From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 02:08:10 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:08:10 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
Message-ID: <gquiaa+j222@eGroups.com>

I'm curious as to how other posters define the term "run-on sentence" since I've seen several posters (Potioncat, for one, IIRC) describe their sentences as run-ons when, in fact, they're perfectly legitimate sentences. Here's a self-described "run-on" from a recent post by Goddlefrood to the main list:

"While it is true that many current celebrations, and this
actually includes other major religions, revolve around
earlier so-called pagan rites, the fact remains that the
roots of Christmas, Easter (a movable feast nearly upon us)
and many other landmarks in the Christian church are in much
earlier (considerably earlier than Roman, btw) times."

While this sentence is highly complex (probably technically compound/complex given that subordinate clause ["While . . . rites"] interrupted by an independent clause ["and this . . . religions"]) and the two parenthetical insertions, it's not a run-on. Neither is my first sentence, with its parentheses within a parenthesis.) A true run-on sentence (according to all my composition textbooks) merely combines two sentences that ought to be separated by a period or semicolon this last "sentence" is an example.

Carol, wondering why Goddlefrood and others would classify his sentence as a run-on when nothing is run together




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  2 17:02:52 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:02:52 -0000
Subject: Dog Latin
Message-ID: <gr2r3s+cmrf@eGroups.com>

I'm transferring parts of a post from the main list here because they're OT.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186139

Carol earlier:
> > Setting aside real Muggle history and speculative WW history, probably the spells are in Latin (or dog Latin, not to be confused with pig Latin!) is that they "sound" magical (and vaguely medieval, in keeping with robes, cloaks, and castles with dungeons).

Potioncat responded:
> Pig Latin I know, what is dog Latin?

> (barco, barcas barcat..) <snip>

Carol responds:
LOL! Dog Latin is bad Latin or "a jargon imitating Latin." I'd say that JKR's spells (with notable exceptions like Avada Kedavra) fall into that category. I suppose the term originated when little English schoolboys who were learning Latin sent each other notes in "Latin." I can see it now: "Ego hateo Latinum!!!!" or something of the sort.) I think your example would qualify, BTW.

Potioncat wrote:
> I took Latin in middle school--I'm not sure where it helped more as I continued through college, in science or in English--but I'm glad I had it.

> btw, Carol, which history book(s) are you reading?

Carol responds:

I took two years of Latin in high school (ninth and tenth grade), which I should have folowed up with two years of another language, but for some reson, I thought I didn't need a modern language. (Bad mistke!) I followed it up with a refresher course in Latin for my master's degree; fortunately, the exam was a take-home translation and I could use a dictionary and other aids. I managed and Excellent, but only because I struck a balance between a literal translation and an idiomatic one, not because I'd actually mastered ablative absolutes and all that. What little Latin I remember is from my first year, the easy stuff: "Omnia Gallia est divisa in tres partes" and all that.

Right now, I'm struggling through "A History of Europe," a 585-page tome by J. M. Roberts. It's interesting but too general for my taste. I like detailed information about individual people, but the most I get is a paragraph or two about, say, Savanarola or Prince Henry the Navigator. (No Richard III, but it's just as well since he seems to think that Henry VII ended the "period of disorder" referred to as the Wars of the Roses.) Granted, he has a hard job, since he has to jump from Western to Eastern Europe and from England to France to Germany/Holy Roman Empire to Spain and Portugal. I'll go from there to some of my other books, trying to read some that have been sitting on my shelves gathering dust since 1992 rather than rereading the ones I like. I've been through all my books on paleontology, none of which is up to date, and I'll try to read the rest in more or less chronological order. The thing is, I bought a lot of books through the History Book Club that *sounded* interesting, but many of them are do dull that they put me to sleep. They're the kind of books that make people think that history is boring--rather like taking the History of Magic from Professor Binns. In the hands of someone who writes with clarity and grace and a sense of humor, the subjects of these books could be fascinating, but in the hands of these writers you get stuff like this: "[H]ence the insistence on CONCORDIA MILITUM. *Numeri,* non-legionary troops--national units of semimilitarized peasants--were also increased in the place of 'auxiliaries' (Chapter 5)." (from "The Severans" by Michael Grant, none of whose books I recommend.)

Hm. What? Carol wakes up from her doze, remembering nothing of what she's just typed.

I'm trying to go through my books to see what I should read or reread, what I should keep to read later, and what I should sell unread, including pretty much everything by Michael "Binns" Grant.

Meantime, I've been sneaking online peeks at "The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible" by  A. J. Jacobs, which, from what I've sampled so far, is both fascinating and in some places laugh-out-loud hilarious. (the author is the same guy who tried to become the world's smartest man--obviously mistaking knowledge for intelligence--by reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica and recording that experience in a kind of journal. I've sampled that book, "The Know-It-All," online, too. It's rather funny, but from what I've seen, "Living Biblically" is better. I picture myself sitting in an easy chair in Borders Bookstore, reading the parts I haven't read yet, and looking around furtively to see if anyone is staring at the crazy lady trying and failing to stifle her laughter. Anyway, the book is a great antidote for dry but educational books, especially the self-deprecating humor, which I tend to find endearing.

Carol, waiting for her *three* clients to sign their contracts, pay their deposits, and submit their manuscripts so she'll have something to edit!






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Apr  2 18:34:11 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:34:11 -0000
Subject: Dog Latin
In-Reply-To: <gr2r3s+cmrf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr30f3+obe1@eGroups.com>

Potioncat wrote:
> > I took Latin in middle school--I'm not sure where it helped more as I continued through college, in science or in English--but I'm glad I had it.

Geoff:
I took Latin to GCE O level about the equivalent of OWLs. Like 
you I switched to Maths in the Sixth but I have always been glad I 
took it because it gives you such an insight into the meanings of 
words in other languages and also, if you can cope with six cases in 
Latin, four in German are a doddle!

I was one of those not so little boys made comments in Latin and 
about it. One of my favourites was:

Latin is a language
Dead as dead can be.
First it killed the Romans - 
Now it's killing me.

Seriously, one thing that always grabbed me about Latin and really 
fired me up was that one of our set books was "De Bello Gallico" 
which was written by - gasp - Julius Caesar himself. Wow.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  2 20:04:42 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:04:42 -0000
Subject: Dog Latin
In-Reply-To: <gr30f3+obe1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr35oq+hi0i@eGroups.com>

Geoff:
> I took Latin to GCE O level about the equivalent of OWLs. Like you I switched to Maths in the Sixth but I have always been glad I took it because it gives you such an insight into the meanings of words in other languages and also, if you can cope with six cases in Latin, four in German are a doddle! <snip>

Carol responds:

A doddle? Another lovely Briticism, this time one that I can figure out from the context (though I checked an online dictionary of British slang to make sure that I was right--the definition given was "something very easy"). An American would probably say "a snap," and, no, I didn't look up the etymology of that expression. My guess is that it means something like "as easy as snapping your fingers." What a doddle could relate to I have no idea.

BTW, Geoff, did I define "dog Latin" correctly upthread?

Carol, who lost her bookmarks some time ago and now needs to go searching for more British-to-American sites, preferably humorous ones





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  2 22:01:07 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:01:07 -0000
Subject: Another question.
Message-ID: <gr3cj3+v0ks@eGroups.com>

Hi guys, in PS/SS ch.7 there is a sentence I can't fully understand. It's when McGonagall brings in the Sorting hat for the new students to be sorted. Here is the sentence (Harry's thoughts):

"Maybe they had to try and get a rabbit out of it, Harry thought wildly, that seemed the sort of thing - noticing that everyone in the Hall was now staring at the hat, he stared at it too" (p.117 Am.ed. or p.87-88 Br. ed.). 

What I don't understand is this part: "that seemed the sort of thing". What does it even mean? Is it about the Hat? Did the Hat seem like a hat magicians usually get rabbits out of, LOL? I don't understand it, and in every translations that I read translators skipped this part of the sentence (even in the French translation) - I guess they don't understand it either :-). Could anyone explain this, please :-)?


zanooda 

 




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  2 22:15:31 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:15:31 -0000
Subject: Another question.
In-Reply-To: <gr3cj3+v0ks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr3de3+uk18@eGroups.com>

> zanooda:
> What I don't understand is this part: "that seemed the sort of thing". What does it even mean? Is it about the Hat? Did the Hat seem like a hat magicians usually get rabbits out of, LOL? I don't understand it, and in every translations that I read translators skipped this part of the sentence (even in the French translation) - I guess they don't understand it either :-). Could anyone explain this, please :-)?

Kemper now:
"that seemed the sort of thing" that the first years would do: pull a rabbit out of the hat.  
"that...thing" refers back to the idea that "Maybe they had to try and get a rabbit out of it".

Well... that's my impression anyway.  :)

Kemper




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Apr  2 22:16:38 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:16:38 -0000
Subject: Another question.
In-Reply-To: <gr3cj3+v0ks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr3dg6+ss1t@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:

zanooda:
> Hi guys, in PS/SS ch.7 there is a sentence I can't fully understand. It's when McGonagall brings in the Sorting hat for the new students to be sorted. Here is the sentence (Harry's thoughts):
> 
> "Maybe they had to try and get a rabbit out of it, Harry thought wildly, that seemed the sort of thing - noticing that everyone in the Hall was now staring at the hat, he stared at it too" (p.117 Am.ed. or p.87-88 Br. ed.). 
> 
> What I don't understand is this part: "that seemed the sort of thing". What does it even mean? Is it about the Hat? Did the Hat seem like a hat magicians usually get rabbits out of, LOL? I don't understand it, and in every translations that I read translators skipped this part of the sentence (even in the French translation) - I guess they don't understand it either :-). Could anyone explain this, please :-)?

Geoff:
I think this refers back to the previous page (UK PS p.86) where there is 
a brief exchange between Harry and Ron....

'Harry swallowed.
"How exactly do they sort us into houses?" he asked Ron.
"Some sort of test, I think..."'

So Harry is worrying about this possibility. If you now move forward
to where Professor McGonagall places the hat on the stool, Harry - 
and the others are presumably trying to imagine a test based on this 
scruffy old hat.

Hence, as you suggest, Harry's thinking is running along the line of a 
stage magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Are they expected to do 
something like that?- that seemed the sort of thing (that he thought 
was likely) - my suggested text.

Does that help?







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  3 02:28:41 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 02:28:41 -0000
Subject: Another question.
In-Reply-To: <gr3dg6+ss1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr3s8p+n691@eGroups.com>

zanooda wrote:
> > Hi guys, in PS/SS ch.7 there is a sentence I can't fully understand. It's when McGonagall brings in the Sorting hat for the new students to be sorted. Here is the sentence (Harry's thoughts):
> > 
> > "Maybe they had to try and get a rabbit out of it, Harry thought wildly, that seemed the sort of thing - noticing that everyone in the Hall was now staring at the hat, he stared at it too" (p.117 Am.ed. or p.87-88 Br. ed.). 
> > 
> > What I don't understand is this part: "that seemed the sort of thing". What does it even mean? Is it about the Hat? Did the Hat seem like a hat magicians usually get rabbits out of, LOL? I don't understand it, and in every translations that I read translators skipped this part of the sentence (even in the French translation) - I guess they don't understand it either :-). Could anyone explain this, please :-)?
> 
> Geoff:
> I think this refers back to <snip> "Some sort of test, I think..."'
> 
> So Harry is worrying about this possibility. <snip> Hence, as you suggest, Harry's thinking is running along the line of a stage magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Are they expected to do something like that?- that seemed the sort of thing (that he thought 
was likely) - my suggested text.

<snip>

Carol responds:

I agree with Geoff (and Kemper), only I read "that" as a pronoun referring to "get a rabbit out of it [the hat]." So my reading would be, ""Maybe they had to try and get a rabbit out of it, Harry thought wildly[.] [T}hat [pulling a rabbit out of the hat] seemed [like] the sort of thing [that the first-years would be expected to do]." (I've edited out the comma splice in case it contributed to your confusion.) "That seemed the sort of thing" is an elliptical expression, meaning that part of the sentence is omitted (but implied).

I doubt that the Sorting Hat reminded Harry of a Muggle magician's top hat, but his idea of "magic" at this point is probably limited to pulling rabbits out of hats, card tricks, sawing people in half, and making your assistant disappear inside a cabinet. (In his dream later, the Sorting hat turns into Quirrell's turban, so evidently his ideas about hats are rather confused at the moment!)

Carol, hoping she hasn't confused you even more!






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Apr  3 12:17:01 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:17:01 -0000
Subject: Another question.
In-Reply-To: <gr3s8p+n691@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr4unt+gdcp@eGroups.com>

Potioncat:
Also agreeing with the slightly differing opinions of previous posters. But I think the construction of the sentence is intended to show Harry's state of mind. It's sort of choppy and disjointed. So your uncertainty at its translation is appropriate.

Carol: 
> I doubt that the Sorting Hat reminded Harry of a Muggle magician's top hat, but his idea of "magic" at this point is probably limited to pulling rabbits out of hats, card tricks, sawing people in half, and making your assistant disappear inside a cabinet. 

Potioncat:
Earlier in the book--if any of us remembered it by this point--Dudley was complaining about missing his favorite show, Humbert the Magician. (or something similar). So Harry's idea of magic, as Carol says, would lean toward that sort of trick.

Carol, did you write that particular list with certain events in mind? It gave me an A-Ha! moment. All these years of discussing HP and I never, ever put Vanishing Cabinet with a RW magician making a lovely assistant disapper and reappear. I kept wondering what a Vanishing Cabinet would be in the RW--(dishwasher? trash compacter?) and never made that connection. Boy, do I feel dim!

The rest of the items make me think of young wizards turning a hat into a rabbit, Fred and George's card tricks, and splenching.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Apr  3 12:39:01 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:39:01 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gquiaa+j222@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr5015+s5oi@eGroups.com>

 "Carol"  wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to how other posters define the term "run-on sentence" since I've seen several posters (Potioncat, for one, IIRC) describe their sentences as run-ons when, in fact, they're perfectly legitimate sentences. 

<snip> 
 A true run-on sentence (according to all my composition textbooks) merely combines two sentences that ought to be separated by a period or semicolon this last "sentence" is an example.



Potioncat:
Oh frabrous day! I can write longer sentences! Which is good since I'm not allowed to write 6 posts.

"two sentences that ought to be separated..." Sounds like a messy divorce. I guess I thought the definition was a long sentence that ought not be put together in the first place. 

If I had written Carol's first sentence (a lovely one, by the way) I would have felt compelled to chop it up, so it would look like this:


<< I'm curious as to how other posters define the term "run-on sentence". I've seen several posters (Potioncat, for one, IIRC) describe their sentences as run-ons. When, in fact, they're perfectly legitimate sentences.>>

The whole thing looks and reads better the way Carol wrote it, but I've performed similar surgery to my own writing before posting.

As for Carol's run-on sentence, I would put a period (or full stop) after the word semicolon, which would then make the next sentence untrue.

I know exactly where my avoidance of long sentences came from. It came from English 101 or similar college English classes. I'm sure we were taught that short was good and long was bad. It was decades ago, and I'm not sure if that was what was taught, or if that is what I learned. 

So, Carol, for the purpose of this thread, feel free to comment on any sentences in this post.









From n2fgc at arrl.net  Fri Apr  3 15:43:19 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:43:19 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5015+s5oi@eGroups.com>
References: <gquiaa+j222@eGroups.com> <gr5015+s5oi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <CA2BBE1F210F43E3B8DC158CF6AD126E@FRODO>

[Potioncat]:
| I know exactly where my avoidance of long sentences came 
| from. It came from English 101 or similar college English 
| classes. I'm sure we were taught that short was good and long 
| was bad. It was decades ago, and I'm not sure if that was 
| what was taught, or if that is what I learned.

[Lee]:
<LOL> Probably teaching that short is good hails from the difficulty some
people have with deciphering long sentences.  In my personal opinion, the
champions of the long, convoluted sentence are those who specialize in
"Legalese," a language that prides itself in brain-cramping complexity. :-)

Cheers,
Lee :-)




From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 16:46:28 2009
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:46:28 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <CA2BBE1F210F43E3B8DC158CF6AD126E@FRODO>
References: <gquiaa+j222@eGroups.com> <gr5015+s5oi@eGroups.com>
	 <CA2BBE1F210F43E3B8DC158CF6AD126E@FRODO>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0904030946ud82c4acyeb69c9837f5e5c7b@mail.gmail.com>

Lee:
> <LOL> Probably teaching that short is good hails from the difficulty some
> people have with deciphering long sentences. In my personal opinion, the
> champions of the long, convoluted sentence are those who specialize in
> "Legalese," a language that prides itself in brain-cramping complexity. :-)

Ali:
Oh I don't know.  I champion the judicious use of long sentences.  I
hate anything that is composed purely of short sentences (maybe that's
why I have such a visceral reaction to Hemingway).  Now, I'm not
talking Faulkner; none of that.  I am, however, talking about a
natural mix.  For example:

The rain is utterly vile.  God forbid that I could be home, instead of
at work, on this wretched day when the rain pounding again our
building sounds like the crunch of gravel beneath a moving car, a
grating sound that is liable to drive the listener mad.  It's amazing
how short the trip from sanity to madness is when a dreary day gets
involved.

See?  A combo.  That's how people write anyways, right?  Right?!
Okay, I know it's not - Word gets me on it every once in a while when
I write my quadruple compound sentences that are 6 lines long.  But
still, there's nothing wrong (or legalese-like) with an occasional
long sentence.  And did I mention that I took a ton of law courses are
part of my undergrad degree?  :)

In all seriousness, I think the short sentence was taught because kids
need to learn to get to the point (and, in my case, drive me mad).  If
you don't know exactly what you're trying to say, it's pretty easy to
lose yourself in a long sentence.  A short, active sentence, though,
gets straight to the point.

~Ali, who does not like reading either Hemingway or Faulkner but does
admire Faulkner's absurdly long sentences



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Apr  3 16:58:38 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:58:38 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5015+s5oi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr5f7u+d1os@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:

Potioncat:
> Oh frabrous day! I can write longer sentences! Which is good since I'm not allowed to write 6 posts.

Geoff:
I hate to be a pedantic old whatsit but you have misspelt Lewis Carroll, 
Correctly, the bit you quoted from "Jabberwocky" should be:"

"O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy."

It has some luvly words - one of my favourites being "burbled".
:-)






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  3 20:00:49 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:00:49 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5015+s5oi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr5pth+gmjq@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> >
> > I'm curious as to how other posters define the term "run-on sentence" since I've seen several posters (Potioncat, for one, IIRC) describe their sentences as run-ons when, in fact, they're perfectly legitimate sentences. 
> <snip> 
>  A true run-on sentence (according to all my composition textbooks) merely combines two sentences that ought to be separated by a period or semicolon this last "sentence" is an example.
> 
> Potioncat:
> Oh frabrous day! I can write longer sentences! Which is good since I'm not allowed to write 6 posts.
> 
> "two sentences that ought to be separated..." Sounds like a messy divorce. I guess I thought the definition was a long sentence that ought not be put together in the first place. 

Carol responds:
I have a feeling that other people share that misconception, possibly because they get lost in complex sentences like the ones I tend to write (which are nothing compared with Herman Melville's as you know if you've ever read "Moby Dick").

Potioncat: 
> If I had written Carol's first sentence (a lovely one, by the way) 

Carol interrupts to respond:
Thanks! :-)

Potioncat:
I would have felt compelled to chop it up, so it would look like this:
> 
> << I'm curious as to how other posters define the term "run-on sentence". I've seen several posters (Potioncat, for one, IIRC) describe their sentences as run-ons. When, in fact, they're perfectly legitimate sentences.>>

Carol responds:

So, oops. Your last "sentence" would be a fragment. "When" is a subordinating conjunction, which makes any clause following it subordinate to the main clause. IOW, the subordinate clause can't stand alone as a complete sentence and needs to be combined with an independent clause, in this case, "I've . . . run-ons." (A clause is simply a group of words containing a subject and a verb.)

> The whole thing looks and reads better the way Carol wrote it, but I've performed similar surgery to my own writing before posting.
> 
> As for Carol's run-on sentence, I would put a period (or full stop) after the word semicolon, which would then make the next sentence untrue.

Carol:
Exactly, so in this case we're stuck with the run-on as an illustration of what not to do. (JKR, BTW, is fond of a particular kind of run-on called a comma splice, which uses a comma to join two sentences that ought to be separated because each can stand alone as an independent clause. I fixed one in the quote that zanooda supplied in her post about pulling rabbits out of the Sorting Hat.)

Potioncat: 
> I know exactly where my avoidance of long sentences came from. It came from English 101 or similar college English classes. I'm sure we were taught that short was good and long was bad. It was decades ago, and I'm not sure if that was what was taught, or if that is what I learned. 

Carol:
So you were never taught about subordination (sometimes misleadingly called "sentence combining") as a technique for varying your sentences? that's unfortunate! Just remember, it's okay to start a sentence with "because" or "when" of "after" or any other subordinating conjunction as long as you follow the subordinate clause (the "because" or "when" or "after" clause) with an independent clause. Simplicity can be a virtue if it leads to clarity, but too much of a good thing leads to dullness.

Potioncat: 
> So, Carol, for the purpose of this thread, feel free to comment on any sentences in this post.

Carol responds:
Thanks. As you can see, I did comment on one of them. BTW, in American English (as opposed to British English) the quotation marks follow the period even if you're just quoting a word or phrase, so the correct way to end your sentence on run-ons would be "run-on sentence." Sorry to be picky, but you asked for commentary!

Carol, hoping that her addiction to parentheses and long sentences doesn't cause anyone to lose track of her points





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  3 20:31:50 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:31:50 -0000
Subject: Dog Latin
In-Reply-To: <gr30f3+obe1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr5rnm+hg35@eGroups.com>

> Geoff:
> I took Latin to GCE O level about the equivalent of OWLs. Like 
> you I switched to Maths in the Sixth but I have always been glad I 
> took it because it gives you such an insight into the meanings of 
> words in other languages and also, if you can cope with six cases in 
> Latin, four in German are a doddle!

Magpie:

*waves* Another Latin student here. I took it from 7th through 12th grade. That meant 2 AP courses, one in Horace and Catullus and one in Virgil. It's sad how little I probably remember, but it still comes in handy.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  3 20:32:33 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:32:33 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <CA2BBE1F210F43E3B8DC158CF6AD126E@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gr5rp1+e3a7@eGroups.com>

[Lee]:
> <LOL> Probably teaching that short is good hails from the difficulty some people have with deciphering long sentences.  In my personal opinion, the champions of the long, convoluted sentence are those who specialize in "Legalese," a language that prides itself in brain-cramping complexity. :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Lee :-)
>
Carol responds:

Not necessarily. I dearly love long, convoluted sentences but despise legalese because so many sentences are written in the passive voice or contain jargon. That's one reason why, unlike my sister, I would never have become a lawyer.

FWIW, long sentences are not necessarily wordy. In fact, subordination (the type of sentence combining that I've been discussing) is a great strategy for overcoming needless repetition. So is eliminating wordy phrases like "due to the fact that or "at this point in time." Even "make a decision" (or 'take a decision" if you were British) can be tightened to "decide." Sentence length isn't necessarily an indication of wordiness though it is, as you say, an indication of complexity. IMO, it's the diction (word choice) more than the sentence structure (with the exception of passive voice) that makes legalese mind-numbing.

BTW, I was looking for samples of legalese to quote and found this useful website (posted by a law professor!) on ways to "Eschew, Evade, and/or Eradicate Legalese":

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/legalese.htm

And here's a brief sample of legalese from a subpoena:

"Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify."

I *think* this sentence means roughly, "If you are not a party to this court but are subpoenaed to testify under oath, you may designate one or more persons who consent to testify on your behalf and you may determine the matters on which each person will testify."

My version reduces the number of words from 53 to 42 (for example, I eliminated the list of persons who may testify ("officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons") for you, but I also addressed the sentence to the person (or organization) that might be subpoenaed and omitted "deposition," substituting its definition (every time my sister tells me that she has to travel somewhere to tak a deposition, I have to wrack my brain to remember what a deposition is), and I eleiminated the reference to the subpoenaed person or organization as an "it."

Goddlefrood or Alla or anyone who's a lawyer, please let me know if I interpreted the passage correctly. Anyone else, lawyer or not, please feel free to take a shot at rendering the sentence into plain English!

Carol, who should send the link on evading legalese to her sister the lawyer and her nephew the soon-to-be law student




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  3 20:34:14 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:34:14 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5015+s5oi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr5rs6+ghd1@eGroups.com>

> Potioncat:

> I know exactly where my avoidance of long sentences came from. It came from English 101 or similar college English classes. I'm sure we were taught that short was good and long was bad. It was decades ago, and I'm not sure if that was what was taught, or if that is what I learned. 

Magpie:
Give those people a copy of Proust. He'll tell them what to do with their shorter=better sentences!:-D

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  3 20:36:29 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:36:29 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5pth+gmjq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr5s0d+8ois@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
> Thanks. As you can see, I did comment on one of them. BTW, in American English (as opposed to British English) the quotation marks follow the period even if you're just quoting a word or phrase, so the correct way to end your sentence on run-ons would be "run-on sentence." Sorry to be picky, but you asked for commentary!

Magpie:
Thanks, Carol! I always think that's right but lately have gotten insecure about quotations after periods. I must have been reading British English texts and it got into my head that I was doing it wrong!

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  3 21:49:59 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:49:59 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0904030946ud82c4acyeb69c9837f5e5c7b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gr60a7+n3kg@eGroups.com>

Ali wrote:
> Oh I don't know.  I champion the judicious use of long sentences.  I hate anything that is composed purely of short sentences (maybe that's why I have such a visceral reaction to Hemingway).  Now, I'm not talking Faulkner; none of that.  I am, however, talking about a natural mix.  <snip>

Carol responds:
Me, too! Sentence structure should be varied to avoid monotony. And what a coincidence that the two particular authors you mention (forced on high school and college literature students alike) are two that I can't abide, either, for the same reason. Moderation in all things, including sentence length! (I know. I know. Mine tend to be long. I'll work on it. Count these five sentences into my average. :-) )

Ali wrote:

> Word gets me on it every once in a while when I write my quadruple compound sentences that are 6 lines long.  

Carol responds:
Oh, don't trust Word! True, it's better than nothing and it does tend to catch passive voice and multiple nouns, but it also makes blunders. (Ever notice that it regards any reflexive pronoun [e.g., "myself," "himself," "herself," "yourself") as an error even if it's used correctly?) And the suggestions for spellings are sometimes amusing. Just for fun, I typed in "Fenrir Greyback" to see what Word would suggest and got "Fernier," "Fernery," "Fearer," "Ferrier," "Ferric," "Ferris," "Fennier," "Furner, and "Ferny," along with "Greenback," ""Greywacke," and "Greenbacks." Not hilarious, admittedly, but not useful, either.

I do use it as the last stage of editing, mainly to make sure that I haven't accidentally deleted a word or run two words together in change tracking, but sometimes I just roll my eyes and wonder when we'll get an editing program actually designed by or in collaboration with an editor!

You *can* set your preferences to allow long sentences (as well as first person, etc.), but in Word 2007 (at least) jargon and clich?s (neither of which I generally want in my edited documents) are grouped with colloquialisms (to which I have no objections in informal writing), so, unfortunately for me, I have to tell Word that each individual colloquialism is okay rather than telling it to ignore them all.

Ali wrote:
But still, there's nothing wrong (or legalese-like) with an occasiona long sentence.  And did I mention that I took a ton of law courses are part of my undergrad degree?  :)

Carol responds:
Oho! then you're the perfect person to try your hand at the subpoena sentence in my previous post!

Ali: 
> In all seriousness, I think the short sentence was taught because kids need to learn to get to the point (and, in my case, drive me mad).  If you don't know exactly what you're trying to say, it's pretty easy to lose yourself in a long sentence.  A short, active sentence, though, gets straight to the point.

Carol:
That's great for, say, fourth graders. But older kids in middle school and high school should learn subordination. (I'm with you on active voice, though!) 

The question in my mind is which books they should read to pick up a natural, varied, graceful style. Much as I love Jane Austen, she's the queen of dangling modifiers.
> 
> ~Ali, who does not like reading either Hemingway or Faulkner but does admire Faulkner's absurdly long sentences

Carol:
I can't stand Faulkner. I think it's because he spends so much time describing the scenery that you never get to know his characters as people. Hemingway doesn't describe much of anything. (Nick poured coffee for the fat man and the skinny man. The fat man took a sip. "Do you like the coffee?" Nick asked. "No," the fat man said. "Get us some bacon," the skinny man said. "Do you have any bacon?") Okay, I made that up, but that's how I think of Hemingway.

Carol, wondering where to find a passage of really *good* prose to quote




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr  3 22:06:38 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:06:38 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5s0d+8ois@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr619e+svvp@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > Thanks. As you can see, I did comment on one of them. BTW, in American English (as opposed to British English) the quotation marks follow the period even if you're just quoting a word or phrase, so the correct way to end your sentence on run-ons would be "run-on sentence." Sorry to be picky, but you asked for commentary!
> 
> Magpie:
> Thanks, Carol! I always think that's right but lately have gotten insecure about quotations after periods. I must have been reading British English texts and it got into my head that I was doing it wrong!
> 
> -m
>
Carol responds:

You're welcome. Glad I could help. I should mention that the rule applies only to periods and commas. Question marks and exclamation points can go inside or outside the quotation marks depending on whether they're part of the quoted material/dialogue or part of the sentence itself. Just to make it confusing. . . .

Carol, noting that specialized disciplines like linguistics have slightly different rules but they're not applicable here






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Apr  3 22:16:41 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:16:41 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5s0d+8ois@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr61s9+vadn@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > Thanks. As you can see, I did comment on one of them. BTW, in American English (as opposed to British English) the quotation marks follow the period even if you're just quoting a word or phrase, so the correct way to end your sentence on run-ons would be "run-on sentence." Sorry to be picky, but you asked for commentary!
> 
> Magpie:
> Thanks, Carol! I always think that's right but lately have gotten insecure about quotations after periods. I must have been reading British English texts and it got into my head that I was doing it wrong!

Geoff:
If it's UK English, you can't go wrong.
<eg>

I shall stick to speech marks before full stops. so there.
:-)




From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 23:07:41 2009
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 19:07:41 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr60a7+n3kg@eGroups.com>
References: <b6e131bf0904030946ud82c4acyeb69c9837f5e5c7b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <gr60a7+n3kg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0904031607j15757714ofdbb3bd48cbe2b42@mail.gmail.com>

Carol responds:
> Oh, don't trust Word!
> I do use it as the last stage of editing, mainly to make sure that I haven't
> accidentally deleted a word or run two words together in change tracking,
> but sometimes I just roll my eyes and wonder when we'll get an editing
> program actually designed by or in collaboration with an editor!

Ali:
I do the same.  The other folks at work ignore the Word spell/grammar
check altogether (we have a bit of technical language that Word always
flags as wrong, and boy, our clients apparently all spell their names
improperly as according to Word), but I use it as the last, last
stage, useful for catching the random mistakes where I've accidentally
deleted a space or something.  As with anything else, it's a tool, the
usefulness of which is up to you to determine.

As for Word's grammar check being terrible, I cut it a break just
because it can't think, and there's quite a bit of thinking involved
in editing the English language.  Still, I do wish those yourself,
himself, herself, etc. wouldn't get flagged all the time.


Carol:
> Oho! then you're the perfect person to try your hand at the subpoena
> sentence in my previous post!

Ali:
Ah but I'm not.  Quite a few of my professors spent some part of our
time together dissecting why certain legal sentences are written the
way they are.  Now, that's not saying that "legalese" doesn't exist,
just that there is some reasoning behind what's said (not all of it,
of course - even I, who loves the passive sentences in informal
writing, go nuts reading legalese).  I'm going to give it a shot (see
below) but I don't actually think I'll be doing much reducing,
especially since I think it makes perfect sense written the way it is,
which thereby reduces my ability to rewrite in a way that supposedly
makes more sense - I think this is the reason why legalese exists: it
makes sense to those writing and those for whom the item was written
and thereby few make effort to "make sense" of something that already
makes sense to most parties involved.  And I apologize for that
sentence ...

Original:
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the
taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers,
directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify
on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the
matters on which the person will testify.

Rewrite:
If one is subpoenaed for the purpose of taking a deposition but is not
part of this suit, one can designate a party (or parties) to testify
on one's behalf and may direct the matter that said party will testify
on.

My sentence is shorter, to be sure, but it is also less precise.  The
prior sentence mentions "officers, directors, managing agents."  I
admittedly don't know much about the nature of depositions (my law
courses were all in business law, mostly pertaining to pharma and
healthcare, and case law, not much about the actual practice thereof)
but a mention of a list like that is usually meant to direct the
reader to the nature of the relationship between the person subpoenaed
and the party representing him/her.


Carol:
> That's great for, say, fourth graders. But older kids in middle school and
> high school should learn subordination. (I'm with you on active voice,
> though!)

Ali:
I guess that depends on what's useful.  I'll just settle for teaching
kids to write.  I happen to think most adults (especially business
professionals - dear lord, especially business professionals) can do
just fine with the Hemingway-esque writing, and I say this because
what's taught in 4th grade is clearly not reinforced well-enough to
last into adulthood with many adults I've met.  Despite being a
younger and having to listen to adults about how kids aren't taught
proper grammar and whatnot anymore, I am extremely appalled by the
writing skills of my superiors, of my old clients who can direct a lab
to make chemicals I can't fathom but can't put a pen to paper for the
life of them, of my last few bosses who capitalized words with wild
abandon and can't figure out where commas properly go.  I'll take
Hemingway over nothing.

Personally, I think everyone should have to go through class with my
12th grade English teacher.  She may have hated all passive sentences
(okay, so it was an essay and I can understand her dislike there, but
damn it, I love passive sentences in informal writing), overly long
sentences, and all things that can give personality to an essay, but
the woman got every last one of us to learn how to quickly and
efficiently organize our thoughts into one cohesive essay.  I am not
too proud to brag that I kicked butt on my AP and IB English exams,
and it was all thanks to her (though I am thankful that she hadn't
drilled my love of passive sentences out of me).


Carol:
> I can't stand Faulkner. I think it's because he spends so much time
> describing the scenery that you never get to know his characters as people.
> Hemingway doesn't describe much of anything. (Nick poured coffee for the fat
> man and the skinny man. The fat man took a sip. "Do you like the coffee?"
> Nick asked. "No," the fat man said. "Get us some bacon," the skinny man
> said. "Do you have any bacon?") Okay, I made that up, but that's how I think
> of Hemingway.

Ali:
Blegh.  I can't stand Faulkner or Hemingway or any of those highly
celebrated authors - I went through a "dead white guys" phase where I
read Faulkner, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. and found out that maybe I
just hate American Lit (to be fair to American Lit, I also gave
authors like Willa Cather a try before I came to this conclusion).  I
merely admire Faulkner's talent with a sentence because I am
fascinated when someone has such mastery over the English language
that he can write such ridiculous sentences.  I cannot, however, be
bothered to read Faulkner (Sound and the Fury was exceptionally not
enjoyable).

And you know, I probably would not have figure out that was not a
Hemingway passage if you didn't tell me.  You used the name Nick, for
one.  And then there's also the fact that, as you said, the man's
writing has zero personality.  (I still count my time reading For Whom
the Bell Tolls as one of the least useful of my life and am angry that
I'll never get those hours back.)

~Ali, who's off to DC and is hoping everyone who's near a cherry
blossom tree takes the time this weekend to celebrate the cherry
blossom festival and the coming of spring



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Apr  4 02:35:02 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:35:02 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5f7u+d1os@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr6h0m+epie@eGroups.com>

 
> Geoff:
> I hate to be a pedantic old whatsit but you have misspelt Lewis Carroll, 
> Correctly, the bit you quoted from "Jabberwocky" should be:"
> 
> "O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
> He chortled in his joy."
> 
> It has some luvly words - one of my favourites being "burbled".
> :-)
>

Potioncat:
Actually I'm sort of proud it wasn't misspelt worse. I really ought to use firefox where I can use spellcheck. (not that frabjous, callooh or callay would be in it.)

 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 02:37:29 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:37:29 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0904031607j15757714ofdbb3bd48cbe2b42@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gr6h59+piop@eGroups.com>


> Ali:

> Rewrite:
> If one is subpoenaed for the purpose of taking a deposition but is not part of this suit, one can designate a party (or parties) to testify on one's behalf and may direct the matter that said party will testify on.
> 
> My sentence is shorter, to be sure, but it is also less precise.  

Carol responds:
Your version is better than the original, but it's still legalese. I vote for plain English. (I do understand the rationale behind legalese, but I don't agree with it, nor do all lawyers. Some are attempting to get contracts written in plain English (for example, apartment leases) so that ordinary people can understand them. (How many people skim contracts or don't read them at all because they're bored or confused by the writing and then sign them without fully understanding them? I plead guilty. I don't read most of the 1040 instructions, either. (The 1040 is the U.S. federal income tax form, for those of you living in other countries.)

Ali:
> I guess that depends on what's useful.  I'll just settle for teaching kids to write.  I happen to think most adults (especially business professionals - dear lord, especially business professionals) can do just fine with the Hemingway-esque writing, and I say this because what's taught in 4th grade is clearly not reinforced well-enough to last into adulthood with many adults I've met.  Despite being a younger and having to listen to adults about how kids aren't taught proper grammar and whatnot anymore, I am extremely appalled by the writing skills of my superiors, of my old clients who can direct a lab to make chemicals I can't fathom but can't put a pen to paper for the life of them, of my last few bosses who capitalized words with wild abandon and can't figure out where commas properly go.  I'll take Hemingway over nothing.

Carol responds:
I don't know that Hemingway is the answer, but I agree that many middle-aged and older people write badly, but in my experience, it's not the same problem that we see today with teenagers who rely on their computer's spell checks and never learned cursive writing or grammar at all. With people over, say, thirty-five, the problem is often trying too hard to sound formal or fancy. A lot of them pick up sociological jargon (maybe they've read too many self-help books)? You hear it on TV, too. Naturally, I can't think of a real example, but no doubt one will pop into my head the moment I hit "Send."

Ali: 
> Personally, I think everyone should have to go through class with my 12th grade English teacher.  She may have hated all passive sentences (okay, so it was an essay and I can understand her dislike there, but damn it, I love passive sentences in informal writing), overly long sentences, and all things that can give personality to an essay <snip>

Carol:
Wait. You love passive voice sentences in informal writing and think they give personality to writing? I think they rob writing of liveliness and precision. The ball was thrown. The game was won by the home team. Money was saved by installing better plumbing. Ugh. Can you give me an example of a good, lively, interesting passive voice sentence and explain why you prefer it to the active-voice version? I realize that passive voice is necessary in lab reports, but in fiction and history and biography, you generally need to emphsize the doer of the action. 

Ali:
> Blegh.  I can't stand Faulkner or Hemingway or any of those highly celebrated authors - I went through a "dead white guys" phase where I read Faulkner, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. and found out that maybe I just hate American Lit (to be fair to American Lit, I also gave authors like Willa Cather a try before I came to this conclusion).  I merely admire Faulkner's talent with a sentence because I am fascinated when someone has such mastery over the English language that he can write such ridiculous sentences.  I cannot, however, be bothered to read Faulkner (Sound and the Fury was exceptionally not enjoyable).

Carol:
I don't like American lit much, either, with the exception of "Moby Dick" (despite the long, long sentences and pseudo-Shakesperean dialogye in some scenes) and "Huckleberry Finn." (And, yes, I'm aware of the oddness of that pairing!) Worst of all, I think, is Emerson (who wrote essays, not fiction, but nevertheless managed to bore me senseless--though I do vividly recall his "transparent eyeball" image). I much prefer British lit, both poetry and fiction.

Ali: 
> And you know, I probably would not have figure out that was not a Hemingway passage if you didn't tell me.  You used the name Nick, for one.  And then there's also the fact that, as you said, the man's writing has zero personality.  (I still count my time reading For Whom the Bell Tolls as one of the least useful of my life and am angry that I'll never get those hours back.)

Carol:
I did have a specific Hemingway story ("the Killers") in mind when I invented that passage, but I was parodying it without looking at the original. I don't remember what the two bad guys looked like, just the minimalist plot and the monotonous style.
 
> ~Ali, who's off to DC and is hoping everyone who's near a cherry blossom tree takes the time this weekend to celebrate the cherry blossom festival and the coming of spring

Carol:
Enjoy the cherry blossoms! I'm going to Flagstaff later this month with my mother and sister to celebrate my birthday. I expect to see a lot of fruit trees in bloom, along with early spring flowers like irises and daffodils. I love spring even though we don't really see it in all its glory in the desert--just some lupine along the roadside and the palo verde trees in bloom. With luck, we'll get some California poppies later in the month.

Carol, who didn't find any passive-voice sentences in Ali's post (other than the rewritten legalese) but may have accidentally snipped some





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Apr  4 02:39:25 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:39:25 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5pth+gmjq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr6h8t+aa1t@eGroups.com>

 
> 
> Carol:
> So you were never taught about subordination (sometimes misleadingly called "sentence combining") as a technique for varying your sentences? that's unfortunate! 

Potioncat:
To be fair, we were taught to vary our sentence structure/length--but we were discouraged from very long, complex sentences. I'm speaking specifically about college. I think we actually wrote longer sentences in high school, which is probably where I read Faulkner. I enjoyed his books!---now I'm wondering if I still would since no one else here seems to.







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Apr  4 02:43:07 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:43:07 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr5s0d+8ois@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr6hfr+753c@eGroups.com>

 
> Magpie:
> Thanks, Carol! I always think that's right but lately have gotten insecure about quotations after periods. I must have been reading British English texts and it got into my head that I was doing it wrong!


Potioncat:
Me too! 

Not only that, for some strange reason, I decided to write HP fan-fiction in Brit speak--or at least to have it beta-read by Brit speakers. I didn't know at the time that the punctuation rules were different in the two countries. What had become a rusty bit of knowledge was made very shakey indeed after a few sessions of many red marks.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Apr  4 02:47:58 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:47:58 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <gr6h59+piop@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr6hou+o3c1@eGroups.com>


> 
> Carol:
> Wait. You love passive voice sentences in informal writing and think they give personality to writing? I think they rob writing of liveliness and precision. 

Potioncat;
Granted, it wasn't fiction, but I used to write auditing reports in passive voice. It helped to avoid phrases like, "This nurse reviewed the chart...in this nurse's opinion..." We were able to write "The medical records were reviewed. yada yada. It was determined that all charges were accurate and appropriate."




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Apr  4 02:58:16 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 02:58:16 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr60a7+n3kg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr6ic8+lc6v@eGroups.com>

  
> 
> Carol responds:
snip
 And the suggestions for spellings are sometimes amusing. Just for fun, I typed in "Fenrir Greyback" to see what Word would suggest and got "Fernier," "Fernery," "Fearer," "Ferrier," "Ferric," "Ferris," "Fennier," "Furner, and "Ferny," along with "Greenback," ""Greywacke," and "Greenbacks." Not hilarious, admittedly, but not useful, either.

Potioncat:
We have WORD at work, but it doesn't include medical terms. Oh boy, some of the suggestions are a riot. Every now and then I've hit "change" in a rush and come out with a useless piece of writing. My favorite was when the computer wanted to my patient to her "paleontologist." I'm sure she wasn't that old!

(Carol, check out the . and the " ")  ;-)





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 03:20:16 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:20:16 -0000
Subject: Another question.
In-Reply-To: <gr3s8p+n691@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr6jlg+bd1m@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:


> "That seemed the sort of thing" is an elliptical expression, 
> meaning that part of the sentence is omitted (but implied).


zanooda:

Thank you very much to everyone who replied, I really appreciate it :-). Somehow it never crossed my mind that part of this sentence may be omitted. This is probably the reason I couldn't understand it :-).

I was also wondering about the word "catcalling", how it is used in the same chapter 7. The book says that when Lavender Brown was sorted into Gryffindor, Fred and George reacted by "catcalling". 

Now, all dictionaries (I mean *all* I have at home and all I could find online :-)) dictionaries say that catcalling is a sign of disapproval. It can't be true in this case, right? Why would the Twins disapprove of someone being sorted in their own House? They are obviously cheering :-).

I met the word "catcalling" before, without looking it up in dictionaries, and from the context I assumed that it meant men whistling to a woman or yelling to her compliments (or rather, something *they* consider compliments :-)), but this meaning is not mentioned in the dictionaries.

So what is catcalling, approval or disapproval :-)? How would you guys use this word?




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  4 04:19:24 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:19:24 -0000
Subject: Another question.
In-Reply-To: <gr6jlg+bd1m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr6n4c+dl5b@eGroups.com>

> zanooda:
 
> I met the word "catcalling" before, without looking it up in dictionaries, and from the context I assumed that it meant men whistling to a woman or yelling to her compliments (or rather, something *they* consider compliments :-)), but this meaning is not mentioned in the dictionaries.
> 
> So what is catcalling, approval or disapproval :-)? How would you guys use this word?

Magpie:
I think it would depend on the context. In this example, the boys are cheering for her in a way that shows she's a girl, I think. (But obviously joking--they're not really hitting on her.) But sometimes catcalls are jeers, like if an actor is being booed off-stage.

The things sound like opposites but I guess they're really not in a disturbing way. Since catcalling a woman isn't exactly a show of respect.

-m





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 04:28:55 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:28:55 -0000
Subject: Another question.
In-Reply-To: <gr4unt+gdcp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr6nm7+vm0v@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:

> Earlier in the book--if any of us remembered it by this point--
> Dudley was complaining about missing his favorite show, Humbert 
> the Magician (or something similar). 


zanooda:

It was "The Great Humberto" :-). I thought it was an imaginary show about some imaginary Humberto, although the name really does seem like a magician's name :-). Hehe, we had a hurricane Humberto here in Texas a couple of years ago, so "The Great Humberto" reminds me about something not so great :-). 

About the Vanishing cabinet - it always annoyed me that they got it all wrong in CoS the movie, where the cabinet looks more like an iron maiden (or a similarly sinister device :-)) than a magician's vanishing cabinet. I wonder how it will look in HBP - I hope they got it right this time, black-and-gold, like in the book :-).








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Apr  4 06:36:29 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 06:36:29 -0000
Subject: Another question.
In-Reply-To: <gr6jlg+bd1m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr6v5d+fnnl@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:

> zanooda:
> Thank you very much to everyone who replied, I really appreciate it :-). Somehow it never crossed my mind that part of this sentence may be omitted. This is probably the reason I couldn't understand it :-).

<snip>
 
> So what is catcalling, approval or disapproval :-)? How would you guys use this word?

Geoff:
With my usual hat on as a native UK English speaker, I would never 
associate it with anything other than mockery or disapproval.....

Mark you, Fred and George seem to turn a lot of events into a joking 
or mocking situation.





From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 17:04:48 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:04:48 -0000
Subject: Another question.
In-Reply-To: <gr6v5d+fnnl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr83vg+u9s3@eGroups.com>

 
> > zanooda:
> > Thank you very much to everyone who replied, I really appreciate it :-). Somehow it never crossed my mind that part of this sentence may be omitted. This is probably the reason I couldn't understand it :-).
> <snip>
> > So what is catcalling, approval or disapproval :-)? How would you guys use this word?
 
> Geoff:
> With my usual hat on as a native UK English speaker, I would never 
> associate it with anything other than mockery or disapproval.....
> 
> Mark you, Fred and George seem to turn a lot of events into a joking 
> or mocking situation.

Kemper now:
I agree.  But I don't see F & G as joking/mocking their own... well at least not until they've been in the house.  

As it's Harry's perception of the event.  I think Harry perceives the catcalling (which I take to be whistling in this case) as enthusiasm for the House rather than anything disparaging or gross toward Lavender... though I can't imagine Harry 'using' that term if it were Dean, Neville, Ron, or Seamus that received the whistling (which, again, is what I read into the context.)

As I type, I'm thinking maybe JKR misused the word and meant whistling applause and not derision nor the 'whert whirl' sound usually associated with construction workers.

Kemper





From aletamosquito at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 18:22:10 2009
From: aletamosquito at gmail.com (Aleta Turner)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:22:10 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr619e+svvp@eGroups.com>
References: <gr5s0d+8ois@eGroups.com> <gr619e+svvp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3591e0870904041122r3a97e59ema52cb4113332681@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Carol <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. Glad I could help. I should mention that the rule applies
> only to periods and commas. Question marks and exclamation points can go
> inside or outside the quotation marks depending on whether they're part of
> the quoted material/dialogue or part of the sentence itself. Just to make it
> confusing. . . .
>
>

I have always disliked this rule (and willingly disobey it) because it is
illogical.
It seems to me that if the quotation is not the entire sentence, then the
period -
which is intended to signal the end of the sentence - should go outside the
quotation marks. Why do we have a different (silly, I think) rule for that
anyway? Do you know the history there?

Aleta

-- 
~~~~~~~~
"When the rain of compassion falls, even a desert
becomes an immense, green ocean."
--Thich N'hat Hanh


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 00:47:23 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:47:23 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
Message-ID: <gr8v2r+pcj9@eGroups.com>

Okay, so basically since some time ago I became very very fond of BBC movie series, or should they be called soap operas too? Probably not,since most of them have the beginning and the end.

Anyways, I of course watched Pride and prejudice and other series based on Jane Austen's works. I watched "North and South" based on Elisabeth Gaskell's book and loved it (and read book and loved it too).

I watched "Wives and daughters" based on the Gaskell's unfinished novel, did not like it, but this is because of the plot, not because I found acting or production bad or anything.

I also watched "To serve them all my days", in my opinion phenomenal series based on the book about the soldier who comes back from the first world war, having PTSD, who by recommendation of his neurologist tries to get a teaching job in the boarding school and well, stays there to teach. I highly recommend both movie and the book.

But I stumbled upon this movie by complete accident by browsing through Netflix recommendations lol and I am so glad I did.

The series I am watching now ( and even though I only watched three episodes, already in love with), called "House of Elliott" about two sisters who after the death of their father ( it is taking place in London in 1920) eventually go into dress design business.

So, my question to you guys is whether you can recommend any really good series (british) which I should not miss.

It does not matter if it is based on the book or not.

Thanks

Alla




From drednort at alphalink.com.au  Sun Apr  5 02:23:15 2009
From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:23:15 +1000
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <gr8v2r+pcj9@eGroups.com>
References: <gr8v2r+pcj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6A72F08DE5B14F1386B623E0919C4358@ShaunPC>

From: "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com>


> So, my question to you guys is whether you can recommend any really good 
> series (british) which I should not miss.
>
> It does not matter if it is based on the book or not.


Where do I begin?

OK - if you like 'The House of Elliott', I would definitely recommend 
'Upstairs, Downstairs'. Not a BBC series - it ran on Britain's ITV from 
1971-1975, it looks at the lives of an upper class British family (the 
Bellamy's) and their servants in the period 1903-1930.

Based on the fact you like 'To Serve Them All My Days' I would also strongly 
recommend the 1971 BBC mini-series 'Tom Brown's Schooldays'. This is the 
'classic' British school story - not the first, but a fairly early one, and 
probably the most famous. It's been made for film and TV a number of times. 
There's a 2005 version from ITV which is quite good - but the 1971 series is 
brilliant in my opinion.

There are so many British TV series I would recommend in general. 'House of 
Cards', 'To Play the King', and 'The Final Cut' are three sequential BBC 
series from the 1990s, each of which explore the political career of a truly 
evil and Machiavellian politician (and his wife who is even worse) who is 
prepared to do anything, anything at all, to become Prime Minister and then 
to hold onto office.

'GBH' from Channel 4 in 1991 is another political drama series. This depicts 
the Mayor (again, an evil politician who will stop at nothing) of a city in 
Northern England and his conflict with a decent, honest, school teacher who 
finds himself accidentally in opposition to him).

You might also like 'All Creatures Great and Small' which began in the 1970s 
and ran on and off into the 1990s and which depicts the life of a country 
vet in the 1930s and 1940s.

The problem is, I could recommend literally dozens and dozens of series - I 
love British television, and there's so much of it. It's difficult to know 
what to recommend to somebody. What type of things interest you - period 
dramas, maybe? Stories that depict schools? Comedies (there are many 
wonderful British comedies). Hospital shows? Police shows? Detective shows? 
There's so much scope.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 02:50:58 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 02:50:58 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <6A72F08DE5B14F1386B623E0919C4358@ShaunPC>
Message-ID: <gr96ai+qugg@eGroups.com>

> From: "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...>
> 
> 
> > So, my question to you guys is whether you can recommend any really good 
> > series (british) which I should not miss.
> >
> > It does not matter if it is based on the book or not.
> 
Shaun: 
> Where do I begin?
> 
> OK - if you like 'The House of Elliott', I would definitely recommend 
> 'Upstairs, Downstairs'. Not a BBC series - it ran on Britain's ITV from 
> 1971-1975, it looks at the lives of an upper class British family (the 
> Bellamy's) and their servants in the period 1903-1930.


Alla:

Shaun, so good to hear from you!  Upstairs Downstairs was one of the recommendations that Netflix showed, so now I am definitely going to put it in my Q. Thank you.

Shaun: 
> Based on the fact you like 'To Serve Them All My Days' I would also strongly 
> recommend the 1971 BBC mini-series 'Tom Brown's Schooldays'. This is the 
> 'classic' British school story - not the first, but a fairly early one, and 
> probably the most famous. It's been made for film and TV a number of times. 
> There's a 2005 version from ITV which is quite good - but the 1971 series is 
> brilliant in my opinion.

Alla:

AHA, absolutely, will put this one on my list as well.


Shaun: 
> There are so many British TV series I would recommend in general. 'House of 
> Cards', 'To Play the King', and 'The Final Cut' are three sequential BBC 
> series from the 1990s, each of which explore the political career of a truly 
> evil and Machiavellian politician (and his wife who is even worse) who is 
> prepared to do anything, anything at all, to become Prime Minister and then 
> to hold onto office.
> 
> 'GBH' from Channel 4 in 1991 is another political drama series. This depicts 
> the Mayor (again, an evil politician who will stop at nothing) of a city in 
> Northern England and his conflict with a decent, honest, school teacher who 
> finds himself accidentally in opposition to him).

Alla:

Hmmm, do those shows have the characters I can sympathise with though? If the main character is evil evil, no matter how well it is done, I will probably pass on this one. Ah I see there is a teacher in opposition, maybe when I am done with these, I will take this one too.

Shaun: 
> You might also like 'All Creatures Great and Small' which began in the 1970s 
> and ran on and off into the 1990s and which depicts the life of a country 
> vet in the 1930s and 1940s.

Alla:

Sounds wonderful! Really wonderful, thank you.


Shaun: 
> The problem is, I could recommend literally dozens and dozens of series - I 
> love British television, and there's so much of it. It's difficult to know 
> what to recommend to somebody. What type of things interest you - period 
> dramas, maybe? Stories that depict schools? Comedies (there are many 
> wonderful British comedies). Hospital shows? Police shows? Detective shows? 
> There's so much scope.

Alla:

Well, what I want since indeed I am sure there is a lot to choose from is the very best, you know? Not just good, there is of course no time to see everything which is good. Any genre will do though except horror movies or series.




From drednort at alphalink.com.au  Sun Apr  5 04:02:43 2009
From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:02:43 +1000
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <gr96ai+qugg@eGroups.com>
References: <gr96ai+qugg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <F53BE85A05734EA1970D7BB72DF967F6@ShaunPC>

From: "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com>


> Shaun:
>> There are so many British TV series I would recommend in general. 'House 
>> of
>> Cards', 'To Play the King', and 'The Final Cut' are three sequential BBC
>> series from the 1990s, each of which explore the political career of a 
>> truly
>> evil and Machiavellian politician (and his wife who is even worse) who is
>> prepared to do anything, anything at all, to become Prime Minister and 
>> then
>> to hold onto office.
>>
>> 'GBH' from Channel 4 in 1991 is another political drama series. This 
>> depicts
>> the Mayor (again, an evil politician who will stop at nothing) of a city 
>> in
>> Northern England and his conflict with a decent, honest, school teacher 
>> who
>> finds himself accidentally in opposition to him).
>
> Alla:
>
> Hmmm, do those shows have the characters I can sympathise with though? If 
> the main character is evil evil,
> no matter how well it is done, I will probably pass on this one. Ah I see 
> there is a teacher in opposition,
>  maybe when I am done with these, I will take this one too.

GBH might be OK - the teacher is a very sympathetic character and the series 
is as much about him as anybody else. 'House of Cards' etc, probably not - 
nasty things happen to the sympathetic characters in that.

> Well, what I want since indeed I am sure there is a lot to choose from is 
> the very best, you know?
> Not just good, there is of course no time to see everything which is good. 
> Any genre will do though
> except horror movies or series.

The genres can be a bit mixed in some cases - especially given that in 
Britain some shows that are intended as series, rather than as mini-series, 
may nonetheless only have seven episodes (a standard British series 
(equivalent to a season in the US) tends to have 13 episodes, and there are 
quite a few 'half series' with only seven).

The following are my opinions, of course, although quite a few of them match 
general consensus quite well.

'Hope and Glory' (1999-2000 BBC) - this series revolves around a man who 
takes over as Head of a run down and struggling high school and turns it 
around.

'Foyle's War'  (2002-, ITV) - a detective series set during World War II.

'The Duchess of Duke Street' is another period drama in the same vein as 
House of Elliot, or Upstairs, Downstairs.

'Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister' - this is quite a long series, but every 
episode stands pretty much alone. Comedy, revolving around a government 
Minister (who later becomes Prime Minister) and his struggles to get his 
agenda past the public servants in his department (who would rather advance 
their agenda... or better yet, leave everything the same as it already is).

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Apr  5 06:52:56 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 06:52:56 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <gr8v2r+pcj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gr9kg8+bn6f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:

Alla:
> I also watched "To serve them all my days", in my opinion phenomenal series based on the book about the soldier who comes back from the first world war, having PTSD, who by recommendation of his neurologist tries to get a teaching job in the boarding school and well, stays there to teach. I highly recommend both movie and the book.

Geoff: 
Alla, I'm glad you met this series.

I've actually recommended it several times on the group!!!!

It's about a teacher working on Exmoor  and it's highly 
recommended by a retired teacher living on Exmoor.
:-)

As others have said, there is a list series as long as your arm.

One I would recommend which is runs to 7 series and 90 
episodes is "All Creatures Great and Small", based on a series 
of books about vets** working in the North of England from the 
1930s to the 1950s.

Glad you found "Yes minister"/"Yes Prime minister". I got the 
DVDs for these a year or so back. Howlingly funny, if you know 
anything about the British Civil Service system. Margaret Thatcher 
even wrote a spoof episode herself, she liked it so much!!!

Have you looked at http://epguides.com?

A marvellous site for this sort of thing.

Geoff

**veterinary surgeons of course....




From elfundeb at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 13:15:15 2009
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:15:15 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <gr6h59+piop@eGroups.com>
References: <b6e131bf0904031607j15757714ofdbb3bd48cbe2b42@mail.gmail.com>
	 <gr6h59+piop@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0904050615g50e89b62r2211bee4bc8afc60@mail.gmail.com>

Carol's original:
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the
taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers,
directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify
on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the
matters on which the person will testify.

Carol's rewrite:
I *think* this sentence means roughly, "If you are not a party to this court
but are subpoenaed to testify under oath, you may designate one or more
persons who consent to testify on your behalf and you may determine the
matters on which each person will testify."

Ali's rewrite:
If one is subpoenaed for the purpose of taking a deposition but is not
part of this suit, one can designate a party (or parties) to testify
on one's behalf and may direct the matter that said party will testify
on.
Debbie's defense of legalese:
I'm a lawyer and I'm going to defend the original example, even
though sometimes the complexity of sentences in statutes (and contracts)
makes my head spin.  Lots of legal writing could be made more
layperson-friendly.  The one Carol quoted is actually quite clear and
consisely written.  Sometimes in order to understand the meaning of a
provision of a particularly complex sentence in a statute or contract I have
to resort to the sentence-diagramming skills I was taught in junior high and
which I thought at the time were completely useless in the real world.
However, the drafter's objective is to convey the intended meaning with
precision, so that persons applying or interpreting those provisions will
carry out the intent of the drafters.

Both Carol's and Ali's rewrites sacrifice clarity for readability.  Each one
omits important information about the scope of the rule.  Neither Carol's
nor Ali's rewrite conveys the important points that (1) the rule allowing a
non-party who has been subpoenaed to designate persons to testify only
applies to non-natural persons, such as corporations, trusts, partnerships,
etc., or (2) the person designated (an individual) must be a person with a
position of responsibility for the organization.  (The phrase "or other
person" tacked onto the end of the list is generally interpreted to be
limited to encompass only individuals with a similar relationship to the
entity as the listed individuals and not to mean any other person in the
universe; otherwise the subpoenaed entity could designate someone who knows
nothing to testify.)  Also, Ali's rewrite uses the word "party" to refer to
the person designated to testify.  However, in the legal world 'party' means
the plaintiff and defendant in a lawsuit or the parties to a contract.
Carol's rewrite also does not make clear that the rule only applies to
depositions (which is not the same as testifying in court).  The sentence
doesn't explain what a deposition is, but most statutes and contracts have a
'definitions" section which lays out all of the jargon, legal and otherwise,
used in the contract and lets the reader know what the parties to the
contract intended them to mean.)  This makes the document clear, even though
it may be annoying for the reader to have to refer to the definitions
section.

I believe the legal profession has greatly improved in its ability to use
plain English.  It's been a very long time since I've seen anything like the
"party of the first part" and "party of the second part" gibberish that used
to be common.  For example, a real estate contract is likely to identify the
parties as the "Buyer" and "Seller" which laypersons should readily
understand.  Part of the reason contracts are still not clear to laypersons,
however, is jargon.  Using shorthand terms with well recognized legal
meanings makes the language more legally precise.  A definitions section
helps, although a layperson may require an additional explanation.  (This is
why homebuyers generally benefit from obtaining legal help.)

Some legal writing could be simplified but the legal world is still burdened
by English history.  For example, phrases with double adjectives that
essentially mean the same thing, e.g., "The property is free and clear of
all liens" are, I am told, a legacy of the fact that at the time the English
common law was developing the aristocracy spoke French while the common
people spoke only English; thus, descriptions would use both English- and
French-derived words for clarity.  There is obviously no need for that
today, but traditional phrasing with a well understood legal meaning is hard
to eliminate.

> ~Ali, who's off to DC and is hoping everyone who's near a cherry blossom
tree takes the time this weekend to celebrate the cherry blossom festival
and the coming of spring

Carol:
Enjoy the cherry blossoms!

Debbie:
Yes!  Enjoy!  It's a gorgeous day so maybe I will bike over and see them
myself.

Debbie
whose realizes that some of her sentences are very complex, and hopes that
they'll pass Carol's sharp editorial eye


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 14:23:07 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:23:07 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <gr8v2r+pcj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <graesb+7rdt@eGroups.com>

Alla:
> But I stumbled upon this movie by complete accident by browsing through Netflix recommendations lol and I am so glad I did.
> 
> The series I am watching now ( and even though I only watched three episodes, already in love with), called "House of Elliott" about two sisters who after the death of their father ( it is taking place in London in 1920) eventually go into dress design business.

Magpie:
Heh--it's funny that I'm surprised to hear you say you sumbled upon it because sometimes I assume anybody who's talked to me for more than 5 minutes must have heard me recommend it. I never miss a chance to praise it.:-) If you've only watched 3 eps you've got a lot of great TV ahead of you!!!

I like The Grand, too, about a hotel in the 1920s.

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 15:25:45 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:25:45 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <gr9kg8+bn6f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <graihp+v995@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> > I also watched "To serve them all my days", in my opinion phenomenal series based on the book about the soldier who comes back from the first world war, having PTSD, who by recommendation of his neurologist tries to get a teaching job in the boarding school and well, stays there to teach. I highly recommend both movie and the book.
> 
> Geoff: 
> Alla, I'm glad you met this series.
> 
> I've actually recommended it several times on the group!!!!
> 
> It's about a teacher working on Exmoor  and it's highly 
> recommended by a retired teacher living on Exmoor.
> :-)
>

Alla:

Heh, Geoff believe it or not I did think about you when I heard them saying Exmoor in the movie. No, I did not remember you recommending it unfortunately as I said it was a complete accident that I found these series.

I LOVE them. I also read the book and loved it and yes, couple of changes to the story annoyed me, but they do not take away from main storyline for the most part, so I still loved David's teaching battles and his obvious love for kids and I loved all the teachers. And heh, Howarth (sp?) reminded me of Snape the way I think Snape should have been if he gave a d*mn about kids.

And where where do you guys find soooo many talented actors? :-)

Geoff:
> As others have said, there is a list series as long as your arm.
> 
> One I would recommend which is runs to 7 series and 90 
> episodes is "All Creatures Great and Small", based on a series 
> of books about vets** working in the North of England from the 
> 1930s to the 1950s.
> 
> Glad you found "Yes minister"/"Yes Prime minister". I got the 
> DVDs for these a year or so back. Howlingly funny, if you know 
> anything about the British Civil Service system. Margaret Thatcher 
> even wrote a spoof episode herself, she liked it so much!!!
> 
> Have you looked at http://epguides.com?
> 
> A marvellous site for this sort of thing.
> 
> Geoff
> 
> **veterinary surgeons of course....
>


Alla:

Yes, I know what vet means :), I did study some British english before I came to US. Will definitely note these series, thank you :)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 15:29:29 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:29:29 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <graesb+7rdt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <graiop+esnb@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> > But I stumbled upon this movie by complete accident by browsing through Netflix recommendations lol and I am so glad I did.
> > 
> > The series I am watching now ( and even though I only watched three episodes, already in love with), called "House of Elliott" about two sisters who after the death of their father ( it is taking place in London in 1920) eventually go into dress design business.
> 
> Magpie:
> Heh--it's funny that I'm surprised to hear you say you sumbled upon it because sometimes I assume anybody who's talked to me for more than 5 minutes must have heard me recommend it. I never miss a chance to praise it.:-) If you've only watched 3 eps you've got a lot of great TV ahead of you!!!
> 
> I like The Grand, too, about a hotel in the 1920s.
> 
> -m

Alla:

I stumbled by accident on "To serve them all my days", but I guess this can be said about House of Eliott too (Netflix recs). No, you definitely did not mention it to me, heh.

I love two sisters already and the whole atmosphere, yes I am very much looking forward to the end of it.

I am annoyed that the ending is very abrupt though from what I read. They did not know that they are going to be cancelled and everything is up in the air, yes?

I do not mind uncertain ending, you know where nothing is resolved, but when it is clear that something will be resolved and is not, well, am annoyed.





From specialcritters at hotmail.com  Sun Apr  5 16:00:53 2009
From: specialcritters at hotmail.com (Lee Truslow)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:00:53 -0400
Subject: OT--U.S. Braille readers
In-Reply-To: <graiop+esnb@eGroups.com>
References: <graesb+7rdt@eGroups.com> <graiop+esnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY138-W5374E1239C6DD953983705B2870@phx.gbl>


Check out http://nfbsharebraille.org/ for the "Braille book swap;" I've given away about 20 books through them. What a great idea!! (I'm not sure if it's international, which is why I specify U.S.)









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Apr  5 16:34:30 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:34:30 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <graihp+v995@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gramim+mccr@eGroups.com>

Alla: 
> I LOVE them. I also read the book and loved it and yes, couple of changes to the story annoyed me, but they do not take away from main storyline for the most part, so I still loved David's teaching battles and his obvious love for kids and I loved all the teachers. And heh, Howarth (sp?) reminded me of Snape the way I think Snape should have been if he gave a d*mn about kids.
> 
> And where where do you guys find soooo many talented actors? :-)

Potioncat:
I read TSTAMD after one of Geoff's recommendations. I like the book better than the series. Like you Alla, Howarth reminded me of Snape.

And I agree with Alla's question, Where do all those wonderful actors come from? I would have asked sooner, but there's a sterotype that we Americans automatically think an actor with a British accent is a better actor. I've been watching more British productions over the past couple of years, and British actors seem to play a wider variety of roles than American actors. There seems to be no conceit about how they look. Imelda Stanton and Judi Dench have looked pretty horrible in movies, then looked great in following ones.
> 
> Geoff:
> > As others have said, there is a list series as long as your arm.
> > 
> > One I would recommend which is runs to 7 series and 90 
> > episodes is "All Creatures Great and Small", based on a series 
> > of books about vets** working in the North of England from the 
> > 1930s to the 1950s.

Potioncat:
I like both, books and series. Some of the accents are hard for me to understand--but that makes it all the more fun.

I caught a good portion of the recent David Copperfield the other week. It was discussed here not too long ago. What a gem! Except, I had to skip over some of the early scenes between David and his step-father--too horrible. But to make it worse, the character reminded me of Snape when he defended his actions.

Our household was playing "Where's the HP actor?" all though the movie. 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 17:36:04 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:36:04 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :) (SPOILERS for TSTAMD)
In-Reply-To: <gramim+mccr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <graq64+v3o3@eGroups.com>

> Alla: 
> > I LOVE them. I also read the book and loved it and yes, couple of changes to the story annoyed me, but they do not take away from main storyline for the most part, so I still loved David's teaching battles and his obvious love for kids and I loved all the teachers. And heh, Howarth (sp?) reminded me of Snape the way I think Snape should have been if he gave a d*mn about kids.
> > 
> > And where where do you guys find soooo many talented actors? :-)
> 
> Potioncat:
> I read TSTAMD after one of Geoff's recommendations. I like the book better than the series. Like you Alla, Howarth reminded me of Snape.

Alla:

If I had read the book after the series, I would have probably liked the series even better, heh. Since I read it in between waiting for the next disk arriving, I like it a bit better, but still like series a lot.

But again, it is only because of the changes in the plot and characterization, not because of acting and the screen play itself. Luckily, the main story I like the same, what I like less is how the series handled all the women in David's life except Beth.

Was it really necessary to imagine abusive relationship for Cristine? I mean I get that this way they could easier explain her not wanting to get married to David right away, but as I was talking to somebody about it, they quarrelled and who knows, maybe abuse was there, but I just do not see any indications of it on the page. Or to make Julia so cruel to tell David that she is leaving right after she slept with him instead of writing a letter?

And where the heck is Grace?

However the way they handled school and teachers and David in school makes me love these series dearly.

Yes, love Howarth, love the actor, not for a second doubted that he loved teaching, CARED for kids, sarcastic tongue or not. To me it is a big difference when teacher is sarcastic when you do not know the subject and otherwise cares about you as a human being or when he does not, heh. And OMG I loved Headmaster Herries (spelling?), but evil Headmaster was sooo well done too.


Potioncat:
> And I agree with Alla's question, Where do all those wonderful actors come from? I would have asked sooner, but there's a sterotype that we Americans automatically think an actor with a British accent is a better actor. I've been watching more British productions over the past couple of years, and British actors seem to play a wider variety of roles than American actors. There seems to be no conceit about how they look. Imelda Stanton and Judi Dench have looked pretty horrible in movies, then looked great in following ones.
<SNIP>


Alla:

This is the first time I hear that such stereotype exists, but if you say so, I am sure it is :)

However, I just do not care if it is a stereotype or not, you know?

Never in my life I would judge the actor better because actor has cute british accent (and I sure love the accents). I watch a lot of TV, or should I say used to watch lots of TV? Now I watch lots of rented movies mainly. And I form my opinion of the american TV actors versus british TV actors based on A LOT of the shows that I watched.

I have to say that for the most part I find british actors (and screen writers) to be much more capable bunch based on the results that I see on screen.

You make a good point about looks, which I totally agree with. Why the heck for example all the actors in the police show should look pretty? No, really, why? Do all policemen in RL look cute? I mean, the policemen that I see on the streets of NY look very very different, can we see something like that on TV? Well, apparently we can on British one, but not on american. They can all be models judged on what I see on the screen.

And of course the main part is acting. For the most part in american shows the actors, how to put it? In my opinion they do not act much.

When I watch the House of Eliott, I see two girls living in the London of 20s. When I watch I don't know, CSI? I do not see police officers or intelligence officers, or whoever, I see actors saying the lines, you know?

Oh I can rant for a long time. When I raved to somebody about Prime suspect, I received a recommendation of Closer, american police show. This is the only show that I so far noticed fantastic acting on american tv. I still do not think that it is written just as well, stories that it is, but the actors are great.

If anybody knows any others, please let me know.


When I was not working, I was watching soap operas on american daytime. Eh, do not get me started on those, really. Once upon a time I noticed an actor whose facial expressions actually changed, but that was not often.


And I do not want to knock down our actors, because really when I go see off Broadways and off off Broadways plays in New York, I always feel the same way, acting is fantastic. It seems to me that the lesser actor is known, the harder they work. Why, I have no clue.

Oh well, thanks for listening.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 17:38:35 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:38:35 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <graiop+esnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <graqar+l0ir@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> 
> I stumbled by accident on "To serve them all my days", but I guess this can be said about House of Eliott too (Netflix recs). No, you definitely did not mention it to me, heh.
> 
> I love two sisters already and the whole atmosphere, yes I am very much looking forward to the end of it.
> 
> I am annoyed that the ending is very abrupt though from what I read. They did not know that they are going to be cancelled and everything is up in the air, yes?
> 
> I do not mind uncertain ending, you know where nothing is resolved, but when it is clear that something will be resolved and is not, well, am annoyed.

Magpie:
Yes, it's totally up in the air, and clearly mean to be resolved but isn't. I guarantee that even if you know you're watching the last ep you'll feel compelled to check and make sure there aren't more.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 17:40:12 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:40:12 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <gr6hou+o3c1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <graqds+pe25@eGroups.com>

Potioncat wrote:
> Granted, it wasn't fiction, but I used to write auditing reports in passive voice. It helped to avoid phrases like, "This nurse reviewed the chart...in this nurse's opinion..." We were able to write "The medical records were reviewed. yada yada. It was determined that all charges were accurate and appropriate."

Carol responds:
Passive voice does have its uses, especially when the action is more important than the person (or animal or thing) performing the action. But it's also a way to hide responsibility when things go wrong, which is why government and business reports usually use it. But in fiction or personal essays, it's usually a flaw, as any editor or English teacher will tell you.

Carol, wondering *who* determined that those charges were accurate and appropriate and whether that person was right





From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Apr  5 17:41:53 2009
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 5 Apr 2009 17:41:53 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/5/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1238953313.14.1119.m1@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday April 5, 2009
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2009 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20090405/fa1eb93d/attachment.html>

From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 17:45:59 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:45:59 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :) (SPOILERS for TSTAMD)
In-Reply-To: <graq64+v3o3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <graqon+bgp2@eGroups.com>


> Potioncat:
> > And I agree with Alla's question, Where do all those wonderful actors come from? I would have asked sooner, but there's a sterotype that we Americans automatically think an actor with a British accent is a better actor. I've been watching more British productions over the past couple of years, and British actors seem to play a wider variety of roles than American actors. There seems to be no conceit about how they look. Imelda Stanton and Judi Dench have looked pretty horrible in movies, then looked great in following ones.
> <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> This is the first time I hear that such stereotype exists, but if you say so, I am sure it is :)
> 
> However, I just do not care if it is a stereotype or not, you know?
> 
> Never in my life I would judge the actor better because actor has cute british accent (and I sure love the accents). I watch a lot of TV, or should I say used to watch lots of TV? Now I watch lots of rented movies mainly. And I form my opinion of the american TV actors versus british TV actors based on A LOT of the shows that I watched.
> 
> I have to say that for the most part I find british actors (and screen writers) to be much more capable bunch based on the results that I see on screen.

Magpie:
I think it's a combination of things. One of which, regarding looks, is that the aesthetic of British TV is definitely kind of character actors where as US TV and movies often really do go for looks first. I mean, it's not like there aren't mediocre or basically bad British actors--I remember one time reading about a UK actress who made it big in the US and she basically came here because she would have more of a chance because she was a knockout, which didn't really fit the aesthetic of UK productions at the time. She wasn't a good actress, either. 

Maybe also there's a lot more productions in the US? So a group of good actors would be mixed into a larger pool? I have read that people assume that training in England=more skilled. But the same is also true for NYC. An acting coach once mentioned that to me, that New York is the US's "talent town"--plenty of good actors getting solid theater training. I remember when I was a kid there were actually a lot of good people on soaps who did the show during the day and then did theater at night. Now soaps have become more focused on young, beautiful people.

I think the "star" thing is probably also a big thing. A movie star is different from a great actor, though they can crossover and be both. But stardom also encourages people to play to their types rather than be chameleons who play different types of roles. Unless somebody's stardom is based on really being a great actor and crossing that line. But again you've got the actors known for being skilled mixed into a wider pool maybe.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 17:47:50 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:47:50 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <gr6ic8+lc6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <graqs6+uhjn@eGroups.com>

Potioncat:
> We have WORD at work, but it doesn't include medical terms. Oh boy, some of the suggestions are a riot. Every now and then I've hit "change" in a rush and come out with a useless piece of writing. My favorite was when the computer wanted to my patient to her "paleontologist." I'm sure she wasn't that old!
> 
> (Carol, check out the . and the " ")  ;-)

Carol responds:
The quotation marks are correct, but you've left out a word. Should it be "wanted to *send* my patient to her 'paleontologist'"? What should the word have been?

Carol, whose e-mail spell check also makes wacky suggestions





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 18:05:53 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:05:53 -0000
Subject: Run-on sentences
In-Reply-To: <3591e0870904041122r3a97e59ema52cb4113332681@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <graru1+n7kc@eGroups.com>

aleta wrote:> 
> I have always disliked this rule (and willingly disobey it) because it is illogical.
> It seems to me that if the quotation is not the entire sentence, then the period - which is intended to signal the end of the sentence - should go outside the quotation marks. Why do we have a different (silly, I think) rule for that anyway? Do you know the history there?
> 
> Aleta
>
Carol responds:
I don't know the history, but I'm sure that the reason behind the rule is simply consistency. If you know that commas and periods go to the left of the quotation marks (inside the quotation marks if you're talking about end punctuation), you'll get it right every time without thinking about it. With exclamation marks and question marks, you have to ask yourself whether the mark of punctuation is part of the dialogue/quotation or part of the main clause. With commas and periods, you just automatically type the mark of punctuation first and then type the quotation marks. Simple and easy to learn. Spelling isn't logical, either, but if you fight it because it isn't logical, you'll just confuse your reader or cause him or her to think you can't spell.

Carol, who thinks that in certain situations (such as business letters), it's best to follow the rules of punctuation, logical or not, because you want the reader to see that you know them




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Apr  5 18:21:41 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:21:41 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <graqds+pe25@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grasrl+1043@eGroups.com>

 
> Carol, wondering *who* determined that those charges were accurate and appropriate and whether that person was right
>

Potioncat:
Oh, I see your point, but the way the full report was written, it made sense. There's a section that identifies the patient, the provider (doctor, hospital whatever) dates and the name of the nurse auditor. The nurse and her/his supervisor signed the report.

Now that I think about it, I don't know why we just didn't write, "I audited the records--yada yada--I determined...."

None of our competitors did either. They were the ones who would write, "This nurse reviewed the records....In this nurse's opinion..."






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 18:35:02 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:35:02 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <gr96ai+qugg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gratkm+rnbk@eGroups.com>


> Shaun: 
> > You might also like 'All Creatures Great and Small' which began in the 1970s and ran on and off into the 1990s and which depicts the life of a country vet in the 1930s and 1940s.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Sounds wonderful! Really wonderful, thank you.

Carol responds:
I remember "All Creatures Great and Small"--a delightful series based on an autobiographical book by James Herriott (I think that's a pseudonym, but I'm not sure). One of the main characters, Siegfried Farnon (Herriott's boss), is played by a much younger Robert Hardy (Cornelius Fudge). He has a younger brother named Tristan, which gives you an idea of the taste in reading of their parents! I think it's set in the 1930s. I remember having trouble understanding some of the characters because of their accents, but the stories themselves were usually either funny or touching.

Carol, who owns the book and its sequels and finds them perfect for light reading at bedtime




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 18:48:25 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:48:25 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :) (SPOILERS for TSTAMD)
In-Reply-To: <graqon+bgp2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <graudp+cnk5@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
> I think it's a combination of things. One of which, regarding looks, is that the aesthetic of British TV is definitely kind of character actors where as US TV and movies often really do go for looks first. 

Alla:

Well yes and I am saying that I like the aesthetic based on character actors better than aesthetic that goes for the looks first. Not that I have anything against watching a cute guy or girl on TV mind you, just think that when police station looks like modelling agency it is sort of silly. Sure, I saw cute guys in uniform, I am just doubting that police station or ANY work place consists ONLY of beatiful people. Sigh.

Magpie:
I mean, it's not like there aren't mediocre or basically bad British actors--I remember one time reading about a UK actress who made it big in the US and she basically came here because she would have more of a chance because she was a knockout, which didn't really fit the aesthetic of UK productions at the time. She wasn't a good actress, either. 
>

Alla:

I am sure there are plenty of bad British actors of course. I am just saying that percentage wise, based on what I see on TV, I saw significantly less bad british actors, you know?

Magpie:
> Maybe also there's a lot more productions in the US? So a group of good actors would be mixed into a larger pool?

Alla:

This totally makes sense to me.

Magpie:
 I have read that people assume that training in England=more skilled. But the same is also true for NYC. An acting coach once mentioned that to me, that New York is the US's "talent town"--plenty of good actors getting solid theater training. I remember when I was a kid there were actually a lot of good people on soaps who did the show during the day and then did theater at night. Now soaps have become more focused on young, beautiful people.

Alla:

See I am out of touch with this stereotype as I said - that training in England means more skilled, I am just describing my opinion based on what I see on TV ( or DVD for that matter).

But agreed that soaps are focused on young and beatiful now, almost do not watch them, but catch on Soapnet sometimes when switching channels. I should say young, beatiful with wooden expressions too. I remember thinking when somebody was playing a sad scene, that when you are playing sad scene, your facial expression should sort of reflect that.

Magpie:
> I think the "star" thing is probably also a big thing. A movie star is different from a great actor, though they can crossover and be both. But stardom also encourages people to play to their types rather than be chameleons who play different types of roles. Unless somebody's stardom is based on really being a great actor and crossing that line. But again you've got the actors known for being skilled mixed into a wider pool maybe.


Alla:

OH YES. With this I totally agree that stardom encourages playing types and does not equal great actors necessarily. Now I do not feel qualified to form an opinion as to american stars v british stars ( did not watch nearly enough british big screen movies for that), but I would certainly say that american talented stars get mixed into wider pool of ... not.

For example I am not sure why Kianu Reeves ever became famous if the acting talent is any indication.

I know Robert De Niro can play a type, I am not sure what else can he play, etc, etc.

When I saw Richard Chamberlain on Broadway in the Sound of Music several years ago, I was so so so dissapointed.


However, when I see Kevin Spacey, I think he is extremely talented for example and I like that he plays different types. And I was so smitten with him in the "Moon for misbigotten(sp?)" on Broadway.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 19:05:25 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:05:25 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :) (SPOILERS for TSTAMD)
In-Reply-To: <graudp+cnk5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gravdl+4pmm@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> 
> OH YES. With this I totally agree that stardom encourages playing types and does not equal great actors necessarily. Now I do not feel qualified to form an opinion as to american stars v british stars ( did not watch nearly enough british big screen movies for that), but I would certainly say that american talented stars get mixed into wider pool of ... not.
> 
> For example I am not sure why Kianu Reeves ever became famous if the acting talent is any indication.
> 
> I know Robert De Niro can play a type, I am not sure what else can he play, etc, etc.
> 
> When I saw Richard Chamberlain on Broadway in the Sound of Music several years ago, I was so so so dissapointed.
> 
> 
> However, when I see Kevin Spacey, I think he is extremely talented for example and I like that he plays different types. And I was so smitten with him in the "Moon for misbigotten(sp?)" on Broadway.

Magpie:
Yeah, it's a really interesting balance to hit. I remember one British actor, I forget who (I think Jennifer Saunders?), but they actually felt like it was a skill that US TV could put together comedies full of pretty people like Friends. It wasn't just that they thought the UK was sort of above that or more focused on character types, it was something she didn't think it did well when it tried.

But I agree on preferring more character types--which is something I think is just getting worse in the US and didn't always exist. Character actors are great and brings more interesting faces to the screen that you can look at. 

Though that does lead to typecasting in itself. Bob Hoskins looks one way--he can cross over from US back to the UK, but he's usually the working class guy. It's always cool, though, when an actor turns out to find some other dimension to their type. Like where somebody's known as a type and then it turns out they also lend themselves to another type of part too. 

Oh, also, have you seen The Singing Detective? Starring a young current Dumbledore.:-)

-m




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Apr  5 20:26:51 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:26:51 -0000
Subject: Grammar, and a couple of other bits
Message-ID: <grb46b+41ev@eGroups.com>

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38988>:

<< wondering why Goddlefrood and others would classify his sentence as a run-on when nothing is run together >>

I expect they're thinking of the phrase 'run on at the mouth', which means not pausing to allow other people a turn to speak.

Carol in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38989> quoted Potioncat from Main List about Dog Latin:

<< (barco, barcas barcat..) >> 

Isn't that something about Hannibal and Hamilcar?

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39001>:

<< in American English (as opposed to British English) the quotation marks follow the period even if you're just quoting a word or phrase >>

If I had the energy, I would do my usual rant against putting extraneous punctuation inside the quotation marks. If the punctuation is not part of the matter being quoted, then putting it inside the quotation marks is a LIE, a false attribution to the person being quoted, and just plain inaccurate. I believe that truth and accuracy are far more important than following stupid rules.

Aleta wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39021>:

<< I have always disliked this rule (and willingly disobey it) because it is illogical. It seems to me that if the quotation is not the entire sentence, then the period - which is intended to signal the end of the sentence - should go outside the quotation marks. >>

Hurray! You are so right!

<< Why do we have a different (silly, I think) rule for that
anyway? Do you know the history there? >>

I don't know the truth, but I have read that this rule came from movable type. It claimed that typesetters didn't like to make separate pieces of type for little dot and comma, so they cast type with dot-quote and comma-quote on one piece, and didn't want to have to also cast quote-dot and quote-comma.

Geoff wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39026>:

<< "All Creatures Great and Small", based on a series of books about vets** working in the North of England from the 1930s to the 1950s. (snip) **veterinary surgeons of course.... >>

An excuse to repeat that when I was a young child, I got the words 'veteran' and 'veterinarian' confused and thought that holiday in November was Veterinarian's Day. I also confused the words 'typhoon' and 'tycoon'...

I read All Creatures Great and Small when I was in high school, and it first came out in US paperback. Thinking back on it, I don't recall having noticed any Great Depression going on. 





From d2dmiles at yahoo.de  Sun Apr  5 21:06:25 2009
From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 23:06:25 +0200
Subject: Run-on sentences
References: <graru1+n7kc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E607847B7F0E439D91F4B89615B1DBCF@miles>

First I wanted to write something about how Germans love to interleave their 
sentences. But Mark Twain did a much better job in describing it ;).

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Awful_German_Language

Miles, who thinks that short sentences, if they include all information, 
both formal and informal, that is meant to be given, can be sufficient. But 
where's the fun? :) 





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Apr  5 22:20:13 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:20:13 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <gratkm+rnbk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grbaqt+qe3q@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

 Shaun: 
> > > You might also like 'All Creatures Great and Small' which began in the 1970s and ran on and off into the 1990s and which depicts the life of a country vet in the 1930s and 1940s.

> > Alla:

> > Sounds wonderful! Really wonderful, thank you.

Carol:
> I remember "All Creatures Great and Small"--a delightful series based on an autobiographical book by James Herriott (I think that's a pseudonym, but I'm not sure). One of the main characters, Siegfried Farnon (Herriott's boss), is played by a much younger Robert Hardy (Cornelius Fudge). He has a younger brother named Tristan, which gives you an idea of the taste in reading of their parents! I think it's set in the 1930s. I remember having trouble understanding some of the characters because of their accents, but the stories themselves were usually either funny or touching.

Geoff:
Just for accuracy's sake, as I said in my earlier post,  there were 7 seasons 
and 90 episodes. The seasons ran from 1978-80 and from 1988-90 with 
three special episodes, a couple in the mid-1980s and a final one-off at 
Christmas 1990.

The time scale of the TV series was from the 1930s well to the 1950s - 
there are episodes set around the time of the Coronation in 1953 for 
example.

Tristan is played by Peter Davison who also achieved fame as one of 
the Doctor Who incarnations.

James Herriott is indeed a pseudonym. He was really James Alfred Wight, 
a vet who lived from 1916-1995. He actually wrote about a dozen books 
about "his" world as a vet, the first published in 1970.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 23:15:07 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:15:07 -0000
Subject: Dresden files book 11 comes out on Tuesday April 7.
Message-ID: <grbe1r+sebg@eGroups.com>

SQUEEEEEEEEE. Sorry just felt like saying it :). Just saw that Amazon already shipped my preorder and soooo can't wait.

Alla




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 23:43:02 2009
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:43:02 -0000
Subject: Grammar, and a couple of other bits
In-Reply-To: <grb46b+41ev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grbfm6+fe56@eGroups.com>

> Carol:
> << wondering why Goddlefrood and others would classify his 
sentence as a run-on when nothing is run together >>

"Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
> I expect they're thinking of the phrase 'run on at the mouth', 
which means not pausing to allow other people a turn to speak.

Goddlefrood:

For myself I can say, absolutely not. I wasn't thinking of 
anything else but what I had already written to Carol off-
list. It wasn't a particularly great joke that I had made 
at main as there was no reference for those not in the know.

I never run on at the mouth, as my modest 10s of thousands 
of words posts of the distant past would clearly attest.





From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 23:55:24 2009
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:55:24 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <gr8v2r+pcj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grbgdc+g26u@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> So, my question to you guys is whether you can recommend any really good series (british) which I should not miss.

Goddlefrood:

There's some excellent detective drama out there. A brief list:

(i) Poirot with David Suchet - made by Granada television.
(ii) Miss Marple with Joan Hickson - BBC I think, but could 
have been one of the independents.

Both these are good adaptations of Christie's original and have 
superb ensemble casts, including many huge stars such as Donald 
Pleasance and Eliot Gould.

(iii) Inspector Morse - Carlton television production
(iv) Lewis - the further adventures of Morse's former sergeant.

Both based on characters created by and books by Colin Dexter. 

(v) Campion based on Margery Allingham's books starring Peter 
Davidson.

(vi) Between the Lines.

(vii) The list

(viii) could go

(ix) on and on, and include Porridge, Dad's Army, Fawlty Towers 
etc.

(x) but won't.

British TV deserves its high reputation, even if more recent fare 
has not been quite as good as some of the above.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 23:58:37 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:58:37 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <grbgdc+g26u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grbgjd+63ds@eGroups.com>

> Goddlefrood:
> 
> There's some excellent detective drama out there. A brief list:
> 
> (i) Poirot with David Suchet - made by Granada television.
> (ii) Miss Marple with Joan Hickson - BBC I think, but could 
> have been one of the independents.
> 
> Both these are good adaptations of Christie's original and have 
> superb ensemble casts, including many huge stars such as Donald 
> Pleasance and Eliot Gould.
> 
> (iii) Inspector Morse - Carlton television production
> (iv) Lewis - the further adventures of Morse's former sergeant.
> 
> Both based on characters created by and books by Colin Dexter. 
> 
> (v) Campion based on Margery Allingham's books starring Peter 
> Davidson.
> 
> (vi) Between the Lines.
> 
> (vii) The list
> 
> (viii) could go
> 
> (ix) on and on, and include Porridge, Dad's Army, Fawlty Towers 
> etc.
> 


And Prime Suspect of course!

-m




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Mon Apr  6 02:38:40 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:38:40 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <6A72F08DE5B14F1386B623E0919C4358@ShaunPC>
Message-ID: <grbpvg+f4c8@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <drednort at ...> wrote:
>
> From: "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...>
> 
> 
> > So, my question to you guys is whether you can recommend any really good 
> > series (british) which I should not miss.
> >
> > It does not matter if it is based on the book or not.
> 
> 
> Where do I begin?
> 

My preferences are British comedies.

There are so many of them that I've seen over the years, but here is a list of the ones I really like.
 
Are You Being Served.
Keeping Up Appearances.
Last Of The Summer Wine.
Red Dwarf.
The new versions of Dr. Who.  I love Dr. Who.  Forgive my lack of memory, but the one who plays Bartie Crouch plays the Dr. and the lady who plays Moaning Mertle is in season 2.
Waiting For God.
Mr. Bean.
As Time Goes By
'Allo.  'Allo.
Black Adder.
Supernova.  There are two different kinds.  Be sure it's the comedy one.  




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  6 02:54:59 2009
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:54:59 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :) (SPOILERS for TSTAMD)
In-Reply-To: <graqon+bgp2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grbqu3+3a8j@eGroups.com>

> > > Potioncat:
> > > And I agree with Alla's question, Where do all those wonderful actors come from? I would have asked sooner, but there's a sterotype that we Americans automatically think an actor with a British accent is a better actor. ...

> > Alla:
> > ...
> > I have to say that for the most part I find british actors (and screen writers) to be much more capable bunch based on the results that I see on screen.

> Magpie:
> I think it's a combination of things. One of which, regarding looks, is that the aesthetic of British TV is definitely kind of character actors where as US TV and movies often really do go for looks first. I mean, it's not like there aren't mediocre or basically bad British actors-- ...

Kemper now:
One bad British actor that emotely comes to mind is Emma Watson.  At one time, Daniel Radcliffe was almost as bad, and while I've come to enjoy him more as an actor it wasn't necessarily from the HP movies even though I feel he was fairly decent in the fifth.

Going back to Alla's original request, I recommend HBO/BBC's 'Extras'.  (<--- I, too, think the period should be on the outside of the parenthetical when it is an object rather than a statement.) The show is about two movie extras.  Each episode has a well known actor playing a caricature of themselves.  It is only two seasons long with each season being 6 thirty minute eps.  Ricky Gervais created/wrote/starred in it.  I am probably only a hand full of people who did not like BBC's 'The Office'.  I also find it mostly difficult with some few exceptions to watch Ricky Gervais when he is being himself.  He is way too much coke for my mary jane.  But I quite like this show.  It is funny, uncomfortable and a little tender.  My favorite eps are from the second season.  Daniel Radcliffe is the guest star in one ep and it's off-set fantasy fun.  The other ep has Sir Ian McKellen and it's a fleet filled with awesome.

Kemper




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  6 03:05:41 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:05:41 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :) (SPOILERS for TSTAMD)
In-Reply-To: <grbqu3+3a8j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grbri5+bbaj@eGroups.com>

> Kemper now:
> One bad British actor that emotely comes to mind is Emma Watson.  At one time, Daniel Radcliffe was almost as bad, and while I've come to enjoy him more as an actor it wasn't necessarily from the HP movies even though I feel he was fairly decent in the fifth.

Alla:

Well, as I mentioned I really do not feel qualified to make a comparison of American big screen actors v British big screen actors, for that I did not watch enough British big screen movies. I was making a comparison american tv actors v british tv actors, which to me as a whole comes down in favor of british tv actors, IMO of course.

So, while I disagree with you somewhat about Daniel Radcliffe's acting ability as of today, I think he became very good, not just decent, I will certainly pass on making comparison.

Kemper:
> Going back to Alla's original request, I recommend HBO/BBC's 'Extras'.  <SNIP>


Alla:

Thanks, will definitely put it on my list.




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  6 03:51:00 2009
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:51:00 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <grbgjd+63ds@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grbu74+nodo@eGroups.com>

> > Goddlefrood:
> > There's some excellent detective drama out there. A brief list:

> Magpie:
> And Prime Suspect of course!

Goddlefrood:

That goes without saying, which is why, er, I didn't mention it. 
Oops.




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  6 03:56:39 2009
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:56:39 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :) (SPOILERS for TSTAMD)
In-Reply-To: <grbqu3+3a8j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grbuhn+sh6m@eGroups.com>

> Kemper now:
> I am probably only a hand full of people who did not like BBC's 
'The Office'.

Goddlefrood;

Count me in, what a load of old bo****ks.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Apr  6 06:30:55 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:30:55 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <grbpvg+f4c8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grc7iv+p2df@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose01us" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:

The new versions of Dr. Who.  I love Dr. Who.  Forgive my lack of memory, but the one who plays Bartie Crouch plays the Dr. and the lady who plays Moaning Mertle is in season 2.

Geoff:
David Tennant. 

He's stepping down this year after a couple of specials.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Apr  6 06:35:52 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:35:52 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :) (SPOILERS for TSTAMD)
In-Reply-To: <grbuhn+sh6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grc7s8+lovr@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at ...> wrote:
>
> > Kemper now:
> > I am probably only a hand full of people who did not like BBC's 
> 'The Office'.
> 
> Goddlefrood;
> 
> Count me in, what a load of old bo****ks.

Geoff:
Make that three. Perhaps two handfuls?
:-)

Mark you, I am sensitive to what I call "cringe factor".  Some series 
just leave me cold ,- "The Office" is one.

An example of "cringe factor" is the interplay between Harry and 
Dobby at their first meeting in COS - especially in the film.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  6 16:56:30 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:56:30 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0904050615g50e89b62r2211bee4bc8afc60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <grdc7u+6nga@eGroups.com>

elfundeb wrote:
>
> Carol's original:
> Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify.

Carol responds:
Just for clarification, I didn't write this sentence. I found it online. I couldn't have invented it. I don't speak legalese. I could probably have found a better (or, rather, a worse) example, but I didn't want to take the time.
> 
> Carol's rewrite:
> I *think* this sentence means roughly, "If you are not a party to this court but are subpoenaed to testify under oath, you may designate one or more persons who consent to testify on your behalf and you may determine the matters on which each person will testify."

<snip>

> Debbie's defense of legalese:
> I'm a lawyer and I'm going to defend the original example, even though sometimes the complexity of sentences in statutes (and contracts) makes my head spin.  Lots of legal writing could be made more layperson-friendly.  The one Carol quoted is actually quite clear and consisely written.  <snip> However, the drafter's objective is to convey the intended meaning with precision, so that persons applying or interpreting those provisions will carry out the intent of the drafters.

> Both Carol's and Ali's rewrites sacrifice clarity for readability.  Each one omits important information about the scope of the rule.  Neither Carol's nor Ali's rewrite conveys the important points that (1) the rule allowing a non-party who has been subpoenaed to designate persons to testify only applies to non-natural persons, such as corporations, trusts, partnerships, etc., or (2) the person designated (an individual) must be a person with a position of responsibility for the organization. <snip> Carol's rewrite also does not make clear that the rule only applies to depositions (which is not the same as testifying in court).  

Carol responds:
While I agree that many examples of legalese are less clear and less concise than this one, I disagree that it's "quite clear and concise." Clarity and readability are essentially the same thing, or, at least, clarity is the primary and most important element of readability. I think you mean that the legalese is necessary for *precision* as opposed to clarity. The lawyers who formulate these contracts want their meaning to be unmistakable *by other lawyers.* My concern, in contrast, is intelligibility to the average person on the street, the nonslawyers who so often sign contracts without a clue as to what they are signing.

Elfundeb:

The sentence doesn't explain what a deposition is, but most statutes and contracts have a 'definitions" section which lays out all of the jargon, legal and otherwise, used in the contract and lets the reader know what the parties to the contract intended them to mean.)  This makes the document clear, even though it may be annoying for the reader to have to refer to the definitions section.

Carol responds:
Jargon is the whole problem. We shouldn't need a definitions section. That was why I reworded "subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition" as "subpoenaed to testify under oath," which reflects my (undoubtedly faulty) understanding of what a deposition is.

My question is, how would you rewrite the original sentence in plain English that a non-lawyer would understand? No jargon allowed. :-) 

Elfundeb: 
> I believe the legal profession has greatly improved in its ability to use plain English. <snip> Using shorthand terms with well recognized legal meanings makes the language more legally precise. 

Carol responds:
Using shorthand terms with meanings that are well recognized by members of the legal profession may well make such writing More *legally* precise, but that's not the same as "plain English," which can be understood by any fifteen-year-old or even twelve-year-old native English speaker. Sure, getting rid of "party of the first part" is a good beginning, but the legal profession could go a lot further toward writing that is simultaneously precise (for the benefit of lawyers and, possibly, their clients) and clear (for the benefit of the rest of us).

Elfundeb:
> A definitions section helps, although a layperson may require an additional explanation.  (This is why homebuyers generally benefit from obtaining legal help.) <snip>

Carol responds:
Homebuyers wouldn't need legal help if contracts were written in plain English.
> 
Debbie:
>  There is obviously no need for that today, but traditional phrasing with a well understood legal meaning is hard to eliminate.

Carol responds:
No doubt, but that doesn't mean it *shouldn't* be eliminated (rather like pollution and litter and, IMO, the Electoral College). Lawyers who *can* write in language that's both precise (for the legal profession) and clear (for everyone else) should do so. There's no justification for retaining traditional phrasing that serves neither purpose.
> 
> Debbie
> whose realizes that some of her sentences are very complex, and hopes that they'll pass Carol's sharp editorial eye

Carol:

Your sentences are fine, and I understand your reasoning. I just want to know what the sentence I quoted *means* in plain English, which is why I asked for a translation. Can you find a compromise that a lawyer would approve of (precise and complete, covering all bases) but which is simultaneously clear to a layperson? And I'd also appreciate it if you could give me a definition of "deposition" that I'll remember so that I can add the word to my vocabulary *and* be able to spit out a definition on demand if someone asks me for one. (I'm very bad at that; I'll use a word whose meaning I understand perfectly well, but I'll be at a total loss to define it or even explain what it means.)

Carol, wishing she could have memorized everything she would ever need to know before she turned twenty
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  6 17:25:26 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:25:26 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <graq64+v3o3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grddu6+lrk4@eGroups.com>

Alla wrote:
<snip>
> It seems to me that the lesser actor is known, the harder they work. Why, I have no clue. <snip>

Carol responds;
Could it be because a less well-known actor (male or female) *has* to work harder to get a job whereas a big-name actor can ask for and receive a ridiculously big paycheck (probably more money per minute than most people would earn in a decade) because he or she is a big box office draw?

But I've also noticed that certain character actors (for example, Julie Walters), in contrast to lead actors, blend into their roles so well that viewers don't recognize them. Many lead actors (say, Tom Hanks or Kate Winslett) are so well-known that it's hard to forget that they're actors playing a role, and some of them (Tom Hanks more than Kate Winslett) always seem to play themselves. If you watch old movies from the fifties and sixties, you'll see the same thing with, say, John Wayne and Charlton Heston. (I have a hard time watching old films because the acting is so far from naturalistic.)

That's even true of lesser-known actors. Last Sunday, I watched the first installment of "Little Dorritt" on PBS, and all I could think of was that the lead male actor was the same person who played Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice" (the 2005 production with Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett). I had to look up his name (Michael Macfayden), but I knew that face.

Carol, who missed last night's episode of "Little Dorritt" and doesn't know whether it's a faithful adaptation because that's one Dickens novel she hasn't read





From heidi8 at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 18:50:03 2009
From: heidi8 at gmail.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:50:03 -0400
Subject: Full/Merlin's Circle Registrations for Azkatraz - Almost Sold Out!
Message-ID: <5913e6f80904061150i195e3a31xf785a56687aa75fe@mail.gmail.com>

Spring is here, bringing us even closer to AZKATRAZ. Soon we will be posting
all the wonderful presentations that will be part of our formal programming.
We're sure that with it will come even more people wanting to register for
the full weekend of fun, beginning Friday morning and ending Tuesday.
AZKATRAZ can accomodate multitudes for the programming tracks, so there is
no need to worry about missing out on your favorite presentations even if
you or your friends can't yet register.

We have had such a tremendous response from everyone for seats at the
AZKATRAZ Welcoming Feast and Leaving Brunch that we are nearing the hotel's
capacity. These meals are included in your basic Full Registration and
Merlin's Circle levels. Our enlarging spells don't work on the banquet hall,
and thus we regret to say that we will have to cut off these levels of
registration at a combined total of 800. This leaves room for a few more
extra seats as well, for family or friends without a registration, or
additional special guests added closer to the event itself.

The kitchen elves are already getting the tables ready, and the remaining
seats won't last long, so get yours before they are claimed. To compensate
for those who still want to participate in the full weekend, we will be
adding a special 5-day pass as soon as we meet our capacity on the meals.
This 5-day pass will equal a full registration with the exception of the
meals, and thus will be available for a special reduced price of $130. Day
passes will continue to be available for $45 per day and you can still
purchase them for one, two or all three of the major programming days
(Saturday, Sunday, and Monday) with no disruption or change.

Again, thank you all for your overwhelming support and for making Azkatraz
the place to be this summer.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Apr  6 22:01:33 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:01:33 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <grdc7u+6nga@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grdu3t+43bb@eGroups.com>


> Carol responding to Deb's post:
> 
> Your sentences are fine, and I understand your reasoning. I just want to know what the sentence I quoted *means* in plain English, which is why I asked for a translation. Can you find a compromise that a lawyer would approve of (precise and complete, covering all bases) but which is simultaneously clear to a layperson? 

Potioncat not Deb:
Who was the intended audience for the original sentence? (Was it really only a sentence?)

I was thinking that all of us have very specific areas of interest or training. Most of those areas come with their own vocabulary. Farmers, plumbers, nurses, lawyers, quilters, cooks, HPfGUers all use phrases or words that others wouldn't understand. A good cookbook would come with a glossary. At least it better, because I'm not sure if I'm simmering or boiling, dicing or chopping, and I haven't a clue at how to carmelize. Yet, the wording in a cookbook might depend whether if it was intended for lay people or for professional chefs. Might the same be true of a legal document?

While I speak medicalese with my fellow health care professionals, I also have to be able to communicate that information to the patient, but on a different level. The lay person doesn't need all my vocabulary or all the information--just the part he needs to make an informed decision.

So maybe what you need isn't a translation, but an explanation of the material. I'm trying to compare the medical profession to the legal profession. Beta blockers to Ace inhibitors--or is that apples to oranges. How a doctor might dictate the actual steps of an operation for the medical record are different and more detailed than how he would explain the same procedure to the patient.

Carol and I have commented off list about blown-up use of medical-talk. It can make for a boring, dry read if over done. I'm sure that's true of any jargon. Again, the intended audience should drive the wording being used.

In my very first year of nursing I had to ask a child to provide a urine specimen. I needed to speak in English, but was confined by my own prim up-bringing.

She clearly did not understand my first effort, "I need you to give me a urine specimen in this container." 

"Please go into the bathroom and make water in this container" seemed to work better. You guessed it, she came back with the specimen bottle filled with water.

At this point her parent stepped in and said, "Go pee in the cup."

Potioncat, who had to learn an awful lot.




From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Tue Apr  7 04:19:55 2009
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:19:55 EDT
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Dresden files book 11 comes out on Tuesday April 7.
Message-ID: <c64.444cec18.370c2e6b@aol.com>

     
 


In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:16:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes:

SQUEEEEEEEEE. Sorry just felt like saying it :). Just saw that  Amazon 
already shipped my preorder and soooo can't  wait.

Alla
 
Mine will be here sometime in the next ten days. It is my  selection this 
month from BOMC.
 
Sandy


**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221421323x1201417385/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  8 02:58:29 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:58:29 -0000
Subject: Dresden files book 11 comes out on Tuesday April 7.
In-Reply-To: <c64.444cec18.370c2e6b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <grh3sl+lvhf@eGroups.com>

> Mine will be here sometime in the next ten days. It is my  selection this 
> month from BOMC.
>  
> Sandy
> 


Alla:

I just finished mine :(. 




From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Wed Apr  8 03:35:01 2009
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:35:01 EDT
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Dresden files book 11 comes out on Tuesday April 7.
Message-ID: <d5d.37cb582a.370d7565@aol.com>

     
 


Alla:

I just finished mine :(. 
 
Sandy:
 
Wow! That was fast! Wish I could read that  fast.





**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221421323x1201417385/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From elfundeb at gmail.com  Wed Apr  8 12:01:48 2009
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:01:48 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <grdc7u+6nga@eGroups.com>
References: <80f25c3a0904050615g50e89b62r2211bee4bc8afc60@mail.gmail.com>
	 <grdc7u+6nga@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0904080501v49f2093eq2cc727c02859d55e@mail.gmail.com>

Carol responds:
Just for clarification, I didn't write this sentence. I found it online. I
couldn't have invented it. I don't speak legalese. I could probably have
found a better (or, rather, a worse) example, but I didn't want to take the
time.

Debbie:
I didn't mean to create the impression you wrote the original.  My lack of
precision was at fault. But it looks like a procedural rule that is meant to
be read and applied by the lawyers representing the parties in a lawsuit.

Carol responds:
While I agree that many examples of legalese are less clear and less concise
than this one, I disagree that it's "quite clear and concise." Clarity and
readability are essentially the same thing, or, at least, clarity is the
primary and most important element of readability. I think you mean that the
legalese is necessary for *precision* as opposed to clarity. The lawyers who
formulate these contracts want their meaning to be unmistakable *by other
lawyers.*

Debbie:
I'm not sure I would characterize the language used in that snippet as
legalese.  The sample uses no words whose meanings (as used in the
snippet) can't be found in an ordinary dictionary.  And it is consise; I
can't think of any way to pack in as much meaning with fewer words.

Carol responds:
Jargon is the whole problem. We shouldn't need a definitions section. That
was why I reworded "subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition" as
"subpoenaed to testify under oath," which reflects my (undoubtedly faulty)
understanding of what a deposition is.

Debbie:
The purpose of a definitions section is to make sure that everyone agrees on
the meaning of terms used in the document.  Too many words are susceptible
to more than one meaning, or one of the parties may have a faulty
understanding of the actual meaning.  Including a definitions section is
intended to clear up that ambiguity.

I think jargon is unavoidable, and useful.  If, for example, my doctor was
explaining a disease to me, I would expect him/her to use medically
appropriate terms.  I would want them explained, but I would want to use
accurate terminology myself.

Carol responds:
My concern, in contrast, is intelligibility to the average person on the
street, the nonslawyers who so often sign contracts without a clue as to
what they are signing.

Debbie:
This is a different problem.  People need to read contracts before they sign
them, and they need to ask about anything they don't understand.  I insist
on reading anything I'm asked to sign, and I don't take people's word for
what it says.  Many people don't want to be bothered to understand the
concepts that underlie the documents they are signing, and it's reached the
point where documents are pushed under people's noses along with a pen as if
they are *expected* to sign them without reading them.  At the closing of my
most recent house purchase (which really wasn't that recent) one of the real
estate agents expressed exasperation because all the parties insisted on
reading every document before signing, and actually asked questions about
the purpose and effect of each one.  In fact, everyone should do this, and
good lawyers make sure their clients read and understand the documents.

Carol:
Homebuyers wouldn't need legal help if contracts were written in plain
English.

Debbie:
What is wrong with seeking appropriate professional assistance?  Laypersons
aren't experts on the law, or in writing contracts.  I wouldn't diagnose my
own illnesses, or repair my own car.  I wouldn't even draft my own will.  I
hired a trusts & estates lawyer who explained what the law allows me to do,
what the consequences are of different options, and what I would need to do
to make the will legally effective, and I hired a lawyer when I purchased my
house. Laypersons need advice on what steps need to be taken (recording,
etc.) to make the sale effective and to make sure there are not surprises
(such as withholding on sale proceeds).

I don't disagree that some contracts and statutes are badly written, but
that's a function of the writing skills of the drafter.

Carol:
I just want to know what the sentence I quoted *means* in plain English,
which is why I asked for a translation. Can you find a compromise that a
lawyer would approve of (precise and complete, covering all bases) but which
is simultaneously clear to a layperson?

Debbie:
Here's the best I can do at a plain English translation:

"If an organization that is not a party to this suit is served with a order
of the court directing the organization to give out-of-court testimony under
oath, the organization shall designate one or more officers, directors or
other responsible person, who consent to testify on behalf of the
organization, and shall designate the matters on which each person will
testify."

A deposition is testimony given by a witness under oath, but outside of
court. Parties to litigation will want to take depositions of the other
party's witnesses before trial to discover what they are likely to testify
to at trial. Usually, if not always, a verbatim transcript is prepared.  At
trial they can be used on cross-examination to impeach a witness whose trial
testimony is different than what the person said in the deposition.
Sometimes they can be admitted as evidence if the witness is unavailable.

Further affiant sayeth not.  (Translation: I have said all I have to say.)

Debbie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  9 02:37:03 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:37:03 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0904080501v49f2093eq2cc727c02859d55e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <grjn0f+6or4@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> Just for clarification, I didn't write this sentence. I found it online. I couldn't have invented it. I don't speak legalese. I could probably have found a better (or, rather, a worse) example, but I didn't want to take the time.
> 
> Debbie:
> I didn't mean to create the impression you wrote the original.  My lack of precision was at fault. But it looks like a procedural rule that is meant to be read and applied by the lawyers representing the parties in a lawsuit.

Carol:
Actually, as I tried to post in a long and detailed response to Potioncat, it's part of the standard format for a subpoena used (with slight variations) by a variety of U.S. courts. And to answer Potioncat's question in brief, a subpoena is addressed to the person or organization that receives it. The quoted section is preceded by about four sentences (often with boxes that may or may not be checked), all of which begin (rather terrifyingly) with "YOU ARE COMMANDED"  in capital letters. So the person being addressed is the subpoenaed citizen, not a lawyer.

Here's a link to a typical subpoena containing the quoted passage:

http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/civil/subpoena.pdf

Debbie:
> I'm not sure I would characterize the language used in that snippet as legalese.  The sample uses no words whose meanings (as used in the snippet) can't be found in an ordinary dictionary.  And it is consise; I can't think of any way to pack in as much meaning with fewer words.

Carol:
As I said, I could have chosen a better example, and I've already attempted to make it clearer and more concise (using "you," which is used repeatedly elsewhere in the subpoena, so I see no reason not to use it here).

Maybe you could find us a better example of legalese, preferably a contract of some sort that an ordinary person would have to sign. (BTW, today I was *made* to initial a new portion of my lease agreement that specifies that I have to pay a certain amount per item if I don't clean specified items before I move out. I should have protested that I've already signed the lease and these forms should not be presented after the fact, but I just had a run-in with the manager over their decision to inconvenience everyone by paving the parking lot and not giving us anywhere else to park. I guess my only recourse is to find another place to live after my lease expires. Idiot me; I should have stood up for my rights, but I didn't know what to say!
> 
Carol earlier:
> Jargon is the whole problem. We shouldn't need a definitions section. That was why I reworded "subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition" as "subpoenaed to testify under oath," which reflects my (undoubtedly faulty) understanding of what a deposition is.
> 
Debbie:
> The purpose of a definitions section is to make sure that everyone agrees on the meaning of terms used in the document.  Too many words are susceptible to more than one meaning, or one of the parties may have a faulty understanding of the actual meaning.  Including a definitions section is intended to clear up that ambiguity.

Carol:
I'm aware of the purpose of a definitions section, but it wouldn't be needed if the contract were worded unambiguously in plain English in the first place. 

Debbie: 
> I think jargon is unavoidable, and useful.  If, for example, my doctor was explaining a disease to me, I would expect him/her to use medically appropriate terms.  I would want them explained, but I would want to use accurate terminology myself.

Carol:
I think I said (but maybe it was in the post I lost!) that jargon (gobbledygook) is different from legitimate technical terms, which, of course, need to be defined for most lay people. For example, if a patient is diagnosed with herpes zoster, he might panic if he's not told that it's not what we think of as herpes but shingles, a very painful condition but at least not one that a man like my father (who suffered from it) would be ashamed of.

But jargon is *needlessly* complicated language. Policemen are fond of saying something like, "The officer discharged his firearm" when they mean "the policeman fired his revolver." Weathermen talk about "precipitation in the form of rain" when they mean simply "rain" or a "an emergency weather situation" when they mean a flood or hurricane. I don't know why jargon has proliferated in the last few decades, but maybe it's for the same reason that legal and government documents are still obscurely worded. The lawyers and politicians want documents that only they can understand; the policemen want to join the club and sound "sophisticated," too, and the weathermen want to sound like scientists, another exclusive "club."
> 
Carol earlier:
> My concern, in contrast, is intelligibility to the average person on the street, the nonslawyers who so often sign contracts without a clue as to what they are signing.
> 
> Debbie:
> This is a different problem.  People need to read contracts before they sign them, and they need to ask about anything they don't understand.  I insist on reading anything I'm asked to sign, and I don't take people's word for what it says.  Many people don't want to be bothered to understand the concepts that underlie the documents they are signing, and it's reached the point where documents are pushed under people's noses along with a pen as if they are *expected* to sign them without reading them.  At the closing of my most recent house purchase (which really wasn't that recent) one of the real estate agents expressed exasperation because all the parties insisted on reading every document before signing, and actually asked questions about the purpose and effect of each one.  In fact, everyone should do this, and good lawyers make sure their clients read and understand the documents.

Carol:
But a person buying a house or leasing an apartment shouldn't need to have a lawyer present--and shouldn't be pressured to sign a ten- or fifteen-page document without being given the time to do so. And the document should be worded so that taking the time to read it pays off, meaning that the person actually *understands* the document. It's not a different problem, but it may be an extension of the problem. It's certainly an application of the problem in real life.

Another, less pressing but still important, application of the problem is the language of the propositions (initiatives and referenda) that citizens vote on in elections. I'm quite sure that most people, even those who show up at the polls, don't take the time to read the propositions, but those of us who do should be able to understand them without getting a headache. And I don't mean just people like me who have a PhD in English. I mean people with a high school diploma or even an eight-grade education who are out there voting on these propositions without necessarily understanding them.
> 
> Carol:
> Homebuyers wouldn't need legal help if contracts were written in plain English.
> 
> Debbie:
> What is wrong with seeking appropriate professional assistance?

Carol:
Time? Money? Convenience? People should be able to buy a home or lease an apartment without assistance. I can't afford to hire a lawyer to go with me every time I sign a new lease. I wish I could. Instead, I read or skim the paper shoved in front of me, but I sign it because I have to. I can't afford to be thrown out on the street because I've "violated" my lease or have refused to sign it. (If only my sister the lawyer lived next door!)

Debbie:
> Laypersons aren't experts on the law, or in writing contracts. <snip>

Carol:
I'm not saying that laypersons should *write* contracts, only that contracts should be written so that laypersons know what they're signing without the aid of a lawyer, just as they should know the disease they're diagnosed with without the aid of a medical dictionary. I'm not saying that they should heal themselves, either. Of course, we need experts who know more than we do about the law and medicine and even car repair. But we have the right not to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous real estate companies, leasing agencies, doctors, and mechanics. 

Plain English is our right and our friend. Leave technical terms to the specialists, and let jargon (pretentious, useless, pseudotechnical language) die a painful death.

Deb:
> I don't disagree that some contracts and statutes are badly written, but that's a function of the writing skills of the drafter.

Carol:
I think it's a "function" of the delusion we're under that contracts should be long, boring, and unintelligible. Reading them should not be an exercise in futility; it should be useful and productive. If the writers were encouraged to use plain English, including, wherever possible, the active voice, we wouldn't be having this discussions.
> 
> Carol:
> I just want to know what the sentence I quoted *means* in plain English, which is why I asked for a translation. Can you find a compromise that a lawyer would approve of (precise and complete, covering all bases) but which is simultaneously clear to a layperson?
> 
> Debbie:
> Here's the best I can do at a plain English translation:
> 
> "If an organization that is not a party to this suit is served with a order of the court directing the organization to give out-of-court testimony under oath, the organization shall designate one or more officers, directors or other responsible person, who consent to testify on behalf of the organization, and shall designate the matters on which each person will testify."

Carol:
I give up, then. That's neither concise nor clear, it's not plain English, and it's very similar to but longer than the original wording. And, as I said, the subpoena is addressed to "you," so I see no reason why the organization that isn't party to the suit should not also be addressed as "you." I still prefer my version.

Debbie: 
> A deposition is testimony given by a witness under oath, but outside of court. Parties to litigation will want to take depositions of the other party's witnesses before trial to discover what they are likely to testify to at trial. 

Carol:
Okay, I understand the first sentence. But I thought that depositions were taken by lawyers, not by the "parties to litigation" (people or organizations involved in the lawsuit).

Debbie:
Usually, if not always, a verbatim transcript is prepared. 

Carol:
Do you mean that the lawyer who takes the deposition tape records it and a clerk or assistant types up the transcript from the tape? (Passive voice again. who prepares it and how?)

Debbie:
> At trial they can be used on cross-examination to impeach a witness whose trial testimony is different than what the person said in the deposition. Sometimes they can be admitted as evidence if the witness is unavailable.

Carol:
I thought "impeach" meant to put an elected official on trial to determine whether he should be removed from office. How are you using it here? (I could look it up, of course, but I'm hoping to get you to put it in plain English as I did with "parties to litigation." I have a feeling that you're so used to legalese that it reads like plain English to you.

Debbie: 
> Further affiant sayeth not.  (Translation: I have said all I have to say.)

Carol:
Oh, dear. I was hoping for a response to this post. Oh, well. At least you quoted a beautiful example of traditional legalese and translated it into plain English. i appreciate that.

Carol, who thinks that we should all say what we mean and mean what we say, preferably without resorting to specialized vocabularies and definitely without resorting to jargon
>




From Mhochberg at aol.com  Thu Apr  9 02:49:25 2009
From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:49:25 -0400
Subject: Dresden files book 11 comes out on Tuesday April 7.
Message-ID: <8CB86D4EDC333F4-FD4-174C@FWM-D07.sysops.aol.com>

Thank you all for letting me know about the Dresden files. I wasn't familiar with them until I saw it on this list. There is a long waiting list at my local library but I do I have a lot to look forward to.

I watched the tv series made from the books and I could see that there was a lot missing. 

---Mary


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Thu Apr  9 05:25:00 2009
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 01:25:00 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <grjn0f+6or4@eGroups.com>
References: <80f25c3a0904080501v49f2093eq2cc727c02859d55e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <grjn0f+6or4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0904082225w75ae59e6ic29b0140728eb88a@mail.gmail.com>

Carol:
> I'm aware of the purpose of a definitions section, but it wouldn't be needed
> if the contract were worded unambiguously in plain English in the first
> place.
<<<SNIP>>>
> I think I said (but maybe it was in the post I lost!) that jargon
> (gobbledygook) is different from legitimate technical terms, which, of
> course, need to be defined for most lay people. For example, if a patient is
> diagnosed with herpes zoster, he might panic if he's not told that it's not
> what we think of as herpes but shingles, a very painful condition but at
> least not one that a man like my father (who suffered from it) would be
> ashamed of.

Ali:
I don't understand.  If you're all right with a doctor using
"legitimate technical terms," then why is it not all right for a
lawyer to use them?  It's about precision.  Contracts/legal documents
pertain to people's lives, and I firmly believe in precision of
language when it concerns something important.

In your example of shingles vs herpes zoster, you forget that shingles
is simple another terms.  What if I didn't know what shingles was
either?  I could accuse you of using jargon (much like using
deposition), but it's just that you're being precise (though herpes
zoster is still more precise than shingles).  A *doctor* is required
to explain things like shingles, just as a lawyer should be consulted
to explain what a deposition entails, and in the same vein, you can
consult a dictionary for both definitions but they're not normal
things a layperson would be required to know.

On top of that, trying to rewrite jargon into "plain English" would
just result in something significantly longer, especially if you were
unwilling to give up precision.  For example, the piece that you,
Carol, cited would need to be rewritten in such a way as to explain
every last term in order to get it into plain English and not
sacrifice precision.  Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I had
no problems reading and understanding my lease when I rented my apt,
but that was 10 pgs or so.  If that number exploded to 40 or so pages
just so it was in plain English, my first instinct would be to just
sign my name, and while I've trained myself out of that habit, I know
far more people who are more inclined to read a 10 pgs document that
they half understand than a 40 pgs document that they will totally
understand - people are odd like that.  My lease was written as close
to plain English as it could get, but in the end, it's still a legally
binding document, a contract between two parties, and frankly, in that
situation, I value precision far more than my ability to understand
the document (because had I not understood the document, you can bet I
would've been asking questions).

Like Deb said, a badly written document is the fault of the person
writing it, but otherwise, why knock precision?  We don't say anything
about economists for throwing around terms like CPI, GDP, supply and
demand, etc because those terms have come to be more well known, but
there seems to be altogether too much willingness to mock legalese
(because lawyers seems to have become the butt of jokes in America).

What's so great about plain English anyway?  It's ridiculously
imprecise.  It's like the difference between using weights and ratios
to bake instead of volume.  One is significantly better (the
weights/ratio, in case you can't tell) than the other, but the other
is somewhat more convenient so we stick with it because it usually
works.

Carol, please don't read any of this as an attack in any way; I am
really trying to understand your point, mainly because it is so
foreign a thought to me, but I'm not quite sure of your distinction
between plain English vs jargon vs specialized language.  Where's the
line?  And how do we maintain precision but still not make completely
unwieldy documents that absolutely no one (including lawyers) will
read?


> Carol, who thinks that we should all say what we mean and mean what we say,
> preferably without resorting to specialized vocabularies and definitely
> without resorting to jargon

Ali:
I do agree with this.  We should say what we mean and mean what we
say.  BUT for me, stool sample and deposition are examples of saying
exactly what I mean.  Saying something like "they're a 501(c)3" is
immensely more useful than just saying "they're a nonprofit that you
can donate money to and take a tax exemption" - it's shorter and very,
very precise.  Or as the TV weather anchor just said, a LEEDS building
is far more precise than a "green" building - though one does sort of
refer to the other, LEEDS explains more than just green.

If I am to say what I mean, then I mean to be as precise as possible.
When people ask me if it's warm outside, I usually cite a temperature
instead of yes or no.  Precision.  I'm a big fan.  :)

~Ali, who hopes this email still makes sense toward the end (it's 1am
and my eyes are trying to close themselves without my permission)



From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  9 05:29:04 2009
From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (lizzie_snape)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:29:04 -0000
Subject: BBC movie series recommendations please :)
In-Reply-To: <grddu6+lrk4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grk130+c14d@eGroups.com>

A detective series recommendation:

Granada's Sherlock Holmes series starring Jeremy Brett as the 'first consulting detective' is great especially the first two or three seasons.  The producers kept to Conan Doyle's stories as much as possible for a TV adaptation although the later episodes suffered from budget cuts, a new producer, and Mr. Brett's illness.  Brett's Holmes was a bit (!) eccentric, but still truer to the character (IMO) than any of the newer actors.

Lizzie




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  9 18:08:31 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:08:31 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0904082225w75ae59e6ic29b0140728eb88a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <grldiv+e9pp@eGroups.com>

Jkoney
---All: God save your majesty!


Cade:
I thank you, good people?there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.


Dick:
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.


Cade:
Nay, that I mean to do.


Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71?78 

What a great idea.

> Ali:
> I don't understand.  If you're all right with a doctor using
> "legitimate technical terms," then why is it not all right for a
> lawyer to use them?  It's about precision.  Contracts/legal documents
> pertain to people's lives, and I firmly believe in precision of
> language when it concerns something important.

jkoney
As an accountant who specializes in retirement plans, I can assure you that lawyers are the least precise people you'll ever meet. 

They won't argue about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" but they will argue exactly what a pin is, what the head of a pin is, what constitutes dancing, what an angel is and how can it be proven, etc.

Precision in an understandable language would be much better than the way most contracts are written. 

>Ali 
>snip
> On top of that, trying to rewrite jargon into "plain English" would
> just result in something significantly longer, especially if you were
> unwilling to give up precision.  

jkoney
That is not true. You can be precise and explain things just as easily in "plain English" as you can in legalese. You wouldn't have to rewrite Carol's citation explaining each word, but write it so more common words are used in place of the technical terms. This is done all the time. The instructions you receive for your lawnmower/dishwasher/dryer/oven/stero/computer, etc. are written (at least the better ones) using terms that people understand. I have friends who are engineers and I can get them to tell me what something is in plain english. I would think that lawyers would be able to do that also.

jkoney (who needs to get back to work, but will try to get back here later on)







From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Apr  9 19:44:20 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:44:20 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <grldiv+e9pp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grlj6k+a6jo@eGroups.com>

> jkoney
> That is not true. You can be precise and explain things just as easily in "plain English" as you can in legalese. You wouldn't have to rewrite Carol's citation explaining each word, but write it so more common words are used in place of the technical terms. This is done all the time. The instructions you receive for your lawnmower/dishwasher/dryer/oven/stero/computer, etc. are written (at least the better ones) using terms that people understand. I have friends who are engineers and I can get them to tell me what something is in plain english. I would think that lawyers would be able to do that also.

Magpie:
Of course, some would say that posts on HP4GU would be a lot easier to understand if they didn't include our own jargon--fandom in general also has specialized language. It may seem more difficult the first time you read it, but it really is easier, imo. Especially if one has come up with a word for something you need a word for in fandom, but never did outside of fandom. Specialized language sometimes gets created artificially (I remember a professor telling us once that film studies, in particular, had a lot of specialized language because it was a new subject and technical language was an attempt to legitimize it) but sometimes is just necessary and easier for the people who use it. So the language develops naturally, like any other dialect.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  9 20:42:35 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:42:35 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0904082225w75ae59e6ic29b0140728eb88a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <grlmjr+jllf@eGroups.com>

-
> Ali:
> I don't understand.  If you're all right with a doctor using "legitimate technical terms," then why is it not all right for a lawyer to use them? <snip>

Carol responds:
A doctor would use legitimate technical terms in communicating with other doctors, nurses, etc. When he's communicating with a patient, he might use the technical name of the disease or condition but he'd also give the common name, if any, and explain the symptoms, treatment, and, if applicable, the patient's life expectancy (plain English for "prognosis") in clear and simple terms. He's also, I hope (though too often it's not the case) use his best bedside manner. (Read "he or she" for all the masculine pronouns here!)

A lawyer has or should have the same obligation to his or her client--make the client's obligations and all possible outcomes of the suit or trial as clear and simple as possible. And that entails speaking to the client in plain English and defining any unavoidable legal terms. (For example, I learned a long time ago what a writ of habeas corpus is but I've forgotten everything except the literal Latin translation, the scary-sounding "you have the body.")

Of course, lawyers and judges can communicate with one another in legalese, but they should remember that legalese is unintelligible to the average person. And, again, there's a difference between legitimate and unavoidable technical terms (which need to be defined for the layperson) and just plain jargon, which is unavoidable but easy to fall into for people who don't care about clarity and conciseness (not to mention grace, which I don't suppose a lawyer or doctor would consider though, surprisingly, some historians and scientists who write for the general public do value that quality).

Ali:
  It's about precision.  Contracts/legal documents pertain to people's lives, and I firmly believe in precision of language when it concerns something important.

Carol:
But surely precision is compatible with intelligibility. Why not have both?

Ali:
> On top of that, trying to rewrite jargon into "plain English" would just result in something significantly longer, especially if you were unwilling to give up precision.  

Carol:
Not necessarily. Passive voice is notably *imprecise* because it doesn't specify the doer of the action. It also generally results in circumlocution, which is both wordy and imprecise. And if you don't agree that legalese does just that, how about bureaucratese?

Ali:
<snip> I value precision far more than my ability to understand the document (because had I not understood the document, you can bet I would've been asking questions).

Carol:
As I said, precision and intelligibility are not incompatible qualities. In fact, the goal of good writing (in plain English) is to achieve both goals simultaneously. And by plain English, I don't mean one- and two-syllable words. I mean clear, direct statements, preferably in the active voice, using words that the average person with a high school education will have no difficulty understanding (and free of grammatical errors, typos, and any other sort of error). (This post is, I hope, and example of that sort of writing--except that it may contain typos. <smile>)
> 
> Like Deb said, a badly written document is the fault of the person writing it, but otherwise, why knock precision?  

Carol:
I'm not knocking precision. I'm knocking wordiness, indirectness, jargon and other qualities of bad writing that interfere with intelligibility.

Here's an example of jargon (not legalese but educationalese) from a handout for class I once took in Reading Education. (I now understand why I don't recall a single thing I "learned" in that class:

"Inferential comprehension [is] demonstrated when [a] student uses the ideas and information explicitly stated in a selection, his intuition, and his personal experience as a basis for conjectures and hypotheses. Inferences drawn may be either convergent or divergent in nature and [the] student may or may not be asked to verbalize the rationale underlying his inferences."

I would rewrite this egregious passage more or less like this:

"A student demonstrates inferential comprehension when he forms conjectures and hypotheses by combining the information explicitly stated in the reading material with his intuition and personal experience. The inferences he draws need not necessarily follow a logical sequence [or whatever "convergent" and "divergent" mean], and the student may or may not be asked to state the reasoning behind his assumptions." 

Sidenote: It's almost never necessary to say "in nature" or "in shape" or "in color" as these phrases are redundant and self-evident.

Ali:
> We don't say anything about economists for throwing around terms like CPI, GDP, supply and demand, etc because those terms have come to be more well known, but there seems to be altogether too much willingness to mock legalese (because lawyers seems to have become the butt of jokes in America).

Carol:
I'm not mocking legalese or making jokes about it. I have the greatest respect for reputable lawyers, my sister among them. Nor is legalese the only example of the problems that jargon in any form causes for the general public (although contracts and ballot propositions do affect us directly even if we don't vote or don't read them). Just because a form or phrase is traditional in the legal field or any other doesn't mean that it shouldn't be questioned. Nor are lawyers the worst offenders. Sociological jargon has penetrated deeply into the American consciousness. Local newscasters now speak of traffic accidents causing "issues" for drivers. Weathermen (calling themselves "meteorologists" whether or not they have a degree in meteorology) and policemen are also prone to jargon. So are teachers in many fields. (Try reading an article in a nursing education journal, for example.)

Ali: 
> What's so great about plain English anyway?  It's ridiculously imprecise.  It's like the difference between using weights and ratios to bake instead of volume.  One is significantly better (the weights/ratio, in case you can't tell) than the other, but the other is somewhat more convenient so we stick with it because it usually works.

Carol:
How so? Maybe we're defining plain English differently. I'm defining it as ordinary English devoid of slang, jargon, clich?s, euphemisms, circumlocutions, and wordy constructions like "due to the fact that" for "because," in combination with clear, direct statements in the active voice--the kind of English that I strive for when I'm editing a nonfiction work. Good writing is not only clear and concise but precise as well. Those qualities, as I've already stated twice, are not mutually exclusive. Good prose is also coherent, concrete--a trait conspicuously lacking in legalese, bureaucratese, educationalese, medicalese, and all the other jargons we're exposed to--and correct [in the sense of grammatically and factually correct as well as correctly spelled and punctuated]. (Ideally, good prose writing, whether fiction or nonfiction, is also colorful and graceful--not strained or overly descriptive or clich?d--but, of course, we're not looking for color or grace in the utilitarian prose of legal documents or medical journals or treaties.)
> 
> Carol, please don't read any of this as an attack in any way; I am really trying to understand your point, mainly because it is so foreign a thought to me, but I'm not quite sure of your distinction between plain English vs jargon vs specialized language.  Where's the line?  And how do we maintain precision but still not make completely unwieldy documents that absolutely no one (including lawyers) will read? <snip>

Carol:
I hope that I've made my meaning clear in this post. If not, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, it's interesting that many scientists (not Stephen Hawking!) manage to escape the shackles of scientific terminology and write beautiful books for the general public. They don't sacrifice precision for intelligibility. They manage both, sometimes admirably. I don't expect lawyers (and doctors and businesspeople and politicians) to write beautifully, at least not in official documents, but surely they can write clearly and concisely without sacrificing precision. (Actually, businesspeople and bureaucrats could do with a great deal more precision!)

Carol, who thinks that your goal and mine, far from being incompatible, are actually mutually desirable





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  9 20:52:24 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:52:24 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <grlmjr+jllf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grln68+ifjv@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:

"(This post is, I hope, and example of that sort of writing--except that
it may contain typos. <smile>)"

Carol again:

Sheesh! Have you ever noticed that when you talk about typos in a post, you invariably commit one?

I meant "an example," of course!

Carol, expecting two editing projects at once in the near future but still waiting, waiting, waiting. . . .




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 10 17:41:38 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:41:38 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
Message-ID: <gro0ci+lce2@eGroups.com>

So now I am curious, since I consider myself to be pretty well versed (at least on the basic level) with all sort of religious mythos.

I wonder if somebody could give me the example of the deity who not only died and was resurrected, but did so to save other people. The example of such God or Godlike figure dying for **any** sort of good for another people will do.

Thanks,

Alla





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Apr 10 22:11:37 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:11:37 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <gro0ci+lce2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grog6p+k17o@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:

Alla:
> So now I am curious, since I consider myself to be pretty well versed (at least on the basic level) with all sort of religious mythos.
> 
> I wonder if somebody could give me the example of the deity who not only died and was resurrected, but did so to save other people. The example of such God or Godlike figure dying for **any** sort of good for another people will do.

Geoff:
Alla, your request has left me somewhat puzzled.

The parameters which you set out are exactly those which 
define the very core of the Christian faith and which have 
been discussed on Main. Jesus was God in human form, 
he died and rose again and did so to bring salvation to 
those who believe in him and accept his sacrifice.

Surely that fulfils all the criteria you need?





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 10 22:42:00 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:42:00 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grog6p+k17o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grohvo+rb88@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> > So now I am curious, since I consider myself to be pretty well versed (at least on the basic level) with all sort of religious mythos.
> > 
> > I wonder if somebody could give me the example of the deity who not only died and was resurrected, but did so to save other people. The example of such God or Godlike figure dying for **any** sort of good for another people will do.
> 
> Geoff:
> Alla, your request has left me somewhat puzzled.
> 
> The parameters which you set out are exactly those which 
> define the very core of the Christian faith and which have 
> been discussed on Main. Jesus was God in human form, 
> he died and rose again and did so to bring salvation to 
> those who believe in him and accept his sacrifice.
> 
> Surely that fulfils all the criteria you need?
>


Alla:

Sorry Geoff, I thought I was clear especially in light of discussion on Main, that I meant besides Jesus. Sorry for not being clear.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Apr 10 22:52:31 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:52:31 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grohvo+rb88@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <groijf+k88h@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Alla:
> > > So now I am curious, since I consider myself to be pretty well versed (at least on the basic level) with all sort of religious mythos.
> > > 
> > > I wonder if somebody could give me the example of the deity who not only died and was resurrected, but did so to save other people. The example of such God or Godlike figure dying for **any** sort of good for another people will do.
> > 
> > Geoff:
> > Alla, your request has left me somewhat puzzled.
> > 
> > The parameters which you set out are exactly those which 
> > define the very core of the Christian faith and which have 
> > been discussed on Main. Jesus was God in human form, 
> > he died and rose again and did so to bring salvation to 
> > those who believe in him and accept his sacrifice.
> > 
> > Surely that fulfils all the criteria you need?
 
Alla:
> 
> Sorry Geoff, I thought I was clear especially in light of discussion on Main, that I meant besides Jesus. Sorry for not being clear.

Geoff:
Ahhh.

<pinging sound and a light bulb appears in a thought bubble over his head>

Right. Good. OK.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 11 01:25:47 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:25:47 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <gro0ci+lce2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grorir+bgk4@eGroups.com>

Alla wrote:
>
> So now I am curious, since I consider myself to be pretty well versed (at least on the basic level) with all sort of religious mythos.
> 
> I wonder if somebody could give me the example of the deity who not only died and was resurrected, but did so to save other people. The example of such God or Godlike figure dying for **any** sort of good for another people will do.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alla
>
Carol responds:
Great question, Alla. I don't know of any deity (besides Christ) who fits your criteria, but I can tell you that Dionysus (or Dionysos, to use the Greek spelling) definitely. He was ritually sacrificed as a child, which is a very different thing from deliberate self-sacrifice to save others (or the whole world, like Christ). Here's a quote from a very interesting and well-researched website on Dionysos:

http://www.dionysia.org/greek/dionysos/thompson/dionysos.html

"According to the myth, as a young child, Dionysos was kidnapped by the Titans, who lured him with marvellous toys. While he is gazing at his own image in a mirror, the Titans slice his throat with a sacrificial knife. The child-Dionysos is then cut up into pieces and first boiled, then roasted. Zeus is attracted by the smell of cooking, and when he realises what is being cooked, he kills the Titans with a thunderbolt and resurrects Dionysos. According to some variants of the story, man then first appeared, born from the ashes of the burned Titans. So Dionysos is the god who dies and is reborn, and from his death... his sacrifice, for the Titans follow correct sacrificial procedure when killing him, humanity comes into being."

Of course, the creation of humanity is an unintended consequence of what amounts to Dionysos's murder, not the reason he died, which he certainly did not choose to do.

And Dionysos is no loving god setting an example of ideal behavior for his followers:

"Death forms a major part of the worship of Dionysos. <snip> Dionysos, by contrast [with the other Greek gods], seems to revel in human sacrifice. There are a number of myths which involve women who he has driven mad as punishment who tear apart their children with their bare hands and later, occasionally, eat them. The best known example is that of Agave in the Bacchants. Agave is running wild on the mountain with the rest of the women of Thebes, having been driven mad by the god, who is fighting to establish his worship in this city. Her son Pentheus, who opposes Dionysos, is lured by the god into going to spy on the women. Agave and her sisters rush upon Pentheus and tear him apart with their bare hands, scattering the pieces of his body over the mountainside. Dionysos's worship is thus established by the simple means of killing the opposition."

Nothing Christlike there (and heaven forfend if Harry Potter is a Dionysus figure rather than a Christ figure)!

Osiris, like Dionysos, was a god of vegetation but, unlike Dionysos, he was unambiguously good. Here's a fragment of his story as told in Frazer's "Golden Bough" (his sources are Greek, so the statement that the Egyptians were once cannibals may not reflect their view of themselves):

"Reigning as a king on earth, Osiris reclaimed the Egyptians from savagery, gave them laws, and taught them to worship the gods. Before his time the Egyptians had been cannibals. Osiris introduced the cultivation of [wheat and barley] amongst his people, who forthwith abandoned cannibalism and took kindly to a corn [grain] diet. Moreover, Osiris is said to have been the first to gather fruit from trees, to train the vine to poles, and to tread the grapes. Eager to communicate these beneficent discoveries to all mankind, he <snip> travelled over the world, diffusing the blessings of civilisation and agriculture wherever he went. <snip> [H]e returned to Egypt, and on account of the benefits he had conferred on mankind he was unanimously hailed and worshipped as a deity. But his brother Set (whom the Greeks called Typhon) with seventy-two others plotted against him. Having taken the measure of his good brother's body by stealth, the bad brother Typhon fashioned and highly decorated a coffer of the same size, and once when they were all drinking and making merry he brought in the coffer and jestingly promised to give it to the one whom it should fit exactly. Well, they all tried one after the other, but it fitted none of them. Last of all Osiris stepped into it and lay down. On that the conspirators ran and slammed the lid down on him, nailed it fast, soldered it with molten lead, and flung the coffer into the Nile. <snip>

"Meantime the coffer containing the body of Osiris had floated down the river and away out to sea, till at last it drifted ashore at Byblus, on the coast of Syria. Here a fine erica-tree shot up suddenly and enclosed the chest in its trunk. The king of the country, admiring the growth of the tree, had it cut down and made into a pillar of his house; but he did not know that the coffer with the dead Osiris was in it. <snip> But <snip> Typhon found the coffer as he was hunting a boar one night by the light of a full moon. And he knew the body, and rent it into fourteen pieces, and scattered them abroad. But Isis [Osiris' sister and wife] sailed up and down the marshes in a shallop made of papyrus, looking for the pieces; <snip> "Isis," writes the historian Diodorus Siculus, "recovered all the parts of the body except the genitals [which had been eaten by fish]; and because she wished that her husband's grave should be unknown and honoured by all who dwell in the land of Egypt, she <snip> moulded human images out of wax and spices, corresponding to the stature of Osiris, round each one of the parts of his body. Then she called in the priests <snip> and <snip> to each of them privately she said that to them alone she entrusted the burial of the body, and reminding them of the benefits they had received she exhorted them to bury the body in their own land and to honour Osiris as a god. <snip>

"The lamentations of the two sad sisters [Isis and Nepthys] were not in vain. In pity for her [their] sorrow the sun-god Ra sent down from heaven the jackal-headed god Anubis, who, with the aid of Isis and Nephthys, of Thoth and Horus, pieced together the broken body of the murdered god, swathed it in linen bandages, and observed all the other rites which the Egyptians were wont to perform over the bodies of the departed. Then Isis fanned the cold clay with her wings: Osiris revived, and thenceforth reigned as king over the dead in the other world. <snip>"

http://www.bartleby.com/196/85.html

So Osiris resembles Christ in his goodness but resembles Dionysus in his connection with wine and agriculture, not to mention being murdered and torn to pieces. His "resurrection" amounts to becoming the king or god of the underworld. More important for this discussion, he didn't sacrifice himself for the good of mankind; he was murdered by his wicked brother through trickery. 

Two down. I don't know how many to go. Anyone know the story of Osiris's brother Horus?

Carol, who cut most of Frazer's version of the Osiris myth and apologizes if it's still too long



 








From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Apr 11 03:59:45 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:59:45 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <gro0ci+lce2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grp4jh+6ks7@eGroups.com>

> So now I am curious, since I consider myself to be pretty well versed (at least on the basic level) with all sort of religious mythos.
> 
> I wonder if somebody could give me the example of the deity who not only died and was resurrected, but did so to save other people. The example of such God or Godlike figure dying for **any** sort of good for another people will do.

Magpie:
I'm not an expert on this, but I have heard that Horus was killed, descended into hell for 3 days and was resurrected and he is also the savior of humanity. There's a lot of parallels between the two, but I'm sure there's debate about how many are accepted.

I would say that most fertility gods would fit the bill as doing good for people--the sun dying and being reborn helps people, crop gods being sacrificed and reborn like nature seems like it would go along with it.

Also--I'm totally on a limb here--but wasn't there a lot of overlapping ideas between Christianity and Aztec (I think it was?) religion? That it was more a case of replacing blood sacrifice with the sacrifice of Jesus?

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 11 17:06:48 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:06:48 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grp4jh+6ks7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grqin8+4ngk@eGroups.com>

Magpie wrote:
> I'm not an expert on this, but I have heard that Horus was killed, descended into hell for 3 days and was resurrected and he is also the savior of humanity. There's a lot of parallels between the two, but I'm sure there's debate about how many are accepted.
> 
> I would say that most fertility gods would fit the bill as doing good for people--the sun dying and being reborn helps people, crop gods being sacrificed and reborn like nature seems like it would go along with it.
<snip>

Carol responds:
I'm not an expert, either, but most of what I can find on Horus states that he was a sun god who (like every other sun god) rose and set every evening, which could be regarded as a kind of figurative resurrection but lacks the actual physical death (murder or sacrifice) involved in the deaths of Osiris (Horus's father or brother, depending on which version of the myth you're looking at). A sun god, of course, is likely to be benevolent since life depends on the sun's warmth and light, but I don't think that setting and rising quite qualify as death and resurrection.

However, I did find this tidbit, which from the Osiris stuff I quoted earlier but is from a different source:

http://www.jimloy.com/egypt/osiris.htm

"Set still ruled Egypt. As a child, Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis and rightful heir to the throne, was killed by Set in the form of a scorpion, but Thoth brought him back to life, as his destiny as ruler of Egypt, and avenger of the crime against his father, had not yet been fulfilled. Horus grew to be a strong and brave warrior. Osiris appeared to Horus in a vision, and urged him to overthrown Set.

"The armies of Horus fought the armies of Set, and defeated them. Set was forced to flee. The final battle was fought at Edfu, where Horus lost an eye. But Horus killed Set and cut his body into pieces. And Horus ruled as the good and just king of Egypt."

Another source didn't give the story in even this much detail but said that Horus was restored to life by Isis rather than Thoth. Interestingly, in this myth it's the evil god who's dismembered, and despite this brutal act of revenge against his admittedly wicked uncle (or brother, in other versions), Horus is regarded as good and just.

However, like Dionysus and unlike Christ (or Osiris), Horus is murdered in childhood. There's no willing self-sacrifice; he's just restored to life by another god (or goddess) like Dionysus and Osiris., much as Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. ("By this time, Lord, he stinketh.")

So far, no gods that meet Alla's criteria. I should note that from what I've read in trying to answer this question, it appears that Egyptian mythology evolved quite a bit over three millennia, so there's no single Horus or Osiris myth. (Even the Greek myth of Dionysus evolved different versions over a much shorter period.) And it appears that the Greeks, in reporting these myths, tried to reconcile the different versions. (The Egyptians never wrote any complete narratives.) So it's possible that what we're seeing in these retold Egyptian myths is the Greek mindset and that the stories of Osiris and Horus are colored by the myth of Dionysus. I'm guessing that the Greek influence would be especially strong under the Ptolemys, who were, of course, descended from one of Alexander the Great's generals and not Egyptian but Macedonian.

I snipped the comment on the Aztecs, whose bloody and violent religion  involved the ritual sacrifice (not self-sacrifice) of human victims who were, of course, not resurrected.

Carol, hoping that someone else will research the other candidates for dying god, Mithra and whoever else is left




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 11 17:48:07 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:48:07 -0000
Subject: Happy Easter/Passover
Message-ID: <grql4n+73d4@eGroups.com>

Since we're discussing Christianity, Christ figures, and resurrection, and since Jesus himself was a Jew, I thought it would be appropriate to wish everyone who celebrates them a happy Easter and/or Passover. And happy birthday to Alla, whose birthday is tomorrow.

I hope that everyone is enjoying or will soon be enjoying beautiful spring weather.

Carol, who has done her income tax but is putting off writing the check till the last minute




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Apr 11 19:50:46 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:50:46 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grqin8+4ngk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grqsam+jqq0@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
> I'm not an expert, either, but most of what I can find on Horus states that he was a sun god who (like every other sun god) rose and set every evening, which could be regarded as a kind of figurative resurrection but lacks the actual physical death (murder or sacrifice) involved in the deaths of Osiris (Horus's father or brother, depending on which version of the myth you're looking at). A sun god, of course, is likely to be benevolent since life depends on the sun's warmth and light, but I don't think that setting and rising quite qualify as death and resurrection.

Magpie:
I believe what I had read was that Horus eventually incorporated or merged with sun gods or a sun god. But I also heard there was a separate story that was very like Jesus. But even then they weren't the same story. There were always differences. It's funny which ones pop out at us when we read. Like I probably wouldn't make any distinction between a god murdered and a personal sacrifice since I'd probably think of it more like a ritual with a certain level of agreement each time.

Carol: 
> I snipped the comment on the Aztecs, whose bloody and violent religion  involved the ritual sacrifice (not self-sacrifice) of human victims who were, of course, not resurrected.

Magpie:
I remember reading a some Aztec story about the gods deciding one of them had to sacrifice himself to be the sun? Don't know whether that ocunts as resurrection if he became the sun. 

Though as an aside I always think it's kind of interesting to have a life sacrifice when the sacrifice is immortal since that's not a life sacrifice.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 11 21:41:49 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:41:49 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grqsam+jqq0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grr2qt+ah79@eGroups.com>

Magpie wrote:
<snip>
> I remember reading a some Aztec story about the gods deciding one of them had to sacrifice himself to be the sun? Don't know whether that ocunts as resurrection if he became the sun. 

Carol responds:
I vaguely remember that the human victims were supposed to take the place of the murdered gods, but, of course, I probably remember incorrectly. But, IIRC, they had to sacrifice one or more victims every day or the sun wouldn't come up. Needless to say, neighboring tribes who didn't share their religion (and were often forcibly recruited to be victims) were not unhappy when the Aztecs were defeated by the Spanish. Which is not to say that the Conquistadors weren't also ruthless, just not in that way.

Magpie: 
> Though as an aside I always think it's kind of interesting to have a life sacrifice when the sacrifice is immortal since that's not a life sacrifice.

Carol responds:
With regard to the Aztecs, I don't know enough about them to comment. Osiris and Horus weren't sacrificed; they were murdered and later restored to life. Dionysos was also murdered but (according to Frazer), the Titans were careful to do it in a way that conformed with the rules of ritual sacrifice. It was still murder, though, and he, too, was later restored to life. In no case did these gods willingly sacrifice themselves to help humankind or anyone else, nor did they know that they would be killed (much less that they would be restored to life),

The case of Jesus as presented in the Bible is different. He knew that he would have to die--and suffer greatly in the process--to save sinners, but I'm not entirely sure that he expected to be resurrected. "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise" seems indicates that he expected to go to Heaven just like the good thief who believed him to be the Son of God. And, certainly, he didn't *want* to die (especially through crucifixion) since he prayed in the Garden of Gethsamane, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." IOW, the will of God the Father is to sacrifice his only son to save sinners (and, of course, to resurrect him), but Jesus' own desire is to have this terrible burden taken from him. But he yields to God's will and allows himself to be sacrificed--not only to suffer the agony of dying on the cross but to actually die like any other man. The Romans confirmed that he was dead and took him down from the cross, allowing him to be buried. After two nights and a day in the tomb, he was resurrected--or, being the Son of God or God in human form, came back to life. (The Unitarian view that he's the son of God doing his father's will is easier to understand and seems to me to fit better with the depiction of events in the Bible, but that's a personal preference. It's also an odd view for me to hold since I was raised Episcopalian.)

Anyway, Christ's experience is not, in this respect, like Harry Potter's (as I think Geoff would agree). He actually dies and dies painfully after nearly a day of agony. Unlike Harry, he isn't killed (or "killed") by a quick and seemingly painless curse and doesn't enjoy a quick and mostly enjoyable conversation with his mentor before returning to earth and life virtually instantly (though it seems longer to Harry). Instead, Jesus spent three days in hell/Sheol/Hades which I won't go into because they're variously interpreted ("three days" is not exactly accurate, either, since it would not be three complete days--part of Good Friday, all of Holy Saturday, and the morning of Easter, to give the days their modern Christian names). After that, he walked around on earth, solid flesh but marked by the scars of crucifixion, eating, drinking and talking with his disciples. He did not, however, just stay with the disciples to die again later (as Harry stays in the WW until he someday dies a normal and permanent death). Instead, he ascended into heaven forty days later.

Which is not to say that Harry isn't a Christ figure, just that his experience, which is that of a human being, can't possibly duplicate Christ's. What I'm trying to say is that Christ is simultaneously a human being who can suffer and die and a divine being who can rise from the dead. Not even Dionysus, whose mother was human, is both god and man in that sense. Whatever we may think of the story of Christ as depicted in the Bible, Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person (which cannot be said of Osiris, Horus, or Dionysos).

Anyway, please note that I'm not preaching here or trying to impose my religion on anybody, especially considering that I'm too analytical to take the Bible literally. I'm just trying to compare the story of Jesus as it's presented in the Bible and compare it objectively with the stories of dying gods in Greek and Egyptian mythology. (I don't really see a connection with Aztec mythology, which arose in a very different part of the world and cannot have influenced the biblical accounts in any way.

Carol, who spoke too soon about glorious spring weather--it's a cloudy, intermittently rainy day in Tucson




From md at exit-reality.com  Sat Apr 11 23:16:09 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:16:09 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Happy Easter/Passover
In-Reply-To: <grql4n+73d4@eGroups.com>
References: <grql4n+73d4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001301c9bafb$7f66f020$7e34d060$@com>

Murdered, by his own people ... :-D

Us Pagans will wish you all a nice spring.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:48 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Happy Easter/Passover

, and since Jesus himself was a Jew, 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 11 23:57:57 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:57:57 -0000
Subject: Happy Easter/Passover
In-Reply-To: <001301c9bafb$7f66f020$7e34d060$@com>
Message-ID: <grraq5+pk5i@eGroups.com>

"Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> Murdered, by his own people ... :-D
> 
> Us Pagans will wish you all a nice spring.
> 
> md

Carol:

Actually, he was executed by the Romans. The Jewish Sanhedrin, who considered him a rabblerouser, didn't have that authority, nor did they represent the Jewish people as a whole. The first Christians were almost exclusively Jewish. The false idea that the Jews killed Jesus has led to religious intolerance and misunderstanding. Best not to perpetuate it, IMO.

Carol, also wishing everyone a lovely spring, along with a happy Easter or Passover if they celebrate those holidays, and hoping the rain goes away before tomorrow





From md at exit-reality.com  Sun Apr 12 00:56:36 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:56:36 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Happy Easter/Passover
In-Reply-To: <grraq5+pk5i@eGroups.com>
References: <001301c9bafb$7f66f020$7e34d060$@com> <grraq5+pk5i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c9bb09$87f09300$97d1b900$@com>

I didn't mean to perpetuate anything, I don't believe any of it anyway. But,
in the Baptist church my mother forced me into as a child you better believe
it was all the Jew's fault.

The wonderful thing about faith is that you can believe what you want and as
long as you have faith it is true, the downside is that you can believe
anything you want and as long as you have faith it is true.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:58 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Happy Easter/Passover

"Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> Murdered, by his own people ... :-D
> 
> Us Pagans will wish you all a nice spring.
> 
> md

Carol:

Actually, he was executed by the Romans. The Jewish Sanhedrin, who
considered him a rabblerouser, didn't have that authority, nor did they
represent the Jewish people as a whole. The first Christians were almost
exclusively Jewish. The false idea that the Jews killed Jesus has led to
religious intolerance and misunderstanding. Best not to perpetuate it, IMO.

Carol, also wishing everyone a lovely spring, along with a happy Easter or
Passover if they celebrate those holidays, and hoping the rain goes away
before tomorrow




------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 12 02:27:26 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:27:26 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grqsam+jqq0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grrjie+2f58@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
> I believe what I had read was that Horus eventually incorporated or merged with sun gods or a sun god. But I also heard there was a separate story that was very like Jesus. But even then they weren't the same story. There were always differences. It's funny which ones pop out at us when we read. Like I probably wouldn't make any distinction between a god murdered and a personal sacrifice since I'd probably think of it more like a ritual with a certain level of agreement each time.


Alla:

Well, could you please link to the version that you have read? Because really it will totally satisfy my criteria, if he died for the good of people even if not for the same good as Jesus did.

For the record, while I consider myself a believer in God, I have absolutely no problem with looking at christianity as myth and look at the myths which may have influenced or originated it. My question was absolutely sincere, did not have any undertones or anything, I truly do not remember any mythos which had God who directly sacrificed himself or herself for the good of people, any sort of good of the people and I am truly curious to learn if such god existed in any religion.

To me fertility gods that you mention really do not count because the good of people was more like unintended consequences and not like they were thinking about it, you know?

Like when Persefone comes back to Demetra and there is a change of seasons, it is not like she comes because she cares about people, no? 

OOOOOOO, wait, wait, wait. I think Prometheus may sort of count as sacrificing himself? In any version of the myth did he know that Zeus will find out about him and punish him?

Alla




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 12 02:39:04 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:39:04 -0000
Subject: Happy Easter/Passover
In-Reply-To: <000001c9bb09$87f09300$97d1b900$@com>
Message-ID: <grrk88+ibp3@eGroups.com>

> "Nightbreed" <md@> wrote:
> >
> > Murdered, by his own people ... :-D
> > 
> > Us Pagans will wish you all a nice spring.
> > 
> > md
> 
> Carol:
> 
> Actually, he was executed by the Romans. The Jewish Sanhedrin, who
> considered him a rabblerouser, didn't have that authority, nor did they
> represent the Jewish people as a whole. The first Christians were almost
> exclusively Jewish. The false idea that the Jews killed Jesus has led to
> religious intolerance and misunderstanding. Best not to perpetuate it, IMO.
> 
> Carol, also wishing everyone a lovely spring, along with a happy Easter or
> Passover if they celebrate those holidays, and hoping the rain goes away
> before tomorrow
> 

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Nightbreed" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> I didn't mean to perpetuate anything, I don't believe any of it anyway. But,
> in the Baptist church my mother forced me into as a child you better believe
> it was all the Jew's fault.
> 
> The wonderful thing about faith is that you can believe what you want and as
> long as you have faith it is true, the downside is that you can believe
> anything you want and as long as you have faith it is true.
> 
> md

Alla:

I am afraid I do not quite understand your point. You wanted to reiterate the point you do not believe in anyway?

Why not just wish a nice spring?




From md at exit-reality.com  Sun Apr 12 06:15:00 2009
From: md at exit-reality.com (Nightbreed)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:15:00 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Happy Easter/Passover
In-Reply-To: <grrk88+ibp3@eGroups.com>
References: <000001c9bb09$87f09300$97d1b900$@com> <grrk88+ibp3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c9bb36$05503360$0ff09a20$@com>

No, I didn't. What I said the second time was just that it was the way it
was taught and preached in the church I was drug off to as a child, this
point I did not make in my first comment and I was just saying where I was
coming from with it.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dumbledore11214
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:39 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Happy Easter/Passover

Alla:

I am afraid I do not quite understand your point. You wanted to reiterate
the point you do not believe in anyway?

Why not just wish a nice spring?


rms/




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Apr 12 15:01:35 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:01:35 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grr2qt+ah79@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grsvof+llca@eGroups.com>

Carol:
> The case of Jesus as presented in the Bible is different. He knew that he would have to die--and suffer greatly in the process--to save sinners, but I'm not entirely sure that he expected to be resurrected. "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise" seems indicates that he expected to go to Heaven just like the good thief who believed him to be the Son of God. And, certainly, he didn't *want* to die (especially through crucifixion) since he prayed in the Garden of Gethsamane, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." IOW, the will of God the Father is to sacrifice his only son to save sinners (and, of course, to resurrect him), but Jesus' own desire is to have this terrible burden taken from him. But he yields to God's will and allows himself to be sacrificed--not only to suffer the agony of dying on the cross but to actually die like any other man. 


Magpie:
Yes, but if Jesus is also God then obviously he couldn't die. Jesus is God's "son" but as a member of the Trinity they're also one in the same, so God was sacrificing himself to himself and death couldn't really be a reality. I know the paradox is that he's supposed to be both fully human and fully divine, but it is still a paradox. And God-who is also Jesus--knows all at all times.

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Apr 12 15:16:45 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:16:45 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grrjie+2f58@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grt0kt+mhf2@eGroups.com>

> > Magpie:
> > I believe what I had read was that Horus eventually incorporated or merged with sun gods or a sun god. But I also heard there was a separate story that was very like Jesus. But even then they weren't the same story. There were always differences. It's funny which ones pop out at us when we read. Like I probably wouldn't make any distinction between a god murdered and a personal sacrifice since I'd probably think of it more like a ritual with a certain level of agreement each time.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, could you please link to the version that you have read? Because really it will totally satisfy my criteria, if he died for the good of people even if not for the same good as Jesus did.

Magpie:
Unfortunately, I can't remember where I originally heard it. A quick google search brings up this site:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dmLgeHTmp7cC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=gods+who+sacrificed+themselves+for+humans+horus&source=bl&ots=f7csDO4fmW&sig=zZrWEEVqiaDIWiOGBMIzQdbQHCI&hl=en&ei=LQPiSYmGE6frlQfnxc3gDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

Though I also found a site that said pretty much every claim about Horus doing anything that paralleled anything Jesus did is completely false. It looks like people have claimed the Jesus story was simply a copycat of the Horus myth, which sounds pretty unbelievable to me. 

My very uneducated opinion is that I don't believe for a second that nobody ever heard myths about saviors--human/divine or totally one or the other--who sacrificed themselves for the good of others, but that there were things unique to all of them. Iow, there was no proto-Christianity before there was Christianity.

I would absolutely consider Prometheus to fit this criteria. He's the champion of mortals, committed a crime for us and took his punishment for it--a punishment that couldn't possibly have been any big surprise. He risked the wrath of Zeus to give pepole the means of life. Go Prometheus!

-m





From s_ings at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 12 16:04:37 2009
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Happy Birthday, Lee and Alla!
Message-ID: <511172.77969.qm@web63404.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


*scurries about, dusting the neglected party room and tearing down the tattered decorations to make room for the shiny new ones*

I've totally neglected birthdays since I got back from vacation! Yes, Elvses get vacations. :)

We have 2 birthdays to celebrated as this long weekend wraps up. Alla celebrated hers on the 10th and Lee is celebrating today! Birthday owls can be sent care of this list or directly to Alla at: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com and to Lee at: n2fgc at arrl.net

Ooops, we're missing an essential party ingredient!

*pops out briefly and comes back with two towering chocolate cakes*

There, along with a selection of the finest chocolate from around the globe, we out to be set for a proper party!

Alla and Lee, I hope your specials days have been magical and filled with joy.

Happy Birthday, Alla!
Happy Birthday, Lee!

*nibbles chocolate and hopes no one notices*

Sheryll the Birthday Elf, who will do a shout-out in the next post to those who were neglected in the last month


      __________________________________________________________________
Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/



From s_ings at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 12 16:16:14 2009
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Missed birthdays!
Message-ID: <941140.31984.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


*surveys the shiny new party decorations and thinks the boxes arrived just in time for a new round of parties*

As you know from my last post, I became derelict in my duties after being allowed off for a vacation and missed lots of birthdays. Please be assured that I've been properly order to shut my ears in the oven door and iron my fingers after I've typed this post. 

*hurriedly wheels in more nibblies and makes sure there is plenty to drink stocked behind the bar*

Okay, are we ready to see who we're honouring in this belated celebration? Here goes:

March 3 - Udderpd (udderpd at yahoo.co.uk)
March 16 - Laila (golden_faile at yahoo.com)
March 23 - Pauline Davis (paulined at optushome.com.au)
March 26 - GartZen (gartzen at gmail.com)
March 28 - Dina Lerret (bunniqula at gmail.com)
March 31 - eledhwen_0 (slinkie at nids.se)
April 2 - Naama Amanar (naama2486 at yahoo.com)
April 6 - Jenny from Ravenclaw (meboriqua at aol.com) 

Email addresses have been provided so anyone wishing to do so can send belated greetings.

That's 8, count'em, 8 cakes lined up on the table across the room. Do you tbink that'll be enough? 

I hope everyone had wonderful days filled with magic, good food, and good company and that all your wishes came true!

Belated Happy Birthday, everyone!

Sheryll the Birthday Elf, who is happy her vacations are still allowed and will get someone to cover for her next time!


      __________________________________________________________________
Get the name you've always wanted @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com! Go to http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 12 17:01:10 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:01:10 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grt0kt+mhf2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <grt6om+fdbi@eGroups.com>

Magpie:
<SNIP>
> My very uneducated opinion is that I don't believe for a second that nobody ever heard myths about saviors--human/divine or totally one or the other--who sacrificed themselves for the good of others, but that there were things unique to all of them. Iow, there was no proto-Christianity before there was Christianity.

Alla:

Right, what you are saying makes sense to me, however I find it interesting that we cannot follow the origins of those myths, you know?

Myths about saviors, I mean. Yes, of course it makes sense that those myths could have been around at the time and newly converted roman emperors forbade them and christian church could have made sure to silence them. However, I still think that the origins should have been able to be traced in some art.

For example when in 988 Prince Vladimir baptized Russia, you better believe that they came down hard and cruel on Pagan gods (burning Perun's depictions and doing baptize or else kind of thing on peasants).

But here is the thing though, while they certainly succeeded in minimizing the influence of Pagan gods on people's everyday lives (I am sure there are some pagans in Russia, I just seriously doubt that there are many of them and that in everyday live they have any sort of influence), I still know who Perun is, you know?

The traces of Russia pagan gods are alive in stories, in some other art.

Does that make sense? But when I am thinking about Saviors, who may have influenced the myth of Christ, even by being Saviors, my mind goes blank or almost blank and I wonder why is it?



Magpie: 
> I would absolutely consider Prometheus to fit this criteria. He's the champion of mortals, committed a crime for us and took his punishment for it--a punishment that couldn't possibly have been any big surprise. He risked the wrath of Zeus to give pepole the means of life. Go Prometheus!

Alla:

Yes, he is the only one who fits to me too, even if not very directly. The gist is that he suffered horribly (and much longer than Jesus) because he wanted to help people, so I can now at least think of one example.




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Apr 12 17:41:20 2009
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 12 Apr 2009 17:41:20 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/12/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1239558080.598.72435.m1@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday April 12, 2009
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2009 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20090412/24b0edc1/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Apr 12 20:09:20 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:09:20 -0000
Subject: forever and ever / actors / legalese / salvific deaths
Message-ID: <grthpg+t3ok@eGroups.com>

Someone in the discussion on Main List used the familiar phrase 'forever and ever', which reminded me of my amazement when I discovered that it came from an Ancient Egyptian cliche (and would be more accurately translated 'for always and ever'). There were the traditional phrases always used for Pharaoh, but for everyone else who rated a rock-cut tomb, like a queen or a vizier, the inscriptions said 'May he/she live djet neheh'. Djet means 'forever' written as the dj-snake, the t-breadload, and the determinative for 'land', and neheh means 'forever' written as the ch-hank-of-fiber twice, with the sun as determinative for 'time' written between them, referring to two different kinds of eternity.

Kemper wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39052>:

<< One bad British actor that emotely comes to mind is Emma Watson. At one time, Daniel Radcliffe was almost as bad >>

If true, that correlates with the theory that British actors are better because of their training; child actors haven't completed, may not even have begun, their training.

Elfundeb wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39065>:

<< Further affiant sayeth not. (Translation: I have said all I have to say.) >>

Affiant? I thought it was 'deponent'?

Carol replied in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39066>:

<< you quoted a beautiful example of traditional legalese and translated it into plain English. >>

I don't think little phrases like that are the problem. They're like learning a new word: learn the definition once and add it to your vocabulary forever. The problem, part of the problem, is long sentences of twisty little clauses that all sound alike, so one always loses one's place in the sentence and never reaches the end.

Even plain English isn't always so plain. Does "all I have to say" mean "all I have" of relevant information and opinions on this subject, or "all I have to" meaning 'all that I am compelled to'?

Alla wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39074>:

<< I wonder if somebody could give me the example of the deity who not only died and was resurrected, but did so to save other [eople. The example of such God or Godlike figure dying for **any** sort of good for another people will do. >>

Joseph Campbell, in THE MASKS OF GOD, recited a number of origin stories of food plants with the similar plot element that a divine, magical, or generally wonderful person died, sometimes chopped into pieces by enemies, and one or more staple food plants (that had never been seen on earth before) sprouted from the buried body. 

One is the origin of maize in Eastern North America, in which a boy, going on his vision quest ordeal to become a man, prayed that he would find a cure for the famine afflicting his people due to all the animals having gone away from being hunted. He fasted for an unreasonably long time, stuck skewers in his flesh and all the usual self-tortures, and had no vision. His father begged him to give up and rest a while before trying again but he refused. 

When he was on the point of death, a tall. handsome stranger dressed all in green and with long green plumes on his headdress came to him and said: "We will wrestle, two throws out of three. If you win, I will give you the solution to famine." After an excessively long and detailed description of this excruciating athletic event, the young man won. 

The stranger told him: "You must kill me. No, don't whine about I'm your friend and you don't want to kill your friend. You must do it" and went on to give detailed instructions for how to kill him and how to dismember and bury the body, which are a careful parallel to the methods, unknown to me, of harvesting ears of corn and husking them and planting the corn kernels to grow new corn. 

As I have given away, in the spring green shoots appeared on the grave, which grew over the summer, into a plant as tall and green as the stranger, topped by long waving plumes. The corn cobs grew and in late summer, the young man dreamed that the stranger appeared and told him how to harvest the corn cobs and how to cook them for food.

IIRC he gave an origin story for bananas in which a unsuccessful fisherman, desperate to get some food for his children, stayed out in his fishing boat despite the storm, and was killed. His body washed up on an isolated spot of shore, and the first banana tree grew from his skull (altho' the shape of bananas would seem more likely to grow from his hands or his penis). His wife found it because some diviner told her where to find her late husband's skull.

Yes, in other of the stories he recited, the people were murdered. They may have known the whole plot in advance, but nowhere does it say they invited the others to murder them. Campbell made an analogy to the murder of Abel by Cain, if it had caused the expulsion from Eden instead of following it.





From editor at texas.net  Mon Apr 13 04:00:10 2009
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:00:10 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <grlmjr+jllf@eGroups.com>
References: <b6e131bf0904082225w75ae59e6ic29b0140728eb88a@mail.gmail.com> <grlmjr+jllf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <B4FFA7071F9641269C0CF08B6B0BB3E4@AmandaPC>

Forgive me if any of these points have been made earlier, but I have a
little time and thought to weigh in.

Carol: 
Here's an example of jargon (not legalese but educationalese) from a handout
for class I once took in Reading Education. (I now understand why I don't
recall a single thing I "learned" in that class:

"Inferential comprehension [is] demonstrated when [a] student uses the ideas
and information explicitly stated in a selection, his intuition, and his
personal experience as a basis for conjectures and hypotheses. Inferences
drawn may be either convergent or divergent in nature and [the] student may
or may not be asked to verbalize the rationale underlying his inferences."

Amanda:  If we have been using ?jargon? to mean ?the technical usages and
terms specific to a particular field or discipline,? then I observe that
there is not a single word in that example that is jargon.  They are simply
very large words, doubtless inaccessible to your ?average? reader.  I
disagree that big words, in and of themselves, constitute ?educationalese.?
If the example had included true field-specific words such as ?transfer? or
?formative evaluation,? then I could agree with your categorization.  So,
while the passage is not very clear, its problem is not jargon so much as
complex sentence structure and a very high language level.  

Carol:
But jargon is *needlessly* complicated language. 

Amanda:  And here is where our point of dissention lies.  This is not my
definition of ?jargon?; that is my definition of poor writing.  I will never
argue with you that there is a growing trend to overuse words to sound
self-aggrandizing or important.  Your examples of that sort of writing
mistake are spot-on.  But those are not jargon, to me.  In fact, the case
could be made that you, as an editor, are using the term ?jargon? in a
professionally specific way-- in which case, by my definition, you have been
using jargon yourself. 

That was not meant as a ?gotcha?-- it was meant as an example.  We apply
different meanings to the same term, hence the need for clarification.  One
of the most common derailers of effective communication is an assumption of
shared meaning where there are, in fact, multiple interpretations possible.
To ensure clarity of meaning, sometimes more specific ?technical? terms must
be used, particularly in the technical, legal, medical, and scientific
fields.

Which brings me to another relevant point.  This whole discussion seems to
have been built on an assumption that the intended audiences, for any and
all examples cited, are ?the average reader.?  That is not always the case.
If the intended audience will be familiar with the technical terminology
(jargon), then it should indeed be used, because within that particular
field or discipline, the use of the correct technical terms *increases*
precision in the delivery of that message.  Effective communication doesn?t
mean ?making it clear for the average reader??it means ?making it clear for
the intended audience.?  

Carol: However, it's interesting that many scientists (not Stephen Hawking!)
manage to escape the shackles of scientific terminology and write beautiful
books for the general public. They don't sacrifice precision for
intelligibility. They manage both, sometimes admirably. 

Amanda:  You illustrate my point.  Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan both are
very good at delivering their messages to their intended audiences.
Sometimes those audiences were the general public, and the books they
produced for that audience were clear, accessible, and enjoyable.  However,
I imagine that the papers, articles, and books that they authored for other
audiences--their colleagues and other scientists--were quite different and
highly technical in nature.  The latter were probably full of ?my? jargon
(discipline-specific technical terminology), but I very much doubt if they
were full of ?your? jargon (unnecessary words or phrases, clich?s, and the
like).  

Good authors use language effectively, whomever they are writing for.  Less
skilled authors do not.  Jargon is simply one tool available to authors; in
the hands of the skilled, it is effective; in the hands of the less skilled,
it is obstructive.  

~Amanda

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Apr 13 12:34:21 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:34:21 -0000
Subject: Action Figures in Literature
Message-ID: <grvbgd+aid6@eGroups.com>

Boy, the discussion about Harry as Christ figure really heated up the boards! And what a season for it!

I know there are names for different plot types along with conventions and traditions on how those plots are expected to play out. I know what a Christ figure is. In fact, discussions about what type of story HP was and whether he was a Christ figure were used to predict the outcome of the series.

So all this got me wondering, are there other figure types? Wouldn't a hero who leads his people to a better place be a Moses figure? (Watership Down)

Are there names for the different hero or character types?

Potioncat




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Apr 15 03:15:44 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:15:44 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grorir+bgk4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gs3jh0+vns8@eGroups.com>

 "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> 
 
> And Dionysos is no loving god setting an example of ideal behavior for his followers:
> 
> "Death forms a major part of the worship of Dionysos. <snip> Dionysos, by contrast [with the other Greek gods], seems to revel in human sacrifice. There are a number of myths which involve women who he has driven mad as punishment who tear apart their children with their bare hands and later, occasionally, eat them. The best known example is that of Agave in the Bacchants. Agave is running wild on the mountain with the rest of the women of Thebes, having been driven mad by the god, who is fighting to establish his worship in this city. Her son Pentheus, who opposes Dionysos, is lured by the god into going to spy on the women. Agave and her sisters rush upon Pentheus and tear him apart with their bare hands, scattering the pieces of his body over the mountainside. Dionysos's worship is thus established by the simple means of killing the opposition."


Potioncat:
(I snipped, honest I did)
OK, Where are the Guy Gavriel Kay fans? Wasn't there something like this in "Tigana"?

Happy belated birthday, Alla. Hope it was a fun day!





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Apr 15 16:18:34 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:18:34 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grt6om+fdbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gs51cq+7a26@eGroups.com>


> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, he is the only one who fits to me too, even if not very directly. The gist is that he suffered horribly (and much longer than Jesus) because he wanted to help people, so I can now at least think of one example.
>

Pippin:
Nobody seems to have mentioned Pollux, who gives up part of his immortality to his mortal half-brother Castor. That's definitely a loving sacrifice, though it only benefits one person. There's also Alcestis. The Fates are tricked into allowing her husband King Admetus to escape death, provided someone else is willing to die for him. Contrary to the King's expectations, only his beloved wife agrees. Alcestis dies, leaving her husband bereft and her children motherless, but her shade is brought back by Heracles, who has inadvertently behaved offensively and wishes to make amends. 

The Greeks didn't have the concept of sin. Impiety and hubris would draw down the wrath of the gods, to be sure, but there wasn't the sense that men knew they ought to be pious and humble, but were tempted otherwise.  So while the Greeks had the concept of one person dying to save another out of love, they wouldn't perceive a need to save people from sin at all.


Pippin





From donnawonna at att.net  Wed Apr 15 19:56:41 2009
From: donnawonna at att.net (Donna)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:56:41 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: HP Release Date
Message-ID: <49E63BF9.000008.03816@D8DXG9G1>

Donna:
Just got the news that Half Blood Prince will be released on Wednesday, July 15.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Apr 15 20:43:50 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:43:50 -0000
Subject: HP Release Date
In-Reply-To: <49E63BF9.000008.03816@D8DXG9G1>
Message-ID: <gs5gu6+smt7@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" <donnawonna at ...> wrote:
>
> Donna:
> Just got the news that Half Blood Prince will be released on Wednesday, July 15.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Geoff:
Arrgh.

They've done it again. I shall be on holiday in the Isles of Scilly where 
there is no cinema. They did that with OOTP!!

Rotters.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 15 22:42:50 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:42:50 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Lee and Alla!
In-Reply-To: <511172.77969.qm@web63404.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gs5nta+jpno@eGroups.com>

Sheryll Townsend wrote:
>
<snip>
> Happy Birthday, Alla!
> Happy Birthday, Lee!
> 
> *nibbles chocolate and hopes no one notices*
> 
> Sheryll the Birthday Elf, who will do a shout-out in the next post to those who were neglected in the last month

Carol responds:

Happy birthday to you both! 

Carol, who will be leaving for Flagstaff tomorrow and will return April 18th




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed Apr 15 23:32:27 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:32:27 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Happy Birthday, Lee and Alla!
In-Reply-To: <gs5nta+jpno@eGroups.com>
References: <511172.77969.qm@web63404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <gs5nta+jpno@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <88C209EE72334CC9B5BB5045164FD8E9@FRODO>

I do thank our beloved Birthday Elf for not eating ALL of the
chocolate...it's a good thing since I could really do with some extra.

Carol, hope your trip goes well.  Mine was a complete and total bust.  Yes,
my dear friends, I was supposed to be in Florida on April 6 and not
returning till the 20th.  Let's just say that the airline screwed us up so
badly there are no words to adequately express my disgust and
disgruntlement!!!!!

I had such nice plans for my B-Day which ended up on Easter...That does mean
Extra Chocolate!!!  I was going to walk on the beach and have a lovely
lobster dinner with my Sis-In-Law and her husband and maybe go to Disney.
Since all my beautiful plans got shot to heck, Art took me out on Monday for
sushi.  Not the most perfect 50th B-day, but what can one do.

So, if anyone has extra chocolate, please think of me. :)

Hugs,
Lee, The Disgruntled (or as we say, "Disgruntlified!")




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 16 01:44:10 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:44:10 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Lee and Alla!
In-Reply-To: <511172.77969.qm@web63404.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gs62ha+o0ev@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sheryll Townsend <s_ings at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> *scurries about, dusting the neglected party room and tearing down the tattered decorations to make room for the shiny new ones*
> 
> I've totally neglected birthdays since I got back from vacation! Yes, Elvses get vacations. :)
> 
> We have 2 birthdays to celebrated as this long weekend wraps up. Alla celebrated hers on the 10th and Lee is celebrating today! Birthday owls can be sent care of this list or directly to Alla at: dumbledore11214 at ... and to Lee at: n2fgc at ...
> 
> Ooops, we're missing an essential party ingredient!
> 
> *pops out briefly and comes back with two towering chocolate cakes*
> 
> There, along with a selection of the finest chocolate from around the globe, we out to be set for a proper party!
> 
> Alla and Lee, I hope your specials days have been magical and filled with joy.
> 
> Happy Birthday, Alla!
> Happy Birthday, Lee!
> 
> *nibbles chocolate and hopes no one notices*
> 
> Sheryll the Birthday Elf, who will do a shout-out in the next post to those who were neglected in the last month
> 
> 

Thank you so much Sheryll and everybody!

Lee, Happy Birthday!

Day was good, Alice's tea cup ROCKS :)    __________________________________________________________________
> Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
>





From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu Apr 16 02:37:11 2009
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:37:11 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Happy Birthday, Lee and Alla!
In-Reply-To: <gs62ha+o0ev@eGroups.com>
References: <511172.77969.qm@web63404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <gs62ha+o0ev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4F6E9CD738314425BAAA1AA683D22F5F@FRODO>

[Alla]:
| Lee, Happy Birthday!

[Lee]:
Glad your's was a good one, Alla. :-)  Manny more!

With thoughts of chocolate running round in her head,

Lee

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 16 22:06:58 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:06:58 -0000
Subject: New Aerail Photos of Levensden Studios
Message-ID: <gs8a62+escj@eGroups.com>

I've always used Google Maps or Google Earth to view levensden Studios, but recently I came across Windows Live Maps. They have updated images of the Studio.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?rtp=adr.#JndoZXJlMT1XYXRmb3JkJTJjK1VLJmJiPTUxLjY4MTA5MDEzODczNzUlN2UtMC4zMjg1MDA4OTI0MzM2JTdlNTEuNjIzMTQ5MzcyNzUyNCU3ZS0wLjQ1MjkzNzkwNTI3ODcyNg==

It default to the USA, but I entered London, England, UK. Then once I had London, I entered Watford, England, UK.

Once you have Watford on the map, go straight north to Kingsway (Hwy A405), the west to Aerodrome Way and you will see the old airport that makes up the ground of Levensden Studios.

For the best views select 'Aerial' first, then for a closer look, select 'Birds Eye'. 

In these new images you can see the facade of Privet Drive right behind the Studio. Left of Privet Drive in the corner you can see Hagrid's Hut. 

Down and to the right slightly of Hagrid's Hut, you can see some other construction. It is not clear what it is, but it seems to be an area completely enclosed in blue screen. 

Also, in front of the studio, you can see a gravel or dirt area that is under construction, but there isn't enough there to determine what it is.

Nothing earth shattering, but I found it interesting.

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 16 22:19:17 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:19:17 -0000
Subject: Windows Live Maps - Leicester Square, Westminster,  London
Message-ID: <gs8at5+qr2h@eGroups.com>

This is where all the Harry Potter premiers take place. Using Google Earth or Google Street View, you can't get a good view into the Square, but Windows Live Maps using "Bird's Eye' view, lets you see in pretty good. 

On the left are symbols to rotate the view, and if you rotate it just right, you can see the front of the Odeon theater.

It is easy to see why they use this for the Premiers. Doubtful that any other theater in crowded cramped London has so much space, as the Sqaure itself is a large park space. 

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?rtp=adr.#JnE9eXAuTGVpY2VzdGVyK1NxdWFyZSUyYytXZXN0bWluc3RlciUyYysrTG9uZG9uJTJjKytXQzJIKzdKWSU3ZXNzdC4wJTdlcGcuMSZiYj01MS41MTIxOTI3NTI2NTclN2UtMC4xMzQxMzYyODM4MjAyMDklN2U1MS41MDk3ODk3MjUzNzM3JTdlLTAuMTM4MTY4OTAyNzkxNjE5

This link might not take you right to it, but if you enter the following in the location search bar, it will take you right to the Square, then select "Bird's Eye" view.

Leicester Square, Westminster,  London,  WC2H 7JY

Again, nothing special, just interesting.

Google Street View is very nice, but there are some streets it doesn't go down, partly because those streets are limited to pedestrian traffic, so the Google Car can't drive down them. But Windows Live Maps seems to have found a reasonable compromise in the Bird's Eye view. You can't walk though some of these closed areas, but you can see into them. 

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 16 22:28:58 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:28:58 -0000
Subject: New Aerail Photos of Levensden Studios
In-Reply-To: <gs8a62+escj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gs8bfa+5mu0@eGroups.com>

Actually, if you enter -

Levensden Studio, Watford, England, UK

then zoom in a bit until you see Aerodrome Way, you will be right on top of the studio. Once you have Aerodrome Way, switch to Aerial View. 

Steve/bboyminn




From bhobbs36 at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 22:48:43 2009
From: bhobbs36 at gmail.com (Belinda)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:48:43 -0000
Subject: New Aerail Photos of Levensden Studios
In-Reply-To: <gs8a62+escj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gs8ckb+95s1@eGroups.com>

Steve!
This is SO cool! I too, enjoy playing with google maps/earth, but this is an amazing find. Thank you for sharing it, and especially giving the directions. I never would have known where to look on my own.


--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> I've always used Google Maps or Google Earth to view levensden Studios, but recently I came across Windows Live Maps. They have updated images of the Studio.
> 
> http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?rtp=adr.#JndoZXJlMT1XYXRmb3JkJTJjK1VLJmJiPTUxLjY4MTA5MDEzODczNzUlN2UtMC4zMjg1MDA4OTI0MzM2JTdlNTEuNjIzMTQ5MzcyNzUyNCU3ZS0wLjQ1MjkzNzkwNTI3ODcyNg==
> 
> It default to the USA, but I entered London, England, UK. Then once I had London, I entered Watford, England, UK.
> 
> Once you have Watford on the map, go straight north to Kingsway (Hwy A405), the west to Aerodrome Way and you will see the old airport that makes up the ground of Levensden Studios.
> 
> For the best views select 'Aerial' first, then for a closer look, select 'Birds Eye'. 
> 
> In these new images you can see the facade of Privet Drive right behind the Studio. Left of Privet Drive in the corner you can see Hagrid's Hut. 
> 
> Down and to the right slightly of Hagrid's Hut, you can see some other construction. It is not clear what it is, but it seems to be an area completely enclosed in blue screen. 
> 
> Also, in front of the studio, you can see a gravel or dirt area that is under construction, but there isn't enough there to determine what it is.
> 
> Nothing earth shattering, but I found it interesting.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Apr 16 23:03:22 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:03:22 -0000
Subject: New Aerail Photos of Levensden Studios
In-Reply-To: <gs8bfa+5mu0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gs8dfq+jls9@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> Actually, if you enter -
> 
> Levensden Studio, Watford, England, UK
> 
> then zoom in a bit until you see Aerodrome Way, you will be right on top of the studio. Once you have Aerodrome Way, switch to Aerial View. 
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

Geoff:
To be picky,actually, if you enter that, you'll get nothing.

It's Leavesden Studios. The town is about two miles north of 
Watford - the latter being the main post town.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Apr 17 22:25:29 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:25:29 -0000
Subject: The Narnia Code
Message-ID: <gsavkp+sih8@eGroups.com>

Geoff

Those of you who enjoy the Narnia books might be interested in 
the following.

Last night, by pure fluke, I noticed - with just enough time left to 
set the DVD recorder - that BBC1 were screening a programme 
about C. S. Lewis' Narnia books.

It was called "The Narnia Code" and was billed as being fronted 
by Dr. Michael Ward, an academic who had put forward a theory 
about a hidden theme in the books.

I initially groaned, expecting another conspiracy theory knocking 
Lewis or the Christian faith in general but was pleasantly surprised 
to find myself glued to the set for half an hour last night and then 
poring over remainder of the recording while I tackled breakfast.

HIs theory is that CSL linked each book to one of the "Seven Planets" 
known to mediaeval scientists and astronomers - the Sun, Moon, 
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

The evidence is indeed positive and it adds to Lewis' interpretation 
of God and the universe rather than detracting.

I hadn't realised that Dr.Ward had published a book last year called 
"Planet Narnia". Perhaps some of you folk have been more observant 
that I was.

If any of you are interested, the programme is available for the next 
week or so at:
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/

Follow the top line (TV Highlights) through the arrow at the right-
hand end and look for the icon labelled "The Narnia Code".









From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Fri Apr 17 23:20:03 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:20:03 -0600
Subject: Striped Pajamas
Message-ID: <683CCA6E67CC4948BDE6B935F6594911@Marianne>

Has it been on this list that the Boy In The Striped Pajamas was discussed?

I watched it last weekend.  I was utterly shocked and upset by the ending.  I have never had a reaction to a movie before.  However it did make me think a lot.

Marianne

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 18 14:15:54 2009
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Happy Birthday, Carol!
Message-ID: <834465.64512.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


*takes down the tatteres streamers from the last parties and hangs fresh new ones and stands back in suprise*

What? But some of those is looking they is having pictures of Professor Snape on them? 

*shakes head in dismay and tries in vain to fix the mistake*

Misses and sirs is thinkings this party is late, because was having her birthday on the 16th. But the Birthday Elf is knowing Carol was going to be away until today and was not wanting you peoples to be eating her cake before she got back. <vbg>

Yes, Carol's birthday was on the 16th. Birthday owls can be sent care of this list or directly to Carol at: justcarol67 at yahoo.com

Don't forget the nibblies and drinks but no touching the cake until the birthday honouree arrives. Things will not be pretty is she misses a cake made especially for her!

Carol, I hope your day was magical and that you had a wonderful celebration while you were away.

Happy Birthday, Carol!

Sheryll the Birthday Elf


      __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.



From s_ings at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 18 14:28:56 2009
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Happy Birthday, Kelsey!
Message-ID: <473199.76299.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


*plumps the pillows on the comfy chairs, tidies the stacks of napkins and plates and adds a few more balloons for good measure*

Rylly Elf is glad to starting another party so soon, there is being much less work for me right now.

*checks the stock of snacks and brings in a steaming bowl of punch*

I is thinking the music is too quiet but I is sure you will be turning it up when you is ready.

Today's birthday honouree is Kelsey Cartweel. Birthday wishes can be sent care of this list or directly to: kcartweel at yahoo.com

*pops out briefly and reappears with a multi-coloured cake with sparkly candles*

I hope you day is filled with fun, magic and the company of good friends.

Happy Birthday, Kelsey!

Sheryll the Birthday Elf, heading off work for the day



      __________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com



From bumbledor at ma.rr.com  Sat Apr 18 17:39:24 2009
From: bumbledor at ma.rr.com (bumbledor)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:39:24 -0400
Subject: Anyone neer Clarksburg WV?
Message-ID: <001e01c9c04c$9d58cda0$6401a8c0@hogwarts>

Howdy folks..
Anyone neer Carksburg WV, who wants to plan a HP party for the night of the movie release?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Apr 19 17:41:35 2009
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 19 Apr 2009 17:41:35 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/19/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1240162895.12.56786.m3@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday April 19, 2009
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2009 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20090419/70ab5054/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 19 22:38:55 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:38:55 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <grt6om+fdbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gsg95v+dpbn@eGroups.com>

Magpie: 
> > I would absolutely consider Prometheus to fit this criteria. He's the champion of mortals, committed a crime for us and took his punishment for it--a punishment that couldn't possibly have been any big surprise. He risked the wrath of Zeus to give pepole the means of life. Go Prometheus!
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, he is the only one who fits to me too, even if not very directly. The gist is that he suffered horribly (and much longer than Jesus) because he wanted to help people, so I can now at least think of one example.

Carol responds:
But he didn't actually die and rise from the dead. All that happened is that his liver grew back overnight and was eaten again the next day--and the next and the next for what the Greeks must have assumed was all eternity. A horrible fate, indeed, but it's not the same thing as death and resurrection. Prometheus, not being human or part human, couldn't die (in the Greek view of divinity, which differs in that respect from the Egyptian and Norse view). The Titans were overthrown and banished (for the most part) to Tartarus; they weren't killed because they couldn't die, and none of them, including Prometheus, was resurrected. (I can't recall whether they suffered specific punishments like Sisyphus and Tantalus, who were both mortals.)

Carol, who sees the parallel but thinks that, despite his immortality, Prometheus' fate more closely resembles the eternal punishment of wicked mortals in Tartarus than the death and resurrection of Christ




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 19 23:14:28 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:14:28 -0000
Subject: New Aerail Photos of Levensden Studios
In-Reply-To: <gs8dfq+jls9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gsgb8k+qmkr@eGroups.com>

---  "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, if you enter -
> > 
> > Levensden Studio, Watford, England, UK
> > 
> > then zoom in a bit until you see Aerodrome Way, you will 
> > be right on top of the studio. ...
> > 
> > Steve/bboyminn
> 
> Geoff:
> To be picky,actually, if you enter that, you'll get nothing.
> 
> It's Leavesden Studios. The town is about two miles north of 
> Watford - the latter being the main post town.
>

bboyminn:

Oddly even with the wrong spelling it still works, but, you're
right. It is 'LeAven' not 'Leven'.

Steve/bluewizard




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 19 23:18:06 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:18:06 -0000
Subject: New Aerail Photos of Levensden Studios
In-Reply-To: <gsgb8k+qmkr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gsgbfe+7flh@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10@> wrote:
> >
> > --- "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, if you enter -
> > > 
> > > Levensden Studio, Watford, England, UK
> > > 
> > > then zoom in a bit until you see Aerodrome Way, you will 
> > > be right on top of the studio. ...
> > > 
> > > Steve/bboyminn
> > 
> > Geoff:
> > To be picky,actually, if you enter that, you'll get nothing.
> > 
> > It's Leavesden Studios. The town is about two miles north of 
> > Watford - the latter being the main post town.
> >
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Oddly even with the wrong spelling it still works, but, you're
> right. It is 'LeAven' not 'Leven'.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>

ACK!!!, even with it right in front of me, I still got it wrong.
It is LEAVESDEN, no 'n' except on the end. 

Still, even misspelled, it takes you right to it.

Steve/bboyminn




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 19 23:51:50 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:51:50 -0000
Subject: Inspired by religion discussion on Main
In-Reply-To: <gsg95v+dpbn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gsgdem+q713@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
> But he didn't actually die and rise from the dead. All that happened is that his liver grew back overnight and was eaten again the next day--and the next and the next for what the Greeks must have assumed was all eternity. A horrible fate, indeed, but it's not the same thing as death and resurrection. Prometheus, not being human or part human, couldn't die (in the Greek view of divinity, which differs in that respect from the Egyptian and Norse view). The Titans were overthrown and banished (for the most part) to Tartarus; they weren't killed because they couldn't die, and none of them, including Prometheus, was resurrected. (I can't recall whether they suffered specific punishments like Sisyphus and Tantalus, who were both mortals.)
> 
> Carol, who sees the parallel but thinks that, despite his immortality, Prometheus' fate more closely resembles the eternal punishment of wicked mortals in Tartarus than the death and resurrection of Christ


Alla:

Eh, good enough for me, really :) It is the closest I saw anyways. He wanted to help a whole lot of people, suffered for it and then was restored, I am perfectly happy even with similarities, you know?

Pippin suggested Castor and Pollux, but one brother basically sacrificed for another brother, nobody else, Prometheus seems to be the only known mythological figure who suffered for the good of many people (I mean known to me so far, if somebody knows others please step up :)).





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 20 00:09:50 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:09:50 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <B4FFA7071F9641269C0CF08B6B0BB3E4@AmandaPC>
Message-ID: <gsgege+sbsd@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier: 
> Here's an example of jargon (not legalese but educationalese) from a handout for a class I once took in Reading Education. (I now understand why I don't recall a single thing I "learned" in that class:
> 
> "Inferential comprehension [is] demonstrated when [a] student uses the ideas and information explicitly stated in a selection, his intuition, and his personal experience as a basis for conjectures and hypotheses. Inferences drawn may be either convergent or divergent in nature and [the] student may or may not be asked to verbalize the rationale underlying his inferences."
> 
> Amanda:  If we have been using "jargon" to mean "the technical usages and terms specific to a particular field or discipline," then I observe that there is not a single word in that example that is jargon.  They are simply very large words, doubtless inaccessible to your "average" reader.  I disagree that big words, in and of themselves, constitute "educationalese."

Carol:
But we haven't been using "jargon" in that sense. I'm not talking about legitimate technical terms ("inferential comprehension" could qualify, I suppose, if we stretch the point); I'm talking about pretentious, pseudo-scholarly writing that tries to sound important but obscures its own point through needlessly complex or abstract diction and indirectness. The intended audience was graduates students in a reading education class.

Amanda:
 If the example had included true field-specific words such as "transfer" or "formative evaluation," then I could agree with your categorization.  So, while the passage is not very clear, its problem is not jargon so much as complex sentence structure and a very high language level.  

Carol:
The whole point is that this passage does *not* use "field-specific words," which are *not* jargon if they are clear to other specialists and have a specific meaning not conveyable through ordinary English. It's needlessly obscure and indirect, and the "very high language level" is nothing of the sort. There's no need to say "Inferences drawn may be either convergent or divergent in nature." It would be better to say, "The student may draw either convergent or divergent inferences" (assuming, of course, that the teacher has already defined the terms "convergent" and "divergent"). The problem here is passive voice, indirectness, wordiness, vagueness, and general unintelligibility.
> 
> Carol:
> But jargon is *needlessly* complicated language. 
> 
> Amanda:  And here is where our point of dissention lies.  This is not my definition of "jargon"; that is my definition of poor writing.  I will never argue with you that there is a growing trend to overuse words to sound self-aggrandizing or important.  Your examples of that sort of writing mistake are spot-on.

Carol:
Good. Thank you. That's my whole point.

Amanda:
  But those are not jargon, to me.  In fact, the case could be made that you, as an editor, are using the term "jargon" in a professionally specific way-- in which case, by my definition, you have been using jargon yourself. <snip>

Carol:
And by my definition, I'd be using a technical term, which is *not* jargon. However, I don't agree that it's a technical term. It's a perfectly common word. If you like, I can substitute another term, "gobbledygook," but "jargon" is shorter, more familiar, and easier to type.

Amanda:
> Which brings me to another relevant point.  This whole discussion seems to have been built on an assumption that the intended audiences, for any and all examples cited, are "the average reader."  That is not always the case. If the intended audience will be familiar with the technical terminology (jargon), then it should indeed be used, because within that particular field or discipline, the use of the correct technical terms *increases* precision in the delivery of that message.  Effective communication doesn't mean "making it clear for the average reader"?it means "making it clear for the intended audience."  

Carol:
Technical terms may, in some cases, increase precision in communications between one specialist and another. Jargon, however, is imprecise by its very nature. And that includes unnecessary pseudo-technical terms like "convergent and divergent inferences" or, in literary criticism, "logocentrism" and "intertextuality").


> 
> Carol: However, it's interesting that many scientists (not Stephen Hawking!)
> manage to escape the shackles of scientific terminology and write beautiful
> books for the general public. They don't sacrifice precision for
> intelligibility. They manage both, sometimes admirably. 
> 
> Amanda:  You illustrate my point.  Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan both are very good at delivering their messages to their intended audiences. Sometimes those audiences were the general public, and the books they produced for that audience were clear, accessible, and enjoyable.  However, I imagine that the papers, articles, and books that they authored for other audiences--their colleagues and other scientists--were quite different and highly technical in nature.  The latter were probably full of "my" jargon (discipline-specific technical terminology), but I very much doubt if they were full of "your" jargon (unnecessary words or phrases, clich?s, and the like).  

Carol:
We're talking at cross-purposes. First, I specifically excluded Stephen Hawking from my list of scientists who write well for the general public. (I *would* include Carl Sagan, as well as Loren Eisley, Richard Leakey (an expert in paleontology despite his lack of a college degree), and a number of others whose names I can't remember at the moment.) Second, since we both agree that what I call jargon is bad writing, I'm not sure why we're arguing. As for how scientists communicate among themselves, it has nothing to do with me or my concerns since it doesn't affect the general public in any way (although I would hope for the sake of the scientists that they're not boring or confusing each other with needlessly dry, abstract, and indirect prose). I'm concerned about the proliferation of bad writing both as a bad example for students and aspiring writers and any other effects it might have on the general public (such as the inability to understand ballots and contracts or medical procedures).

Amanda: 
> Good authors use language effectively, whomever they are writing for.  Less skilled authors do not.

Carol:
Of course. I'm an editor. My whole job is to make ineffective writing by unskilled writers effective and publishable. We agree that good writing is effective. Where we obviously disagree is in what constitutes effective writing.

Amanda:
  Jargon is simply one tool available to authors; in the hands of the skilled, it is effective; in the hands of the less skilled, it is obstructive.  

Carol responds:

You mean that technical terminology is one tool available to writers aiming at a particular audience of specialists. And certainly, nonspecialists should not attempt to use those terms, not only because they don't understand them and may use them imprecisely but because their audience won't understand them, either, and will be further confused by their misuse. But that's not what I'm talking about.

At any rate, we agree that writers should use language effectively and that technical terminology is acceptable (perhaps inevitable) in certain contexts. But we're talking at cross purposes because what you're defending (technichal terminology used among specialists) is not what I'm attacking. I'm attacking what you call bad writing and what I call jargon or gobbledygook, which (as I know from my experience as an editor) is only one of many forms of bad writing. (I also encounter mechanical errors, second-language errors, clich?s, mixed metaphors, dangling modifiers, misused words, and a host of other problems).

For the record, Merriam-Webster online gives your definition as one of several uses of the term. Here's the full definition:

Main Entry:
    jar?gon 
    \j?r-gn, -g?n\ 
Function:
    noun 
Etymology:
    Middle English, from Anglo-French jargun, gargon
Date:
    14th century

1 a: confused unintelligible language b: a strange, outlandish, or barbarous language or dialect c: a hybrid language or dialect simplified in vocabulary and grammar and used for communication between peoples of different speech 2: the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group 3: obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and long words
? jar?gony \-g-n, -g?-n\ adjective

Mine is, admittedly, the third definition, but it's based on the original concept of confused or unintelligible language. And my complaint is that what I call jargon (and you evidently call bad writing, which, IMO, is too general and imprecise a label) is widespread in both U.S. and UK English.

Let's just say that I'm opposed to pomposity, indirectness, unintelligibility, and the importation of what ought to be technical terms (assuming that they're necessary even there) into everyday English via pop psychology and sociology. Even works by specialists for specialists ought to be as clear and concise as possible, and when the work in question is a journal article, not a legal document or a medical report, it ought also to be *interesting.* "Thou shalt not bore the reader" ought to be a cardinal rule of every professional journal (just as it is for popular magazines). Here's a random example of jargon-filled writing from the Journal of Nursing Education:

"The TREAD? Evidence-Based Practice Model is a framework for faculty to use in graduate research courses so students can become excellent consumers of the best available evidence to use in their clinical decision making in the practice setting. This model is based on competency in information literacy as the basis for developing evidence-based search strategies to find, appraise, and synthesize Level I evidence, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and evidence-based practice guidelines. This model emphasizes the use of standardized critical appraisal tools, such as the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) or Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE), to facilitate user-friendly rapid appraisal of Level I evidence. Faculty are challenged to embrace this paradigm shift, to unlearn how they learned, and to teach their graduate research course focusing on the importance of Level I evidence to enable their graduates to make informed advanced practice decisions and improve patient outcomes."

If I were a student assigned to read that article, I'd drop the course immediately.

Carol, who is not opposed to legitimate technical terminology in its proper place but is always opposed to imprecision, pomposity, pseudo-scholarship, vagueness, and dullness





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 20 01:28:14 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:28:14 -0000
Subject: Action Figures in Literature
In-Reply-To: <grvbgd+aid6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gsgj3e+bm6s@eGroups.com>

potioncat wrote:
>
> Boy, the discussion about Harry as Christ figure really heated up the boards! And what a season for it!
> 
> I know there are names for different plot types along with conventions and traditions on how those plots are expected to play out. I know what a Christ figure is. In fact, discussions about what type of story HP was and whether he was a Christ figure were used to predict the outcome of the series.
> 
> So all this got me wondering, are there other figure types? Wouldn't a hero who leads his people to a better place be a Moses figure? (Watership Down)
> 
> Are there names for the different hero or character types?
> 
> Potioncat
>
Carol responds:

Interesting question! There are stock characters in literature and drama--say, misers and bullies and braggarts--but they're always minor characters, not heroes. There are epic heroes like Achilles and Odysseus, antiheroes like Sidney Carton, Byronic heroes like Mr. Rochester in "Jane Eyre" (some people may not distinguish between antiheroes and Byronic/Satanic heroes; probably the second is a variant of the first), romantic heroes like Fitzwilliam Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice," reluctant heroes like Frodo, and tragic heroes like Oedipus or Hamlet (or even Willie Loman) who bring about their own downfall through a fatal flaw. These days, I suppose we should include superheroes as a category though they're probably a variation on the epic hero. If there's a special term for the child hero who grows to manhood in a Bildungsroman, I can't remember it, but Harry would fall into that category, as would Huckleberry Finn and David Copperfield. (Maybe we'd just call him the protagonist!)

I *have* seen "Moses figure" used to describe a certain type of hero, but I can't think of an example offhand. (Quite possibly, there are David, Abraham, and Joseph figures, too, at least in older European literature in which the author can assume familiarity with the Bible.)

Carol, who suspects that she's forgetting something obvious here






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Apr 20 12:22:10 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:22:10 -0000
Subject: Action Figures in Literature
In-Reply-To: <gsgj3e+bm6s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gshpdi+kke8@eGroups.com>

Carol responds:
 I *have* seen "Moses figure" used to describe a certain type of hero, but I can't think of an example offhand. (Quite possibly, there are David, Abraham, and Joseph figures, too, at least in older European literature in which the author can assume familiarity with the Bible.)

Potioncat:
So, to summarize the part of Carol's post that I snipped, we have stock characters, and we have hero types: epic, anitheroes, Byronic/Satanic, romantic, reluctant, and tragic. We have Christ and Moses figures. 

I suspect the nature of the HP Christ figure discussion has been our own difficulty in separtating faith (whether ours or not) from literature. Can anyone think of other Christ figures in literature? Is a Christ figure or a Moses figure a part of the list, or could it be a sub-type?

The only Moses character I can think of is from a movie, and to my mind that doesn't count. I think maybe Watership Down, except I read it so long ago, I'm not sure of the plot. 

But the Bryronic/Satanic hero---there's a contrast to the Christ figure, at least in a religious sense. Tell us more about that. Had Snape's role turned out differently, would he have met this category? Although, even had Snape lived, Harry is still the hero. So I guess Snape would remain the stock character cruel school master?

I'm starting to think I should go back to school, just to get the opportunity to discuss literature again.








From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Apr 20 15:12:27 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:12:27 -0000
Subject: Action Figures in Literature
In-Reply-To: <gshpdi+kke8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gsi3cr+f5kp@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
>  I *have* seen "Moses figure" used to describe a certain type of hero, but I can't think of an example offhand. (Quite possibly, there are David, Abraham, and Joseph figures, too, at least in older European literature in which the author can assume familiarity with the Bible.)
> 
> Potioncat:
> So, to summarize the part of Carol's post that I snipped, we have stock characters, and we have hero types: epic, anitheroes, Byronic/Satanic, romantic, reluctant, and tragic. We have Christ and Moses figures. 
> 
> I suspect the nature of the HP Christ figure discussion has been our own difficulty in separtating faith (whether ours or not) from literature. Can anyone think of other Christ figures in literature? Is a Christ figure or a Moses figure a part of the list, or could it be a sub-type?
> 
> The only Moses character I can think of is from a movie, and to my mind that doesn't count. I think maybe Watership Down, except I read it so long ago, I'm not sure of the plot. 
> 
> But the Bryronic/Satanic hero---there's a contrast to the Christ figure, at least in a religious sense. Tell us more about that. Had Snape's role turned out differently, would he have met this category? Although, even had Snape lived, Harry is still the hero. So I guess Snape would remain the stock character cruel school master?
> 
> I'm starting to think I should go back to school, just to get the opportunity to discuss literature again.

Magpie:
There's tons of stuff if we're talking archetypes. I don't know if "Moses figure" would be considered an archetype, but there are definitely other characters who are Moses figures. Usually any character who's saved from a slaughter and adopted by someone else tends to get compared to Moses.

But in terms of archetypes for instance Carolyn Myss I think her name is did a whole about using archetypes for self-help but referred to fictional characters for examples. There's the sidekick, the savior, the spy, the thief, the wizard/sage, the crone--an endless list of types you'd recognize from literature. The Byronic hero is like Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights, and Satanic I would assume mostly comes from Milton's Satan. Actually, I was just reading something about that and I'm trying to remember where. One person was saying that the Devil is a character who knows himself--oh yes, it was in a post relating to Wonder Woman. But the jist was that the Satanic character knows himself and is never surprised at the depths to which he would sink. Though another person disagreed and said in some interpretations the devil is wholly self-deluded.

I would say Snape's pretty comfortable in a line of cruel schoolmasters. He'd be quite at home in a Dickens novel that way. He's got some Sydney Carton in him but I don't think he rises to the same level of nobility with his death and love.

-m





From annemehr at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 20 16:51:19 2009
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:51:19 -0000
Subject: Children of...  (Fwd:  Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse)
Message-ID: <gsi967+mc4s@eGroups.com>

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:

Potioncat:
<snip>
By the way, has anyone here seen the play, "Children of the Flood" before? If so, answer at OT.

Annemehr:

I tried to Google it, but didn't find any play by that name.  Do you have a link?

I wonder if you meant the musical "Children of Eden"?

http://www.musicalschwartz.com/children-of-eden.htm

My daughter was in the cast when her high school put it on just this past February.  It's a Catholic school, and most of the parents and teachers raved about it (the play itself, I mean, not just the kids' performance).  But I, who am no longer Catholic, couldn't understand why.  Myself, I had very strong, and mixed, emotions.

Anyway, sorry if I'm going on about the wrong play! :P

Annemehr





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Apr 20 18:40:18 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:40:18 -0000
Subject: Children of...  (Fwd:  Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse)
In-Reply-To: <gsi967+mc4s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gsifii+n2lo@eGroups.com>

 
> Annemehr:
> 
> I wonder if you meant the musical "Children of Eden"?
> 
> http://www.musicalschwartz.com/children-of-eden.htm
> 
> My daughter was in the cast when her high school put it on just this past February.  It's a Catholic school, and most of the parents and teachers raved about it (the play itself, I mean, not just the kids' performance).  But I, who am no longer Catholic, couldn't understand why.  Myself, I had very strong, and mixed, emotions.


Potioncat:
That's it! I had a feeling I should have double checked the name.

OK good, we had the same reaction. Actually, had the play been performed on a secular stage I might have enjoyed it better. It was performed by adults at a church that has a drama group. They perform mainly secular plays, but this one was identified as a sacred play....I don't think that's exactly what I mean to say...but you get the idea. Everyone raved about it and its message, but I didn't find the underlying message to be very sacred.

The play follows the Old Testament story line. But some of the "stories" were very different from my experience. When I googled for some background, the author describes it as a play about a disfunctional family. I thought that was a pretty good description.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Apr 20 21:16:52 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:16:52 -0000
Subject: Striped Pajamas
In-Reply-To: <683CCA6E67CC4948BDE6B935F6594911@Marianne>
Message-ID: <gsioo4+41ee@eGroups.com>

Marianne:
>
> Has it been on this list that the Boy In The Striped Pajamas was discussed?
> 
> I watched it last weekend.  I was utterly shocked and upset by the ending.  I have never had a reaction to a movie before.  However it did make me think a lot.
 

Potioncat:

Oh dear. I'm sorry you saw the movie without reading the book. It was a shocking ending to read, much less to see. Did you watch the movie at home? My son and I saw it in the theater, having read the book and it was very horrible just the same. I wanted to yell, "No, don't go in! Simuel should come out!"

There was utter silence in the theater at the end. Not a word was spoken as people got up and left. I thought all and all that the movie did justice to the book.

What did you think of Thewlis?

Have you seen "Schindler's List"? My son wants to see it, and I'd be willing to let him, but I'm not sure I'm up for it. The first time i saw it the little girl in the red coat reminded me so much of my daughter I almost had to leave.

I'm a big dope that way. 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 20 21:45:07 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:45:07 -0000
Subject: Striped Pajamas
In-Reply-To: <683CCA6E67CC4948BDE6B935F6594911@Marianne>
Message-ID: <gsiqd3+h297@eGroups.com>

Marianne wrote:
>
> Has it been on this list that the Boy In The Striped Pajamas was discussed?
> 
> I watched it last weekend.  I was utterly shocked and upset by the ending.  I have never had a reaction to a movie before.  However it did make me think a lot.

Carol responds:
Potioncat and I tried to get a discussion going related to this movie, which she's seen and I wanted to see (I'd read a spoiler and knew about the ending), but no one seemed interested. 

I think it will be on Comcast Pay Per view (in the U.S.) soon--at least, I saw the trailer there when I accidentally clicked on channel 1 with the remote. 

Where did you see it? Was it on TV in England?

It's quite a role switch for David thewlis, which is why I originally brought it up both here and on the Movie list.

I think it's an important film that should have received more publicity, but I certainly wouldn't take a child to see it unless that child has been warned that the ending is shocking or has read the book. A teenager, yes. Kids need to know about the Holocaust, and a film like that might make it real to them and reach them in a way that "Schindler's List" might not because it's such a personal, easy-to-follow story.

Carol, hoping that the film comes out soon on DVD 








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 20 21:51:41 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:51:41 -0000
Subject: Happy Birthday, Carol!
In-Reply-To: <834465.64512.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gsiqpd+ukd9@eGroups.com>

Sheryll Townsend <s_ings at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> *takes down the tatteres streamers from the last parties and hangs fresh new ones and stands back in suprise*
> 
> What? But some of those is looking they is having pictures of Professor Snape on them? 
> 
> *shakes head in dismay and tries in vain to fix the mistake*
> 
> Misses and sirs is thinkings this party is late, because was having her birthday on the 16th. But the Birthday Elf is knowing Carol was going to be away until today and was not wanting you peoples to be eating her cake before she got back. <vbg>
> 
> Yes, Carol's birthday was on the 16th. Birthday owls can be sent care of this list or directly to Carol at: justcarol67 at ...
> 
> Don't forget the nibblies and drinks but no touching the cake until the birthday honouree arrives. Things will not be pretty is she misses a cake made especially for her!
> 
> Carol, I hope your day was magical and that you had a wonderful celebration while you were away.
> 
> Happy Birthday, Carol!
> 
> Sheryll the Birthday Elf

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for remembering that I would be out of town and for the Snape decor. I've had my fill of chocolate. Maybe I can find some licorice nibbles somewhere. Anyone who wants birthday cake a few days late, help yourself!

Carol, who wishes that the Weather Elves in the U.S. would make up their minds to give everyone nice spring weather instead of snow in Flagstaff, record-high temperatures in Tucson, and tornadoes in Alabama




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 20 22:49:59 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:49:59 -0000
Subject: Action Figures in Literature
In-Reply-To: <gshpdi+kke8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gsiu6n+10j0m@eGroups.com>

Potioncat:
> So, to summarize the part of Carol's post that I snipped, we have stock characters, and we have hero types: epic, anitheroes, Byronic/Satanic, romantic, reluctant, and tragic. We have Christ and Moses figures. 
> 
> I suspect the nature of the HP Christ figure discussion has been our own difficulty in separtating faith (whether ours or not) from literature. Can anyone think of other Christ figures in literature? Is a Christ figure or a Moses figure a part of the list, or could it be a sub-type?
> 
> The only Moses character I can think of is from a movie, and to my mind that doesn't count. I think maybe Watership Down, except I read it so long ago, I'm not sure of the plot. 
> 
> But the Bryronic/Satanic hero---there's a contrast to the Christ figure, at least in a religious sense. Tell us more about that. Had Snape's role turned out differently, would he have met this category? Although, even had Snape lived, Harry is still the hero. So I guess Snape would remain the stock character cruel school master?
> 
> I'm starting to think I should go back to school, just to get the opportunity to discuss literature again.
>
Carol responds:
I think that Snape fits the Byronic/Satanic hero mold even though he's not the hero of the series, or, at least, he resembles that type of antihero. I definitely would not characterize him as a stock character (cruel schoolmaster) even though he starts off looking like one. I think the surprise that the unsuspecting reader gets at the end of SS/PS (he's not the villain and he saved Harry's life) pulls him out of that stock character mold and leads us to suspect more of him, and, in any case, he's already individualized more than most stock characters, especially in his speech patterns. (Compare the stock characters, which are more like caricatures, in a typical Dickens novel.)

I don't read fanfic, or very little of it, but I can imagine a well-written fanfic from Snape's pov (first-person or third-person limited omniscient) in which he's presented as a Byronic/Satanic hero. the type derives from Milton's Satan (in "Paradise Lost"), whom the Romantics, particularly Lord Byron and his friend, Percy Shelley, viewed as a heroic rebel against a tyrannical God. (Blake held a similar view.) Byron also saw himself (and Shelley, who really believed in his own moral code, in contrast to Byron, who merely broke the rules he found so restrictive) as a rebel against hypocritical British society and brought something of this idealized view of himself to his heroes. (We don't have to share those views to recognize and appreciate a Byronic hero when we encounter one.)

The typical Byronic hero also has his own moral code, which is different from society's. He's an outsider or an outcast, sometimes literally an outlaw, torn by inner conflict and usually stained by murder or some other sin. He's often dark and brooding, intellectually gifted but arrogant and self-absorbed. (Snape fits the pattern pretty well, don't you think?) Examples include Byron's Cain (his version of the Cain and Abel story), both Frankenstein and his monster in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" (both characters have elements of Percy Shelley in them), Mr. Rochester (less flawed than most Byronic heroes but still in that mold), Sydney Carton, and Ahab in "Moby Dick" (though Ahab is also a tragic hero who brings death and destruction to everyone around him). Heathcliff and Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader have elements of the Byronic hero (the outsider with his own moral code), but they would be extreme examples because they also qualify as villains. (Maybe Ahab does, too, depending on how you interpret him.)

Here are some links that may be helpful:

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/romantic/topic_5/welcome.htm

http://victorian-fiction.suite101.com/article.cfm/mr_rochester_byronic_hero

http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/charweb/CHARACTE.htm

Anyone want to argue that Harry is a Byronic hero? Just kidding! But I do think that Snape, especially when we add in the Gothic elements like his sweeping cloak, black robes, and dungeon office, can be interpreted as a Byronic hero despite not being the hero of the story.

It just occurred to me that Peter Jackson wanted to make his Aragorn into something of a Byronic hero by having him cling to his status as a ranger (outsider) and reject his role as king until near the end. Just a thought. Feel free to disagree!

Carol, who realizes that most if not all of her examples also fit other categories




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 21 03:49:43 2009
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:49:43 -0000
Subject: Alchemy Conference - look at this -
Message-ID: <gsjfon+5ddt@eGroups.com>

Look what I stumbled upon. For those of you who remember Hans, here is an actual picture of him. He is going to be a speaker at this conference.  The section about Dr. Masaru Emoto sounds very interesting. About the effects of positive thinking on water, etc. 

http://www.alchemyconference.com/bios2009.htm#EMOTO

Tonks_op




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 21 12:45:58 2009
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:45:58 -0000
Subject: Children of...  (Fwd:  Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse)
In-Reply-To: <gsifii+n2lo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gskf66+bars@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
 
> Potioncat:
 
> OK good, we had the same reaction. Actually, had the play been performed on a secular stage I might have enjoyed it better. It was performed by adults at a church that has a drama group. They perform mainly secular plays, but this one was identified as a sacred play....I don't think that's exactly what I mean to say...but you get the idea. Everyone raved about it and its message, but I didn't find the underlying message to be very sacred.
> 
> The play follows the Old Testament story line. But some of the "stories" were very different from my experience. When I googled for some background, the author describes it as a play about a disfunctional family. I thought that was a pretty good description.
>

Annemehr:

Yes, I'd say "dysfunctional" is a good description.

Actually, on the human side, I think it was all right.  I particularly liked Yonah, and the way Noah came to his decision, but I could heartily empathize with them all.  It was the figure of "Father," and any similarity he does and doesn't bear to the OT God I used to believe in, and the God I think I know, that made it emotionally wrenching for me.  But I won't get into that here.

My daughter is one Catholic who liked the play, but she didn't find it any more sacred than you did.  Rather, for her, "Father" is just a made-up character in a story.  So, no hints there on why Christians would find it uplifting.

Maybe this is another example of the modern phenomenon of attempting to "humanize" God by giving him weaknesses, perhaps to make the dogmatic judge version less scary?  "Just a slob like one of us..."

Annemehr





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 21 19:02:27 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:02:27 -0000
Subject: The Bible as literature (moved from the main list)
Message-ID: <gsl583+jhq5@eGroups.com>

Carol wrote:

> The Bible, particularly the King James version (however flawed the translation may be in some respects) *is* a work of literature as well as a religious document, and examining it in that way (or examining biblical history in connection with anthropology) in no way makes it less sacred. Our literature, including the HP books, would not be what it is today if not for the Bible, and one reason for studying the Bible as literature is to help us discover and recognize biblical motifs and phrasing in other works of literature.

Potioncat reaponded:
I know I should know this, but is history and biography a part of literature? Maybe what I should have said in an earlier post is that a Bible story was presented as fiction. I don't remember enough of the situation now, to recall the details.

Carol responds:
I can't answer from anyone else's experience, but when I took a course in the Bible as Literature at the university level back in the seventies, history (and, to a lesser degree, biography) was incorporated into the course material and into the "textbook," the Dartmouth Bible, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in this subject. It's essentially the King James Bible with duplicate passages removed and commentary by two scholars, one Jewish and one Christian, and it includes, among other thing, parallel passages from the so-called synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to compare them with each other and contrast them with the very different Gospel of John, as well as reordering them to present a chronological narrative. It also presents the Prophets in chronological order and includes the Apocrypha, which is omitted from most Protestant Bibles, including the King James version. It includes information from the then recently discovered dead Sea Scrolls. Whether there's an updated version incorporating more recent discoveries, I don't know.

The teacher was a former Episcopal priest, one of the most colorful people I've ever met. (In those days, even his clothes were colorful. He always wore a jumpsuit--red, blue, harvest gold, possibly even green or orange--with sandals and socks. No beard--he wasn't a hippie--but you never knew what he was going to say.) It was a long time ago, but I still recall it as one of the most interesting and important courses I ever took. It combined history and literature with (IIRC) comparative mythology from the perspective of a teacher who saw Jesus very much as a historical person but also as the Son of God. He never preached, but he did try to bring to life a long ago time and a way of thinking that is very different from the modern mind. I had the same teacher for Introduction to Poetry, where he brought in the influence of the King James Bible (and Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer) on English literature.

Potioncat:
That's a good point about studying the Bible as literature in order to
understand motifs in literature. That could be a difficult process as schools present that aspect without being guilty of teaching religion.

Carol:
Thanks. As I said, I studied those things in college (university), not in high school. I'm afraid that even when I was in school, the Bible was a taboo topic in the public (state) schools. I learned about it mostly at church and through my own reading. (I was determined to read the whole Bible word for word, even the Begats, which must be one of the most boring pieces of history/literature ever written. (I don't remember how Dr. Adams, my eccentric Bible as Literature, explained the ages of the biblical patriarchs, for example, Methusaleh, who ostensibly lived to be 969 years old.)

Seriously, though, I don't see how anyone could take a course in, say, American colonial literature, which is mostly religious, or in, say, seventeenth-century English poetry (especially Milton and Donne) without some familiarity with the King James Bible. 

In defense of teaching "Bible stories," better that kids learn about the Garden of Eden or Cain and Abel or David and Goliath or Joseph and the coat of many colors or Moses and the burning bush or Daniel in the lion's den as stories like those of, say, Damon and Pythias (a Greek story of friendship and sacrifice) or Androcles and the Lion (one of Aesop's fables) or "A Christmas Carol" or Grimm's Fairytales than not learn about them at all. They're part of the shared heritage of Western culture, part of the language in which we speak to each other ("Am I my brother's keeper?" "Thou shalt not kill," etc.). Without them, we can't understand our own ancestors. Not to know them is to be culturally impoverished. *Just my opinion.*

Carol, fearing that for many of today's American, Canadian, and European children, this rich cultural heritage has already been lost




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Apr 21 22:13:43 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:13:43 -0000
Subject: Alchemy Conference - look at this -
In-Reply-To: <gsjfon+5ddt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gslgen+9rjn@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:

Tonks_op:
> Look what I stumbled upon. For those of you who remember Hans, here is an actual picture of him. He is going to be a speaker at this conference.  The section about Dr. Masaru Emoto sounds very interesting. About the effects of positive thinking on water, etc. 
> 
> http://www.alchemyconference.com/bios2009.htm#EMOTO

Geoff (second go at a reply after Yahoo disembodied my first):

Ah dear Hans Andr?a. That brings back memories.

Hans and I disagreed very profoundly as did many Christians 
on the group when he tried to persuade us all that Christianity 
and alchemy are linked together which we saw either as heresy 
or complete nonsense.

The way of liberation which he supports is not dissimilar to first 
century Gnosticism in that to follow this way, you have to have 
special knowledge which is not plainly evident in the Biblical 
records.

I am surprised that he is listed as Hans Andr?a in the conference 
data because his real name is Hans Rieuwers and, according to his 
profile, he lives in Haarlem in The Netherlands. He apparently 
taught in Australasia for many years which, coupled with him being 
Dutch, explains this excellent command of English.

When I joined HPFGU in July 2003, he had been a member - or 
at least had been posting - from he previous April, signing a few 
posts as "Hans" and then adopting the group identity "Ivan 
Vablatsky" later that month. In 2004, he started posting as Hans 
Andr?a, which persona he maintained until 2007.

IN that year, he seemed to tire of the bullets of criticism being 
fired across the no-mans-land of HPFGU and went off to found 
his own group.

in some ways, I miss his doggedness, echoed in one or two 
current in the same way I miss the acerbity of Kneasy, who now r
esides with the Old Crowd.


ly active members




From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Apr 22 14:27:44 2009
From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:27:44 -0000
Subject: Alchemy Conference - look at this -
In-Reply-To: <gslgen+9rjn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gsn9h0+b235@eGroups.com>

Hi All,

Tonks wrote:
>>> Look what I stumbled upon. For those of you who remember Hans, here is an actual picture of him. He is going to be a speaker at this conference. [...]  http://www.alchemyconference.com/bios2009.htm <<<

He spoke at both Accio conferences too. Like Geoff (though for different reasons, I'm an atheist) I completely disagreed with everything Hans said (save perhaps the redemptive power of love) but discussions with Hans at conference dinners and in the bar were always wonderful. And he is an excellent speaker too, the panel he was on at Accio 2008 about "Paganism and Christianity in Harry Potter" with Geo Athena Trevarthen and Ronald Hutton http://www.flickr.com/photos/dumbledad/2719258529/in/set-72157606467592344/ was brilliant. Bonkers, but brilliant.

Cheers,

Dumbledad




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 25 23:20:43 2009
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Birthdays for this week!
Message-ID: <807706.96203.qm@web63407.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


*surveys the newly decorated party room with satisfaction and hastily hauls away the many bags of trash left from the last celebration*

Wow, you guys sure made a mess with that last bash! At least there were no complaints about the loud music. <vbg>

Assorted nibblies and drinks have been set out on the side tables, please help yourselves.

Birthdays honourees from this past week include Deb (djklaugh) on the 19th, Catherine on the 22nd and Leann on the 23rd. Birthday owls can be sent care of this list or directly to Deb: djklaugh at comcast.net, Catherine: catorman at yahoo.com, Leann: macboysmom at comcast.net

You, loitering behind the table! Hands off the cake until the birthday honourees get their pieces!

I hope all of you who celebrated had wonderful, magical days filled with love and happiness.

Let's turn up the music and get the party started.

Happy Birthday, Deb!
Happy Birthday, Catherine!
Happy Birthday, Leann!

Sheryll the Birthday Elf

Join me at Sirens this fall!  http://www.sirensconference.org/


      __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.



From YasminOaks at aol.com  Sun Apr 26 02:11:15 2009
From: YasminOaks at aol.com (YasminOaks at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:11:15 -0400
Subject: Fwd: White deer in Wisconsin
In-Reply-To: <149963.54543.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <149963.54543.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8CB942B69A7F4B8-10E8-B64@WEBMAIL-MY09.sysops.aol.com>


This really made me think of the silver doe. I thought some of you might enjoy it as well.

Hugs,
Cathy

-----Original Message-----
From: Renee <chocolatemuse at sbcglobal.net>
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
Sent: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:05 pm
Subject: White deer in Wisconsin






Beautiful and amazing photos and video!!


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=inwi10s22a3q81f








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 26 02:44:13 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:44:13 -0000
Subject: Ripper's tail and paw :-)
Message-ID: <gt0hpt+9dak@eGroups.com>

Could anyone with the British edition of PoA please check if in Ch.2 Harry remembers to have once trodden on Ripper's paw or on his tail :-)? In my British edition it's the paw, but in my American edition it's the tail. Maybe it's different in some other year edition? 

I have Scholastic first edition (1999), but Bloomsbury 2004 edition, so I'm not sure if it's the difference between two British editions or between British and American editions, and I would like to find out. The Lexicon doesn't have it on their list of differences, so I can't figure out what it is. The paw seems more logical to me, because a bulldog's tail is really short :-). All this is on p.19 Br.ed. and p.18 Am.ed. Thank you :-)!


zanooda




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 26 03:21:36 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:21:36 -0000
Subject: Ripper's tail and paw :-)
In-Reply-To: <gt0hpt+9dak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gt0k00+al3g@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> Could anyone with the British edition of PoA please check if in Ch.2 Harry remembers to have once trodden on Ripper's paw or on his tail :-)? In my British edition it's the paw, but in my American edition it's the tail. Maybe it's different in some other year edition? 
> 
> I have Scholastic first edition (1999), but Bloomsbury 2004 edition, so I'm not sure if it's the difference between two British editions or between British and American editions, and I would like to find out. The Lexicon doesn't have it on their list of differences, so I can't figure out what it is. The paw seems more logical to me, because a bulldog's tail is really short :-). All this is on p.19 Br.ed. and p.18 Am.ed. Thank you :-)!
> 
> 
> zanooda
>
Carol responds:
 I don't have the British edition, but that sounds to me like the kind of correction that a dog-loving copyeditor might make and query (or just query). Probably, JKR wrote "tail" and the British copyeditor, picturing a bulldog's short tail, changed it (or queried it) and JKR went along with the change. Meanwhile, the American copyeditor, either not thinking about the matter or picturing fat Ripper lying on his stomach boggling up food when Harry accidentally stepped on his tail, left the wording as originally written.

Just my guess, but, if one version ends up different from the other, it has to be the editing. Both publishers start out with the same manuscript.

Carol, who would have left "tail" as is without a second thought 




From editor at texas.net  Sun Apr 26 03:45:42 2009
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:45:42 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <gsgege+sbsd@eGroups.com>
References: <B4FFA7071F9641269C0CF08B6B0BB3E4@AmandaPC> <gsgege+sbsd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <9B077F5D6FFB427E9EF37FB044E30923@AmandaPC>

Sorry, Carol, I?ve been very busy and didn?t see your response.

Amanda:
But those are not jargon, to me. In fact, the case could be made that you,
as an editor, are using the term "jargon" in a professionally specific way--
in which case, by my definition, you have been using jargon yourself. <snip>

Carol:
And by my definition, I'd be using a technical term, which is *not* jargon.
However, I don't agree that it's a technical term. It's a perfectly common
word. If you like, I can substitute another term, "gobbledygook," but
"jargon" is shorter, more familiar, and easier to type.

Amanda responds:  It?s a perfectly common word, but in my professional
circles and the general usage I encounter, ?jargon? is used to mean terms of
art for a particular profession?something only practitioners would easily
recognize?and as such, is ?written around? when communicating to audiences
other than practitioners.  I therefore retract my initial observation,
because you are using it in a way that has a specific meaning for you, but
which is not the primary meaning I have seen associated with the term in my
experience.  We probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

Amanda:
> Which brings me to another relevant point. This whole discussion seems to
have been built on an assumption that the intended audiences, for any and
all examples cited, are "the average reader." That is not always the case.
If the intended audience will be familiar with the technical terminology
(jargon), then it should indeed be used, because within that particular
field or discipline, the use of the correct technical terms *increases*
precision in the delivery of that message. Effective communication doesn't
mean "making it clear for the average reader"?it means "making it clear for
the intended audience." 

Carol:
Technical terms may, in some cases, increase precision in communications
between one specialist and another. Jargon, however, is imprecise by its
very nature. And that includes unnecessary pseudo-technical terms like
"convergent and divergent inferences" or, in literary criticism,
"logocentrism" and "intertextuality").

Amanda responds:  Whether or not a usage is ?unnecessary? is subjective, and
ultimately the decision of the author.  An editor?s job is advisory, even a
substantive or developmental editor?s.  The ?pseudo? technical terms you
have cited may be precisely what is called for, depending on what the
document is and who the intended audience is.  Or they may be inflated
language or pomposity.  As an editor, you cannot dismiss them out of hand
without considering the context of each document.  

Amanda: 
> Good authors use language effectively, whomever they are writing for. Less
skilled authors do not.

Carol:
Of course. I'm an editor. My whole job is to make ineffective writing by
unskilled writers effective and publishable. We agree that good writing is
effective. Where we obviously disagree is in what constitutes effective
writing.

Amanda responds:  I see no basis for your conclusion here.  I was not
defending the examples you cited; if the audience for those was truly the
?general public,? their content is rather inaccessible.  

I am a technical editor by profession, and my job is to ensure clear
delivery of an effective message from the author to the intended audience.
That intended audience varies greatly, as do the types of documents.  I,
like most editors, use my own comprehension and perceptions of clarity as a
starting point, but other considerations apply.  My observations to authors
sometimes include the caveat, ?This was my perception, and here is a
suggested revision?but I may have altered your intended meaning.  If your
intended audience would have understood, or you had used this phrasing
deliberately, ignore the edit, or contact me to discuss the perception.?  At
the end of the day, it is the *audience?s* filter that will direct the
decision, not the editor?s.  Just because I didn?t understand it, doesn?t
mean an intended audience won?t.  My job is to point out the potential, and
if the author agrees, to help address it.

Amanda:
Jargon is simply one tool available to authors; in the hands of the skilled,
it is effective; in the hands of the less skilled, it is obstructive. 

Carol:

You mean that technical terminology is one tool available to writers aiming
at a particular audience of specialists. And certainly, nonspecialists
should not attempt to use those terms, not only because they don't
understand them and may use them imprecisely but because their audience
won't understand them, either, and will be further confused by their misuse.
But that's not what I'm talking about.

Amanda responds:  Sometimes it is inevitable that technical terms must be
included in material for the general public.  For example, fact sheets from
the government explaining environmental cleanup.  Those are often written to
the eighth-grade level, but the subject matter is technical.  There is a
balance that must be struck between technical accuracy and precision on the
one hand, and what the audience can understand, on the other.  Too often,
trying to explain a technical term only introduces more ?technicality,?
while putting everything too simply alters the message.  That is where the
skill of an editor comes in, helping to connect the author?s expertise with
the audience?s understanding?to make the communication as effective as it
can be, given the context of the document.

Carol:  I'm attacking what you call bad writing and what I call jargon or
gobbledygook, which (as I know from my experience as an editor) is only one
of many forms of bad writing. (I also encounter mechanical errors,
second-language errors, clich?s, mixed metaphors, dangling modifiers,
misused words, and a host of other problems).

Amanda responds:  One need not be an editor to know multiple forms of bad
writing.  I just am very careful to avoid a ?trench mentality? with authors.
They are professionals, as am I, and we each bring our own expertise to the
document.  I don?t expect them to be highly skilled writers, just as they
don?t expect me to be a highly skilled whatever they may be.  I?m not there
to condemn their writing failures (although I?ll admit the entertainment
value can be high at times).  It is a partnership. 

Carol, who is not opposed to legitimate technical terminology in its proper
place but is always opposed to imprecision, pomposity, pseudo-scholarship,
vagueness, and dullness

Amanda responds:  I think I?m reacting to a perception I?ve been picking up
from you on this thread, of ?I know better than them.?  It may not have been
intentional on your part.  My point is that condemning authors isn?t the
most effective way to improve their writing.  Any editor should share their
perceptions of the things you mention, to offer the author a potential
audience reaction and give them the opportunity to correct it.  But at the
end of the day, whether a technical usage is ?legitimate,? whether
scholarship is ?pseudo,? etc., is not truly the editor?s call, and the
author is not necessarily wrong for disagreeing with us.   

~Amanda





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 26 05:16:37 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:16:37 -0000
Subject: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)
In-Reply-To: <9B077F5D6FFB427E9EF37FB044E30923@AmandaPC>
Message-ID: <gt0qnl+urhs@eGroups.com>

Amanda Geist wrote:
>
> Sorry, Carol, I've been very busy and didn't see your response.

Carol:
No problem. I've been very busy, too. BTW, my nurse educator client just informed me that both the articles I edited for her have been accepted for publication in professional journals. Hooray!
> 
> 
> Amanda responds:  It's a perfectly common word, but in my professional circles and the general usage I encounter, "jargon" is used to mean terms of art for a particular profession?something only practitioners would easily recognize?and as such, is "written around" when communicating to audiences other than practitioners. 

Carol:
And in my professional circles, both academic and editorial, "jargon" is used as a term of disparagement. We seem to be going around in circles here.

Amanda:
 >I therefore retract my initial observation, because you are using it in a way that has a specific meaning for you, but which is not the primary meaning I have seen associated with the term in my experience.  We probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

Carol:
I'm using it the way it's used in both my fields. But, yes, agree to disagree.
> 

> Amanda responds:  Whether or not a usage is "unnecessary" is subjective, and ultimately the decision of the author.  An editor's job is advisory, even a substantive or developmental editor's.  The "pseudo" technical terms you have cited may be precisely what is called for, depending on what the document is and who the intended audience is.  Or they may be inflated language or pomposity.  As an editor, you cannot dismiss them out of hand without considering the context of each document.  

Carol:
Forgive me, but I do know how to do my job, when to change and when to query. A lot depends on the client and his or her wishes. Some of my clients, like the nurse educator whose articles I made publishable, are first-time writers. Others are academics with previously published works whose manuscripts have to be edited with a lighter hand. I'm quite aware that an editor's job is advisory, and I always tell the first-time who work with me directly (as opposed to working through a publisher) that they are free to accept or reject my corrections or suggestions and that it's their book. (The professional authors are already very much aware of that. Ultimately, they're responsible for the book, and it's very much in their interest to go over the copyedited manuscript very carefully.) I would not "dismiss [technical terms] out of hand "without considering the context of each document." Either you haven't been reading my posts carefully or I haven't been clear. Either way, you've mistaken my meaning. Please don't tell me how to do my job or insult my professional integrity. I know how to use language effectively (which we both agree is the essence of good writing) and how to help others do so. If I didn't, I'd be out of a job.
> 
Amanda:
> I am a technical editor by profession, and my job is to ensure clear delivery of an effective message from the author to the intended audience. That intended audience varies greatly, as do the types of documents.  I,like most editors, use my own comprehension and perceptions of clarity as a starting point, but other considerations apply.  

Carol:
Of course--intended audience and the publisher's requirements among them. I'm not trying to rewrite my client's works to sound as if I wrote them, nor can I make a technical report into sterling, memorable prose. But I have a duty to help the writer make the writing as clear and concise and correct as possible, and, in some cases (I'm talking about fiction and mainstream nonfiction) as readable and concrete and (to some degree) colorful as well.What I do depends on the client and the project. But I always make it better than it was before it entered my hands, within the limits of the particular assignment. 

Amanda:
> My observations to authors sometimes include the caveat, "This was my perception, and here is a suggested revision?but I may have altered your intended meaning.  If your intended audience would have understood, or you had used this phrasing deliberately, ignore the edit, or contact me to discuss the perception." <snip>

Carol:
I don't use exactly the same words, but, of course, I also indicate that if a suggested revision alters the intended meaning, the client can ignore the edit or revise it some other way that solves the problem without changing the meaning. And my clients are always free to contact me to discuss suggested revisions. (Forgive me, but we both know that querying is part of the job. You don't need to tell me that, nor do I need to tell you.)
 
Amanda:  
> Sometimes it is inevitable that technical terms must be included in material for the general public.  For example, fact sheets from the government explaining environmental cleanup.  Those are often written to the eighth-grade level, but the subject matter is technical. 

Carol:
In which case, the terms are or ought to be defined. You talk about the audience as a "filter." If the audience doesn't understand what's written, or doesn't even read it (as in the terms of use for a downloaded program), the writer's (and editor's) efforts are wasted.

Amanda:
>  That is where the skill of an editor comes in, helping to connect the author's expertise with the audience's understanding?to make the communication as effective as it can be, given the context of the document.

Carol:
Exactly. However, in some cases (even in technical writing) we can also make the writing more graceful. Case in point, dangling modifiers. Yesterday, I came across a sentence (it happened to be in a memoir, but technical writers also dangle participles on occasion) that ran something like this: "Often found in cold mountain streams, my father told me that the golden trout are native to the High Sierras.) To avoid the impression that the author's father spends his time in cold mountain streams (well, maybe he does, but that's not what the author meant), I omitted "my father told me," moved the father's as authority to a more logical place, and explained the concept of "dangling participle" (a technical term, *not* jargon as my colleagues and I use the term) to the client. (I would not have done so if that had been the only dangled participle or even one of three or four; it was one of many. I refrained, however, from mentioning my mental image of the author's fisherman father floundering in a mountain stream.)

Amanda:  [Authors] are professionals, as am I, and we each bring our own expertise to the document. 

Carol:
Your authors may be professionals. Many of mine are amateurs, first-time writers or former graduate students trying to revise their theses for publication. And when they *are* professionals, they're experts in some field other than writing, which is why they've come to me for my help (or why the publisher has requested that I copyedit the manuscript--a light, medium, or heavy edit, as the case requires--never a complete rewrite, which is another job altogether).

Amanda:
> I don't expect them to be highly skilled writers, just as they don't expect me to be a highly skilled whatever they may be. I'm not there to condemn their writing failures (although I'll admit the entertainment value can be high at times).  It is a partnership. 

Carol:
Of course. I do, however, advise clients who ask me to do so on how they can improve their manuscripts. (A critique goes along with the edit in some cases.) In other cases, I simply have to meet the publisher's stylistic and editorial requirements with a minimum of commentary. Either way, of course it's a partnership--and not just between author and copyeditor if the project has been accepted for publication but between copyeditor and the rest of the editorial team, including the project editor, the production editor, the proofreader, the typesetter, and all the rest.

> 
Amanda:  
> I think I'm reacting to a perception I've been picking up from you on this thread, of "I know better than them."  It may not have been intentional on your part.  

Carol:
I see. That accounts for the perception I'm picking up that you're telling me how to do my job. I don't think this is working out very well, especially since you're telling me things I know perfectly well and in several places, I felt that you were stepping on my professional toes. I do know my job, and I have no doubt that you know yours. We just seem to have a slightly different professional philosophy, a different definition of jargon, and a different client?le.

Amanda:
My point is that condemning authors isn't the most effective way to improve their writing. 

Carol:
If you think that I condemn the authors I work with, you're seriously mistaken. I don't know where you got that impression, but I'm starting to get irritated with and offended by your assumptions.

Amanda:
> Any editor should share their perceptions of the things you mention, to offer the author a potential audience reaction and give them the opportunity to correct it.  

Carol:
Of course. BTW, I would write "his or her perceptions" because I don't consider using plural pronouns for singular antecedents the best means of preventing sexism. Just a comment from one editor to another.

Amanda:
> But at the end of the day, whether a technical usage is legitimate," whether scholarship is "pseudo," etc., is not truly the editor's call, and the author is not necessarily wrong for disagreeing with us.

Carol:
There I would disagree with you because I'm not talking about "technical usage." I'm talking about pomposity and abstraction masquerading as technical terms--for example, "precipitation in the form of rain" when "rain" will do quite well, thank you. If I'm not sure about the meaning or necessity of a technical term and the sentence is consequently unintelligible, I will query it. But if I know the author's intended meaning and can say exactly the same thing in fewer words--more clearly, more simply, and more directly--I will revise the sentence. If it's in passive voice and I can't revise it because I can't tell what the subject should be, I'll query. If I don't know the intended meaning or if I'm not sure whether my suggested revision (all revisions are suggestions) alters the intended meaning, I'll query. But my clients and the publishers and editing services I work with expect me to improve the authors' writing, not just correcting their grammar, punctuation, and spelling, but making their writing clearer and more readable. That's what I'm paid to do, and that includes eliminating jargon as I define it.

I will say, however, that I don't edit the kinds of documents you apparently work with, and it's probably just as well. I would hate my job.

Carol, who has said everything she has to say on the subject and would appreciate it if Amanda would drop the thread   





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Apr 26 06:42:10 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:42:10 -0000
Subject: Ripper's tail and paw :-)
In-Reply-To: <gt0hpt+9dak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gt0vo2+jmbq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:

zanooda:
> Could anyone with the British edition of PoA please check if in Ch.2 Harry remembers to have once trodden on Ripper's paw or on his tail :-)? In my British edition it's the paw, but in my American edition it's the tail. Maybe it's different in some other year edition? 
> 
> I have Scholastic first edition (1999), but Bloomsbury 2004 edition, so I'm not sure if it's the difference between two British editions or between British and American editions, and I would like to find out. The Lexicon doesn't have it on their list of differences, so I can't figure out what it is. The paw seems more logical to me, because a bulldog's tail is really short :-). All this is on p.19 Br.ed. and p.18 Am.ed. Thank you :-)!

Geoff:
I have a Bloomsbury edition of POA I bought in October 2003 but 
is dated as the 1999 edition. It has "paw".

I agree, it is physically impossible to tread on a bulldog's tail. The 
only way you'd get there would be by kicking the poor beast up the
backside.
:-))




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Apr 26 17:41:56 2009
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 26 Apr 2009 17:41:56 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/26/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1240767716.11.58556.m5@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday April 26, 2009
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2009 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20090426/b6034b89/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 26 17:49:58 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:49:58 -0000
Subject: Ripper's tail and paw :-)
In-Reply-To: <gt0vo2+jmbq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gt26s6+3sn9@eGroups.com>

Geoff:
> I have a Bloomsbury edition of POA I bought in October 2003 but is dated as the 1999 edition. It has "paw".
> 
> I agree, it is physically impossible to tread on a bulldog's tail. The only way you'd get there would be by kicking the poor beast up the backside. :-))

Carol responds:
Maybe it depends on the breed of bulldog, but I think it would be possible to step on even a two-inch stub of a tail if the animal is lying down or sitting (and you're not used to having animals underfoot and therefore not watching where you're going).

If, as I gather from your post, English bulldogs are particularly known for their short tails (either natural or bobbed), the Bloomsbury copyeditor would be more likely to know that and suggest revising "tail" to "paw" than an American copyeditor. (I doubt that the American editor would have suggested changing "paw" to "tail"--the change wouldn't be justified.)

Just my thoughts on a point that can't be proven either way.

Carol, who doubts that Harry of Ripper as a "poor beast" and suspects that he wouldn't have minded "kicking him up the backside" if he could have done so with impunity (Please don't view this comment as advocating cruelty to animals!)





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Apr 26 19:48:23 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:48:23 -0000
Subject: white deer of Wisconsin
Message-ID: <gt2dq7+lose@eGroups.com>

Cathy YasminOaks wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/39138>:

<< This really made me think of the silver doe. I thought some of you might enjoy it as well. 
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=inwi10s22a3q81f> >>

Thank you. I did enjoy it. The mention that albino deer (like white bunnies and white cats) have pink ears and pink noses suddenly reminded me that in the Mabinogion, when a this-world hunter in the woods sees a deer or a dog which is white with *red* ears, that animal came from a magical world (Annwn in the Mabinogion, Faerie in some other stories), and interacting with it begins the hunter's magical adventure. Red, pink, could be the same thing.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Apr 26 20:53:44 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:53:44 -0000
Subject: white deer of Wisconsin
In-Reply-To: <gt2dq7+lose@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gt2hko+q81e@eGroups.com>

Cathy YasminOaks wrote:
> 
> << This really made me think of the silver doe. I thought some of you might enjoy it as well. 
> <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=inwi10s22a3q81f> >>
Catlady responded: 
> Thank you. I did enjoy it. The mention that albino deer (like white bunnies and white cats) have pink ears and pink noses suddenly reminded me that in the Mabinogion, when a this-world hunter in the woods sees a deer or a dog which is white with *red* ears, that animal came from a magical world (Annwn in the Mabinogion, Faerie in some other stories), and interacting with it begins the hunter's magical adventure. Red, pink, could be the same thing.

Carol responds:
Along those lines, here's a snippet from Wordsworth's "White Doe of Rylstone": 

"The only voice which you can hear
Is the river murmuring near.--
When soft!--the dusky trees between,
And down the path through the open green, 
Where is no living thing to be seen;
<snip> Comes gliding in with lovely gleam,
Comes gliding in serene and slow,
Soft and silent as a dream,
A solitary Doe!
White she is as lily of June,
And beauteous as the silver moon"

Not Wordsworth's best poetry, by any means, but a white doe among the dusky trees, gliding and gleaming and silent, white as a lily and  beautiful as the silver moon? Sounds exactly like Snape's Patronus to me, lily reference and all.

Here's a link to the whole poem if anyone wants to wade through it:

http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww341.html

I just wanted to quote the one passage; the poem itself isn't particularly relevant (unless you count the doe as a symbol of innocence and the past giving comfort to those who see her).

I have no idea whether JKR ever encountered this poem or at least this passage in her reading, but I thought that the parallels were striking.

Carol, who thinks that Wordsworth should have left the ballads to Coleridge and stuck with lyrics and sonnets

        





From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sun Apr 26 20:55:33 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:55:33 -0000
Subject: Ripper's tail and paw :-)
In-Reply-To: <gt0vo2+jmbq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gt2ho5+62o2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2@> wrote:
> 
> zanooda:
> > Could anyone with the British edition of PoA please check if in Ch.2 Harry remembers to have once trodden on Ripper's paw or on his tail :-)? In my British edition it's the paw, but in my American edition it's the tail. Maybe it's different in some other year edition? 
> > 
> > I have Scholastic first edition (1999), but Bloomsbury 2004 edition, so I'm not sure if it's the difference between two British editions or between British and American editions, and I would like to find out. The Lexicon doesn't have it on their list of differences, so I can't figure out what it is. The paw seems more logical to me, because a bulldog's tail is really short :-). All this is on p.19 Br.ed. and p.18 Am.ed. Thank you :-)!
> 
> Geoff:
> I have a Bloomsbury edition of POA I bought in October 2003 but 
> is dated as the 1999 edition. It has "paw".
> 
> I agree, it is physically impossible to tread on a bulldog's tail. The 
> only way you'd get there would be by kicking the poor beast up the
> backside.
> :-))


Marianne:

I have the 1999 Scholastic hardback of the book and it says tail.  In my 2004 Bloomsbury paperback it says paw.

Small differences in the books.  I've noticed mainly puncuation, some spelling and maybe the meanings of words.  I'm not sure.  I haven't paid that much attention to the acual differences.

Marianne





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Apr 26 21:49:21 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:49:21 -0000
Subject: from Main List. Re: Christ figure  - forgiveness
Message-ID: <gt2kt1+n6c9@eGroups.com>

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186254>:

<< What Harry brings back is Voldemort's last chance and forgiveness for Snape and Dumbledore. Speaking as a Jew, it doesn't quite mesh with the values of Judaism. According to Jewish teaching, remorse is not restitution, and forgiveness cannot be granted unless restitution is made. I'm perfectly happy to appreciate HP on its own terms. I just don't see them as universal. >>

All the Christians can explain what I get wrong, but it seems to me that what you are leaving out is Original Sin. Jewish doctrine doesn't believe in Original Sin, only the wrongdoing of each individual person. (For which Snape definitely made restitution, and Dumbledore tried to, so it is only that Voldemort's remorse might improve the state of his soul to which the principle of no forgiveness without restitution would apply. If Voldemort's remorse meant his next great adventure would be as something with a bit more ability than a flayed baby, perhaps his next stop after King's Cross would be eons of trying to make restitution: beyond King's Cross, JKR sayeth not.)

Christian doctrine believes that every individual is innately guilty of Original Sin and that no amount of human restitution can make up for Original Sin, and neither can repentance (remorse) without Christ. Thus, all humans are doomed unless they are forgiven without restitution, or they are forgiven because Christ made restitution on their behalf. (At this point, the phrase 'vicarious suffering' floats up in my memory -- as you know, 'vicarious' is like 'proxy', so IIRC this phrase means Christ was punished as humans' proxy, with the punishment that humans deserved.) But my point was, when restitution is impossible, the only remaining possibilities are forgiveness without restitution or no forgiveness.  





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Apr 26 22:06:23 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:06:23 -0000
Subject: Ripper's tail and paw :-)
In-Reply-To: <gt2ho5+62o2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gt2lsv+7u0f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose01us" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:

Marianne:
 
> I have the 1999 Scholastic hardback of the book and it says tail.  In my 2004 Bloomsbury paperback it says paw.
 
> Small differences in the books.  I've noticed mainly puncuation, some spelling and maybe the meanings of words.  I'm not sure.  I haven't paid that much attention to the acual differences.

Geoff:
This is because the Scholastic editions have been translated 
into US English whereas the Bloomsbury copies are in their 
original language.
:-))

Therefore the question which has arisen here is whether this was 
an editorial alteration; I would guess that this is the case.. There 
have been a number of occurrences such as this.

I think the Lexicon lists  many of them.





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Apr 27 05:33:09 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:33:09 -0000
Subject: Ripper's tail and paw :-)
In-Reply-To: <gt26s6+3sn9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gt3g2l+daui@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Maybe it depends on the breed of bulldog, but I think it 
> would be possible to step on even a two-inch stub of a 
> tail if the animal is lying down or sitting


zanooda:

I'm pretty sure Marge breeds English bulldogs, that's how it was in the movie, and besides, what other kind to breed in England :-)? They have very short tails, sometimes it looks as if they don't have one. And the tail is set rather high, so it's difficult to tread on it:  http://www.noticeboard.uk.net/imagenesdin/foto386.jpg

However, theoretically you are probably right, and it's possible to step on a tail if a dog is sitting like this, for example: http://www.muamat.com/adpics/49d679080790db9acfb4e9891.jpg  :-) :-).




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 28 17:19:31 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:19:31 -0000
Subject: JKR's sense of humor
Message-ID: <gt7dr3+r0md@eGroups.com>

I picked up HBP the other day and started rereading the first few chapters. It's my favorite book of the series despite the events at the end, and, after all, the movie is coming up in mid-July.

I found myself laughing at a particular sentence that I've found funny before. The Muggle Prime Minister (in a skilfully handled flashback) has just heard the frog-faced little man in the painting announce that the Minister of Magic is about to arrive, so "[n]aturally, he had thought that the long campaign and the strain of the election had caused him to go mad" (HBP Am. ed. 3).

Is it just me, or does anyone else find this sentence funny? And, if so, why? I *think* it's the unexpected twist at the end and the deadpan tone in which the line is delivered. But does that qualify as "understated British humor"? It seems more like hyperbole to me--but very subtle hyperbole (in contrast to the descriptions of Hagrid or Dudley, in which the exaggeration is obvious.)

Anyone care to comment on JKR's sense of humor and why a particular example is (or isn't) funny in your view? I'm not talking about crude juvenile humor like Ron's "Uranus" puns, which are obviously geared to preadolescent or early adolescent boys. I'm talking about humor that appeals to adult readers like us--not just the sexual innuendos or the puns, but anything that isn't broad, slapstick, obvious humor.

I realize that humor is subjective and that not everyone shares JKR's sense of humor, but some lines are laugh-out-loud funny. (One that I remember offhand is Fred in GoF addressing Percy as "Weatherby." I don't know why I found that funny. Maybe it was the element of surprise. It seems to me that many of JKR's funniest lines hit the reader with something unexpected at the end. Quite possibly, they're not funny out of context (like the one about the Prime Minister "naturally" thinking that he'd gone mad. And I'm not sure that they qualify as understated humor,  which (as I understand it) takes something dire or drastic or disastrous (like real madness) and treats it in a trivial way. Or maybe I have the concept all wrong.

Carol, suspecting that her own sense of humor is idiosyncratic and inexplicable




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 29 02:22:50 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:22:50 -0000
Subject: "One of the only".
Message-ID: <gt8dlq+ph47@eGroups.com>

I was wondering about the expression "one of the only", what exactly does it mean? When Rita Skeeter says: "I am probably one of the only people alive who can say that they know the real Harry Potter" - does she mean "I am the only one" or "I am one of the few"?

I've never met this expression before, but it seems to me that it should mean "one of the few", because it is followed by "they", and because I just have a feeling ... :-). But again, I want to be sure before I correct this in a translation, that's why I decided to ask you guys first :-). Please help.


zanooda 




From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Wed Apr 29 03:28:46 2009
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:28:46 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] "One of the only".
In-Reply-To: <gt8dlq+ph47@eGroups.com>
References: <gt8dlq+ph47@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0904282028m41fec593r6601092d2a196755@mail.gmail.com>

zanooda
> I was wondering about the expression "one of the only", what exactly does it
> mean? When Rita Skeeter says: "I am probably one of the only people alive
> who can say that they know the real Harry Potter" - does she mean "I am the
> only one" or "I am one of the few"?

Ali:
It's "one of the few," with the emphasis on few.  It's a little like
saying "one of the very few."

Your instinct is spot on for this one.

~Ali



From sassykat1121963 at aol.com  Wed Apr 29 05:17:19 2009
From: sassykat1121963 at aol.com (Kathi)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:17:19 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
Message-ID: <gt8nsv+9omf@eGroups.com>

I'm re-reading the series again (I can't even tell you how many times I've done this).  Sometimes I wonder how she came up with the character's names.  Hermione isn't exactly a mainstream name, as a matter of fact, the only other time I ever heard that name was the British actress Hermione Gingold.  As far as the children in the books, other than Hermione, they all have pretty normal names.  It's when she gets to the adults that her imagination runs away with her.  
Anyway, I got a lightning strike in the brain as I was reading GOF the other day. And it concerned Sirius Black.

Sirius Black is an unregistered Animagus.  He transforms into a black dog.  
Sirius is also the name for the Dog Star.  I just wondered if anyone else had made that connection.  

You probably have, but for some reason, the first 50 times I read it, I never realized it.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 29 05:42:16 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:42:16 -0000
Subject: "One of the only".
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0904282028m41fec593r6601092d2a196755@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gt8pbo+aotn@eGroups.com>

zanooda wrote:
> > I was wondering about the expression "one of the only", what exactly does it mean? When Rita Skeeter says: "I am probably one of the only people alive who can say that they know the real Harry Potter" - does she mean "I am the only one" or "I am one of the few"?
> 
Ali:
> It's "one of the few," with the emphasis on few.  It's a little like saying "one of the very few."
> 
> Your instinct is spot on for this one.

Carol:
Exactly. Oddly enough, "only" can modify a plural noun, as in, "we're the only people in the world who belong to this group" or "platypuses are the only mammals that lay eggs," so it isn't always singular. And when "only" is used with "one of," it does mean "few." (I checked Merriam-Webster Online to be sure.) "One of the only" implies more than one (but not many), in contrast to "I am the only one," which, of course, means just what it says. "One of the one" makes no sense.

Carol, who really only intended to say "exactly" but wasn't sure whether "I agree" posts are allowed on OTC!




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Apr 29 06:37:43 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:37:43 -0000
Subject: "One of the only".
In-Reply-To: <gt8pbo+aotn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gt8sjn+fti8@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> zanooda wrote:
> > > I was wondering about the expression "one of the only", what exactly does it mean? When Rita Skeeter says: "I am probably one of the only people alive who can say that they know the real Harry Potter" - does she mean "I am the only one" or "I am one of the few"?
> > 
> Ali:
> > It's "one of the few," with the emphasis on few.  It's a little like saying "one of the very few."
> > 
> > Your instinct is spot on for this one.
> 
> Carol:
> Exactly. Oddly enough, "only" can modify a plural noun, as in, "we're the only people in the world who belong to this group" or "platypuses are the only mammals that lay eggs," so it isn't always singular. And when "only" is used with "one of," it does mean "few." (I checked Merriam-Webster Online to be sure.) "One of the only" implies more than one (but not many), in contrast to "I am the only one," which, of course, means just what it says. "One of the one" makes no sense.
> 
> Carol, who really only intended to say "exactly" but wasn't sure whether "I agree" posts are allowed on OTC!

Geoff:
Yes you can.

And with that in mind, my only comment re your post and Ali's 
is "seconded" - or should that be "thirded"?
:-)





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Apr 29 06:43:20 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:43:20 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gt8nsv+9omf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gt8su8+qkhf@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Kathi" <sassykat1121963 at ...> wrote:
>
> I'm re-reading the series again (I can't even tell you how many times I've done this).  Sometimes I wonder how she came up with the character's names.  Hermione isn't exactly a mainstream name, as a matter of fact, the only other time I ever heard that name was the British actress Hermione Gingold.  As far as the children in the books, other than Hermione, they all have pretty normal names.  It's when she gets to the adults that her imagination runs away with her.  
> Anyway, I got a lightning strike in the brain as I was reading GOF the other day. And it concerned Sirius Black.
> 
> Sirius Black is an unregistered Animagus.  He transforms into a black dog.  
> Sirius is also the name for the Dog Star.  I just wondered if anyone else had made that connection.  
> 
> You probably have, but for some reason, the first 50 times I read it, I never realized it.

Geoff:
It has indeed been raised frequently. Don't forget that astronomical names 
are common in the Black family and relatives - Regulus, Draco, Bellatrix and 
Andromeda spring immediately to mind.

I did mention Hermione Gingold as another "owner' of the name way, way back... marvellous actress.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 29 18:51:37 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:51:37 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <gt8su8+qkhf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gta7jp+ne5f@eGroups.com>

Geoff wrote:
><snip>
> I did mention Hermione Gingold as another "owner' of the name way, way back... marvellous actress.
>
Carol adds:
But JKR actually got the name from the character Hermione in Shakespeare's "A Winter's Tale":

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/granger.html

That Hermione is a queen falsely accused of infidelity. Here's her monologue, if anyone's interested:

http://www.monologuearchive.com/s/shakespeare_017.html

The name is Greek and derived from Hermes (with whom our Hermione has no connection that I can see). There's also a Hermione in Greek mythology. the daughter of Menelaus and Helen, about whom I know absolutely nothing.

Muggles, of course, have their own family traditions for naming their children. JKR comments in an interview that "my Hermione bears very little relation to [Shakespeare's] Hermione, but it just seemed the sort of name that a pair of professional dentists, who liked to prove how clever they were ... do you know what I mean ... gave their daughter a nice, unusual name that no-one could pronounce!" the link to the actual interview is broken, but Accio Quotes paraphrases JKR as stating that "Hermione needed an unusual name because she was so swotty and annoying." Here's my source:

http://www.accio-quote.org/themes/hermione.htm 

Carol, wondering whether Hermione would have evolved differently into a character if JKR had named her Jane, as (IIRC) she originally intended






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 29 21:26:38 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:26:38 -0000
Subject: "One of the only".
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0904282028m41fec593r6601092d2a196755@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gtagme+rkpb@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" <alexisnguyen at ...> wrote:

> It's "one of the few," with the emphasis on few.  It's a little like
> saying "one of the very few."


zanooda:

Thanks, everyone :-).




From Mhochberg at aol.com  Thu Apr 30 05:45:29 2009
From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:45:29 -0400
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
Message-ID: <8CB976E00EDDF3E-380-183A@WEBMAIL-DY24.sysops.aol.com>


Kath wrote:



Anyway, I got a lightning strike in the brain as I was reading GOF the other day. And it concerned Sirius Black.

I write:
It happens to me too. It wasn't until a recent rereading of DH that I realized why DD, Lupin, and others were willing to believe the Sirius was the traitor. It always annoyed me that they were so quick to believe that he turned in the Potters. They thought he was reverting to his family's beliefs. 

The other Aha! moment was when I finally realized why Snape was so hard on Neville. If Voldemort had chosen Neville instead of Harry, Lily would be alive. 

---Mary





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 30 18:52:25 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:52:25 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <8CB976E00EDDF3E-380-183A@WEBMAIL-DY24.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <gtcs19+7jbb@eGroups.com>

Mary wrote:
<snip> 
> The other Aha! moment was when I finally realized why Snape was so hard on Neville. If Voldemort had chosen Neville instead of Harry, Lily would be alive. 

Carol responds:

And Snape would still be a Death Eater!

Seriously, though, do we know for sure that Snape knows about Neville as a potential Prophecy boy? Maybe he just can't tolerate incompetence, especially when that incompetence endangers other students as it does in Potions class. In Neville's very first class, he melts Seamus's cauldron and drenches himself with a potion that's supposed to *cure* boils and instead, in his case, creates them, and he continues to melt cauldrons through several more books. Also, as we know, Snape hates both weakness and cowardice, and he may regard Neville's (understandable) fear of him as both.

Carol, just presenting other possibilities





From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 30 19:36:14 2009
From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (lizzie_snape)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:36:14 -0000
Subject: Sometimes things just have to smack me upside the head.......
In-Reply-To: <8CB976E00EDDF3E-380-183A@WEBMAIL-DY24.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <gtcuje+s5jv@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Mhochberg at ... wrote:
>
> 
> The other Aha! moment was when I finally realized why Snape was so hard on Neville. If Voldemort had chosen Neville instead of Harry, Lily would be alive. 
> 
> ---Mary
> 

This could have been part of the reason, but Neville really was an awful potions student too.

Lizzie