or as Will Rogers puts it, "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.":
I must agree with your quote from Will Rogers.
:You're O so generous, Dunsscot. Anastrophe wasn't listed in my Rhetorical Handbook, so I looked up both terms online. Here are the results:
:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latin Definitions
hyperbaton
departure from normal word order; the separation of companion words to achieve a dramatic effect or a particular sound
This is something up with which I will not put.
anastrophe
The inversion of normal word order:
That is something up with which I will not put.:
Your answer is not wrong, Ginny. I was simply trying to be precise. Anastrophe is one example of hyperbaton. But hysteron proteron is another. We could look at matters this way: Hyperbaton is the superordinate, while anastrophe is a hyponym that we epistemically and categorically subsume under the said superordinate. To be precise, hyperbaton takes in other rhetorical devices and it is done for rhetorical effect. One may anastrophize a prepositional phrase and not do it strictly for effect. So while the source you cite is not wrong, it is also not specific as it should be.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Hi, Dunsscot!
This will have to be my last post for awhile on this thread. Tomorrow morning I'm taking to the open road to visit some good friends of mine.
I was having a bit of fun myself, wanting to see you clarify and tweak your comments, especially since you, a man very sensitive to the subtle difference between hyperbaton and anastrophe, a man who insists on the medieval etymology of Q.E.D., complained that AlanF is so very picky. Is anal-retentive hyphenated?
Would you like to go toe to toe in Greek or Hebrew? :-) How about philosophy or theology? I am also now working on my German proficiency. Yes, I think I do possess linguistic intelligence. Especially when it comes to foreign languages. I also think I possess a high degree of conceptual intelligence. Duns is an INTP.
Given the same education and training in Greek and Hebrew that you have had, I would not hesitate to go toe to toe with you. As it is, I have studied neither. My interest in philosophy and theology, alas, has been minimal.
I can, however, furnish a living room for under $50 and can safely back a large FedEx truck into a parking space with only inches to spare on each side. I bet I can also beat you at arm wrestling.
If we were both on Survivor, I wonder which of us would get voted off first?
I would be willing to put my education against your education any day. I have acquired more knowledge about different fields up to this point in my life than you may ever acquire in your lifetime. So there, there! :-)
We simply must play Trivial Pursuit and settle this once and for all. Mud wrestling might be more fun, though.
Ginny
