Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: October ::
Re: WordCruncher; CD ROMs; Importance of Shakespeare
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0754.  Thursday, 5 October 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Mike LoMonico <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 15:40:55 -0400
        Subj:   Re: WordCruncher
 
(2)     From:   Roger D. Gross <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 16:10:48 -0500 (CDT)
        Subj:   cd-roms
 
(3)     From:   Marcello Cappuzzo <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 02:33:52 +0100
        Subj:   Re: Importance of Shakespeare
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike LoMonico <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 15:40:55 -0400
Subject:        Re: WordCruncher
 
Just a correction to Giorgianna Zeigler's comments about WordCruncher.
The new address is:
                        Box 6627
                        Bloomington, IN  47407
 
Phone : 812-339-9996
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger D. Gross <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995 16:10:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:        cd-roms
 
For my interests, the most useful cd-rom is the one called Shakespeare Database
CD-ROM.  It was created and is distributed by the Shakespeare-language gang at
Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat in Munster, Germany (excuse my lack of
diacritical marks).
 
They say it "makes available the structured totality of texts and grammar and
various other literary, linguistic, and lexicographical perspectives necessary
for complete interaction with the Shakespeare corpus.  Most of the database
information is based on original research undertaken [at that University]."
The access modes provided on this cd-rom go far beyond anything I have seen
before.  This is a big-league scholarly tool.
 
Fortunately, the basic text is the Riverside Shakespeare.
 
Unfortunately, the disc costs about $900.  !!!
 
If you want to know more about this disc, call up the makers' home page:
       http://ves101.unimuenster.de/www/shadcd.html
 
They provide a thorough description of the system, info on the makers, a
bibliography of studies based on their work, etcetera.
 
Among the prestigious list of makers are Marvin Spevack (of concordance fame),
H. Joachim Neuhaus, and Peter Kollenbrandt.
 
I would like to second the recommendation of Wordcruncher.  I have been using
it for six years now.  It works beautifully with that company's indexed version
of the Riverside Shakespeare.  It has simplified and speeded up all of my
language and verse studies and has made it possible for me to find things which
were "invisible" before.
 
Roger Gross
Univ. of Arkansas
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcello Cappuzzo <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 5 Oct 1995 02:33:52 +0100
Subject:        Re: Importance of Shakespeare
 
        "I regret that my choice of example of what our culture would be like
        without Shakespeare offended Professor Capuzzo [Cappuzzo]."
                                Stephanie Hughes, Oct 4
 
Ms Hughes' opinions do not offend me at all.  I just object to them, while
trying to express mine.
 
I hate to quote myself, but in this case I cannot do otherwise.  In my note of
Sept 30 I wrote:
 
        "What I objected, and still object to is the idea -- somehow present,
        I suspect, in Ms Hughes' interventions, in both of them [Sept 8 and
        26] -- that the English language is of a superior, a-historical,
        metaphysical, divine nature, and that therefore this language *and*
        (necessarily) the culture of which this language is the 'medium' have
        a superior role, a *mission* to perform in the world at large.  For
        this idea and for its various implications I have no respect, nor do
        I think I have to show any.  However, since my mother tongue is not
        English, and I cannot be sure that my way of reading Ms Hughes'
        'tone' is correct, I offer her my apologies."
 
In her posting of Oct 4, Ms Hughes wrote:
 
        "Certainly English imperialism was the major factor in spreading
        English around the globe, and then when that phase came to an end,
        the continuation of its use by the American influence after WWII.
        *Yet how much did the nature of the language have to do with the
        ability of the English and the Americans to spread their control in
        the first place?* I am not saying this out of chauvinistic pride,
        simply trying to examine the phenomenon with a measure of detachment."
        (My emphasis.)
 
[Yes, and how is it that today the English control nearly nothing?  Do they
speak Spanish now, or have they put WS aside?  Was it from WS that they derived
their "ability" to massacre entire populations in all five or six continents?
And what about the "ability" of the American government and military in
certain, well-known phases and episodes of the recent history of the U.S.?  Had
all those people specialized in WS and Early Modern English?]
 
       It seems that, notwithstanding the *fact* that my mother tongue is not
English, my tentative interpretation of Ms Hughes' opinions and 'tones' was
quite correct.  And, I repeat, for these opinions and for their various
implications (some of which are now slowly surfacing) I have no respect -- how
can I have or show respect for Ms Hughes' suggestion that behind a bigger gun
there is necessarily a linguistically and culturally bigger man!?  Opinions of
this nature do not offend me:  they offend the very culture that Ms Hughes
pretends to represent.
 
Marcello Cappuzzo
University of Palermo
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.