 sj |
||
|
||
Self righteous prats
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Self righteous prats |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Duane D. Date: 03 Jan 99 - 05:38 PM To Joe Offer, I trust you know that a chiken coop only has two doors. If it had four doors, it would be a chicken sedan. Regards, Duane. :) |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: KickyC Date: 03 Jan 99 - 08:06 PM Bill in Australia wanted to hear from some teachers. Here you have one with a fighting spirit! Now you must remember that every profession has good qualified people in it, but that occasionally a jerk or two sneaks in. Also, that by the very nature of any job, there are certain qualities that develop. My husband, for example, is a draftsman in an engineering department. When all the wives get together we laugh at how preoccupied with detail they all are in their private life. That is just a carry over from their professional life where it is important. Teachers often have the same problem. Just remember that we are responsible for EVERYTHING that happens with young people. If they don't know a certain bit of information so they can reproduce it on a national exam, then it is our fault, and usually there is a national outcry about our lack of ability. Therefore, we just fall into a natural pattern of making sure that all information that passes before us is correct to the best of our ability, and unfortunately, that will sometimes carry over into our personal life. Next time you are corrected by a teacher, just have a little more patience. You see, this poor soul who cannot restrain himself/herself (PC is a MUST in education) from correcting a mistake is probably a poor, over-worked soul on the verge of a nervous breakdown from carrying the weight of this enormous task. On a more serious note, I use a lot of folk music to teach high school students for whom English is a second language. We use it to study grammar, history, just about anyway I can work it in. It is a great teaching tool. Now some of the grammar is not always correct, and we use that to look for errors and make corrections, but we don't change it when we learn the song. There is a poetic beauty and a lot of feeling that is lost in a song when you do that. Historically, too, I think you need to be careful. When we talk about the 60's and the Vietnam War, etc. , there was a lot of profanity in the songs, chants, etc. We discuss the reason for that and the anger that was being expressed at the time, although we don't go around reciting "The Fish Cheer" from Woodstock, it helps them understand how angry everyone was. I guess it just all boils down to what you want to accomplish and how you present it. (English teachers understand the need for expression and free thought unencumbered by the need for exactness. You must have been performing for a science teacher!) KickyC |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Kris Date: 04 Jan 99 - 11:33 AM Going back to the original prat... Perhaps he didn't mean you to take it that seriously. Its just a thought, but sometimes words don't come out as quite the witty reparte they were trying to be.... I can just imagine some poor guy curling up with embarrassment and wishing the ground would open up. Being a mean witch of a woman, the thought is really making me giggle. Kris
|
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: colin Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:03 PM I love Mississippi "mud pie". How 'bout you Kris? |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Shecky Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:06 PM I really love the Mississippi Mud Pie with the little cherries and stuff. How bout you Colin & Kris? |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Colin Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:09 PM Hey Kris whose this Shecky gettin in. Back-off Shecky, I am the Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Pete M Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:17 PM I would agree with those who have said that it comes down to personal attitude and intent, both in the singer and the audience. "Prats" are not confined to folk clubs, or teaching, and not even to Australia,(a lot of Kiwis would argue the last point). As Kris has pointed out, there is a world of difference between a comment on a particular version of a song, and a pontification of correctness. Similarly I would agree that one should not intentionally set out to offend and I would omit verse or songs in a particular venue if I thought this likely, but certainly not to the extent of destroying the meaning of the song in its original context. If in doubt I find that an explanation of the origin and that the song represents a particular time and place defuses any potential problem. I suppose my reaction to Bill@Oz's protagonist would be to point out, in a politically correct way of course, that although his identification of the taxonomy of cetacea was correct, his knowledge of etymology and ethnology was sadly lacking! The thing I find most fascinating about this thread is the variation in what is considered "acceptable" with locality. I was particularly struck by the lyrics which Roger felt unable to sing outside his house. This seems to me to be an updated version of Hanging Johnny, which is generally one of the most popular of the shanties I inflict on trainees when sailing. Incidentally Tim, the Tin Pan Alley version of "Barnacle Bill the sailor" is a cleaned up version of older songs not the other way round. (For example "Abraham the sailor" published in Tawney's Grey Funnel lines.) There's nowt so queer as folk, as they say. Pete M |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Colin Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:32 PM Pete M.....interesting.....very interesting.....how bout gettin a job |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Shecky Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:36 PM Hey, I thought this was the mindless prattle site. Where the hell is this thread? Australia. Whose that Butt guy? Colin's right-on, brother. Pete M. is a mindless bonehead who does not know anything about chattle. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: D' Bagoneshreeshrogneche Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:43 PM You are a moron. Try to find some small meaning to your otherwise meaningless void that you refer to as your "life" |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Justice Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:48 PM Hey, you new guys ought to knock it off. You are the ignorant ones. Love the thread, love it. Get off if your not serious about being a Prat. All I see is that Colin is the real bagone and Shecky is a worthless...well you know. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Steve Latimer Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:50 PM My, My, play nicely now folks. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Colin Date: 04 Jan 99 - 04:53 PM Screw you guys. What the hell is wrong with a little mindless chattle. I'll find a new and better thread where freedom of expression is valued. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Don Meixner Date: 04 Jan 99 - 10:29 PM Pete M, I enjoying hearing people who share with me a similar view. Point well made. A nondenominational and gender nonspecific holiday felicitation to you Sir. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Bill@W.Aussie Date: 05 Jan 99 - 12:55 AM Hi. I had not intended to intrude on the debate my original comments might initiate, nor will I too much, except to say thanks to you all for your views. Especially the many positive comments. My comments were largely (but not totally) 'tongue in cheek'. As I said originally. "I hoped for a healthy argument. I love Folk Music and always will. Thanks again, Bill |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: BSeed Date: 05 Jan 99 - 01:41 AM What a breath of fresh air old Shecky and Colin aren't. Flaming is not sharing opinions, guys. You added nothing whatever to the discussion. --seed |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Steve Parkes Date: 05 Jan 99 - 04:10 AM It's time somebody put in a good word for the SRPs. Any body know one? Meanwhile, here's a few observations of my own. I've always liked Herman Melville's treatment of the whale/fish dispute: basically, he says if it looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck - it's a fish! Benson - Bill Oddie did a pc version of "Elderly Man River" (He doesn't say anything, etc.) on the BBC radio show "I'm sorry I'll read that again" years ago. My favourite hate is mangled grammar, such as "the clouds roll by/for you and I" - they might roll by for you, but they certainly don't roll by for I! Interestingly, I find I don't seem to object to bad grammar in traditional songs. And where I come from it's quite proper to say "them belong to we". Maybe I'm a latent SRP? Steve |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Kris Date: 05 Jan 99 - 05:21 AM Strange interlude back there! Still, each to their own I suppose...Anyway - to put all mud(pie)slinging behind ... How does everyone feel about changing lyrics according to the gender of the singer? I can never quite decide. On the one hand it feels a bit odd for me to sing a love-song about a woman (not that there's anything wrong..). But on the other hand substituting a male name can just feel stupid, and would it jarr on people who know the real lyrics and are mentally (or actually) singing along? I am sort of beginning to lean toward the idea that singing the song is a bit like acting the part - hence doesn't have to be realistic for me personally. Does anyone else squirm about such things, or is it just me? Kris Kris |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Steve Parkes Date: 05 Jan 99 - 07:48 AM I think I'm finally starting to lose it ... I meant to add, re hunting wales, that regardless of how wrong it is (and it IS!) it would take a very much braver man than I to stand up in an open boat and harpoon several hundred tons of whale. I reckon it ought to be pc to sing about people who spent months in arctic waters in great discomfort and very real danger ... Compare them, say, with coal miners - so far, I haven't heard anyone complain about global warming after listening to mining songs. Unless, as they say, you know different? Steve |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: hank Date: 05 Jan 99 - 08:48 AM kris, Some songs don't work well changed (very few men on a farm wash clothes while their wife is out behind the horse with a plow, at least not in 1870) On the other hand some songs aren't gender specific except for a few "him"'s, "He's my true love" and such things which can be easily changed in which case I will. Personally I enjoy challenging myself and everyone else by changing it. Although it comes as surprise to to those who know the song, I think the change is good, it gets you to really pay attention to the song again. The song actually becomes fresher when you hear it done a little wrong. So don't be afraid to change it. Besides, this is folk music here, it will change over time and you need to do your part! For the few songs that don't work as the other gender, that is why I call myself Rachel. :) Just pick a name, pick an identity, and run with it. It is much easier for me to sing about holding a baby while washing clothes while my husband is out plowing if I can imagine myself in those shoes. Sometimes I even change the words to fit. (my husband doesn't come in and say honey, it is "my beautiful Rachel" which no real man would say, but which women either want to hear, or hear in their mind. All of course depending on how it fits. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Colin Date: 05 Jan 99 - 01:44 PM What the hell is "seed". What do ya mean like watermelon seed, like punkin seed, or demon seed? . |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: McMusic Date: 06 Jan 99 - 04:31 AM Took a song writing seminar with Robin and Linda Williams at the Augusta Heritage Festival in Elkins, WV this past summer: Each day they gave us a project--use one sense and try to come up with lyrics. On the day we employed "sight", after reading mine aloud to the group, one "folk" pointed out to me that my syntax was wrong, to which I replied, rules were made to break; really wanted to tell her to return to her little academic circle where the grammar book ruled. Some just don't get it": if it works, it works, and the rules be damned! These people would (and did!) sneer at Dylan Thomas and James Joyce. And in keeping with the later comments on this thread, some friends of mine (we're still at Augusta) grouped themselves together as the Ovarian Cysters--all were female, ya see--and took that great old classic "It Don't Mean A Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing", and turned out the whitest version you ever heard--"It Does Not Mean A Thing If It Has Not got That Swing." It was absolutely hilarious! Just goes to show what can happen when macadamians involve themselves with the creative process. My friends were on a lark, grinning all the way; my fellow workshopmate was serious. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: GUEST,paperback Date: 08 Jun 19 - 08:43 PM Benson Date: 29 Dec 98 - 10:13 AM Dear Bill, Aye...matey..!!!!.It were indeed the hearty lads of the "Bonnie Ship the Diamond"....who went a-"fishin' for the whale". And sad as it were....that fitting masters of of book larnin' were few on board the whalers decks. And when they heard that Jonah....."was swallowed by a great fish"....I am tempted to think those poor ignorant souls envisioned a whale....... Absolutely right Benson, that matches JRR Tolkien's interpretation of Jonah in the New Jerusalem Bible discussed here with his son Michael in a 1957 letter: Incidentally, if you look at Jonah you’ll find that the ‘whale’ – it is not really said to be a whale, but a big fish – is quite unimportant. The real point is that God is much more merciful than ‘prophets’, is easily moved by penitence, and won’t be dictated to even by high ecclesiastics whom he has himself appointed. http://file770.com/tolkiens-translation-of-jonah-finally-escapes-the-belly-of-the-estate/ -------------- From: Benson Date: 29 Dec 98 - 11:43 AM Actually it is "tote that barge"....lift that bale........... "tote"...as in to pull....... And I once heard a version of "Elderly Man River"...but somthing was lacking....... Absolutely right again Benson Elderly man River [YouTube] -------------- From: Bill@Aussie Date: 29 Dec 98 - 11:23 AM Isn't it funny how PRATS almost always start their sentences with.......My dictionary........... Now I really must go to bed. Absolutely right Bill@Aussie Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary (2003) indicate the range of actions that tote can apply to: tote vt {prob fr. an English-based creole; akin to Gullah & Krio tot to carry, of Bantu origin; akin to Kikongo -tota to pick up, Kimbundu -tuta to carry} (1677) 1 : to carry by hand : bear on the person : LUG, PACK : HAUL, CONVEY The original meaning of "carry by hand" is the only one listed for tote in Merriam-Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1852): TOTE v. t. To carry or bear {A word used in slaveholding countries ; said to have been introduced by the blacks. ... It is most used in the Southern and Middle United States, is occasionally heard in New England, and is said also to be used in England.} But Webster's New University Pronouncing Dictionary (1856) includes the more-general second definition as well: TOTE v. t. To carry or convey {Local.} An example of toting in the sense of "conveying"—or more precisely, "towing" appears in Elbert Hubbard, "The Gentle Art of Defamation," in the Washington [D.C.] Herald (October 11, 1914) in a discussion of the hazards of transporting poorly manufactured gunpowder on board ships: France has learned a bitter lesson in the line of manufacturing powder for itself. To date it has lost three battle ships. ... And so we have the peculiar spectacle of a French battle ship going out for target practice, toting behind it a barge on which its powder was stored, this because the sailors would not take any chances. The powder was then carried on board, in small quantities and fired without delay. And what was left after the target practice was carefully carried back and deposited on the barge, which was pulled by a hawser of a generous length. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/263175/origins-and-history-for-phrase-tote-that-barge |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Gurney Date: 08 Jun 19 - 10:48 PM I used to enjoy sailing in my powerboat. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Dave the Gnome Date: 09 Jun 19 - 03:33 AM Self righteous prats is a great name for a band. I hope they don't tell me off for telling the Grandkids we are going ratting for ducks though. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: leeneia Date: 10 Jun 19 - 01:07 PM Anybody who thinks tote is obsolete had better check the Internet (or the family) for references to tote bags, the ubiquitous rectangular fabric bag which a woman uses to carry items too big to fit in her purse. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: mg Date: 10 Jun 19 - 01:43 PM Back to 1999. I hate it when gender is changed. I would never in any circumstance do that. I also hate when grammar is changed. I would change for racist language and awkward scanning If you consider your changes necessary or superior at least tell people what you did. |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: leeneia Date: 10 Jun 19 - 06:05 PM Gender, eh? Recently I tried to ask for the pepper in German. I was informed that pepper is masculine, "Bitte geben Sie mir DEN Pfeffer," not DAS. Why didn't they get rid of arbitrary genders when they got rid of blackletter type? |
|
Subject: RE: Self righteous prats From: Joe_F Date: 11 Jun 19 - 09:25 PM It is perhaps worth mentioning here that the story of Jonah was written in ancient Hebrew and that its authors had no opportunity, linguistic or anatomical, to allude to our modern sophistication in distinguishing fish from whales. Their phrase was "dag gadol" -- "big fish", and "fish" is the word used in the KJV. George Orwell, in his essay "Inside the Whale" was misled by the common anachronism to state that that meant it could not be a whale. |
| Share Thread: |
