This will just be a rambling blog where I post up what ever is on my mind. Similar to a status report. You know "the weather is terrible". Whatever is on my mind...
Last edited by Nakia the Rogue on Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:13 am; edited 2 times in total
The French "vulgaire" is the direct equivalent of the English word "vulgar" but as far as I can see "vulgarize" or "vulgarise" is the English for "vulgariser" and since these words clearly share the same Latin origin it makes sense.
It's a little more than just using simple terms though. It's about simplifying a subject to the extent that it can be grasped by common people and it's understood that in the process you're making that very subject less accurate, precise, formal or exact.
I really love the ability that Shakespeare had to switch back and forth between different language registers. He could use a very poetic and high blown language filled with references to the classics and then have another character speak like a common man and make the most bawdy innuendo.
For 300 years Norman French was the language spoken by the elite in England and that's the reason why we don't have declensions in modern English. The pronunciation of certain words of French origin was closer to the French pronunciation in Middle English (for instance the word "courage" in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales).
If you're interested in Elizabethan English you have to read about the Great Vowel Shift and how it transformed the language. It's fascinating.
It makes sense to me that Shakespeare would have say a King speak with an elite accent and a porter speak with a low class accent. That is done quite naturally today in plays, movies, TV. The accent would indicate the social status of the speaker.
Very interesting the why and how of language change.
An easy example of the language shift is in Hamlet, where the two gravediggers speak common English, whereas the other characters (especially Hamlet), speak in a high English/poetic language.
I am posting this up on SP also. I really, really, like this game. Folk Tale, Folk Tale (W.I.P.) Hokay, Nakia is here to tout a game. It is a city (village actually) strategy, adventure game. It is being made by Games Foundry a indie developer. At the moment there isn't much to play but the developers are extremely responsive to the community. Post frequent and updates of progress. It has a Location editor, so players will be able to create maps for themselves and for others to play. I am already addicted to the game.
The game started as a campaign game but in response to community requests that was changed to sandbox. Unfortunately this meant a restructuring of the game so it is taking longer to develop than originally anticipated. There will be campaign elements with a story and quests. The developers have a good sense of humour. The voice acting is excellent. There is combat and exploring to be done or should I say there will be. You will also be able to play as a kind, caring ruler or as a mean nasty one who basically enslaves his/her people.
No, it isn't a RPG but it is fun even doing some testing as work progresses. This game is going to be great with few bugs in the release. We who have opted into support this game scrutinize it with eagle eyes. I doubt a microbug could get by. The biggest complaint about the game is that it isn't finished. However I believe it to well worth the wait. I have never seen developers so response to the community or so transparent. It is a small team and they are working hard. The project lead is on the forum daily, several times a day. Response quickly to queries. I have to give myself a little pat on the back as he choose me as the first forum moderator to run some interference for him. Give him a little breathing space and time to do more productive things than to answer the question "When will this game be finished?"
Question for the staff: What links am I allowed to post? May I put up any screenshots or at least link to them?
Nakia still a little halfling rogue. (This game isn't Baluurs Gate but it has stolen my heart)
The game is available on Steam as an Early Access buy.
I will be opening a game thread once we have a truly playable patch which should be soon. Whatever soon is.
I really like indie games, they often manage to bypass some limitations by being more creative with what they can do. I've never heard of this game before but it looks like a pretty cool and ambitious title.
It is ambitious and with a small team only around ten or so employees and a couple of consultants. They have reached out to the community and on the whole the reaction has been positive. The project lead is very professional and works long hours keeping an eye on things. The team small as it is is spread around the world, UK, America, Europe, Australia and think another country was mentioned. The project lead has a good sense of humour but I suspect he is not to be trifled with.
Ran across this guy named Reza Aslan by accident and I am really impressed by him. Here is a link I put up on my FaceBook account. I think he is brilliant.
Naturally I like this guy because now I have scholastic verification of something I figured out when I was you. The Bible is a history book. It was written by human beings first to explain things they didn't understand and it continued on to show the growth and changes in the religious beliefs as well as to document the history of a small Semitic tribe . Seems obvious to me, seemed obvious fifty years ago and I have simply fail to comprehend why it is so hard for other people to understand.
He of course goes into the discussion with much more depth and detail and I do not completely agree with him but he is interesting and refreshing. I have watched several interviews including a really asinine one with a woman who kept asking him why he a Muslim wrote about Jesus. She stated it as if he had no right to do so. He answered the question patiently and several times and was actually pleasant sounding to her although I have a feeling he probably would have liked to make a few rather nasty comments to her. She was to be polite quite stupid. He finally in a pleasant tone of voice said something to the effect that it was obvious that she had not read his book. Comments on the video were disabled so I couldn't write what I thought of her which was probably lucky for me. People like that interviewer really annoy me.
Yeah well, what most Christians don't know is that Jesus is actually one of the most important prophets for Muslims (and the same can be said about Moses and Abraham).
It's such a sensitive subject so you either need a thick skin or a very mild mannered man like this scholar.
As far as the Bible being a history book, well it predates history as we now understand it so I think we have to bear that in mind. When I studied history at university we went back to the Peloponnesian War, Herodotus and Thucydides and the first thing we learned was that history back then was very different. Thucydides may have focused on facts at a time when people used to refer to gods but there is still a world of difference between him and a modern historian like Jules Michelet and I certainly don't mean that as a criticism. I think it's important to put things back into perspective.
Back to the interview, to "express the inexpressible" is a very nice way of putting it. I find his conclusion very thought provoking.
I've watched the Fox interview and it's utterly ridiculous. You have a tolerant man who confesses half his family is Christian, clearly not a zealot and they try to paint him in that light. It's so moronic. The interviewer can't possibly grasp what it means to study history.
Reza Aslan calls writings such as the Bible and Qur'an sacred history and points out that the writers of that time would have no idea what we mean by the word history. They were not writing facts but they were writing truths or at least what they believed to be truths. The earliest gospel was written about forty hears after the death of Jesus.It was written in Greek for the Romans and other pagans who did believe in god men not for the Jews who would consider that absolute sacrilege. In fact by that time Christians would be trying to distance themselves from Judaism which had been banned by the Romans and the Jewish nation destroyed.
Cara, I am sure you know all this but I like talking about it.
I like how he presents both and points out that it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to believe or not. It's clear that he isn't preaching but simply putting forward things he has learned and things he consider to be more believable (while still presenting conflicting versions in the notes).
The thing I find really great is the sheer enthusiasm that he conveys. He is not just another scholar, he is a very passionate scholar who wants to share his insight with the general public.
Besides it takes a lot of guts to come out as a Muslim scholar and not only write about Jesus but also contradict what Christians and Muslims have come to recognize as part of their respective dogmas. I like the fact that for instance he points out similarities between what Muslims believe about Jesus and certain Gnostic teachings. Nowadays Christians tend to take for granted the nature of Christ. They tend to forget that before the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD various theories existed regarding the nature of Christ. You had Monophysitism or Miaphytisism and Nestorianism and many other branches which names I have forgotten...
In any case I like how Reza Aslan explains that people who focus too much on a particular religion are focusing on the path and confusing a means to an end. It's refreshing to see someone approaching religion like this.
I'm definitely going to read his book. Thanks again Nakia for posting about this.
I wish I could read the book I wonder if there is a digital version.
Many people do not realize that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are closely related reigions. They arose in the same area, Christianity began as a Jewish sect and Islam includes much from the old testament, Torah, and accepts Jesus as a prophet and important prophet.
The Qur'an actually gave women more rights than Christianity did. Christianity in my opinion is a very sexist religion women actually had no rights. It also has a great deal of beauty and has helped people but it has its faults. Probably because it was created by human beings who were trying to survive and who are themselves flawed.
I differentiate between the teachings of Jesus and Christianity as it is. "Treat others the way you would like to be treated."
Changing topic a bit. Because I watched the Reza Aslan's so called interview on Fox Google is now bring up Fox videos and videos commenting on Fox videos so I have been watching some. I never paid much attention to Fox before and so did not realize how stupid and nasty they were. Do people actually watch them believing that they are factual and serious journalists or do people watch them simply for their entertainment value? I say they are stupid because it appears they do not even bother to check out their facts before presenting questions and opinions. They are nasty because they attack the people they interview there isn't even a pretense of trying to have a serious discussion.
If we in the USA are actually watching Fox thinking that we are getting factual serious news no wonder we have diplomatic problems with the rest of the world.
As an outsider who has studied US history all I can say is that the US seems to be equally capable of the best and the worst. It's something that could be said about just any other country in the world but I do believe it's especially true when considering the US. After all I can't think of any Western country that has a man of mixed origins with an Arab name for president... And to make things more complicated it's also a country where white people can get away with shooting black teenagers in cold blood... You've got the greatest liberals but also the greatest bigots. You have the great American Dream but you also have a ruthless capitalist economic system that is abused by a few while the majority can't even afford decent healthcare. You've got some of the most prestigious universities in the world and you have Fox News.
I think that an outsider who is well educated and intelligent who has seriously tried to understand the USA and does not just have a knee jerk reaction to things provably is a better judge of us then we as an average are.
Where I get upset and even angry is when someone makes a blanket statement about us and then refuses to even consider when one of us tries to explain why something happens or what the fallacy in the statement is.
I think your assessment of the USA is excellent. We are a country of paradoxes, of opposites, of conflicts. I do not know if our founding fathers intentionally set up this country that way but they did lay the foundations for it. I think it was done because in order to establish a united states they had to compromise. We had thirteen colonies which were very loosely connected by the fact that th Ruler of the UK was also the head of state of each colony. The founding fathers themselves were contradictory. Slave owners stating that all men are created equal?? They really meant I think MEN not men and women and I also suspect that the idea that the word MEN meant white, middle and upper class men primarily of British descent. Much as we might have appreciated France's help with our revolution Jefferson I understand blackmailed France into selling us the Louisianan Territory including New Orleans.
In dealing with the USA we, whether residents or non-residents must remember that this is a large country geographically, with a population of over 300 million people who come from all over the world. We are a pot with compartments and the ingredients have not melted together into a nice friendly tasty homogeneous stew. Personally I think it makes us an interesting and fun place but also one that can be very aggravating and frustrating to not only those abroad but to those of us who live here.
Thank you Nakia. You are definitely right about the Founding Fathers being contradictory. In many ways the American Revolution was not a revolution at all... At least certainly not anything remotely like the French Revolution, an event that caused so much bloodshed and death but dramatically changed the order of society.
Actually it was Talleyrand who originally made the offer regarding Louisiana. That man was certainly no fool. Back then Napoleon needed the money to finance his wars in Europe and they knew they couldn't back up their hold on Louisiana (they had only recently regained control of the territory) and they didn't want it to fall back in the hands of the Spanish (or even worse the British).
Besides you have to remember that Louisiana had no definite borders at that time. Talleyrand and Napoleon are said to have told Jefferson to make the most of that fact (it was one of the reasons that prompted Jefferson to finance the Lewis and Clark expedition). It may sound like a great deal now but it was a lot of money to spend at the time.
My most recent information about Jefferson comes from a Britain named Christopher Hitchens and I have not verified it with a second source so take it as you wish or know yourself.
Jefferson who by the way was a very complicated character and I have heard belonged to a secret group we know as Rosicrucianism. I have checked it out and at one time seriously considered the possibility of joining it. Does that have anything to do with the Louisianna Purchase? I think it shows that Jefferson had a very interesting mind and way of thinking. If true.
On to the Louisianan Purchase. According to Hitchens says the French were willing to sell the territory except for the New Orleans area. New Orleans is in a strategic area at the mouth of the Mississippi so Jefferson wanted it. Accordingly he told the French include New Orleans or I make a deal with the English. Jefferson hated the English so I suspect he knew the French would agree. He also had Lewis and Clark prepared and ready to go as soon as the deal was signed. Jefferson had been planning this for a long time and just waited for the right opportunity which the wars in Europe gave him.
This was a brilliant purchase and opened the way for us to expand to the Pacific. He even gave instructions to Lewis and Clarke how to deal with the Native Americans they met, to treat them diplomatically, with respect but inform them that they were now living in the United States of America and owed allegiance to that country and not to other governments or sovereigns. I m not sure how this worked as some of the natives they met probably had their own ideas.
I can't help but wonder if we had a leader with Jefferson's mind powers today if we would have the problems we now have. Probably have other problems as I also understand Jefferson liked to just skip past Congress when doing things.
by Blood Red Eagle Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:24 am
Nakia's Babblings
