05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyImagine there's no Heaven...
incidentally, someone who had a great command of English, even though it was his third language, after Polish and Russian, was the man we know as Joseph Conrad, author of Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim, the Nigger of the Narcissus, and other classics.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyNotice the snobbery of 'patois'. Cockney is older than the Queen's English. And what better than a cockney audience to judge a cockney speaker, or ridicule idiotic mockney. QE2 can't speak cockney, I'm pretty sure. And her English is only orthodox by way of rulership and class. The point is that neither master every variety of English. Of course the assumption that a cockney couldn't reproduce QE2's speech is less certain than vice-versa. James Joyce was well on his way to being a master, I daresay, albeit at the risk of incomprehensibility.
you're confusing mastery with orthodoxy. a cockney rhyming champion is a champion as a result of his mastery of his particular patois. QE2 speaks more orthodox English, which the cockney probably can't be said to have mastered. the audience only matters insofar as it is an audience qualified to judge. the mona lisa does not cease to be a great work of art when viewed and judged negatively by someone who knows nothing or little of art.
I have problems with your statement about the Mona Lisa, but as it seems completely irrelevant to this discussion, I won't take them up.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyAt some stage he made a choice between writing in English and French. I don't remember his reasons. But in looking for them I found this interesting statement:
incidentally, someone who had a great command of English, even though it was his third language, after Polish and Russian, was the man we know as Joseph Conrad, author of Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim, the Nigger of the Narcissus, and other classics.
Conrad's third language remained inescapably under the influence of his first two — Polish and French. This makes his English seem unusual. It was perhaps from Polish and French prose styles that he adopted a fondness for triple parallelism, especially in his early works ("all that mysterious life of the wilderness that stirs in the forest, in the jungles, in the hearts of wild men"😉, as well as for rhetorical abstraction ("It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention"😉. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Conrad
05 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou have a short memory:
I have problems with your statement about the Mona Lisa, but as it seems completely irrelevant to this discussion, I won't take them up.
"This concept of mastery is bogus. Who's more eloquent, a cockney rhyming champion or Queen Elizabeth? It depends on the audience. " Bosse de Nag.
The relevance of the mona lisa statement is that it depends on the audience only insofar as that audience is qualified to judge. obviously someone who is barely articulate/literate is ill-qualified to judge another's mastery of spoken/written language.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagei stand corrected - Polish, French and English.
At some stage he made a choice between writing in English and French. I don't remember his reasons. But in looking for them I found this interesting statement:
Conrad's third language remained inescapably under the influence of his first two — Polish and French. This makes his English seem unusual. It was perhaps from Polish and French prose styles ...[text shortened]... force brooding over an inscrutable intention"😉. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Conrad
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyYes, so clearly a cockney audience is best qualified to judge a cockney speaker, while QE2 speaks according to the book. Been there already. What's your point--that cockneys are 'barely articulate'? Sheer elitism. Keats was a product of cockney culture. I'd sooner read his letters than listen to the Queen.
You have a short memory:
"This concept of mastery is bogus. Who's more eloquent, a cockney rhyming champion or Queen Elizabeth? [b]It depends on the audience. " Bosse de Nag.
The relevance of the mona lisa statement is that it depends on the audience only insofar as that audience is qualified to judge. obviously someone who is barely articulate/literate is ill-qualified to judge another's mastery of spoken/written language.[/b]
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageno, my point is that, just as someone would have to have mastery of the queen's English to judge whether another also had mastery, so someone would have to have mastery of cockney to judge that competently. i think where we are differing here is that you are assuming that any old cockney would be such a qualified judge. if that's the case, then cockney really does differ in an important way to the queen's English, because no-one thinks that just any man on the street, even one who aspires to mastery of the queen's English, actually has that mastery.
Yes, so clearly a cockney audience is best qualified to judge a cockney speaker, while QE2 speaks according to the book. Been there already. What's your point--that cockneys are 'barely articulate'? Sheer elitism. Keats was a product of cockney culture. I'd sooner read his letters than listen to the Queen.
