Hep
me!
Jim
McCue wrote in his essay "Illiteracy And Other Ills": "Teachers
who instruct their charges in grammar are explaining something,
not imposing it.“ (McCue 15). But as we know from previous texts, you
could also simply describe grammar – by using it and thereby
showing how most people use it. It does not have to be explained and
can not be explained. "The meaning of a word is a human agreement“
(Ricks 3), Christopher Ricks writes in the introduction to McCue's essay.
And a human agreement is more than words. Language as we know it
is a result of usage, and nobody will stop or correct its everchanging flow.
When
you describe or form a sentence, others get a feeling for what you
mean. And this feeling is often more important than the logical
message. When I read a book, I do not want a sentence such as: "She
did not realize, that he did not love her, because she was too
stupid.“ Although it is a conventional sentence for many - does explaining
automatically result
in "triumphs of understanding“
(McCue 15) as McCue suggests?
Of
course language is "social and public“, but does it have to be an
"institution“ (McCue 15)? Does an institution have a heart or
even a face? There seem to be some people who, when someone holds up
a sign that says "Hep me!“ - would say: "Sorry, but i can not
agree with you, because help is spelled with an l.“
[St-^“]Hep me![St-^”]
ReplyDeleteJim McCue wrote in his essay („) [St-^“] Illiteracy And Other Ills („) [St;P-^“, “]Teachers who instruct their charges in grammar are explaining something, not imposing it(.“(p. 15).) [St;P - ^ ” (McCue 15).] But as we know from previous texts, you could also simply describe grammar – by using it and thereby showing how most people use it. It does not have to be explained and can not be explained. („) [St-^“] The meaning of a word is a human agreement (“ (p. 3),) [St;P - ^ ” (Ricks 3),] Christopher Ricks writes in the introduction to (McCues) [WF-^McCue’s] essay. And a human agreement is more than words. (The language) [no det;St - ^ Language] as we know it (,) [P] is a result of usage [P - ^,] and nobody will stop or correct its (ever changing[Sp - ^ ever-changing] flow.
When you describe or form a sentence, others get a feeling for what you mean. And this feeling is often more important (,) [P] than the logical message. When I read a book, I do not want a sentence such as (: „) [P;P - ^, “]She did not realize (,) [P] that he did not love her (,) [P] because she was too stupid. (“) [P- ^”] Although it is a conventional sentence for many(—)[P-,] does explaining automatically result in („) [St-^“] triumphs of understanding (“ (p. 15),) [St;P - ^ ” (McCue 15),] as McCue suggests?
Of course language is („) [St-^“] social and public (“,) [St;P-^,”] but does it have to be an („) [St-^“] institution(“ (McCue, p. 15)) [St;P - ^ ” (McCue 15)]? Does an institution have a heart or even a face? There seem to be some people who, when someone holds up a sign that says („) [St-^“] Hep me! (“ - ) [St;P-^”] would say(: „) [P;P - ^, “]Sorry, but (i) [Sp - ^ I] can not agree with you, because help is spelled with an l.“