Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Cambridge English Students and Applicants

Scroll to see replies

Lidka

But I like pantomimes. Hm, why does Greek beat them all? I suppose I like it because it's fiendishly hard - there's something really cool about finally getting a tricky piece of grammar right. I like because it's very precise as a language - Latin was always difficult for me because it would take a lot of circling and some imagination to get to the literal meaning of a phrase. Greek has more specific vocab, instead of the Latin one-word-with-eleven-meanings, and enormously helpful definite articles. As a spoken language it has a lovely sound and rhythmn to it. And as literature, there is SO much of it, and it's not dry or tedious to learn because it's (watch out, here comes a cliché!) timeless. Now when I read texts that reference the classics, I know what they're on about, and when they quote Homer or Aristotle or whatever, I can read it, even if I don't fully understand the sense. I've always resented that having no classical education makes reading older literature more difficult, because up until 50 years ago it was assumed you did - now I feel like I can finally meet the texts I read on even ground.

Aaaaaaaaand back to the topic: yes, English syllabubs (hee!) are ****. Bring grammar lessons back, I say. And outlaw text speak.

Absolutely outlaw text speak. It appears in GCSE exams, and in run-of-the-mill work by KS4 pupils. Distressing. And, on that subject, why does everyone seem incapable of saying "texted"? Why is the seemingly acceptable past tense of "text" still "text". "I text him" makes no sense, moron. *seethes*
Still, I have no phone, so no-one can ever, or will ever have, text [sic.] me.

All your points about Greek stand. Of course. But that doesn't prove that it is better, more that it is very worthwhile.
The corresponding (but not as well articulated) case for Old English: The groovy thing about OE is that, alongside the Medieval paper, you get to follow the development of the English language. This is something that everyone who does not study OE misses out on, and this is pretty much where the belief that 'Chaucer is as old as you get' comes from. With OE, you get to trace the Norse/Scandinavian and (to an extent) Latin roots, and then the Normans come crasing in in 1066 and you get the French contribution, and then you see this amazing co-existence of the Anglo-Saxon and the French derived languages in the dialects of the Medieval literatures (so, Chaucer = French; Gawain-poet = Anglo-Saxon; Langland = somewhere between the two). If I don't shut up, though, you will soon get at me for justifying OE by what came afterwards. So. Despite the traceable connection between OE and modern English, OE remains a distinct language, which cannot be read or much guessed without separate study. It also provides an opening onto a culture and a 'literary' (if you will excuse the use of a possibly anachronistic term) tradition completely different to that we find post-Conquest. OE, therefore, is paradoxically both connected to and entirely divergent from what came afterwards. Cultural preoccupations, 'literary' conventions ('what is a poem?' would have a very different answer to an Old Englander than to Chaucer, for example), and religious circumstances, amongst other things, are quite strange to our eyes. This could be said for the Greeks too, naturally, but what's funky about the OE tradition is that it is ours too: we belong to it/it to us in a way that Greek never can. We can reference it all we like, but it's not our own. It rained on the people who wrote OE. It was tropical over the Greeks. The Greeks had a geography conducive to easy trade, cosmopolitanism and empire-building. The OE lived, like us, on a rainy, cold, difficult-to-read island. What you get from reading OE is a sense of the same and the strange: we share a lot with them (not least the weather, and a curiously crude sense of humour), but have also almost lost them (OE is barely ever referenced in our literature).

As for the language itself...well, I never pretended to be much interested in languages. :p:

(Er, NB for anyone reading this: Lidia and I are...possibly just a little bit bored. So this is just a way of passing the time. We're probably not this weird in real life. Well, she is; but I'm perfectly normal. Honest!).

Reply 61

mavoury

You've read Hopscotch? I like you already. I agree with you, everyone needs to read this book.

Take the idea of the damsel in distress (of some kind: Red Riding Hood is saved by the woodcutter; Rapunzel is trapped; Cinderella is oppressed, and all that jazz), and the daring Prince. And normally (though not always) a wicked character: witch, evil step-parent, etc. How much of our 'enjoyment' (arguable!) of the stories is formed by cultural normas. Actually, how much of the norm is formed by the stories? And to what extent, and how quickly, do the norms established by the stories become solidified?

This is what I was thinking doing, something related to the norms and cultural opinion; and why the norms established in these books are accepted...No haven't read The Vanishing Princess Will look into it though!

Please take no notice of all this, I'm thinking aloud.

I do that all the time. My friends have learnt to tune me out.

Reply 62

epitome

mavoury

why the norms established in these books are accepted

I have some kind of a suspicion that they're accepted (which they still are, up to a certain point) because of the texts themselves. They create the acceptability around the gross inequality which exists in most of the tales. On which note, read Politically Correct Bedtime Stories for a laugh, if you havent! :biggrin:

OR: Is it not a case of 'acceptance' in any real societal way, but just suspending judgement and reasonable expectation for the duration of reading and thinking about the texts? We don't criticise them, perhaps, because we tend to take them on their own terms? I don't know.

My friends have learnt to tune me out.

I do it in writing form: paper/screen can't ignore you! :wink:

Reply 63

mavoury

Can I ask you a Hopscotch related question Epitome? SPOILER; Did you think you-know-who died at the end of the book? I mean, you see him looking at the hopscotch from the window in the mental, and he has a "nothing will ever be better than this" moment - but did he jump? My class could never come to a unananimous decision...

suspending judgement and reasonable expectation for the duration of reading and thinking about the texts? We don't criticise them, perhaps, because we tend to take them on their own terms? I don't know.

I think that's true. Becuase the inequality and sexism present in the stories is in a fantastical context, perhaps we feel less attached? Also I think an interesting aspect on the tales is the White/Black morality they often have. Perhaps this is what makes them appealing to children, who themselves often have very rigid manichean views of Good and Bad. This dissapears as we grow up; we realise there is a lot more grey in the world. What do you think? By the way has anyone here read The Human Factor by Graham Greene? I'm currently writing an essay on its relation to GG's life thematically and in terms of characters. But I'm a bit stuck....

Reply 64

epitome

I don't thnk he jumped. Though, if I read it again, I might think otherwise. It's good you couldn't come to a unanimous decison -- that probably means it worked. :wink:

a fantastical context, perhaps we feel less attached

Yes. This makes sense.
But at some point, also, it seems we're meant to become 'reattached' again. The 'moral' suggests this. We are meant to learn, I suppose (?), from the stories; so at some point they stop being fanciful. Where's that line? We're always meant to criticise the wicked witch. What chields the damsel in distress from criticism? Is she shielded? (Is she shielded, perhaps, by her sex?).

Haven't read the GG, I'm afraid! No chance of being unstuck from this front.

Reply 65

mavoury

But at some point, also, it seems we're meant to become 'reattached' again. The 'moral' suggests this. We are meant to learn, I suppose (?), from the stories; so at some point they stop being fanciful. Where's that line? We're always meant to criticise the wicked witch. What chields the damsel in distress from criticism? Is she shielded? (Is she shielded, perhaps, by her sex?).

I agree with you here. The moral in these stories is always balck and white, and yet we seem to accept that bad people are punished and good people are rewarded. That's what we feed kids day in day out. Yet look at Shakespeare, who completely turns this on its head with King Lear, for example, proving that morality is nearly always ambiguous. I think the damsel is shielded beacuse of her weak position and lack of power: she cannot be held responsible because she is portrayed as powerless. In a way the sexism shields her.

Haven't read the GG, I'm afraid! No chance of being unstuck from this front

Darn it! Now I'll actually have to do some work of my own! By the way Epitome, I'm finding your arguments for doing Middle English very convincing! Sorry Homer!

Reply 66

Lidka

mavoury

Darn it! Now I'll actually have to do some work of my own! By the way Epitome, I'm finding your arguments for doing Middle English very convincing! Sorry Homer!

I'll set the Furies on you. :wink:

(Btw [just because I happened to be reading about this this morning!] the Greeks did have crap weather too, epitome!)

P.S. I'm very glad to see we have some real literary discussion going on, besides our bickering. :biggrin:

P. P. S "Weird" my foot! I'm perfectly, absolutely, 100% normal. For an English student, at any rate.

Reply 67

mavoury

Hang on I thought the Furies can only attack me if I feel remorse...I don't! I've been reading The Flies by Sartre, based on Sophocles' Electra, so I know all about guilt and remorse :wink:

I'm very glad to see we have some real literary discussion going on, besides our bickering.

One of the other discussion boards said not to go onto the English page as it was apparently terrifyingly complicated and impossible to understand, and full of literary discussion!!

I'm quite weird as well, so hopefully I'll fit in perfectly in the English faculty :smile:

Reply 68

Lidka

mavoury

Hang on I thought the Furies can only attack me if I feel remorse...I don't! I've been reading The Flies by Sartre, based on Sophocles' Electra, so I know all about guilt and remorse :wink:

'Fraid not, the Furies can get you any time, anywhere, if you've committed terrible deeds... :evil:

LMAO, did it seriously say that?! Meaning this thread? I can understand our squabbling to be impossible to understand, but not "terrifyingly complicated", nor, strictly, literary... Haha. :biggrin:

Weird people are very welcome into the English faculty indeed. :smile:

Speaking of faculties, have you been into the English faculty building at all?

Reply 69

epitome

mavoury

Epitome, I'm finding your arguments for doing Middle English very convincing! Sorry Homer!

*growls* It's OLD ENGLISH! ANGLO-SAXON! Not Middle English. Middle English is compulsory ('Paper 1'). Get it right! :p:

Hang on I thought the Furies can only attack me if I feel remorse...I don't!

Muahahaha! Beaten by your own mythology, Lidka! :biggrin:

'Fraid not, the Furies can get you any time, anywhere, if you've committed terrible deeds...

Oh bum.

One of the other discussion boards said not to go onto the English page as it was apparently terrifyingly complicated and impossible to understand, and full of literary discussion!!

Haha! Which thread is that in?! It shouldn't be that terrifying -- we're just having a laugh, really! (I mean, come on, I used The Weather as part of my justification for studying OE...)

Reply 70

mavoury

Speaking of faculties, have you been into the English faculty building at all?

Unfortunately not. Beacuse I live in Belgium the only chance I had to see Cambridge was during the two days I was there for my interview. I did walk through the Sidgewick campus on my way back from town to Selwyn College, and I SAW the English building: very shiny and modern, with a massive library from what I could see?

'Fraid not, the Furies can get you any time, anywhere, if you've committed terrible deeds

In that case, take me down to hell ye Furies!
I'll try and find the post that said this discussion was too complicated...

Reply 71

mavoury

growls* It's OLD ENGLISH! ANGLO-SAXON! Not Middle English. Middle English is compulsory ('Paper 1'). Get it right!

Sorry Epitome! Please don't hurt me, I'm only a lowly offer holder! I promise to get right next time...Old English see OLD English!!

Hang on Lidka, look what SparkNotes says:
"The flies were sent to Argos by the gods fifteen years before the action of the play when Aegistheus and Clytemnestra murdered Agamemnon. The flies serve as a perpetual reminder of this original sin, biting the Argives to help them repent. When Orestes and Electra kill their mother and the king, the flies turn into the Furies, the goddesses of remorse. The Furies live to punish sinners, but they have power only over those who feel remorse for their actions. Orestes is immune to the power of the Furies. Electra, on the other hand, willingly surrenders herself to them when they promise that the physical pain they cause her will make it easier for her to tolerate her repentance." (http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/theflies/themes.html)

DO NOT FIGHT THE POWER OF SPARKNOTES!

Reply 72

epitome

massive library

Yes, it's got a really good stock. :smile:

I hate working in there, because it's quite open-plan; but it's good for books!

Reply 73

epitome

look what SparkNotes says

Rule Number 1: Never Cite SparkNotes.

(And I'll gently poke you if you get Old/Middle confuzzled again. Gently poke you with a dangerously pointy thing...) :wink:

Reply 74

mavoury

Rule Number 1: Never Cite SparkNotes.

GOD i'm really not doing too good on the English-at-Cambridge etiquette, am I? I need a rule book...
But my French teacher did say the same thing when we were reading the play...

Reply 75

mavoury

I hate working in there, because it's quite open-plan; but it's good for books!

Well I should hope an English faculty library was good for books!! Why is open plan bad?

Reply 76

Neutral_Tones

Don't worry mavoury, I'm sure I'll embarrass myself in some deeply awful, English-related way! I haven't been inside the faculty building either, but it definitely looks a lot better than the History faculty! *Waits to be attacked by a rabid historian* Ow.

Reply 77

mavoury

Hooray Neutral_Tones, we can be embarassed together! Yeh I really like the look of the faculty: all shiny and modern and made of glass! I didn't see the history faculty....Hope the historian didn't give you rabies?

Reply 78

Neutral_Tones

^ Although I haven't technically been in there either. I walked into the entrance of the law faculty once though, to wait for the English course info meetings (then decided to get some coffee instead) :redface:

I need a rule book too :frown:

Reply 79

Lidka

I'm afraid epitome is right, you did rather just kill your own argument with Sparknotes. :p:

Hm, in the myths I know the Furies didn't need any kind of permission. Still, I don't pretend to be well-read in Greek literature! Perhaps I should unleash Harpies on you instead? Though with my Greek monsters and epitome's poking you may not survive to come up at this rate! :p:

And yes... never, ever cite Sparknotes or Wikipedia. For a start, a lot on the stuff on there is just plain wrong, and that could be embarassing if you put it in an essay or mention it in a seminar. It's not a Cambridge thing, it's just about being academic! Books smell nicer than websites, anyway. :biggrin:

I know what you mean about the open plan library, epitome. It's just harder to concentrate, especially as the windows are large and the doors are glass, so you see everyone going in or out. Clare library's similar. I just work in my room most of the time, anyway.