2002

Private Urination

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0941  Thursday, 4 April 2002

From:           Frank Whigham <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 03 Apr 2002 17:47:04 -0600
Subject:        Private Urination

I have somehow lost a reference to an early modern text in which a
servant documents his noble master's remarkably good manners by noting
that the lord essentially never used the chamber pot without turning
aside from the room to do so. Does anyone know where this anecdote
occurs?

Many thanks.

Frank Whigham

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: 1975 Measure for Measure

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0940  Thursday, 4 April 2002

From:           Mary Jane Miller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 16:53:58 -0500
Subject: 13.0866 1975 Measure for Measure
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0866 1975 Measure for Measure

  A few notes:

The play started with huge poles up with wheels on top - reminiscent of
the instruments of torture in paintings i have seen. Bits of flesh (?)
were attached. Before a word was spoken a drunk had been rolled and
beaten in a street scene.

Freud ? well Martha Henry's Isabella did not want to marry the duke -
she was left on stage at the end in an isolated spot with devastation
written on her face as she took off her wimple.

Hutt's duke was years older, an ex lover of Marianna - so tried to marry
her off, a manipulator of considerable charm. That he pulled the strings
was never in doubt except regarding Isabella. Bedford's Angelo was a
hard working and competent civil servant as well as a secret puritan who
had never been attracted to any woman in his life.  He was sand-bagged
by his first encounter with her. His innate fanaticism rose in their
second encounter with his threats and pleas.  I think Monette played
Lucio - anyway he was played  as a man who loved his friend, came to
respect Isabella, who told the truth about the "duke of dark corners"
and lived to regret it.

It may have been Freud's Vienna - the period costumes et al were right
but I don't think the audience were directed to think 'Freud' every time
a new character appeared. Hutt and Henry were even then too good to fall
for a doctinaire  approach and they both enjoyed working with Phillips.
This was a brutal and corrupt Vienna run by a machiavel who wanted
someone else to clean up his mess.

As you can see 23 years later I still have vivid memories of it. It's
one of my favourite plays

Mary Jane

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Grammar

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0938  Thursday, 4 April 2002

[1]     From:   Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 09:46:27 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 19:45:39 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

[3]     From:   Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 14:36:24 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

[4]     From:   Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 21:18:35 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

[5]     From:   Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 02:37:13 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

[6]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 11:08:58 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 09:46:27 -0800
Subject: 13.0924 Re: Grammar
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

Thanks to all for the lesson in
grammar/usage/vocabulary/lexicography/??.

To clarify, Steve Sohmer posted the original (perfectly well-written)
question. I thought fellow word dweebs might find it amusing to discuss
the "that/which" issue. It seems they did (as did I).

>Aren't those five different words, all of which happen to be spelt
>"c-h-e-c-k-"?
and
>Words don't have meanings. They have uses.

There are no words. There are only strings.

Thanks,
Steve
http://princehamlet.com

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 19:45:39 +0100
Subject: 13.0924 Re: Grammar
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

> Words don't have meanings. They have uses.
>
> T. Hawkes

And relationships.  The hard-nosed Saussurean view proposed above (while
I have a lot of sympathy for it) only works for idiolects.  The fish is
parole, langue is the sea in which we all swim.

Leave aside convinced solipsists.

Robin Hamilton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 14:36:24 -0600
Subject: 13.0924 Re: Grammar
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

Terence Hawkes avers,

> Words don't have meanings. They have uses.

But I am not sure what he means by the word "meanings."

Or, for that matter, "uses."

Is it possible to find out?

Meaningfully yours,
don

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 21:18:35 -0500
Subject: 13.0924 Re: Grammar
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

This thread is interesting. One correction for Mari Bonomi, who wrote:

> In this sentence both first and second pronoun should be "that"--
> "which" would follow a comma and be essentially an appositive.  I know
> there are more proper grammatical terms for the usage than "appositive"
> but I assiduously avoided learning such terminology in school

It's not an appositive, although, like an appositive, it IS adjectival.
The term you're looking for is 'relative clause' ('that' and 'which' are
relative pronouns).

David Evett did a great job explaining the way it all works. For more
grammar questions, I'd recommend you check the following web site:
www.ateg.org

Terence Hawkes comment was fascinating:

> Words don't have meanings. They have uses.

This is true, since words are human constructions that wouldn't
otherwise exist in nature.  Of course, we GIVE them meanings (which are
useful - vide: Saussure).  Actually, linguists talk about two types of
words: FORM words, which supposedly have meanings (nouns, verbs,
adverbs, and adjectives), and FUNCTION words (which are structural, not
'meaningful').  Again, all this stuff about words is useful.  Even
grammar is useful (contrary to popular opinion).  What a concept!

Paul E. Doniger

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 02:37:13 -0500
Subject: 13.0924 Re: Grammar
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

From the OED, second edition.

homonym . Also homonyme.

   ad. late L. homo-nym-um (Quintilian), a. Gr. , neut. of  homonymous.
Cf.
   Fr. homonyme 'an equiuocation, or word of diuers significations'
(Cotgr.).

   1. a. The same name or word used to denote different things. b.
Philol.
      Applied to words having the same sound, but differing in meaning:
opp.
      to heteronym and synonym.

Please see the raging debate on the aptly named Useless Pages

http://www.go2net.com/useless/useless/homonym.html

some contributors to which would restrict the below to homophone.

Clifford

> While I'm on the subject, 'homonym' is NOT the correct term. Homonyms
> are words that sound the same but have different meanings (there, their,
> they're), not multiple meanings for the same word. POLYSEMY does look
> like the best choice. I've never known anyone to use this term, however.
>
> Paul E. Doniger

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 11:08:58 +0100
Subject: 13.0924 Re: Grammar
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0924 Re: Grammar

"Homonyms are words that sound the same but have different meanings
(there, their, they're), not multiple meanings for the same word",
writes Paul Doniger.

The venerable OED disagrees:

"I.a. The same word used to denote different meanings."

That is, "The SAME word".

By the way, the stuff on that / which was good. I understand it better
now. I don't see how anyone could get stuck with who / whom, though...

m

PS: I pronounce "they're" as "thay-er", not "thair"

PPS: Nice to see the author of "Structuralism and Semiotics" (1977)
reminding us that "Words don't have meanings. They have uses". Again,
the OED would appear to disagree (how could it not?) On the other hand,
ever tried to understand the Dictionary's entry for "synonym"...?

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0939  Thursday, 4 April 2002

[1]     From:   Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 18:49:01 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter

[2]     From:   Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 10:14:46 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter

[3]     From:   Todd Lidh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 13:44:22 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter

[4]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 11:33:43 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 18:49:01 +0100
Subject: 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter

The inane pastor Jack Brock needn't worry.  Time will burn Harry
Potter.  I performed the unfortunate task of seeing the film and my
companion had the worse task of listening to my irritable condemnation.
I will not waste any part of my life reading the books so I presume the
film bore some resemblance to the literature.  It was derivative, badly
written with a pretentious model of another world I found flat and
lifeless.  Meaningless exposition like "What's this thing?"  "Ahh, that
the twiggle-whizzy stick given to my grandfather my a magic toad with
pink eyes when he crossed the wobbly bridge . . . ." and so on and so
boring on!  Hasn't Rowling read the witches in Macbeth?  Or any
Shakespeare?  If she has she's forgotten all of it.  Rowling's fatuous
fiction is based on nothing, the Bard's on reality.

SAM SMALL
http://www.passioninpieces.co.uk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 10:14:46 -0800
Subject: 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter

>The United States has certain features built into its legal
>framework, including theoretically inviolable property rights and
>freedoms of speech and the press, that make it very difficult for
>would-be Ayatollahs to coerce the rejection of certain writings or
>ideas.

As District-Court Justice Decker said in the conclusion to his opinion
affirming the rights of the Nazi party against the City of Skokie:

"The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy even of the
hateful doctrines espoused by the plaintiffs without abandoning its
commitment to freedom of speech and assembly is perhaps the best
protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in
this country."

Thanks,
Steve
http://princehamlet.com

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Todd Lidh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 13:44:22 -0500
Subject: 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter

Thanks to Richard Burt for sharing that story about one man's laughable
actions.

My students enjoyed it so much, we're planning a "mock" book burning of
all the novels and plays I've had them read in my Restoration and
Eighteenth Century Literature class this semester.

I wonder if CNN will be there...

Todd M Lidh
Flagler College

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 11:33:43 +0100
Subject: 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0928 Shakespeare Burned with Harry Potter

It's all rather heroic isn't it? I think it appeals to my English
sympathy for the underdog, and hopeless causes; which you would imagine
to be akin to the values of the US Constitution (closer inspection shows
you how wrong you can be, pace Jeremy Lott's rose-tinted view of it).
How many copies of "The Philosopher's Stone" et al would our Rev have to
burn to eradicate Harry Potter? Let alone Shakespeare.

Guttenburg really let the cat out of the proverbial bag didn't he - and
now the whole world has gone to pot...

I wonder why the soppy Christianity one finds in Stephen King was
considered a threat?

m

[Down, Down, Down with Dagon!]

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Re: Plagiarism and Update

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0937  Thursday, 4 April 2002

[1]     From:   Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 17:57:12 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0926 Re: Plagiarism and Update

[2]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 11:25:04 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0926 Re: Plagiarism and Update

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 13:03:31 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0926 Re: Plagiarism and Update


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 3 Apr 2002 17:57:12 +0100
Subject: 13.0926 Re: Plagiarism and Update
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0926 Re: Plagiarism and Update

> Academic Integrity
> (http://www.academicintegrity.org/) estimates the plagiarism rate at
> 75%.

Surely this can't be true.  I am a student and I have never knowingly
committed plagiarism.  So far my seminar groups have varied between two
students and about eight.  Does this mean that absolutely everybody
apart from me and - if I'm lucky - one other student in my largest
seminar group routinely plagiarises every essay?  Or that *all*
students, including me - somehow without my noticing - write *some*
plagiarised essays, and take turns to be the honest one in four?

If there is any basis for this statistic then this is a tragic comment
on education, but I am optimistic enough to hope that I am not the only
honest student in all of my seminars, and that I am not lying to
myself.  Could it really be possible that one in four of the former or
current students on this list was guilty of plagiarism (is anybody
willing to make that admission)?  Surely rather more than one in four of
us actually buckled down and did the work ourselves.

Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 11:25:04 +0100
Subject: 13.0926 Re: Plagiarism and Update
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0926 Re: Plagiarism and Update

There's a lot to be said for learning how to beat systems. They are
usually pernicious. To pretend that the systems promulgated by
university English departments are any different is insufferably
Ivory-Towerish. Discipline is for the unimaginative, mankind is
something to be overcome!

m

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 4 Apr 2002 13:03:31 +0100
Subject: 13.0926 Re: Plagiarism and Update
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0926 Re: Plagiarism and Update

Peter Paolucci wrote about plagiarism

> 6/ The use of de-skilling learnware like Web CT, Lotus Notes
> Quick Place and MANY others, is increasingly popular because
> all that's required is superficial knowledge of the Learnware
> environment itself. It holds the promise of modestly good results
> without demanding any substantive, open standards technological
> expertise. We put courses online without insisting that students or
> faculty have any quantifiable training on Internet technologies. When
> students become frustrated, they are more inclined to cheat.

Agreed. Wonderful open standards such as HTTP, HTML, and ISO9660 (which
allows home-authored CDs to work on any computer) allow teachers to
disseminate material (words, sounds, and pictures) at low cost and
everyone should be using them. Dreadful closed standards such as Peter
has named will look about as useful in 20 years time as an 8-track
cartridge does now.

> If I am correct in my hypothesis that plagiarism is fundamentally
> cultural, then it CANNOT be controlled or eliminated until we address
> the root causes.

Well, things can be controlled and eliminated without addressing their
root causes. (Medieval plague regulations worked despite ignorance of
the vector.) How about assessment by timed examination with no prior
disclosure?

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.