(no subject)
Jan. 8th, 2007 11:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingersThis debate I've been having about language has got me thinking.
It started from a piece of Hyperbole I'd written, attempting to address what I took to be an irritant.
Hyperbole has a place in classical satire, but my young debater may have a point.
If some writing of mine looks laboured, then it fails the test of its purpose. Context is all, I suppose, and there's no point playing to the bandstand, especially with something as light-hearted as a tease.
The Romans thought Satire was their own invention, with no precursors (though the only ones they would have accepted would have been Greek). The Celts had a tradition of Satire and were around at the same time as the Romans. I often wonder if their concepts of satire happended independently, or if one influenced the other. One problem being a lack of written Gaelic from before CE 6th Century. The other being that Satire was the only thing the Romans didn't appropriate from the Greeks, and of which they were justly proud.
I suppose that we all suit our style according to context: 'twould be inappropriate to address a funeral in jocular terms (but not always); Best man stories about sleeping with the Bride (or Groom) are, in general, in poor taste; P T Barnum like hyperbole doesn't suit...well this is the problem - hyperbole suits the times (O Tempora, O Mores). In fact, monosyllabic hyperbole (if that's not oxymoronic) seems right in tune with present culture. Say it simple and say it loud. With added Emphasis and the magniloquence of jargon. Which is essentially my debater's point, it's just a pity he chose me upon whom to make it plain.
The Greeks had a word for emphasis through understatement: I think it is meiosis or litotes? but my memory of the little Greek I learnt has faded beyond recall.
I think adudeabides is probably allright, actually. But I'll still hold him to explain himself - mainly because I am an old and curmudgeonly and spiteful old Hector.
It started from a piece of Hyperbole I'd written, attempting to address what I took to be an irritant.
Hyperbole has a place in classical satire, but my young debater may have a point.
If some writing of mine looks laboured, then it fails the test of its purpose. Context is all, I suppose, and there's no point playing to the bandstand, especially with something as light-hearted as a tease.
The Romans thought Satire was their own invention, with no precursors (though the only ones they would have accepted would have been Greek). The Celts had a tradition of Satire and were around at the same time as the Romans. I often wonder if their concepts of satire happended independently, or if one influenced the other. One problem being a lack of written Gaelic from before CE 6th Century. The other being that Satire was the only thing the Romans didn't appropriate from the Greeks, and of which they were justly proud.
I suppose that we all suit our style according to context: 'twould be inappropriate to address a funeral in jocular terms (but not always); Best man stories about sleeping with the Bride (or Groom) are, in general, in poor taste; P T Barnum like hyperbole doesn't suit...well this is the problem - hyperbole suits the times (O Tempora, O Mores). In fact, monosyllabic hyperbole (if that's not oxymoronic) seems right in tune with present culture. Say it simple and say it loud. With added Emphasis and the magniloquence of jargon. Which is essentially my debater's point, it's just a pity he chose me upon whom to make it plain.
The Greeks had a word for emphasis through understatement: I think it is meiosis or litotes? but my memory of the little Greek I learnt has faded beyond recall.
I think adudeabides is probably allright, actually. But I'll still hold him to explain himself - mainly because I am an old and curmudgeonly and spiteful old Hector.
