# Reading > General Literature >  Second Language?

## Vincent Black

I'm considering learning a second language and I was wondering, from a literary point of view, what would be the best language to learn? In other words, (In your opinion) what non-English language has the best literature?

----------


## JBI

French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Russian. Those are the common ones, in probably the common order for the English speaker, though some people do German before the romances. Personally, I am English and Hebrew learning Italian, which I find easier than French (phonetically I cannot pronounce many French syllables). In terms of literature, most people learn Italian for Dante, and Spanish for Cervantes, and French for a whole slew of authors. 

This is of course a western-centered biased list. You could do worse than learn Eastern languages, especially Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali, Chinese (Mandarin), Japanese, Arabic, or Persian.

----------


## John Goodman

French will probably get you the greatest body of work to read. You will understand much more clearly when people say the translations of books from French to English are written in more archaic English than the original French. Modern French has been around for a long time.


Maybe I'm just biased, being raised by French parents in English Canada. :P

----------


## kandaurov

I too would recommend you to learn a language that stems from Latin, because once you master one of them it's very much easier to try your hard at another, since most of the vocabulary is similar (French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish).

On the whole, Spanish would be probably the best idea, because then you can also read the literature of almost all South America and be able to read Portuguese reasonably well, since the written form is very much alike.

German too is a good idea if you're into philosophy, and since it's the second most spoken native language in Europe it's always a good choice. I only know like 7 words in Russian, so can't tell you how hard it is to learn, but the Russian literature sure makes me wonder whether I should give the language a try.

----------


## armenian

learn arabic just in case you ever decide to become a muslim

----------


## sofia82

First of all, it depends if you are interested in the literature of any country or not. IF not, as i know the first is french which is difficult, at least for me  :Wink:

----------


## HerGuardian

I think each language has its own characteristics but if you are a fan of poetry, Arabic poetry is the best ever. Arabic poetry has such amazing meanings and expression that need a lot of words to express in other languages. However, novels, plays and other genres are still not that great as poetry.

----------


## JBI

Arabic is hardly the easiest language though. Not only is the written language different than the spoken language, the calligraphy is downright nearly impossible. Latin languages are far easier than Semitic languages for English speakers to learn.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

I knew Arabic once, gave it up and fell out of touch. The most difficult language I have come across. Italian is easier, French is great. Invest some time in French. The language is very different from English, the idiom is very different. It will give you access to a great body of literature, qualitatively, the greatest literature in the Western world.

----------


## Brasil

In terms of being easier: try another Indo-European language (German, Russian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian...). 

*German* is a good choice. German Literature and Philosophy are very rich:
Goethe, Bertolt Brecht, Nietzsche...
Another oppiton is *Russian*, for Tolstoi, Dostoievski, etc...

Romance Languages:
*Spanish* - for Cervantes and other Spanish writers. Also, for Latin-American Literature (Pablo Neruda, for example). A very rich choice.
*Portuguese*- Literatures from Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Moçambique...
Camões, Fernando Pessoa, Machado de Assis, Carlos Drummond de Andrade and other writers are good choices too.
*Italian* - for Boccaccio, Petrarca (Petrarch), Dante, Machiavelli...
*French* - there are a lot of well known writers (in Literature, Theatre and Philosophy) as Rousseau, Montesquieu, Victor Hugo, Descartes, Rimbauld, Exupèry, Dumas, La Fontaine, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Sartre...

Ask yourself what would be the best Literature for your own taste.

Songs are also a good oppition when you're learning another language. Take this in consideration.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> I think each language has its own characteristics but if you are a fan of poetry, Arabic poetry is the best ever. Arabic poetry has such amazing meanings and expression that need a lot of words to express in other languages. However, novels, plays and other genres are still not that great as poetry.


I didn't like Arabic Literature at all, specially the modern Arabic Literature. As far as novel is concerned, this language can give you access to people like Nagib Mehfooz Tayeb Saleh and Khalil Gibran's philosophical works. It is bloody difficult though. Nine years of regular studies and after falling out of touch for a couple of decades I have nothing to show for those years. I just failed to love that language. Now if you really want to learn an Eastern language, learn Persian. A literary history spanning thousands of years, this language has the most beautiful poetry. Almost untranslatable in English, you can spend your life-time studying poet after poet after poet right from the 6th century BC to the 21st century AD. Compared to Arabic, Persian is dead-easy. With only 7 clauses of mostly fairly straight forward verbs (Arabic has fourteen and most of them irregular!), the grammar is a doodle and a pleasure to learn. The vocabulary is huge but you learn with the passage of time. Here is a taste of the 20th century Persian Literature:

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri.../blindowl.html

Surrealism, decadence, horror, no this is not French, this is Iranian Literature!

----------


## JBI

Well, I am unsure about your regard for Arabic poets, Adunis seems amongst the finest writing today.

----------


## jgweed

For the humanities major, French would be my suggestion. First, it is perhaps easier to learn because of the similarities with English words and sentence structure. Second, the language itself has remained relatively stable through modern history and dialects are less of a problem. Third, the sheer wealth of important authors in all fields provides the widest range of specialised studies. Fourth the clarity and precision of expression of French authors provides a useful model for one's own writing.
German, because of its content, then Spanish. Unless to further your employment opportunities, I would not waste my time on any other languages or second-rate literature.

----------


## sofia82

> Now if you really want to learn an Eastern language, learn Persian. A literary history spanning thousands of years, this language has the most beautiful poetry. Almost untranslatable in English, you can spend your life-time studying poet after poet after poet right from the 6th century BC to the 21st century AD. Compared to Arabic, Persian is dead-easy. With only 7 clauses of mostly fairly straight forward verbs (Arabic has fourteen and most of them irregular!), the grammar is a doodle and a pleasure to learn. The vocabulary is huge but you learn with the passage of time. Here is a taste of the 20th century Persian Literature:
> 
> http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri.../blindowl.html
> 
> Surrealism, decadence, horror, no this is not French, this is Iranian Literature!


So you know about persian literature, it is interesting?

I am persian and persian and Arabic alphabets are the same, but it is really difficult even for me to learn, i can read it sometimes understand but just a little, i do not like it so much its grammar, phonology, and words are difficult, about its literatue i cannot say anything as i do not know so much although in persian literature there are lots of arabic words used in poetry.

----------


## JBI

> For the humanities major, French would be my suggestion. First, it is perhaps easier to learn because of the similarities with English words and sentence structure. Second, the language itself has remained relatively stable through modern history and dialects are less of a problem. Third, the sheer wealth of important authors in all fields provides the widest range of specialised studies. Fourth the clarity and precision of expression of French authors provides a useful model for one's own writing.
> German, because of its content, then Spanish. Unless to further your employment opportunities, I would not waste my time on any other languages or second-rate literature.


Spanish over Italian? Italian is known for its poetry, whereas many of the greater Spanish writers are known for their prose. Italian poetry cannot be translated into English as well. In addition, Italian is an easier language, because the grammar is simpler. Generally people start with 1 of the 4 major Latins (surprisingly not so much Portuguese even though it is more widely spoken than both Italian and French), and work their way from there. It isn't difficult to go from Spanish to Portuguese, or from Catalan to French, or Catalan to Spanish, but Italian to French seems weird.

I would say Italian is probably the best starting ground however, since Tuscan is the closest to Latin, and therefore will help more with learning the others.

----------


## sofia82

> Spanish over Italian? Italian is known for its poetry, whereas many of the greater Spanish writers are known for their prose. Italian poetry cannot be translated into English as well. In addition, Italian is an easier language, because the grammar is simpler. Generally people start with 1 of the 4 major Latins (surprisingly not so much Portuguese even though it is more widely spoken than both Italian and French), and work their way from there. It isn't difficult to go from Spanish to Portuguese, or from Catalan to French, or Catalan to Spanish, but Italian to French seems weird.
> 
> I would say Italian is probably the best starting ground however, since Tuscan is the closest to Latin, and therefore will help more with learning the others.


What about the one whose native language is not English, but his field of study is English, which language is better to learn. I once knew a little french but forget all about it. And there is an obligation I know a language other than English (french, german, italian). Which one do you think is better for a student of literature?

----------


## JBI

Italian first. It's closest to Latin, and offers Dante, amongst other things. French is good too, but from my experience, it is much more difficult to learn. Better to get Italian (Tuscan) first, and then move from there. As for non-native, I can't say, it would depend what you speak first. Italian is very useful, of course, since many, many references are made to Italian literature even in English. Also Italian poetry seems to me to be a stronger tradition than French Poetry (though in terms of prose the French win hands down). Also, you get a better exposure to Italian music, which wins hands down.

----------


## sofia82

> Italian first. It's closest to Latin, and offers Dante, amongst other things. French is good too, but from my experience, it is much more difficult to learn. Better to get Italian (Tuscan) first, and then move from there. As for non-native, I can't say, it would depend what you speak first. Italian is very useful, of course, since many, many references are made to Italian literature even in English. Also Italian poetry seems to me to be a stronger tradition than French Poetry (though in terms of prose the French win hands down). Also, you get a better exposure to Italian music, which wins hands down.


My mother tongue is Azer(Turkish), native language Persian, English as Second Language ...

----------


## CognitiveArtist

As an English speaker stranded on the language I'll say the second languages I'm thinking about. Warning, there will be brazen namedropping but it most concisely expresses my stance on literatures.

French is the first language I'd learn. It's desirable in itself and it's not far removed from English. Flaubert, Stendhal (who's _The Red and the Black_ I'm appreciating now, in English  :Frown: ), Dumas and Proust (if I'm ever crazy enough and have the time) are strong literary delights. Balzac and Zola are socially thoughtful storytellers. Good poetry Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Hugo, Valery. Final category, 20th century French thought. Incomparable philosophy, social thought and literature studies (such as Blanchot, Barthes, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, Bourdieu). As a philosophy and sociology student French is, I'll venture to say, the most useful language today. The pronunciation and delicate wording also grabs me. As that guy says in Matrix Reloaded.

German is the next I'd acquire. German philosophy is very strong as well. Nietzsche I would savor reading in German. The heavyweight Heidegger would be another philosophical indulgence which could occupy one for ages. Rich poetry with Goethe, Rilke, Holderlin, Heine. And good novels by Mann, Hesse, Boll.
People I know who've learned German say it has a good logic and sense behind it. It's nonetheless sophisticated and multifaceted, as I often hear German translators complaining the inability to capture wordplay.

Spanish has lately caught my attention, it's even prioritised itself above Italian in my mind. 20th century Latin America Literature has revealed many curiosities to me, selling diverse writers from all sorts of backgrounds. The "Latin American Boom" has a lot of quality imaginative literature which falls under the genres magic realism and postmodern literature. Plus there's the more traditional Spanish literature of Cervantes and Lope de Vega. Spanish literature also sticks to the Latin alphabet and seems to have smoother, easier pronunciation then French without being technical like German.

I personally wouldn't venture into something so removed from English like Chinese, Japanese, Russian or Arabic. Mainly for practical reasons, if I pick up other languages these just lag behind French, German, Spanish also Italian.
Arabic, given all I know about it, doesn't really intrigue me. The Persian language although I'm curious about. Sufism is the key reason why, the mysticism and poetry in Persian literature of Rumi, Saadi, Hafez and I'm sure there are others unknown to me seem justifying.


The way I see it, just like with English, there is much a person could dwell on and appreciate for a long time in another language. For me, the philosophy alone of a language would merit learning a language like French or German. Equally the poetry alone would make learning French, German or Italian worthwhile. The fact is, you really can't go wrong. Unless you learn something truly marginal like feudal German. I think anyone who reads enough is an internationalist, so it's just a matter of which group of authors do you want closer exposure to.

----------


## EricP

I would go with French (Flaubert, Zola, Camus, etc.), Russian (Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc.), or Spanish (Garcia Marquez, Neruda, Cervantes, etc.).

----------


## aabbcc

I have never studied German and, frankly, at times I regret it, its rich body of literature being the main reason for that. Of course, one cannot learn every single thing one is interested in - languages are no exception - which is just one more reason why to pick carefully. I think that it would be the best if you reflected on the things you read and wish to read and other specific areas of interest in which you might certain language to be of use, because everyone of us is going to tell you simply what worked for us, in accordance with our interests, even if you might have some particularly different ones. It all depends on what you want to read and how much time and effort are you willing to invest into learning another language (i.e. whether you want to learn some rather common, Latin-based language, which is technically a useful choice; or some more exotic language because it suits your interests better).

I'd recommend Italian, not just because it is mine ( :Biggrin: ), but also becuase I objectively - as objective as I can be - think it is a good language for literature studies, and an excellent base for other Romance languages (so it is going to be incredibly easy to learn French or Spanish after Italian - and vice versa of course). Unlike many, I wouldn't recommend Russian though. My entire life I have been preferring to read its literature in translations (mostly in translations to my other native languages - Croatian and Italian), it 'sounded better' and 'felt' better, emotionally in some way. Hard to explain, probably it was just a personal experience, and those tend to differ.  :Wink:

----------


## JBI

It is said that Dostoevsky reads better in translation. 

One always must consider what they will be reading. Though prose is big, if you are into poetry, you really need to read in the original. Sure you lose something translating Thomas Mann, but you lose far more translating Montale. The fact remains that if prose is all you want to read, you can go ahead with almost any prose major, and gain a little, but if you are into poetry, you really need to pick more carefully.

Difficulty is also another thing to consider. Russian is far more difficult than most romance languages for English speakers. German is also said to be more difficult than most romance languages. If one wants to master the most first, you should stick to what you know first.

As an Italian student, I can tell you that English is probably the worst first language to have for learning any new language. I refer to my examples relative to Hebrew more than English, simply because it is so difficult to understand inflection with using an English mindset. If you are going to try to learn Russian, without any knowledge of cases, you probably will find the process near impossible. That being said, most languages are inflected to some degree more than English, but the romance languages are said to be the easiest to learn.

The choice is yours. Don't go off on a whim and say, "I like Proust, therefore I want to learn French." Proust is available in translation, and though you lose something, you still don't lose as much as you do from translating Lorca, or from translating Pessoa.

----------


## Pensive

Go for Urdu.  :Tongue:  Urdu is a beautiful language. Not being biased here or at least intentionally biased but really Urdu poetry as well as prose is amazing. Works by such poets as Ibn-e-Insha, Ghalib, Mir, Faiz, Ludhianwi, and many more authors are just great. I am especially fond of Urdu _ghazals_. We have some pretty good prose writers too. Translated material, especially when it comes to poetry, loses a lot.

Personally I would like to learn Persian for the sake of Persian Literature. I have heard such good things about the language by my grandfather (whose father used to write Persian poetry too) that I really want to experience Persian literature (in Farsi). The positive side is that the script is Arabic in Persian's case just like Urdu. Also many of Urdu words originate from Persian...
And it sounds beautiful too! 

The factor that my paternal ancestors (while looking at the pedigree long time ago) have been from Iran might be another influence to make me want to examine the language more closely.  :Smile: 




> My mother tongue is Azer(Turkish), native language Persian, English as Second Language ...


So do you happen to be from Turkey or Iran?

----------


## kandaurov

I agree, choosing a language over a whim, like a good author, seems to me to be risky and irresponsible. One doesn't learn a language like _that_; it takes a lot of time, effort and eventually money, so though it's important to like the literature of the language you'll choose to learn, other factors should weight in your decision, namely the applicability of your newly-acquired faculty. At a later stage, if you _really_ want to learn a language, you should spend some time in a country where it is spoken, so it would help a lot if the country's culture, and the country itself, somehow intrigued or at least pleased you.

----------


## Vincent Black

Hmmm, now I'm torn between Italian and French. Admittedly it is in part because most non-English writers I like are French, and apart from Dante and Machiavelli I know no Italian literature at all. Yet the cause for learning Italian first make sense, even though I generally prefer prose over poetry.

----------


## johann cruyff

I'd learn French,then German,and finally Russian,in that order.

----------


## sofia82

> So do you happen to be from Turkey or Iran?


Iran, not Turkey

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> I'd learn French,then German,and finally Russian,in that order.


French gains you access to some of the best movies ever made. The French take great pride in their cinema. I don't watch many movies but some of my favorite modern movies are in French language. Yvan Attal's _Ma femme est une actrice_ and _Ils se marièrent et eurent beaucoup d'enfants_, Audrey Tautou's wonderful _À la folie... pas du tout_ and _Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain_. I am not the sort who would watch movies but even I can't resist these wonderful films.

----------


## EricP

> My mother tongue is Azer(Turkish), native language Persian, English as Second Language ...


Salam aleykum! Nejasiniz? Man yaxshidir. Uzr isteyiram, manim Azeri dilim chox pisdir!

I taught English in Azerbaijan with the Peace Corps. I was working in a small village in the Bilasuvar region, near the Iranian border. Until now, I didn't realize how quickly one forgets a language if they don't speak it regularly. Chox shadam!  :Smile:

----------


## sofia82

> Salam aleykum! Nejasiniz? Man yaxshidir. Uzr isteyiram, manim Azeri dilim chox pisdir!
> 
> I taught English in Azerbaijan with the Peace Corps. I was working in a small village in the Bilasuvar region, near the Iranian border. Until now, I didn't realize how quickly one forgets a language if they don't speak it regularly. Chox shadam!


oh, Salam! chox mamnun. Man yakhjiyam. CHox sevindim.
Great job! So you know these regions! Wish you best!

Unfortunately, yes. If one does not speak a language regualarly, one will forget it. How long did you worked there? And you taught English as the second language?

----------


## CognitiveArtist

When it comes to prose I think French is very distinguished. Proust is pure prose. I understand he has a single sentence which is around 4 pages long! And, of course, he's a highly acclaimed writer.
One reason, amongst many, as to why I'd like to learn French is to read Samuel Beckett's trilogy. Not at all that I think there isn't excellent Beckett available in original English. I just like the idea of someone coming to a new language, experimenting in it and becoming comfortable in it like Beckett and multiple English writers did in the 20th century.
A final distinguishing factor is French is the mother language of the essay. There are renowned essayists in French like Montaigne, Voltaire, Diderot and more. I find the idea of reading a concise, unitary piece of writing delightful. Not that literary quagmires don't have their appeal (for instance Sartre's _Being and Nothingness_), but clarity and precision writings are good and generally by nature charmingly accessible.

----------


## slobone

Certainly French among the modern languages. But Latin would also be a good choice.

----------


## Brasil

My native language is Portuguese. I also speak English, Italian, French, and Spanish. 
Next month I will study Latin (because I need to know more about the structure of the romance languages).

For me
*The greatest literatures from West are in:*
Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, English and German (in any order).

About old languages: 
- The best Greek literature is from the classic period. It was written in Ancient Greek, very different from the Greek spoken today.
- Latin is not spoken today as an usual language.
- So, we have nowadays: Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, English and German still spoken. That is the most pragmatic group of western languages for learning today.

A thing to consider: Inside that group of Western languages, the most spoken (as a native language) are:
1- English
2- Spanish
3- Portuguese
4- Russian
5- French
6- Italian
(in that order)

*The greatest literatures from East are in:*
Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, Hebraic, Mandarin, Japanese, Hindi (in any order).
But nowadays, it would be more pragmatic learning Mandarin, Arabic, Hindi or Japanese (cause, in this group, they are the most spoken Eastern languages). See:
1- Mandarin
2- Arabic
3- Hindi
4- Japanese
(in that order)

*West x East*
Most spoken languages (as native language) in world are: 
1- Mandarin
2- English
3- Spanish
4- Hindi-Urdu
5- Portuguese
6- Arabic
7- Russian
8- Japanese
9- French
(is that order)


Dead languages (Sanskrit, Aramaic, Ancient Greek, Latin) are good just for curiosity or deep studies of linguistic, but its learning is not pragmatic as an usual language.

I consider Literature and Philosophy very important subjects for all human kind. There are important and beautiful texts in English, German, Russian, Romance languages (as Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese) and Eastern Languages (as Arabic, Mandarin, etc...).

Any language and any literature is good for learning. All cultures have things to share.
In this world we live today, there is no excuse for a person that lives, thinks and speaks just your native language. 

Don't mind what is one person's native language. Learning a foreign language is an essential thing for anyone.

----------


## kelby_lake

Do French, then you can read Endgame in French, which is in really simple French. Same for Les Enfents Terribles.

----------


## slobone

> Do French, then you can read Endgame in French, which is in really simple French. Same for Les Enfents Terribles.


And L'Etranger. Gide is also very easy to read. And Colette.

----------


## Mockingbird_z

to Brasil =) real good post. I liked it. very logical and convincing.
to all 
First I wanted to say that German is not a romance language, unfortunately, it is germanic.
for most english speaking people (even if English is a second language) learning Romance languages is easy first because of writing, you have one common alphabet and common way of writing letters. unlike say Russian or Chinese, JApanese, Arabic.
Besides many words you will learn will have the same connotation, meaning and form (ok, I will say similar) to the English ones, of course phonetics is a thing that should be taken in consideration seriously.
I just wanted to say that due to the fact that many russian writers remain unknown beyond the country because they are hardly translated. many people know only about those who were translated, and that is all. but this doesnt mean that we have only Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Chechov to be proud.
Russian literature has also very reach and beautiful poetry, A. Pushkin, A.Akhmatova, V. Mayakovsky, A.Blok, S. Esenin, they wont be understood in transltation... no matter how good the translation may be.
Good luck in studying languages =)

----------


## Dori

If you choose French, I think you'll find that it only gets easier when you get the fundamentals down. The English language was very much influenced by French at one point in time. Although, if you take any given English dictionary, which comprise the largest amount of words of any dictionary, a very little percentage of the words actually stem from Old English. Thus, the point I mentioned above will apply to other languages as well. 

I would go with either French or Russian, but I am also biased due to my minimal knowledge of the East.

Addendum: Native English speakers are quite fortunate. After all, the Italians excelled at the visual arts more so than in their literature, or at least such is my opinion, and the Germans with their music, both of which can be appreciated without a knowledge of Italian or German. French and Russian seem like the best choices if you take this approach.

----------


## Brasil

*Indo-European family:* languages like German, Russian, English, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French, Latin, Greek, Hindi, Sanskrit, Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu, Persian....
In resume: Hindi (and other languages from India), Persian and all european languages are Indo-Europeans.

Subdivisions (groups inside Indo-European family):
Italic - Romance: Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Sicilian...
Germanic: German, English, Norwegian, Swedish...
Slavic: Russian, Polish, Slovak...
other groups inside Indo-European family: 
Celtic, 
Greek, 
Indo-Iranian, 
Armenian,
etc...

*Not Indo-European (other families):*
Altaic family: Japanese, Korean...
Sino-Tibetan family: Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu....
Afro-Asiatic family: Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic...

etc... (there are other families and subdivisions)

----------


## EricP

> oh, Salam! chox mamnun. Man yakhjiyam. CHox sevindim.
> Great job! So you know these regions! Wish you best!
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. If one does not speak a language regualarly, one will forget it. How long did you worked there? And you taught English as the second language?


I lived in Azerbaijan for six months: three months of Azeri language training and three months teaching English as a second language in Bilasuvar. I returned to the U.S. early because of some personal issues, but it was a very interesting experience!

----------


## sofia82

> I lived in Azerbaijan for six months: three months of Azeri language training and three months teaching English as a second language in Bilasuvar. I returned to the U.S. early because of some personal issues, but it was a very interesting experience!


Great! In six month you learned Azeri?

----------


## EricP

> Great! In six month you learned Azeri?


My Azeri was far from perfect, but I could chat with neighbors, give directions to taxi drivers, watch Turkish soap operas, etc.  :Biggrin:  I used to mix up the verb tenses fairly often, and I think I got overcharged frequently at the bazar, but I got by without any major problems. I lived in a house with a host family of seven, so I was able to learn a lot about the culture (although I never did learn to like Mugham music!).

----------


## slobone

Naah, you weren't overcharged, because there are no fixed prices. If it's like most countries, there's a price for the locals and a higher price for foreigners (especially Americans). Nothing wrong with that. You can still bargain, but you're never going to get the local price.

----------


## sofia82

> My Azeri was far from perfect, but I could chat with neighbors, give directions to taxi drivers, watch Turkish soap operas, etc.  I used to mix up the verb tenses fairly often, and I think I got overcharged frequently at the bazar, but I got by without any major problems. I lived in a house with a host family of seven, so I was able to learn a lot about the culture (although I never did learn to like Mugham music!).


This is great! Especially watching Turkish soap operas without problem, I myslef have problems with some Azeri words as our language is a little bit different from them and nowadays there are lots of Persian words we use in everyday speaking. This is a great chance to learn a language. I think if you wanted to learn Azeri or other language in your own country, you would not be able to talk like this. Which is the problem with my English even after graduation  :Biggrin: 

Most people have problem with Mugham music, anyway  :Smile: )

----------


## EricP

> Naah, you weren't overcharged, because there are no fixed prices. If it's like most countries, there's a price for the locals and a higher price for foreigners (especially Americans). Nothing wrong with that. You can still bargain, but you're never going to get the local price.


Yes, that's exactly how it worked at the bazars in Azerbaijan as well. The only problem was that most Americans and Europeans there were expats in the oil industry who made lots of money. I, on the other hand, was making what the average Azeri teacher made (i.e., not much). It did get better once the sellers got to know me and found out that I was a volunteer.

----------


## sofia82

> Yes, that's exactly how it worked at the bazars in Azerbaijan as well. The only problem was that most Americans and Europeans there were expats in the oil industry who made lots of money. I, on the other hand, was making what the average Azeri teacher made (i.e., not much). It did get better once the sellers got to know me and found out that I was a volunteer.


Oh! So you had to introduce yourself first then buy anything. Yes, you're right!

----------


## Brasil

In *Lusitania* (today Portugal) there were two ethinic groups living: Celtics and Iberics. The language spoken was a mix of two languages: Celtic + Iberic = Celtiberic.

Then, began the foreign invasions.
- Came the first invasion: Ligore
- The second invasion:Phoenicians (they came from where we call today Lebanon). The Phoenicians were sailors and they founded a port in Lusitania, called "Porto Cale", today Porto City, north of Portugal (indeed, the name of the country came from the name of the old port founded by the Phoenicians sailors).
- The third invasions came from Greece. The greeks were sailors as well. So, Since the begining, the tradition of sailing became very familiar to the Lusitan people.
Until that moment, the language was a mix of Celtiberic + Ligore + Phoenicians + Greek.
- Then came to Lusitania the most important influence, the Latin (Roman Empire invasion). Latin is the basic structure of any Romance language.
- After the fall of the Roman Empire, came the Visigoths. So, Germanic became another influence.
- Another invasion came: Arabs (called Moors). They were Islam (Muslims) - for 300 years in Iberic Peninsula. A Great contribution in architecture, language, sciences and agriculture. 
- The book Os Lusíadas (Lusiads) by Camões is a epic poem, it tells about the war between the kingdom of Portugal (Catholic) and the Muslims. But the main theme of Os Lusíadas is the navigation around the African continent trying to find a new route to India. The Portuguese sailors became heros in that poem (Indeed, Portugal was the first european nation, the political power became centralised and the Portuguese people, with the tradition of sailing and the strategic geographical position, went to the sea before anyone). Till today, the Fado (Portuguese folk song) have the sea as main theme. In songs, girls cry for their husbands in sea, and the feeling is "saudade" (= to miss something).

- So until this moment, the Portuguese language were a mix of Celtiberic + Ligore + Phoenicians + Greek + Germanic + Arabic; and the main structure is the Latin language.

*Colonization of Brazil by the Portuguese people:*
Some words entered into the Portuguese language:
-From Tupi-Guarani (one of the groups of languages, spoken by native indians in Brazil);
-From Bantu (came from the African people);

*Independece of Brazil:*
- The languages of the immigrants (Italian, German, Japanese) gave some words to Portuguese language. New words came especially from the Italian.
- French was the language that had the greatest influence at the time.

*Today:*
Portuguese has influence from English, in some words (about information technology, marketing terms, etc)

----------


## Brasil

*English*
- First, the Celtic people lived in Britain. 
- Then, came the Romans (with the Latin language). They gave politic and economic terms (vocabulary till that time unknown). 
- So, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the barbarian invasors came to Britain: the Anglo and the Saxon people. That is the basic structure of the English gramatic. The Germanic influence was the most important to the English language structure. 
- A new period came with the Christians, the Latin once again gave a vocabulary of abstract words to the British people. Before it, the commuincation was very simple. 
- Another invasion: the Vikings, from Denmark. Another influence in gramatic and vocabulary.
- Normans period: the French became the official language in Britain, for 300 years, but spoken only by the elite (high class). Some expressions and vocabularies from French remain in English language till today. 
- Another period came: press, post system, literature (Shakespeare), first gramatical book, Industrial Revolution, dictionaries.

That was the history since the old English (Germanic and Latin influence) to the Modern English. 
*Definition:* English is a *Anglo-Saxon* language, from the Germanic group, from the Indo-European family.

*English in other languages:*
In French: Anglais
In Italian: Inglese
In Portuguese: Inglês
In Spanish: Inglés

*England in other languages*
In French: Angleterre
In Italian: Inghilterra
In Spanish and Portuguese: Inglaterra
It means Anglo Land (land of the Anglos) originally.

- In U.S, English won influence from the vernacular language (black english).
- Till today, English wins (receives) influence from other languages: French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Japanese, etc...

----------


## PeterL

> *English*
> - First, the Celtic people lived in Britain. 
> - Then, came the Romans (with the Latin language). They gave politic and economic terms (vocabulary till that time unknown).


Those had barely any influence on the English language. The Romans were long gone, and the Celts were moved off the land as the Angles and the Saxons moved in.




> - So, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the barbarian invasors came to Britain: the Anglo and the Saxon people. That is the basic structure of the English gramatic. The Germanic influence was the most important to the English language structure.


They were the 'Angles', not Anglos. Old English was a purely Germanic language.

[QUOTE]- A new period came with the Christians, the Latin once again gave a vocabulary of abstract words to the British people. Before it, the commuincation was very simple. 

Christianity was an exceedingly small influence on the English language. 




> - Another invasion: the Vikings, from Denmark. Another influence in gramatic and vocabulary.


The Vikings raided. The ones who settled were mostly Angles. The Viking invasion that was importnt was the one by the grandson of Hrolf the Ganger.




> - Normans period: the French became the official language in Britain, for 300 years, but spoken only by the elite (high class). Some expressions and vocabularies from French remain in English language till today.


This was the Viking invasion that eventually led to the development of Middle English. Frpm 1066 and the end of the 14th cen. was the period when English became what it is now




> - Another period came: press, post system, literature (Shakespeare), first .gramatical book, Industrial Revolution, dictionaries.


By Shakespeare's time English had become what it is today. 




> That was the history since the old English (Germanic and Latin influence) to the Modern English.


The history of the English language is a little more involved than that. Don't forget the Great Vowel Shift.

----------


## JBI

The new period he speaks of he has misunderstood. The period came with a general spelling, and general definition created by Johnson with the publication of his Dictionary of the English Language which essentially created what we have today. Post-Milton English is slightly different than renaissance, to a degree that is higher than most western languages (so I am told). I am told that it is easier for a French speaker to read Moliere than an English speaker to read Shakespeare. Either way, PeterL you are right in the sense that English didn't really change much on the Island itself.

Either way, as anyone who has studied Old English can attest, it shares very little with modern day spoken German.

----------


## Brasil

The History (historia) I told about English language (lingua) is a resume (resumo), yes, very simple (simplice) resume, I know.

English is a Germanic language, I told that.
But the influence (influentia) of Christians (christianu) and Latin was very deep. I read once a English dictionary (dictionariu) till the end. It was full of Greek-Latin words.

The History I told about Portuguese language is also a resume. How could I tell all the details in a forum on line (linea)? If I wanted to tell all the periods (periodu), I would have written a book.

But the History of Portuguese language is very interesting (interessante), try to read my (meu) resume above.
I wait commentaries (commentariu)

Obs: all words between ( ) are from the Latin language, except "history", from Greek. See how English and Latin have similar words.

----------


## slobone

> I am told that it is easier for a French speaker to read Moliere than an English speaker to read Shakespeare.


No doubt, but Molière lived 60 years later than Shakespeare. A better comparison is Molière vs. Milton, and Milton is substantially easier to read than Shakespeare.

One of the reasons Shakespeare is hard to read is that he used a lot of language that was unusual even for his time. He used words that are found nowhere else, and stretched ordinary words to the limits of their meanings. Marlowe, who was actually dead by the time Shakespeare wrote most of his best-known plays, is easier to read. And Shakespeare's early plays are easier than his later ones.

----------


## slobone

> Obs: all words between ( ) are from the Latin language, except "history", from Greek. See how English and Latin have similar words.


Yes, but words with Latin roots (radices) entered English by two different routes (itinera) -- indirectly through French in the Middle Ages, and directly later on during the centuries when every educated Englishman learned Latin in school.

----------


## Brasil

*Machado de Assis* (Rio de Janeiro, 1839  Rio de Janeiro, 1908), in his book *The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas*, created a currious narrator: _Bras Cubas_ is a ghost (a deceased) that comes from the grave to tell his own history.

*- Bras Cubas (Narrator):* I am a "deceased author", not an "author deceased" reporting his memoirs, and more, describing his own delirium.
(sorry about the translation, maybe it will make no sense in English)

Often, the narrator drives his words to the reader: "Come with me, dear reader, let's see this little house..." It's a common thing in Machado's books.

So, the narrator says a curious detail about himself:
Perhaps, the frankness (meaning: sincerity) that I expose and stress my mediocrity alarmes the reader ; I warn that openness (=frankness, sincerity) is the first virtue of a deceased. In life, the look of view, the contrast of interests, the greed of people... oblige (requires) us to silence the old rags, disguise the tears and passions, ... because in that case, you can save the shame, which is a painful feeling, and hypocrisy, which is a horrible addiction. But in death, what a difference! What freedom!

*I think that is a photography of our society till today. Even now, in this very forum, we're trying to hide the poorness of our speech, or in Bras Cubas narrator's word: "to silence the old rags".*

_Quincas Borba_, a philosopher caracter from another Machado's novel, appears also in this book, the Posthumous Memoirs, talking to the living Bras Cubas (not to the "deceased author" and narrator, but to the living one). 
So, in this intertextuality, we can see a caracter (Quincas Borba), as a living person with a past, a full history (from the homonym novel), talking to another caracter (Bras Cubas) as a living person, and all this scene is narrated by the "deceased Bras Cubas".

*So, I think (as Bras Cubas did after his death) we must apart ourselves from the things which we think we know, then in fact, we will have a little idea about what life means. You don't need to wait for your death to do that (as Bras Cubas did), you can do that while you are reading this text (or latter, but not to late).*

My advice for all:
Learn another language, know more about other cultures, travel a lot, search for other readings, study philosophies, analyse your life before it is too late...
Open your eyes for unknown.

----------


## JBI

> No doubt, but Molière lived 60 years later than Shakespeare. A better comparison is Molière vs. Milton, and Milton is substantially easier to read than Shakespeare.
> 
> One of the reasons Shakespeare is hard to read is that he used a lot of language that was unusual even for his time. He used words that are found nowhere else, and stretched ordinary words to the limits of their meanings. Marlowe, who was actually dead by the time Shakespeare wrote most of his best-known plays, is easier to read. And Shakespeare's early plays are easier than his later ones.


Milton easier than Shakespeare? I disagree. Miltonic syntax isn't even really English; the word order seems borrowed from Greek, and the word usage irregular. The plot of Milton (especially his later works) is far more difficult to understand on the basic levels than Shakespeare. If I wanted an exact person I probably would have gone with Montaigne, though I am sure a more accurate comparison can be drawn. The point was really just to stress how the language has changed drastically, relative to French, in terms of pulling in more influences, and adapting to accept Colonial words and pronunciations. Honestly though, most languages (written languages) have gone under such changes. The root of the language exactly has no bearing on whether it is better or not. I am told Esperanto is the easiest language to learn, but I doubt anyone is going to run and learn it just because it is so easy.

----------


## slobone

I don't think you'll find many people to agree with you that Milton is harder to read than Shakespeare (if you mean without reference to footnotes). Yes, Milton's syntax is unusual, but it can be deciphered, which Shakespeare often can't be, except by scholars (who usually disagree).

But I do agree with you about 17th century French being closer to 21st century French than is the case in English. Particularly if you read the English book with the original spelling and punctuation.

----------


## Brasil

*- Shakespeare:* "God, have mercy! What cannot be racked from words in five centuries? One could wring, methinks, a flood from a damp clout!"  (Shakespeare about a literature class where a lot of analysis were made about his work) - Taken from *"The Immortal Bard"* by *Isaac Asimov* (1954).
Did anybody here read about the *New Criticism*?


Does it mean for anyone who is harder to read or who is easier?
Art is not for criticize or judge, art is for apreciate, enjoy.

To criticize is the same of assume you know something.

"all I know is that I know nothing".
*Socrates.*

it means: We must know ourselves and ending the prejudice inside our heads.



I also love Shakespeare! And I love all novels about King Arthur.
I apreciate H. G. Wells, Alan Poe, Tolkien, Oscar Wild... 
but literature is not just English. Literature is not just Shakespeare!


Try to learn something beyond Shakespeare, ok?
Shakespeare is too basic, everybody who studies literature begins with Shakespeare. Machado de Assis was as great writer as Shakespeare. But no english person knows about Machado's novels. Typical egocentrism of culture!
The day I find a english person that tells me "I have read Machado de Assis" I will have found a interesting person.

Till there...*Read my post before*, it talks about knowing other cultures, self analysing, leaving the prejudice, and enjoing the life.

----------


## JBI

Machado de Assis and Shakespeare are not on the same level. Shakespeare is significant because of his time period, Assis came much later, and thereby wasn't important in world literature the same way. By the time Assis was alive, Shakespeare was already the ideal of perfection in English letters. Everything after seems to be under his influence, to the point where Shakespeare is still the focus point. Perhaps it is your nationalism that tries to drag Machado de Assis on par, to play the devils advocate (not saying I quite agree). In terms of Brazilian letters you perhaps are correct, but let us remember we must look at literature as a whole. Discrediting the bard seems as ethnocentric as crediting him. Just because he is considered the strongest of English letters, doesn't mean he isn't.

----------


## Brasil

...many of the Greek playwrights, Arthur Brooke, Seneca, Ovidio and Greek Mythology.

By your logic, we could say Shakespeare is under the Greek Mythology.

So, is Shakespeare better than Machado just because Shakespeare came first?

Did you read any Machado's novel?


I read Dante, Cervantes, Machado and Shakespeare.
For me, Machado is as great as any one of them.

Machado was very poor. He learned how to write and to read by his own ways, all alone. He became self-educated reading the classics of literature and philosophy. He translated his books to other languages. How did he learned a lot of foreign languages? Alone, by his own will.

Don't tell me "Shakespeare was the godness of inspiration for all world literature", that is arrogance.

Machado's literature is rich by his own credits.

----------


## Brasil

*O Alienista* (the alienist, I do not know how to translate it) - 
A doctor, owner of a hospice, discover a pattern to classify madness: everything that is beyond the normal is madness. 
The doctor put into his clinic some people who have such behaviour. 
Later, almost all the city people are hospitalized, and the city almost empty, because he discovered that almost all people have this pattern of behaviour. 
But he thinks "the majority must provides the standard of behaviour". Then he begins to consider mad the "balanced people". He gives freedom to the mad ones to submit the minority "healthy" of individuals to an intensive treatment. 
In the end, all are healed, but the doctor hospitalizes himself.

That was just a resume about a book of Machado de Assis. 
Machado was very ironic and original in his works. 
His books have a fine sense of elegance and sarcasm, both working together.

----------


## JCamilo

For god's sake Brasil, he never said Shakespeare come first and that was the reason of Shakespeare superiority over Machado, he said Shakespeare was stabilished and changing texts even 200 years after his death when Machado was starting. 
THere is a handful of writers that are equal to Shakespeare, Machado is just not one of them. Even monsters like Borges, Cervantes, Ovid, Chaucer or Keats are not as good as him, they may even had momments (like Machado, Camões, Guimarães Rosa and Fernando Pessoa had) that they are almost good as Shakespeare. But Shakespeare had those momments over and over and over. Just think how about all main myths, archetypicals stories have some greek root and Shakespeare alone produced the moderm revenge story, the moderm love story, the moderm envy story, etc. He alone make up for centuries of classical culture. It is not when or where he was born, it is looking the literature today (A work of critic, you like to complain about critics but you are so prone to produce critical vallues, misguided as they are). Think about Pele. It is Shakespeare - the perfection all must attain, all try and a few manage to do (by the way, the handful of writers that could be as good as shakespeare are Dante, Virgil, maybe Homer and Goethe and who knows in a few centuries we we know if Joyce too). 
Knowing that Shakespeare is superior to Machado does not hurt at all Machado's merits. But the two guys are talking about difference of language and it was you who come with the need to compare both. Your nationalism is hurting your sense of judgement over and over.

By the way, I found Milton easier to read than Shakespeare too. And when I read Milton long ago it was the first time I got something in not moderm english to read. But then, even Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde was sometimes more easier to read than a few Shakespearean works. I wonder if that have anything to do with the fact I understand portuguese...

----------


## PeterL

> By the way, I found Milton easier to read than Shakespeare too. And when I read Milton long ago it was the first time I got something in not moderm english to read. But then, even Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde was sometimes more easier to read than a few Shakespearean works. I wonder if that have anything to do with the fact I understand portuguese...


I'm sorry to have to inform you, but Milton wrote in Modern English, as did Shakespeare. Chaucer wrote in Middle English, but some of his writing was as easy to read as Shakespeare's.

----------


## PeterL

> The History (historia) I told about English language (lingua) is a resume (resumo), yes, very simple (simplice) resume, I know.
> 
> English is a Germanic language, I told that.
> But the influence (influentia) of Christians (christianu) and Latin was very deep. I read once a English dictionary (dictionariu) till the end. It was full of Greek-Latin words.


Reading a dictionary can be deceptive, because Greek, Latin, German, Russian, and many other languages are all Indo-European with nearly all of their words coming from common roots more than 7000 years ago. Because the roots were the same, some of the words are similar now. I had an argument with a Latin teacher: he asserted that the English word 'have' was from the Latin 'habere'; I claimed that it was from the Germanic 'haben'. Now, I realize that we were both wrong, because both the Latin and Germanic root were from the same Proto-Indo-European root.





> The History I told about Portuguese language is also a resume. How could I tell all the details in a forum on line (linea)? If I wanted to tell all the periods (periodu), I would have written a book.
> 
> But the History of Portuguese language is very interesting (interessante), try to read my (meu) resume above.
> I wait commentaries (commentariu)


Yes, the information on Portuguese history was interesting. I was surprised that there was no Basque influence, because a significant part of Spanish has Basque roots, and the Basques lived through all of western and Northern Iberian Peninsula and in Southwestern France before the Phoenicians and Romans started bothering them. There also was Celtic influence in and arouns Galacia from the period before the Irish went to Ireland. About 8% of Irish roots have Basque origins. I thought that the Phoenician settlements were from Carthage, rather than from Phoenicia, but I suppose that the very earliest would have been directly from Phoenicia.





> Obs: all words between ( ) are from the Latin language, except "history", from Greek. See how English and Latin have similar words.


BTW, I believe that 'history' shows up in various forms, because it reflects a PIE roots. The English word'story' is one of the many related forms.

----------


## Brasil

*Originally Posted by: JBI* "Machado de Assis and Shakespeare are not on the same level. Shakespeare is significant because of his time period, Assis came much later... By the time Assis was alive, Shakespeare was already the ideal of perfection in English letters. Everything after seems to be under his influence"

The influence of Shakespeare is bigger, over the world, yes. But there is a reason for that: 
1- English language is the second most spoken by natives in world, 
2-The influence of English language over the world (everybody studies English), 
3- The U.S. Hollywood movies and tv series always making reference about Shakespeare's work. Selling ideology.

But Shakespeare's literature is not bigger than Homer, Dante, Camões, Cervantes or Machado. How could we compare so different periods? How could we judge the art, comparing different styles. How can someone define what is good art, what is bigger, what is deeper? It is so abstract!

For Policarpo Quaresma's sake, JCamilo!
Did you really read something in your life? You need to know more about Philosophy, History and Literature Theory before write in a forum.
I ignore your comentaries, cause you do not show me reason in your own words. Search for Dr. Freud.

Machado wrote about his own period in history and his own place. He was an artist of his own time and place. He was a realist writer.
Shakespeare's dramas were old myths and histories of the past, from Italy, Norway, Ancient Rome, Greece, etc... He was a "escapist" writer.
Machado wrote original histories.
Shakespeare rewrote old greek myths, and that myths were already known in Latin culture.
Machado's literature is just for read, his narrator must create images inside the mind of the readers. Machado's narrator must to be creative with words to create that images.
Most of Shakespeare's work is theatre. His narrator do not need to be great with words, cause the scene is described in another plan. Furthermore, the theatre must to be view, not read. Without actors to play the history lost a lot!
Machado wrote in Portuguese, a language with a vocabulary much bigger than English (I'm counting the british english only). Portuguese has more varieties of words (adjectives, nouns, verbs) and Machado knew how to control this huge vocabulary. Furthermore, Machado wrote in several idioms, as well.
I'm not saying Shakespeare is bad and Machado is great. But they are different and each one has his own value: Dante, Cervantes, Petrarch, Machado, Carlos Drummond, Fernando Pessoa, Camões, Tolstoi, Shakespeare...
Machado is already unknown in english culture, but it does not mean Machado's work is smaller than Shakespeare.

----------


## JBI

I would say Shakespeare is bigger than Machado still. I don't want to be rude and say that you are no authority on English, as you are essentially saying to me about Portuguese, but you can hardly appreciate the fact that even in English Shakespeare is the most quoted, the most idealized, the most imitated, and appears to be the most original man of letters.

Shakespeare is not only influential on English letters however. Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and other German intellectuals seem to have pulled from Shakespeare. The plays stemmed something like 200 operatic works, many of which are still preformed on the stage today, and are of high critical importance. Musicians from England, France, Germany, Italy and Russia have all drawn on Shakespeare, some of them quite significant, such as Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Gounod, etc..

Shakespeare is, essentially, the embodiment of the way we see literature today in the English speaking world. Everything seems to stem from him in one way or another. He has been raised to a position of near-godliness amongst the English speaking world, and as a result, is seen in almost all subsequent works. Criticism, poetry, prose, and theatre all seem to stem from Shakespeare. Shakespeare is English, as Homer is Greek. The central canon, the ideal writer, and he who is held in highest esteem.

Machado may be good, I don't doubt (I confess to not having read him) but as a cultural figure, a mere dwarf he is relative to the most quoted man in the English language, and the most preformed playwrite in the world.

----------


## JCamilo

> I'm sorry to have to inform you, but Milton wrote in Modern English, as did Shakespeare. Chaucer wrote in Middle English, but some of his writing was as easy to read as Shakespeare's.


Sorry,Moderm as not XX Century fantasy books and comic books

----------


## JCamilo

> *Originally Posted by: JBI*
> 
> 1- English language is the second most spoken by natives in world, 
> 2-The influence of English language over the world (everybody studies English),


One could easily argue that English Literature and overall culture had such quality that they could spreed this influence around the world. When French was the language of "intelectuals" Shakespeare was still influential. And trying to narrow down Shakespeare to the language he represents is narrow-minded. 




> 3- The U.S. Hollywood movies and tv series always making reference about Shakespeare's work. Selling ideology.


Ideology? Which Ideology ? That Elizabeth I and the english monarchs are cool ?
Dude, Hollywood use Shakespeare because he is the most well know story-writer of the world. Because the perfect character creation. It is the consequence of Shakespeare's fame and not the cause. 




> But Shakespeare's literature is not bigger than Homer, Dante, Camões, Cervantes or Machado. How could we compare so different periods?


Easily, comparing because you compare different things. Shakespeare is clearly bigger than Camoes (Cervates wrote at sametime as him, and altough he wrote the most likely "Perfect Novel of all time" and have an influence almost as big as shakespeare, you just need to write Cervantes's plays, poems and other minor works to know that he could not do what Shakespeare did), As Machado - there is not even ground for comparassion. Machado is not even in his own style, the prime example of perfection, one, as himself would say that Flaubert or Balzac were. 

How could we judge the art, comparing different styles. How can someone define what is good art, what is bigger, what is deeper? It is so abstract!




> For Policarpo Quaresma's sake, JCamilo!
> Did you really read something in your life? You need to know more about Philosophy, History and Literature Theory before write in a forum.
> I ignore your comentaries, cause you do not show me reason in your own words. Search for Dr. Freud.


Dude, leave out your pathetic personal attacks elsewhere. But I have no idea why you have the pretentious idea that anyone needs to study Philosophy, History and Literature Theory (Considering what you say about critics, I wonder why you list this one) to post in the forum. 




> Machado wrote about his own period in history and his own place. He was an artist of his own time and place. He was a realist writer.


Yeah, I am sure he is a realist writer. So much that he also wrote fantasy stories but if you need to stick down to classifications...




> Shakespeare's dramas were old myths and histories of the past, from Italy, Norway, Ancient Rome, Greece, etc... He was a "escapist" writer.


This "escapism" is a new theory you just invented? Do you understand that Realism is also a form of fantasy, and that anyone who had contact with Magic Realism and the early literature of XX century knew that the objetive of writing the real world was a fantasy itself? Do you understand that being a Realist writer does not mean "writing about his own time", as Flaubert would tell you? 




> Machado wrote original histories.


Muah, Anything but this kind of silly argument. Originality in literature is not originality of plot. Machado had not and his root on Russian and French literature was too strong to be denied. (Not to mention you just destroyed one of the most impotant works of Machado, the one as translator)




> Shakespeare rewrote old greek myths, and that myths were already known in Latin culture.


In any culture. But please, how many greek myths Shakespeare wrote about? It must be what a handful of his many plays? 




> Machado's literature is just for read, his narrator must create images inside the mind of the readers. Machado's narrator must to be creative with words to create that images.


Is there any literature that does not such thing? Probally scientific literature or similar but are you trying to argue that Shakespeare was not creative with words and Machado was? 




> Most of Shakespeare's work is theatre. His narrator do not need to be great with words, cause the scene is described in another plan. Furthermore, the theatre must to be view, not read. Without actors to play the history lost a lot!


Oh, yes, Shakespeare had the little disvantage to be a playwriter most of the time (altough his poems would be enough and funny how you now notice that the text for some art is not exactly the text for literature only, but you are contraditory in excess), and even so, we hardly read shakespeare scripts but his poetic talent and use of verses in the text still appealing. But the great merit of Shakespeare is character creation and altough Machado wrote in the age of romance, when the characters are created, he never managed to create a single character more rich than Hamlet. 




> Machado wrote in Portuguese, a language with a vocabulary much bigger than English (I'm counting the british english only). Portuguese has more varieties of words (adjectives, nouns, verbs) and Machado knew how to control this huge vocabulary. Furthermore, Machado wrote in several idioms, as well.


That is irrelevant. The merit of a writer is within his idiom, not outside it. 




> I'm not saying Shakespeare is bad and Machado is great. But they are different and each one has his own value: Dante, Cervantes, Petrarch, Machado, Carlos Drummond, Fernando Pessoa, Camões, Tolstoi, Shakespeare...


Do you understand that when Someone says Shakespeare is superior to Machado, it means each have his own value? If they had the same value they would be equals. 




> Machado is already unknown in english culture, but it does not mean Machado's work is smaller than Shakespeare.


No, but Robert Browning is inferior to Shakespeare as well, and he wrote in english. The only person focusing in the language used (I mean, Virgil, Ovid, Horace are all influential even in a dead language) is you, no one else.

----------


## PeterL

> Sorry, Modern as not XX Century fantasy books and comic books


I understand. There's a huge difference in the two concepts, but I was told that there are people today who have trouble with such common words as 'doff', 'don', whither', 'thither', and other words in contemporary English.

----------


## JCamilo

> I would say Shakespeare is bigger than Machado still. I don't want to be rude and say that you are no authority on English, as you are essentially saying to me about Portuguese, but you can hardly appreciate the fact that even in English Shakespeare is the most quoted, the most idealized, the most imitated, and appears to be the most original man of letters.
> 
> Shakespeare is not only influential on English letters however. Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and other German intellectuals seem to have pulled from Shakespeare. The plays stemmed something like 200 operatic works, many of which are still preformed on the stage today, and are of high critical importance. Musicians from England, France, Germany, Italy and Russia have all drawn on Shakespeare, some of them quite significant, such as Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Gounod, etc..
> 
> Shakespeare is, essentially, the embodiment of the way we see literature today in the English speaking world. Everything seems to stem from him in one way or another. He has been raised to a position of near-godliness amongst the English speaking world, and as a result, is seen in almost all subsequent works. Criticism, poetry, prose, and theatre all seem to stem from Shakespeare. Shakespeare is English, as Homer is Greek. The central canon, the ideal writer, and he who is held in highest esteem.
> 
> Machado may be good, I don't doubt (I confess to not having read him) but as a cultural figure, a mere dwarf he is relative to the most quoted man in the English language, and the most preformed playwrite in the world.


Machado is very good indeed, It would be suggestion if you like the realism of XIX century. He can be as good as Flaubert, and good enough to not be just a realist writer. But you are right, he is a dwarf close to Shakespeare, which are by the way, influeces of Machado as well. It is even arguable if he is the greatest literate of brazilian short story - as poet he is not superior to Drummond or Gonçalves dias (Neddles to say, to Camoes and Fernando Pessoa), as prose writer, Guimarães Rosa is richer and manipulated the language with more ambition and precision. But Machado, as critic, translator, thinker, and having done well in all areas could be a later version of the enlightment man here in Brazil. 
But trying to argue about him and Shakespeare is just out of this world.

----------


## JCamilo

> I understand. There's a huge difference in the two concepts, but I was told that there are people today who have trouble with such common words as 'doff', 'don', whither', 'thither', and other words in contemporary English.


Yes, It was a careless wording since I forget the term had a more specific use in literature. Anyways, between that post and now, I had to consider one of the reasons to find easier Milton or Chaucer is because reading the plays is different than writing a poem, and I was more used to read the poems. The sonnets of Shakespeare do not cause me that effect.

----------


## PeterL

> Yes, It was a careless wording since I forget the term had a more specific use in literature. Anyways, between that post and now, I had to consider one of the reasons to find easier Milton or Chaucer is because reading the plays is different than writing a poem, and I was more used to read the poems. The sonnets of Shakespeare do not cause me that effect.


Yes, the way that Shakespeare arranged the words was pretty strange sometimes.

----------


## Brasil

I could argue for ever, you could argue for ever, but it would not be productive.

First: I belive personal taste is too relative, so we can not argue about that. Art is a relative subjetc, very different of Science.
Second: ideology exist indeed.
Third: I can't argue with a English speaker that have never read Machado. But at least, he has been fair in its arguments.
So, keep reading Shakespeare, but also, search for other things. And never belive in someone that tells you that a culture can be richer than other, or a writer can be better than other, or a composer can be bigger than other. All that are relative values.

fourth: And I can't argue with a person (JCamilo) that have never read Philosophy and Literature Theory. And he thinks it does not make difference in debate. The only thing he supose to know is about literature. Sometimes he seems pretend to know things that he does not really undestand.
Really, I think JCamilo is here to joke, to laugh.
Furthermore, I think he did not really understand my arguments.

So, I prefer to keep myself in silence.

----------


## JCamilo

> I could argue for ever, you could argue for ever, but it would not be productive.


Yes, I believe I am punching a nail. 




> First: I belive personal taste is too relative, so we can not argue about that. Art is a relative subjetc, very different of Science.


I am not talking about your personal taste. No one here is. No one is saying you must like Shakespeare more than Machado, which would be personal taste. 
Science do study subjective objects. It is the form of study that must be objective and not what is studied. Art, as subject, can be approached objectvelly. 




> Second: ideology exist indeed.


Objectvelly: No Hollywood movie sells Shakespeare ideology. They do not share such traits. It is Shakespeare stories that are reproduced, not Shakespeare ideology. 




> Third: I can't argue with a English speaker that have never read Machado. But at least, he has been fair in its arguments.


He is not even analysing Machado's texts, he is pointing you something you or him won't find in Machado's texts - The Importance of Shakespeare. 




> So, keep reading Shakespeare, but also, search for other things. And never belive in someone that tells you that a culture can be richer than other, or a writer can be better than other, or a composer can be bigger than other. All that are relative values.


Yes, Dan Brown is a good as Dante, because it is relative. 




> fourth: And I can't argue with a person (JCamilo) that have never read Philosophy and Literature Theory. And he thinks it does not make difference in debate. The only thing he supose to know is about literature. Sometimes he seems pretend to know things that he does not really undestand.


Oh, cry me a lot. You make no sense, I pretend to know literature and not Literature Theory? I am not the one who argued Critics are worthless and now is asking people to know what critic must is supposed to know, which is leterature theory as well. I do not know Philosophy ? Basead on what? In the fact I told you that the world evolved beyond Plato? 
The reason why you cann't argue is that you keep quoting some almanaque like crazy - C'mom, you listed Cordel as non-writen literature example! - and ignored everything is written then asks for a relative understanding of things. Relativism and people complaning about not knowing literature. 




> Really, I think JCamilo is here to joke, to laugh.


Yes, there is a funny movement on my lips, right on the side, a disease, that make it happens. 




> Furthermore, I think he did not really understand my arguments.


What argument? 
Look how silly are the things you say : One Reason for Shakespeare to be popular is because Hollywood movies for ideology's sake. Ever heard about Akira Kurosawa dude? 
Do you have any notion of basic cause and consequence? I mean, Shakespeare turned popular before the invention of cinema and they went after him to tell stories when the script writers didn't dominated the language well enough but you managed to claim that a consequence of his popularity was the cause. One fact caused something in the past. Metaphysics, wow. 




> So, I prefer to keep myself in silence.


Unless you mean that writen words make no noise, you are too late.

----------


## Brasil

I will make your pathetic game, but just once, to prove to you (again) the weakness of your supposed arguments.

I have doubt that you know what ideology means. Anyway (I wil not explain what is ideology here, because it takes time) I will say again: ideology exist, and it is not from Queen Elizabeth, as you said.

Think: In U.S. a caucasian person is called "american" and a black person is called "black-american" (or african american or afro-american). Why such difference?
For all I know, caucasians and blacks ethnicities are both originally from other continents (not American continent). 
So why a caucasian is simply called "american" and a black is labelled "african-american" (as if he was half american)? 
It is a kind of ideology, to keep the blacks below the white people, and keep the black's rights denied.

Did you know that Bossa Nova in U.S. sometimes is called "brazilian jazz"?
That is ideology too. Some ones belive Bossa Nova came from the jazzist american players mixing jazz with brazilian samba. At the beginning, there was a little influence from jazz indeed, but Bossa Nova is not "brazilian jazz".

If it was true, we could say that Tom Jobim's music is below Charles Parker's.
Try to undestand the thinking, follow it:

JBI said: Shakespeare was better writer than Machado, because Shakespeare came first and Machado was influenced by him.
So, we could say Chuck Berry was better guitarrist than Jimi Hendrix, because Chuck Berry came first, and Jimi Hendrix was influenced by him.
Any person that know music, would say that is absurde! 
Yes, JCamilo, it is as absurde as your arguments.

JBI said: Shakespeare's work is better than Machado's because Shakespeare's influenced a bigger group os people all over the world.
So, we could say Britney Spear's work is better than Chico Buarque's because her influence all over the world is bigger than Chico's.

It is a fact that B. Spears is more famous than C. Buarque. So, her influence is bigger, but could we say her work is bigger? I don't think so!

You, JCamilo, thinks I am making confusing of cause-consequence. That was your best argument (I won't even comment the rest).
So, if you are so smat, tell me: who came first, the egg or the chicken?

No one can answer that question. The same thing happens in the case we were talking about. SEe an example:
Is the TV violence that makes the sociey violent or is the violent society that makes TV become violent? No one can answer that question, indeed both are correct (and wrong) because the mechanism is dialetic.

Dialetic, try to undestand:
1- Shakespeare is well known over the world because of Hollywood movies.
2- But also, Shakespeare was a great writer for his own credits, and he is well known over the world because of that, and Hollywood makes movies about his work because his work is beautiful. I've never denied he was a great writer, but I've presented another fact (fact 1), the fact that ideology hides.
1- Is he famous because of Hollywood's influence?
or 2- his fame has influenced also Hollywood?
Both facts are true (1 and 2), but no one can separete cause and consequence in that case.
Maybe, a cineast who loved Shakespeare decided to make a film about him (or his work) and one single good movie made "Shakespeare" famous in world. It became a fever, and then everybody wants to make movies about Shakespeare and read his dramas. Each film about him generate another seach for his work and this seach generate other film... so it became a snowball.
That is just speculation, maybe true, maybe not. Fact is: no one knows.

Imagine if Machado was a north-american writer. He would be as known as Shakespeare, maybe more, maybe less. The fact is: Machado is less known than he deserves because of his nationality. That is true.

If Shakespeare was Brazilian and his native language was Portuguese, would his work prosper for so many years? Course not! It don't mind how fantastic he writes, the most important thing is his ethinicity and his language (a cultural product of a people).
Machado is unknown for the English students, and always will be below Shakespeare, because Machado is Brazilian.

Compare: How many people in Brazil study English and how many people in U.S (and Britain) study Portuguese?
We care about other cultures much more than they care. No one in U.S. want to know about the Brazilian writer who founded the Brazilian Academy of Letters.

You ironically said:
Dan Brown is as good as Dante, because all is relative.
I would not say ALL is relative. Yes, in some contexts, things are relative. I could say all is relative, but it does not mean I want to say ALL. (did you undestand)?

However, in this case, yes. 
Maybe, for a person, Dan Brown is as good as Dante. For other one, Dan Brown is the best writer ever! Who are YOU to say the opposite to this person?

My favorite writers, until today, are: Dante, Camões, Cervantes, Pessoa, Drummond, Machado, Shakespeare and João Cabral. That is my personal taste, I am not saying they are the best writers and their works are the best ever, as you did with Shakespeare. 
Because personal taste is relative. I like them, but it does not mean they are the best writers. JBI loves Shakespeare, but it is his own taste, there is no scientifical method to prove Shakespere is better than some other writer.

*This is what I said:* "I belive personal taste is too relative, so we can not argue about that. Art is a relative subjetc, very different of Science". 
*And you said:* "I am not talking about your personal taste. No one here is. No one is saying you must like Shakespeare more than Machado, which would be personal taste". 
What????? What did you undestand from me? Did you really read right my post? What kind of answer is it, JCamilo?

For the last time I will say this here, try to undestand: art is subjective, taste about art is relative, and all is influenced by ideologies. Dont try to compare art and philosophy, or art and science.
No one can say what is "good art" and what is "bad art". Does not exist a scientific method to say "this writer is better than this" or "this play is more poetic than that"...
But every student can argue about science facts. Yes, it sometimes is subjective too, but totally different from art. We are talking here about two different kinds of subjectivism and you are making confusion. Art is subjective for itself, it is the nature of art. But science and philosophy are totally different (I belive I do not need to explain it).

JCamilo, now let's talk about Cordel.
Read about Cordel's history. 
I said Cordel came from i trovatori (trovadores), originally an oral poem. Course I know Cordel (name) came from "corda" where poets exposed their works (written text and xilogravura). But Cordel (poetry) came from trovadore's oral tradition. That is what I said, but you did not undestand cause I did not say all words. I spared time, save words, because I didn't have idea that you would create such confusion.
Finishing the misunderstood: Cordel is sung (and written, as well).
Cordel came from the oral tradition, it was sung at the past. Then came the written text, but it keep to be sung by the notheast trobadours (repentistas) and other folk notheast singers.

----------


## JBI

Just because this guy wrote in Portuguese, doesn't mean he is Shakespeare. Shakespeare isn't huge because he wrote in English (and not Latin), he is big for many other reasons, some of which having to do with the fact that he had supreme skill when it came to writing verse and plays. Why isn't Fletcher, or Middleton, or even Jonson or Marlowe the center of English letters? Is it because Shakespeare had more advantages, because he clearly didn't have many. His education came mostly from the theatre, and he learned it would seem very little in school.

Why then is Shakespeare so massive? French was the Lingua Franca before English, and I do not see any French writer as defined as the center of a canon the way Shakespeare is. Shakespeare seems to be infinite in scope and aesthetic quality. Either way, just because some people like an author, doesn't mean he is the best.

If we took a general poll for best book, I would think Harry Potter, or some trivial trash would rank in the top. Our own tastes must be separated if we are to actually study literature. To come in with your so fabled "ideology" is essentially to say, "I am looking for this guy to be the best, and for this guy to be lower, simply because I am this, and not that." It is reverse prejudice, in many different ways.

And even so, the so called "art is subjective" argument is playing on an assumption: that there is no such thing as true quality, and there are not features in a work that increase its aesthetic appeal. Such argument essentially ends with, "if everything is subjective, what is the point in reading, since everything has the same power."

I would say there is a different answer. The same way a sandcastle on the beach is less a masterpiece than Saint Paul's Basilica, so is Shakespeare relative to mediocre authors. I acknowledge the fact that one cannot only read Shakespeare, nor did I say as much, and merely received that placed in mouth by you, I just set affairs in order in the sense that saying someone is better just because you liked them doesn't work. Just because someone wrote in worse conditions (so you argue) doesn't make their work greater.

----------


## Brasil

Did I argue that worse conditions make a great writer?

I tell you about Machado's biography because it is important too.

I have never intended to say his conditions make his work great.

If you really want to know what makes Machado great, read his books, know his style.

But you are english native speaker, so why wasting your time with a lower literature?
A "guy" (as you refers to Machado), from South America (wild land) can not add culture to you. Am I right?

How Brazil is shown in Hollywood movies? 
Think about it: always the rainforest and nothing more. What about the other things (architecture, literature, intelectuals, inventors)?

And that was not "reverse prejudice", as you said.
Art depends of the point of view, so as taste.
Course you prefer Shakespeare.

----------


## JBI

You again put words in my mouth. I essentially said that one should separate good litterature and bad literature, and not national literature, or linguistically limited literature. Neither of those authors were linguistically limited. Shakespeare created what he did not have. You are acting (I think) just as ethnocentric as the English people, but are pushing your native works passed their limits instead of the traditional canon. You are, in affect (this is according to my opinion, I mean no personal offense), negating your own argument by proposing we, instead of read our (as you would make us believe) self-superior English work, should read the works wish you deem to be self-superior Portuguese/Brazilian works.

I mentioned nothing about South America so now you play on a stereotype, as if to make me seem like an uncultured, untraveled, unknowing, stupid American (which is false since I am an Israeli Canadian) and that I have never read a book outside of my native English, which is also false, considering I was raised on Hebrew, or that my sense of taste is limited to Hollywood movies, which is a stretch, seeing as I have not mentioned any movies, and you are just assuming I go see them because of my ethnicity.

Yes, you are right; art depends on the point of view, the taste. Some people just happen to have a sense of taste, meanwhile others just wave their pom-pons trying to shout "hey look at me! I think 3000 years of literature is stupid since it all only comes down to personal taste."

Out with Faulkner in with Coelho? Is that how this world should go? Seriously, there is something to be said of someone saying on one hand people are ignorant, and on the other that they have the sense to distinguish between aesthetically achieving art and mediocrity.

----------


## Logos

General Mod Note to All:

This is a one-time warning only; any further personal negative remarks directed at anther member will get that post removed.

*Please discuss ideas, and *not* each other.*

Oh, and PLEASE, learn how to use the  function; it *really* helps to make it clear who you are addressing.

Thank you  :Smile: 

--

----------


## Brasil

I am not putting words in one's mouth. I know you are Canadian, I read it before in other thread.
I told that about South-America stereotype refering for people in general.

The idea of south-america culture is poor in Hollywood movies, and even in Europe.

Here in Brazil, since the childhood, we use to study about US history, Europe history, Brazil history, etc... and all kind of art, from any where.

But the same does not happens in other countries. No one in Europe, Canada, USA.. really cares about south-american culture, or african culture.
For me, it is prejudice and self superiority belief.

One more thing: The New Criticism Theory is against the biographical and psicological critic. They argue other things, but the real reason why is because Freud has examined Shakespeare, and it hurts the feeling about Shakespeare's work. Freud presented the truth about Shakespeare.
It was a shot in the english literature pride. How can the western modern capitalist society survive without his greatest writer?
Where New Criticism Theory was born? USA, course. 
So, that is ideology as well, for keeping the idea that Shakespeare (english literature) is superior than others.

But now, I will leave this kind of arguments about ideology. They want to censor. The excuse is "personal attack" but the truth is other: the mask has fallen (perhaps intentionally or perhaps unconsciously).
A truth marxist thinking exposure is forbiden? Marx is allowed in public only when those threads are lies on the marxist philosophy?
I had to keep silence, it is dangerous for me say that.
Now I have to go, cause CIA and FBI is knocking my door. :Biggrin:

----------


## PeterL

> Now I have to go, cause CIA and FBI is knocking my door.


Not the DOI-CODI ?

----------


## JCamilo

> I have doubt that you know what ideology means. Anyway (I wil not explain what is ideology here, because it takes time) I will say again: ideology exist, and it is not from Queen Elizabeth, as you said.


Obviously, I know what ideology means. The problem lies in you arguing that Hollywood uses Shakespeare (and listing this as why he was popular) because of ideology. Either this means Shakespeare had such ideology that help him to be popular in Hollywood (Considering Shakespeare anti-semitic views, any would know that Hollywood didn't adopted Shakespeare because his propaganda, obviously not the timeless aspect of Shakespeare works) or because Hollywood sells their ideology using Shakespeare works (which is true, but that have nothing to do with Shakespeare, they do it with anyone and neither explain why he is the most adapted writer of all time and will not, since that is an effect of Shakespeare popularity, not the cause).
Your laborious explanation that followed after it is not wrong or right, it is irrelevant, the point is not "What is ideology" but how Hollywood selling her own ideology is somehow related to the massive influence of Shakespeare (The answer again, it is not) 





> JBI said: Shakespeare was better writer than Machado, because Shakespeare came first and Machado was influenced by him.


He didn't said the reason Shakespeare was better was because he came first at all, he said that when Machado was born Shakespeare influence was already massive. The guy even listed the influences of Shakespeare and it is obvious that he is not arguing "what came first is better", Chronology is irrelevant. 




> JBI said: Shakespeare's work is better than Machado's because Shakespeare's influenced a bigger group os people all over the world.
> So, we could say Britney Spear's work is better than Chico Buarque's because her influence all over the world is bigger than Chico's.


I am amazed. So, you don't know that Influence in literature is not the samething as popularity and have more to do with a long lasting merit that other writers (and artists) are inspired when working? A transmitions of ideas, styles, techniques and motives? I mean, that is basic for anyone who study Literary Teories, the importance of influence.
Anyways, one way to measure objectivelly the importance of a artist is looking into other's works, and how long the century those works are reborn by new readings (power of the aesthetic merits of the given work and the possibility of endless interpretations), you can objectivelly find Shakespeare behind Milton, Keats, Byron, Coleridge, Goethe, Borges, Joyce, Ibsen - the list goes on, in both literature and teatre. His power of influence is so massive that just Homer or Virgil can have such power. What was created after Shakespeare is amazing, and not limited to Teatre or Literature, but movies, paintings, music, and goes beyond. Removing Shakespeare from the world will create a void, giantic. 
Machado influence is considerable, but minor (and is not because he is brazilian, Tolstoi influence is also minor when compared to Shakespeare) but Machado is awesome. I beg everyone to read it, without any need to compare to any writer (unless you enjoy comparative literature, but that is another story) to promote him like you did. In fact, I think your attitude is not helping people to have sympathy for him. 




> It is a fact that B. Spears is more famous than C. Buarque. So, her influence is bigger, but could we say her work is bigger? I don't think so!


Influence is not the samething as fame. In 100 years you will have to find anything new created by Spears that was so awesome that lasted to the point that still could be found in the singers of that period. You know, just like you can find Machado's alive in Lima Barreto, and how you can find Voltaire in Machado and Swift in Voltaire, etc




> You, JCamilo, thinks I am making confusing of cause-consequence. That was your best argument (I won't even comment the rest).
> So, if you are so smat, tell me: who came first, the egg or the chicken?


 :Eek:  
Jesus... 
Dude, something that happened in XX Century (Hollywood using Shakespeare) can not explain a process that "happened" in the XVIII-XIX Century (Shakespeare fame and canonical status). That simple.
And seriously, The egg came first, animals are laying eggs thousands of years before the chicken.  :Biggrin:  




> No one can answer that question. The same thing happens in the case we were talking about. SEe an example:
> Is the TV violence that makes the sociey violent or is the violent society that makes TV become violent? No one can answer that question, indeed both are correct (and wrong) because the mechanism is dialetic.


The question you raised is not of the same nature you come now. And considering society is violent before the tv, this question can only exist in the mind of those who didn't studied the process of mass media. 




> Dialetic, try to undestand:
> 1- Shakespeare is well known over the world because of Hollywood movies.



 :Rolleyes:  When the cinema started they didn't had techniques of script writing as today, neither professinals for this. So, they went where they could have similar material to make the movies to supply the shortage of creation, and it was theatre. Who was ALREADY the most popular playwriter? Shakespeare. So, he was adapted, some of his stories, even before Hollywood industry was raised. 




> 2- But also, Shakespeare was a great writer for his own credits, and he is well known over the world because of that, and Hollywood makes movies about his work because his work is beautiful. I've never denied he was a great writer, but I've presented another fact (fact 1), the fact that ideology hides.


Which Ideology ? Shakespeare own Ideology is absent of the movies, Ideology that Shakespeare is the most important creator of english language ? (He is, it is a fact). 




> 1- Is he famous because of Hollywood's influence?
> or 2- his fame has influenced also Hollywood?
> Both facts are true (1 and 2), but no one can separete cause and consequence in that case.


Only if 
1 - You ignore the fact that Shakespeare was already adapted before Hollywood existed. So, Hollywood just followed a tendency.
2 - Shakespeare was already popular before the invention of photography, so, You can easily tell that it is his popularity that caused him to be adapted. It is a proccess long and continual that is Shakespeare influence on the world of art.
So you easily tell that it is all a Consequence of Shakespeare power. Not the cause at all (Nothing can be the cause of something that started hundred years before, that simple). 





> Maybe, a cineast who loved Shakespeare decided to make a film about him (or his work) and one single good movie made "Shakespeare" famous in world. It became a fever, and then everybody wants to make movies about Shakespeare and read his dramas. Each film about him generate another seach for his work and this seach generate other film... so it became a snowball.



To tell the truth, Shakespeare movies aren't that popular, they didn't know how to adapt well and watching the plays was more rewarding. But since he was such source of material, he was never abandoned. 
And there is no Maybe. Shakespeare was already popular. 




> That is just speculation, maybe true, maybe not. Fact is: no one knows.


Trying to argue that no one could tell if Shakespeare was already popular or not in the end of XIX century is ridiculous. Everyone knew, he was already popular. 




> Imagine if Machado was a north-american writer. He would be as known as Shakespeare, maybe more, maybe less. The fact is: Machado is less known than he deserves because of his nationality. That is true.


 :Redface:  Mark Twain, Faulkner, Poe, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Hawthorne, Melville are all less famous than Shakespeare. (And you still think it is a matter of fame, ew) and they are north-americans. No english writer have Shakespeare popularity. The only kind of writers who share his influence (because it is not popularity, since I do not care if people actually read them, as long Art keep reading them, because Immortality is for a few chosen) wrote in Greek, Latim and Italian. French was the popular language until XIX century and no Villon, Voltaire, Pascal, Baudelaire, Hugo, Balzac ever managed to have Shakespearean influence (quite the contrary, Shakespeare is a shadow over them). 
Machado is less read because it is portuguese or brazilian? Well, yes. But writing in russian didn't stopped Dostoievisky and Tolstoi to place russian literature in such high stature that english literature had troubles to face. 
It is bad that Machado is not more well-know (he is quite well know inside the academic circles), yes, as much it is bad that Felisberto Hernandez from Uruguay or Karen Blixen from Denmark are not more well know, but you just can't measure Machado with Shakespeare (Machado would tell you that), and that is not because the language. 




> If Shakespeare was Brazilian and his native language was Portuguese, would his work prosper for so many years? Course not! It don't mind how fantastic he writes, the most important thing is his ethinicity and his language (a cultural product of a people).


If, if, if. I could easily say that Shakespeare was brazilian he would change portuguese and brazilian culture in such way that the entire world would be another. Do you understand that when Shakespeare wrote english was not the main language in the world, not spoken outside the little island and that remained for years like that? 




> Machado is unknown for the English students, and always will be below Shakespeare, because Machado is Brazilian.


Dude, even Machado would place himself under Shakespeare. I am brazilian, not english. I read machado since I was a kid. And I know Shakespeare is superior to Machado and that have nothing to do with the language he wrote. 




> Compare: How many people in Brazil study English and how many people in U.S (and Britain) study Portuguese?
> We care about other cultures much more than they care. No one in U.S. want to know about the Brazilian writer who founded the Brazilian Academy of Letters.


That is why Harold Bloom, one of the most influential critics of US lists Machado in his cannonical list, having quite a liking for Him ? That is why a few months I was helping a north-american to buy Machado books for her reading? Dude, Shakespeare influence (not popularity, today Dan Brown or Paulo Coelho are more popular than him) is bigger than Machado, and english only dominated the world in the last centuries, way after Shakespeare and frankly, without a written culture as rich, Englan would have big trouble to do such effect. 




> You ironically said:
> Dan Brown is as good as Dante, because all is relative.
> I would not say ALL is relative. Yes, in some contexts, things are relative. I could say all is relative, but it does not mean I want to say ALL. (did you undestand)?


So, some relative things are relative depending the relative concept ?  :Biggrin:  
Its only get more funny- You can tell how bad a book or a writer is, it is not relative. 




> However, in this case, yes. 
> Maybe, for a person, Dan Brown is as good as Dante. For other one, Dan Brown is the best writer ever! Who are YOU to say the opposite to this person?


I am a reasonable person who know the difference between personal taste and critical analyse, since I know Literature Teories. When someone do not , they confund taste and quality merit. Poor of those who do so. 




> My favorite writers, until today, are: Dante, Camões, Cervantes, Pessoa, Drummond, Machado, Shakespeare and João Cabral. That is my personal taste, I am not saying they are the best writers and their works are the best ever, as you did with Shakespeare.


Your personal taste (and mine) are irrelevant. My favorite writer is more likely Voltaire. I know he is not as good as Goethe. I do not use it to analyse the work of Goethe when I have to neither the work of Voltaire. 
And no one here is using personal taste to claim Shakespeare power of influence. It is a fact dude. 




> Because personal taste is relative. I like them, but it does not mean they are the best writers. JBI loves Shakespeare, but it is his own taste, there is no scientifical method to prove Shakespere is better than some other writer.


 :Eek:  Funny, I do not recall JBI using his personal taste to justify Shakespeare. And there is a very objective method to analyse the power of inlfuence of Shakespeare (you just have to list how many artists movemments and artists are under his influence, it is not "relative"), you can analyse also the impact of Shakespeare on language (not "relative" either) and since the influence is only lasting because the artist have quality, you can have a close call that Shakespeare was superior to, let's use an english example, Marlowe or John Donne, or Edmund Spencer. 
There goes a limit, I agree, where the close call is too close, with Shakespeare, it is hard to claim this with Dante or Virgil around. But not with Machado. 
Also, Literature theory will teach you how to analyse a text, the style, the characters, etc. And they do not use "relative" methods of study. 




> What????? What did you undestand from me? Did you really read right my post? What kind of answer is it, JCamilo?


Yes, it is "stop trying to use personal taste", that is what you are doing. You love to say "lets not talk about this" and then do it. 




> For the last time I will say this here, try to undestand: art is subjective, taste about art is relative, and all is influenced by ideologies. Dont try to compare art and philosophy, or art and science.


Do not try to compare art and philosophy or art and science? Sorry! But I will do like many do. 
And Not everything in art Subjetive. And that is irrelevant - The Objetive analyse of a subjetive object is possible. 
Forgot ideologies dude- Philosophies and science are ideologic too, it have little to do with the quality of work. 




> No one can say what is "good art" and what is "bad art". Does not exist a scientific method to say "this writer is better than this" or "this play is more poetic than that"...


lots of people CAN and DO it for thousand and thousand years. That may be shocking for you, but if you Study Art theory you are studying methods of critics, that include history and analyse of devices. And You can say all of that you are talking. Dan Brown is worst than Dante and this can be proved by a analyse of their text. 




> But every student can argue about science facts. Yes, it sometimes is subjective too, but totally different from art. We are talking here about two different kinds of subjectivism and you are making confusion. Art is subjective for itself, it is the nature of art. But science and philosophy are totally different (I belive I do not need to explain it).


Dude, try to get it - Science is a method of study. It is not the object. Science studies feelings. Objectivelly a subjective object. 
You can OBJECTIVELLY study the history of Art. Because Art is a object, not the method. The indivudual studying it is not enjoying or producing art (altought producing is not just subjective as you like to claim) he is just studying. 
And trying to imply there is only objective philosophy systems is a bit hilarious. 




> JCamilo, now let's talk about Cordel.
> Read about Cordel's history. 
> I said Cordel came from i trovatori (trovadores), originally an oral poem. Course I know Cordel (name) came from "corda" where poets exposed their works (written text and xilogravura). But Cordel (poetry) came from trovadore's oral tradition. That is what I said, but you did not undestand cause I did not say all words. I spared time, save words, because I didn't have idea that you would create such confusion.


You only said "Cordel". You didn't spared words, you absolutely listed Cordels under Oral literature (and the example as actual). And the explanation only make it worst. Trying to imply cordels are example of oral literature because they have an oral origem is like claiming a Ferrari is a chariot because elemets of the chariot gave origem of elements of the Ferrari and thus they are the samething. 





> Finishing the misunderstood: Cordel is sung (and written, as well).


And then, the killing blow. You didn't made any confusion, you really have no idea what Cordel is. 
Cordel is WRITEN, and to sell it, the writer recite some of the words. That is like claming Dom Quixote is oral if a seller recites a part of it to attract costumers . Only because Cordel came from oral poetry like all literature, it does not make it oral, because it became something new. You still do not know the difference between Oral Narratives and Writen narratives and think they are linked. 




> Cordel came from the oral tradition, it was sung at the past. Then came the written text, but it keep to be sung by the notheast trobadours (repentistas) and other folk notheast singers.


Repentistas are not cordelistas. A repentista mais trait is improvisation, so claming they go reciting a text previously writen is wrong.

----------


## Brasil

Camilo, I can agree with the majority of your last arguments, but also I can not. Most of them depends of the point of view.

I am not pretendig to make my sentences a absolutely truth. Some sentences, I think, can be, but most of my arguments depends of the point of view, as yours depends as well.

What makes me sad is the way you undestand my posts.

I know science is a method and not the object. I said "argue about scientifical FACT". A fact is a object, not a method.

However, often the science method is also the object of the study. Did you know about Positivismo? It just 1 example among 1.000000.

The same way, you did to me about Cordel. I know _repentista_ is improvisation. Just because I do not know how to call a person who sings cordel you concluded that I do not know what repentista means. 

The same thing you have done with all my argues!

Yes, Ferrari can be seen as a modern chariot, why not? Or it can be seen as a car, as well. All definitions. Always labels!
"Horsepower" is the definiton for the potence of a engine car. So, why not Ferrari can be seen as a modern chariot? It is just a label.

Again, most of things that JBI and you (JCamilo) say can be true, but that kind of truth depends of the point of view. Ufortunatelly you deny to see that. 

Some other arguments from you I really disagree. But better finish that, cause it does not add anyhing good to anyone . :Wave:

----------


## JCamilo

> I know science is a method and not the object. I said "argue about scientifical FACT". A fact is a object, not a method.


I am only pointing to you that the claim that Art is subjective therefore its study can not be objective (or scientific) is not true, because you can study subjetive objects. Such you claim art is. 




> However, often the science method is also the object of the study. Did you know about Positivismo? It just 1 example among 1.000000.


Positivism is a philosophic system (with religious origem), which views had influence on the formulation of scietific method. It does not study the scientific method, and I am aware that it is studied. It is pointless, science can study anything (and that is a very positivist thing to say). 




> The same way, you did to me about Cordel. I know _repentista_ is improvisation. Just because I do not know how to call a person who sings cordel you concluded that I do not know what repentista means.


Dude, if you call a Airplane a fish, you can not complain. You can not know hwat Repentista means, if it means something who improvise verses if you claim they work with cordel, which is not improvisation. 




> The same thing you have done with all my argues!


Cann't you just imagine that your arguments were build in such misconceptions ? 




> Yes, Ferrari can be seen as a modern chariot, why not? Or it can be seen as a car, as well. All definitions. Always labels!


Yes, once I saw a guy calling a hot girl a Ferrari too. Wonderful the figurative power of language, but a Ferrari is not a chariot at all (An airplane is not a zepellin either, just because both are used for the same purpose). 




> "Horsepower" is the definiton for the potence of a engine car. So, why not Ferrari can be seen as a modern chariot? It is just a label.


That is where you argument goes, the relativism, since every word can be anything, anything can be accept. But sorry, not knowing horsepower was a figurative way of language when the engines are created is deadly wrong. I mean, you do not think just because a Mansion can have "wings" ,it is a bird. 




> Again, most of things that JBI and you (JCamilo) say can be true, but that kind of truth depends of the point of view. Ufortunatelly you deny to see that.


Not all POV are right, it is what I am pointing.

----------


## Brasil

I am tired of that.

I will not pass my life in front of a computer trying to answer each thing someone post.


I am open for debate, but not for eternity.



For anyone.
http://www.online-literature.com/for...646#post581646

----------


## Kafka's Crow

Talk about the total and utter destruction of a thread. The poor sod only asked one simple question:




> I'm considering learning a second language and I was wondering, from a literary point of view, what would be the best language to learn? In other words, (In your opinion) what non-English language has the best literature?


As far as Shakespeare's greatness is concerned, he is the pinnacle of literary greatness. Every culture has it's own 'Shakespeare', ie. the greatest literary figure. Even literatures with absolutely insignificant tradition of 'drama' would have a Shakespeare. Ghalib is called the 'Shakespeare of India' although the good old man from Delhi might have never seen 'boards' in his entire life. He was a poet who wrote in Urdu, a literature with very negligible theatrical output, though a great wealth of poetry. 'Shakespeare' means the greatest writer and every literature has one. Decades of reading Shakespeare did not help me when I had the worst moments of my life, a few couplets from Ghalib helped understand the situation (yes literature helps you face situations in life as well as DEATH, it gives you references). But this is subjective, highly subjective. It doesn't make the good old poet from Delhi greater than any other poet. Every culture has its own Machado de Assis, its own Shakespeare, its own Ghalib. We can not say one is greater than the other. Are we in a position to judge? Do we know all the languages involved, do we know the socio-economic factors that influence a literature, the political factors that strengthen a language, till it becomes one of 'the masks of conquest' (to quote Gauri Viswanathan) along with its literature. Do we know about the role language and literature played in colonialism? There are scores of factors that influence our judgment of a literature or its representatives. Then there is the question of the genre as well. Novel and drama are more commercial genres and every re-incarnation of certain works either in translation or film or even special editions of texts puts a whole gamut of marketing machinery in motion that re-invigorates its status. Poetry is difficult to translate, specially the highly Persianised Urdu 'ghazal' is virtually impossible to be translated in English without losing a large chunk of its effect. Thus comparing writers from different cultures is not a safe exercise and can lead to error and prejudice. 

Sorry I gave up on this thread after the comparison between de Assis and Shakespeare. Still this is an excellent advice:




> *My advice for all:
> Learn another language, know more about other cultures, travel a lot, search for other readings, study philosophies, analyse your life before it is too late...
> Open your eyes for unknown.*

----------


## sofia82

I appreciate all you said *Kafka's Crow*. Every culture and language has its own Shakespeare.




> My advice for all:
> Learn another language, know more about other cultures, travel a lot, search for other readings, study philosophies, analyse your life before it is too late...
> Open your eyes for unknown.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> I appreciate all you said *Kafka's Crow*. Every culture and language has its own Shakespeare.


But who is the Shakespeare of Iran? There are so many very great poets who wrote in Persian Language. Is it Sa'adi, the Nightingale of Shiraz, or is it Hafiz (weren't the random pages of his works used to forecast future events?) Is it the majestic Firdausi, or the beautifully lyrical Rudki. Even Ghalib and Mir and other masters from Delhi left behind a huge amount of poems in Persian. How could a language attract poets from so far and distant lands? StLukesGuild should be able to elaborate this point but Persian sensibility can be traced in the beautiful miniature paintings if you don't know the language.

http://persia.org/Images/Miniature/miniature.html

----------


## sofia82

> But who is the Shakespeare of Iran? There are so many very great poets who wrote in Persian Language. Is it Sa'adi, the Nightingale of Shiraz, or is it Hafiz (weren't the random pages of his works used to forecast future events?) Is it the majestic Firdausi, or the beautifully lyrical Rudki. Even Ghalib and Mir and other masters from Delhi left behind a huge amount of poems in Persian. How could a language attract poets from so far and distant lands? StLukesGuild should be able to elaborate this point but Persian sensibility can be traced in the beautiful miniature paintings if you don't know the language.
> 
> http://persia.org/Images/Miniature/miniature.html


Yes, if one don't know the language, the best way is to go through the art of that country. Miniture is one of the great and typical persian art. There are so many great poets, like other countries, that no one can say this is the Shakespeare of Iran or not! Hafiz (as you said people refer to his work as a forcast for the future, and it really works, as you can interpret it the way you want. Sha'adi, Molavi (MUlana), Roodaki, Ferdousi, KHay'yam (his poetry translated by Fitzgerald, although it is good, but cannt convey the meaning and the theme in the poems), BabaTaher, Khaghani ... and so many other poets. And Nezami who was Azeri but wrote the best romances in the persian language (Leili va Majnon: Romeo and Juliet in Persian literature). There are also great modern poets and literary figures such as Nima, Sohrab and ...

I love persian miniature. And here is the official site of Farshchian, the famous artist in miniature:

http://www.farshchianart.com/farshchian.htm

----------


## Brasil

*For Kafka's Crow*
I loved you post, thanks!

*For JCamilo*
I told you to search for Dr. Freud, cause he wrote a analysis about Shakespeare. It is really interesting.

About music and poetry:
Chico Buarque wrote a song (Para Todos) and it is in redondilha verse.

*For JBI* repectfully I say:
First you told Machado and Shakespeare are not at the same level.
Latter you told that you have never read Machado.
So, I concluded that you have denied you own point of view in name of the traditional concept. It is important you have your own point of view. So you must read Machado to you have your own point of view.

*For who wants to study a foreign language*
Only yourself can decide what is the best literature, no one can decide for you.

My last post:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=35032&page=7

----------


## JCamilo

> *For JCamilo*
> I told you to search for Dr. Freud, cause he wrote a analysis about Shakespeare. It is really interesting.


Usually I find Freud Manipulative. Most people have their "bigotony" but Freud is something else. The way he reduces literature to what he desires to find for his theories...meh. I just prefer to not return to Freud (I mean, you are telling me to know one of the most famous individuals of XIX-XX centuries) is because as literature, he knew little. The criticals such as Harold Bloom that know about literature and are freudian, are more interesting to read. 




> About music and poetry:
> Chico Buarque wrote a song (Para Todos) and it is in redondilha verse.


And, didn't you got that techniques are not exclusivity of one artistic expression only and they will move from one to another, thanks to the talent of the artist?

----------


## PeterL

> People usually go to school, or if older, have jobs and families. They have children, bills, and mortgages to pay. They don't have the time or the money to do all those things and to travel a lot, which is very, very expensive. I was lucky I saw the world when it was a lot less expensive to travel. I know people who have a hard time buying books, let alone traveling a lot.
> 
> You're describing the lifestyle of the idle rich, who usually don't care about anything but rising in the ranks of society and getting their photo on the front page of a magazine. Most Americans are lucky to get one or two weeks of vacation each year and then they don't usually travel far away. Some spend it at home with their family, who they rarely see otherwise.


Sell everything, buy a sailboat, go where you want, eat lots of seafood, write travel articles, and spend money only when in port (two days a month). But you won't need to learn other languages, because there won't be people around to speak to.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> _My advice for all:
> Learn another language, know more about other cultures, travel a lot, search for other readings, study philosophies, analyse your life before it is too late...
> Open your eyes for unknown._ 
> 
> Who has the time and money to do all that? There was a time when I traveled all over the world, most of the time, but not now.
> 
> People usually go to school, or if older, have jobs and families. They have children, bills, and mortgages to pay. They don't have the time or the money to do all those things and to travel a lot, which is very, very expensive. I was lucky I saw the world when it was a lot less expensive to travel. I know people who have a hard time buying books, let alone traveling a lot.
> 
> You're describing the lifestyle of the idle rich, who usually don't care about anything but rising in the ranks of society and getting their photo on the front page of a magazine. Most Americans are lucky to get one or two weeks of vacation each year and then they don't usually travel far away. Some spend it at home with their family, who they rarely see otherwise.


I have four children, (all under 11 years old) have a full time stressful job, mortgage, bills, Amazon.com (one of the major expenses) still I have managed to travel a good deal, learned six different languages, learned a good deal about other cultures and come to the conclusion that it was all well worth it. I am waiting for the kids to grow up and be independent. Then I'll pursue knowledge systematically. I haven't even started yet and there is a long way to go. I am not rich, my face never appeared on the front page (on any page, for that matter). Where there is a will there is a way. Nothing should stop us from aiming high. 

I have serious problems with psychoanalytical interpretations of any literature therefore would stay away from Freud's readings of Shakespeare (read them back in early 90s and developed an instant abhorrence for them). Have you been watching Mel Gibson's _Hamlet_ recently, Brasil?

----------


## Dori

> _My advice for all:
> Learn another language, know more about other cultures, travel a lot, search for other readings, study philosophies, analyse your life before it is too late...
> Open your eyes for unknown._ 
> 
> Who has the time and money to do all that? There was a time when I traveled all over the world, most of the time, but not now.
> 
> People usually go to school, or if older, have jobs and families. They have children, bills, and mortgages to pay. They don't have the time or the money to do all those things and to travel a lot, which is very, very expensive. I was lucky I saw the world when it was a lot less expensive to travel. I know people who have a hard time buying books, let alone traveling a lot.
> 
> You're describing the lifestyle of the idle rich, who usually don't care about anything but rising in the ranks of society and getting their photo on the front page of a magazine. Most Americans are lucky to get one or two weeks of vacation each year and then they don't usually travel far away. Some spend it at home with their family, who they rarely see otherwise.


The only thing that actually requires a substantial amount of money is travelling. Whether you want to learn new languages or about other cultures is a personal choice; those who set aside time for personal endeavors will find the time to do those things. By no means are these people confined to the "idle rich". It simply depends on whether or not the person in question wants to learn. 

I think I can claim that I've tired to learn new languages and about new cultures and I am poor.

----------


## NickAdams

The Sanskrit language is one that is both very flexible and very precise. 
Take a look at the following site: http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/sanskrit/tutor.html, it is for self-study.

----------


## Dori

> But you're not married with children. The others require a substaintial amount of _time_, and most Americans just don't have that. They spend about eight hours a day sleeping, eight hours at work, two hours cooking dinner, eating, and cleaning up, two or so hours with the children, time with their husband or wife. It's just not feasible for most Americans with a family and job to do those things. It would be nice, and they should be able to squeeze in maybe one thing, but not all the poster recommended.


Make learning (languages, about other cultures, etc.) a family thing?  :Biggrin:  

Yes, you are correct, I am not married with children. Probably won't be for years either (if at all). 

Audiobooks are great for long car drives (well, anything > 30 minutes), something that seems common among many Americans. 

Anyways, the advice is good advice for young'uns like me.  :Smile:

----------


## stlukesguild

But who is the Shakespeare of Iran? There are so many very great poets who wrote in Persian Language. Is it Sa'adi, the Nightingale of Shiraz, or is it Hafiz (weren't the random pages of his works used to forecast future events?) Is it the majestic Firdausi, or the beautifully lyrical Rudki. Even Ghalib and Mir and other masters from Delhi left behind a huge amount of poems in Persian. How could a language attract poets from so far and distant lands? StLukesGuild should be able to elaborate this point but Persian sensibility can be traced in the beautiful miniature paintings if you don't know the language.

Persia is indeed a fascinating culture... perhaps THE most fascinating culture of the middle-east. I have long been fascinated with Persian/Islamic art, but it has only been recently... as part of a course on Non-Western art... that I have delved into it a bit deeper. The Persian Empire was one of the greatest empires of the ancient world. It outlasted both the Greek Empire and the Roman. Some major miscalculations, poor leadership, and a direct confrontation with the Byzantine Empire resulted in the collapse of an empire that had lasted more than a millennium. Much of the art and architecture of Persia was destroyed over the ensuing years... first under the Arab/Islamic invasions, and then under the Mongols. Nevertheless, what remains of ancient Persia is quite evocative and exquisite:


The famous "Ishtar Gate"


Temple relief sculpture


Support column and ornate capital


Ishtar


Sculptural fragment of a horse


Bronze portrait bust

Among the most exquisite Persian artistic achievements were their ornate metal works. There is more than ample evidence to prove that the Persians had mastered working in metal on an epic scale:



continued...

But the most influential works were their smaller metal objects: plates...



... serving challises-





The ornate patterns and abstracted animal forms were especially influential...



... and this influence spread east to the Scythians (themselves of Persian/Iranian stock) and via the the Scythians, Persian innovations in metals spread along the Silk Road to China as well as northward to the Celts... who would take their own interpretation of the Persian love of ornate patterned metalry all the way to Western Europe and as far as Ireland:


Scythian Necklace


Celtic/Saxon latch

Following the fall of the Persian Empire to the Byzantines, the Islamic Arabs swept into Persia. The Arabs conquest of Persia might be best compared with the Mongol conquest of China. In both instances the greater nation with a grand cultural history was overcome by smaller, nomadic, horse-bound armies of a people who were far less sophisticated... even "crude" in comparison. From the Byzantine Empire, the Persians absorbed the Byzantine use of ceramic tiles and mosaics. From the Arabs, the Persians absorbed Islam. The Arabs, in turn, would absorb most of their art and culture from Persia. Persia housed the great libraries and provided the great poets whose words would spread throughout the Islamic world. Persia would house the great schools of calligraphy, painting, ceramic design, etc... (especially at Tabriz, Herat, and Shiraz). The ornate interweavings of Persia design would be absorbed by Arab/Islamic calligraphers:







continued...

Contrary to strictures laid down by many Arab/Islamic clerics, Persia never abandoned the concept of figurative art. The painters of Persian miniatures rank among the greatest painters in history, while the finest Persian illuminated manuscripts equal the greatest examples of books arts (the Book of Kells, the Lindesfarne Gospels, the _Tres Riches Heures_ of the Limbourg Brothers, etc...) to be found anywhere:







Persian art has been a direct influence upon artists ranging from Ingres and Delacroix through Renoir, Matisse, Chagall, and Paul Klee and on to contemporaries such as Howard Hodgkin, Francesco Clemente (among others). Looking at the spread of artistic forms rooted in Persian culture throughout the realm of Islam (from Eastern Europe, throughout the Middle-East, India, North-Africa, and into Spain, Portugal and Southern France) one cannot help but recognize the fact that Western Culture has been just as profoundly impacted by Persian/Arabic culture as it has been by the Greco/Roman heritage, and Hebrew/Judeo-Christian. It is too bad that the current war in the Middle-East, as well as radical Islam... and the exaggerated responses to radical Islam, results in many never recognizing just how rich a culture there is there to be found.

----------


## sofia82

Great information on Persian art and culture. Thank you, stlukesguild.
And I add some other parts. Besides what *stlukesguild* mentioned, persian carpet "is an essential part of Persian art and culture. Carpet-weaving is undoubtedly one of the most distinguished manifestations of Persian culture and art, and dates back to ancient Persia. The art of carpet weaving in Iran has its roots in the culture and customs of its people and their instinctive feelings. Weavers mix elegant patterns with a myriad of colors. The Iranian carpet is similar to the Persian garden: full of florae, birds, and beasts."

http://www.therugs.com/
http://www.persiancarpethouse.com/
http://www.orgtx.com

Tabriz Floral Medallion

----------


## sofia82

Persian Miniature

Farshchian, Morning star. I love this miniature.
















> It is good advice if one's young enough to be able to indulge in it and smart enough to do it while they can.
> 
> I think it's great when families learn a language together. More of them should.
> 
> I also like the idea of audiobooks, but personally, I've never been able to get into most of them. I did like _A Christmas Carol_ and few others as audiobooks, though.
> 
> I was married when I traveled, but my ex-husband had a lot of moolah. LOL And being centrally located in Switzerland was nice. Now, though, I'm more interested in establishing a home, but I don't regret any of the traveling I did and consider myself lucky to have done so much and seen the better part of the world. All continents but Antarctica, and I don't mind skipping that one.


I really dream of traveling around the world. It must be a great experience seeing people, countries, sceneries. But no experience  :Bawling:

----------


## sofia82

> I loved it when I did it, but right now, I'm very focused on a home and settling down.


But for me no home, no settlling down, and no traveling  :Biggrin:

----------


## JBI

> But for me no home, no settlling down, and no traveling


To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield!
Funny how all conversations of travel always lead me to Tennyson's Ulysses.


For those who have not yet read it,
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28Tennyson%29
This is perhaps the most perfect poem for memorization, as it has some of the greatest moments of English literature in its scope.


As for me, I plan to travel when I can, but I am on a student budget, and, unless I can secure work in a foreign country before I leave my home, will not venture out there without a full wallet. 

I was quite blessed in my youth to visit many countries (I even got as far as Bali Indonesia, and Laos on one of my trips) and have seen many things. The one strange thing is though, no matter how versed in a language one is, in the majority of places I have gone, locals will always resort to English rather than listen to a foreign accent. I am fluent perfectly in Hebrew, yet in Israel
as soon as I utter one syllable, English enters the conversation.

That being said, language learning is essential for really enjoying the arts. Unfortunately, for the most part the arts are limited to the rich, though thanks to photography and film one can see more by standing still, and for nothing. It is a real shame however, that unlike Europe, the U.S. and Canadian mindset seems to be off of language learning, and geared more towards social sciences and sciences. Perhaps the cost of language learning though is the real problem, being that unless the school is quite large, most languages will not be taught, and outside of school lessons are always expensive. Universities provide excellent options for diverse learnings, multiple languages included, however time and money seem a problem there too.

I guess than one must really know where they wish to end up when they choose which languages to study, and which not to. That being said, map out the next 20 years of your language learning life before embarking on learning a language.

----------


## PeterL

> LOL I already speak German, Yiddish, and some French, and can get by in halting Spanish and Italian. Can read Russian and speak a little.
> 
> But I'm allergic to shellfish, though not to "regular" fish, and I'm afraid a life on the high seas wouldn't be for me, though I do love the ocean and find it very tranquil. Well, most of the time.
> 
> I am thinking of getting that canoe, though.


You could put into German, French, Yiddish, Italian, and English speaking ports. French and English would cover most of Africa and Asia. Far out at sea there aren't many storms, but there are plenty of fish but no places to spend money. Just the amount you saved in a year would pay for the boat. The canoe would come in handy for landing on uninhabited islands.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

All you youngsters (I will be reaching the end of my 30s soon, so I don't count anymore), try to do some volunteer work abroad. This is a unique and most effective way of learning a new culture and language. Try teaching English Literature abroad, come to England and teach literature here. It will open your eyes. The thing is unimaginably different from anywhere else. Resistance to learning other languages is a disease of all English-speaking nations, not just the US or Canada. We think we don't need another language. My English-speaking wife laughed when I first brought the primers of French language for my kids. Now she is the only one in the household who can't speak that language! 

It is a manifestation of the spirit of adventure, learning new language requires, hard and sustained effort, self-discipline and perseverance. It is like an odyssey with its own perils and pitfalls, despair being the biggest one among them.

Thanks stlukesguild and Sofia for your comprehensive and highly informative replies. Only if there was some way of explaining the Persian poetry. Khayyam's _Rubaiyat_ are just not what we see in English translation, they are more, much more. Khayyam is considered a major astronomer and mathematician and not a major poet in is home-country. This should give an idea of the people with whom he is competing for that title.

Edit: 
Teaching/ Learning English Literature in England might not teach a new language but the concept of the 'canon' is so different here that it might give some a cultural shock.

----------


## sofia82

> All you youngsters (I will be reaching the end of my 30s soon, so I don't count anymore), try to do some volunteer work abroad. This is a unique and most effective way of learning a new culture and language. Try teaching English Literature abroad, come to England and teach literature here. It will open your eyes. The thing is unimaginably different from anywhere else. Resistance to learning other languages is a disease of all English-speaking nations, not just the US or Canada. We think we don't need another language. My English-speaking wife laughed when I first brought the primers of French language for my kids. Now she is the only one in the household who can't speak that language!


Really, It is interesting that English speakers think like this!
Volunteer work is great idea! I never thought about it.




> Thanks stlukesguild and Sofia for your comprehensive and highly informative replies. Only if there was some way of explaining the Persian poetry. Khayyam's _Rubaiyat_ are just not what we see in English translation, they are more, much more. Khayyam is considered a major astronomer and mathematician and not a major poet in is home-country. This should give an idea of the people with whom he is competing for that title.


You're welcome! About Khayyam,

"He is best known for his poetry, and outside Iran, for the quatrains (rubaiyaas) in Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, popularized through Edward Fitzgerald's re-created translation. His substantial mathematical contributions include his Treatise on Demonstration of Problems of Algebra, which gives a geometric method for solving cubic equations by intersecting a hyperbola with a circle[2]. He also contributed to calendar reform and may have proposed a heliocentric theory well before Copernicus.

Omar Khayyám's poetic work has eclipsed his fame as a mathematician and scientist.

He is believed to have written about a thousand four-line verses or quatrains (rubaai's). In the English-speaking world, he was introduced through the The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám which are rather free-wheeling English translations by Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883).

Other translations of parts of the rubáiyát (rubáiyát meaning "quatrains") exist, but Fitzgerald's are the most well known. Translations also exist in languages other than English.

Ironically, Fitzgerald's translations reintroduced Khayyam to Iranians "who had long ignored the Neishapouri poet." A 1934 book by one of Iran's most prominent writers, Sadeq Hedayat, Songs of Khayyam, (Taranehha-ye Khayyam) is said have "shaped the way a generation of Iranians viewed" the poet.[9]

Omar Khayyam's personal beliefs are not known with certainty, but much is discernible from his poetic oeuvre.

_Although he was ignored to some extent, he is famous all over the Iran for his Four-line verses. But the theme of his peotry is against popular religious beliefs. It rejects some religious beliefs, so some poeple do not consider him as a great poet. But there is more than this anti-religious theme. And he is famous for the theme of Carpe Diem, too._

خيام اگر ز باده مستى خوش باش

با ماه رخى اگر نشستى خوش باش

چون عاقبت كار جهان نيستى است

انگار كه نيستى، چو هستى خوش باش

which translates in Fitzgerald's work as:

And if the Wine you drink, the Lip you press,

End in the Nothing all Things end in  Yes 

Then fancy while Thou art, Thou art but what

Thou shalt be  Nothing  Thou shalt not be less.

A more literal translation could read:

If with wine you are drunk be happy,

If seated with a moon-faced (beautiful), be happy,

Since the end purpose of the universe is nothing-ness;

Hence picture your nothing-ness, then while you are, be happy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam

----------


## Kafka's Crow

Yes Khayyam had highly controversial views, his reputation was revived only recently. It was mainly his astrology and maths (Algebra) that kept him in discussions till the beginning of the last century when Fitzgerald and others brought his poetry to the wider audience. This Sadeq Hedayat is the one who wrote _Boof-e koor_ (The Blind Owl). I read that book recently and recommend it repeatedly on this forum:
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri.../blindowl.html

----------


## sofia82

> Yes Khayyam had highly controversial views, his reputation was revived only recently. It was mainly his astrology and maths (Algebra) that kept him in discussions till the beginning of the last century when Fitzgerald and others brought his poetry to the wider audience. This Sadeq Hedayat is the one who wrote _Boof-e koor_ (The Blind Owl). I read that book recently and recommend it repeatedly on this forum:
> http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri.../blindowl.html


Kafka's Crow, it seems you have lots of information about persian literature. It is interesting for me!

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> Kafka's Crow, it seems you have lots of information about persian literature. It is interesting for me!


I stopped studying Persian Lit back in 1987. It has been English Literature ever since. My teacher was Irani and I can still speak with his accent which amazes my Afghan colleagues at work! After all these years, I have come to the conclusion that Persian language has the best treasure of poetry. Unfortunately its effect can't be translated into English Language. I had a bilingual anthology of Modern Persian Poetry as well. Last time I saw it was in my sister's library. I didn't ask her to return it. She can keep it!

----------


## sofia82

> I stopped studying Persian Lit back in 1987. It has been English Literature ever since. My teacher was Irani and I can still speak with his accent which amazes my Afghan colleagues at work! After all these years, I have come to the conclusion that Persian language has the best treasure of poetry. Unfortunately its effect can't be translated into English Language. I had a bilingual anthology of Modern Persian Poetry as well. Last time I saw it was in my sister's library. I didn't ask her to return it. She can keep it!


WOW! I was just 5. It is really amazing, it even amazes me.
Yes, unfortunately, it is not translatable into English. It is the same problem when one translates English into Persian, too. IN both cases, it becomes totally another poetry.




> I stopped studying Persian Lit back in 1987. It has been English Literature ever since. My teacher was Irani and I can still speak with his accent which amazes my Afghan colleagues at work! After all these years, I have come to the conclusion that Persian language has the best treasure of poetry. Unfortunately its effect can't be translated into English Language. I had a bilingual anthology of Modern Persian Poetry as well. Last time I saw it was in my sister's library. I didn't ask her to return it. She can keep it!


WOW! I was just 5. It is really amazing, it even amazes me.
Yes, unfortunately, it is not translatable into English. It is the same problem when one translates English into Persian, too. IN both cases, it becomes totally another poetry. I'm so curious to talk to you in Persian  :Wink:

----------


## NickAdams

Does anyone think that a translation of Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam into Sanskrit, rather than english, might be closer in context?

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> WOW! I was just 5. It is really amazing, it even amazes me.
> Yes, unfortunately, it is not translatable into English. It is the same problem when one translates English into Persian, too. IN both cases, it becomes totally another poetry. I'm so curious to talk to you in Persian


Tres interesante! My Persian is very, very rusty after all those years. I can read and understand but vocabulary is largely gone when it comes to speaking. I know quite a bit of poetry and proverbs by heart which helps when it comes to impressing people (_khrs der koh bu Ali Sina!_). I can get it back within a few weeks if I try and I WILL try very soon. My 'Parisian' is much better than my Persian these days! 

Please don't make me feel so old! It was only yesterday when I was in my late twenties, simultaneously loving Rage Against the Machine, Samuel Beckett, Dostoevsky and motorcycles! Time flies.

Nick Adams!
I don't know much about Sansikrit. The language of Hindu scriptures that I have heard is very, very different from Persian. Urdu is much closer as it stems from Persian and its literature is rooted in Persian Literature. Most other languages from the sub-continent are more closely related to Sansikrit. But then Sansikrit itself is related to most languages. Still its sound pattern is very different from Persian. There is only one word to describe the sound of the Persian words _shireen_, sweet, absolutely sweet.

----------


## NickAdams

> Nick Adams!
> I don't know much about Sansikrit. The language of Hindu scriptures that I have heard is very, very different from Persian. Urdu is much closer as it stems from Persian and its literature is rooted in Persian Literature. Most other languages from the sub-continent are more closely related to Sansikrit. But then Sansikrit itself is related to most languages. Still its sound pattern is very different from Persian. There is only one word to describe the sound of the Persian words _shireen_, sweet, absolutely sweet.


Is this a full list of the Alefba?

----------


## sofia82

> Tres interesante! My Persian is very, very rusty after all those years. I can read and understand but vocabulary is largely gone when it comes to speaking. I know quite a bit of poetry and proverbs by heart which helps when it comes to impressing people (_khrs der koh bu Ali Sina!_). I can get it back within a few weeks if I try and I WILL try very soon. My 'Parisian' is much better than my Persian these days!


Yes, using and repeating is the matter in language. 




> Please don't make me feel so old! It was only yesterday when I was in my late twenties, simultaneously loving Rage Against the Machine, Samuel Beckett, Dostoevsky and motorcycles! Time flies.


Do not feel so old!  :Wink:  The age is not important how you feel and what you feel is important.
_Mohem ineke delet javoon bashe_ (in persian)




> Nick Adams!
> I don't know much about Sansikrit. The language of Hindu scriptures that I have heard is very, very different from Persian. Urdu is much closer as it stems from Persian and its literature is rooted in Persian Literature. Most other languages from the sub-continent are more closely related to Sansikrit. But then Sansikrit itself is related to most languages. Still its sound pattern is very different from Persian. There is only one word to describe the sound of the Persian words _shireen_, sweet, absolutely sweet.


Absolutely sweet. Me neither. I do not know anything about Sanskirit.




> Is this a full list of the Alefba?


Yes, exactly.

----------


## Nightshade

> Is this a full list of the Alefba?


Queston now, at first glance I thought that was arabic, but it isnt but is the black or the pink persian? :Confused:

----------


## sofia82

> Queston now, at first glance I thought that was arabic, but it isnt but is the black or the pink persian?


Our letters are the same except four, which arabs does not have. It is interesting that although our alphabet is the same, but the root is different as I know. Even the original alphabet of Azeri and turkish are like this before changing into Latin. The alphabet we use for Azeri in Iran is these alphabet, fortunately it is not replaced with latin alphabet, although it is really difficult for reading. I myself cannot read just talk Azeri. No, all of them are persian letters but some in capital and some in small letters. or different form of writing depending on where they are placed in a word.

These letters are not in Arabic alphabet.




And about these red and black letters, let me explain by some examples.



This word means friend. Look at the red letter. If /sin/ comes in the middle, it is written in small letter (I don't know if I can call it small or not). But look at this word, which means diamond:



If /sin/ comes in the end, it is written like this.

Now compare others, still confused?!

Book.


English


Flower


Literature


Love


Sky

----------


## Nightshade

Ah I see of course! I didn't even notice that they were showing the diffrent ways of writing the letters they just looked like the letters to me. 
So they have different roots? I didn't know that, but arabic has a letter you dont have, _hamza_, its the last letter.

----------


## sofia82

> Ah I see of course! I didn't even notice that they were showing the diffrent ways of writing the letters they just looked like the letters to me. 
> So they have different roots? I didn't know that, but arabic has a letter you dont have, _hamza_, its the last letter.


Yes, in the alphabet we dont have hamze, but in writing especially those words borrowed from Arabic we use it. Although we changed it to ye nowadays, as the words seem more persian than Arabic. Do you know because of the religion Arabic had great impact on Persian language, although it is tried to make it more persian than Arabic.

And we dont have _he_ with : pronounced _te_ if not mistaken. instead we use _he_.

And this is exactly how the letters written in different places in Persian, too.
I correct myself of saying small or capital letter. It is beginning, middle, final, and stand-alone.

----------


## Nightshade

ah you mean the _te marbootah_  I remeber once when I was little trying to read something that was written on a picture which I thought was arabic and getting really mad because it didn't make sense... turned out it was persian. 
do you have the differnt sounds for each letter too? Like if it is followed by a _yeh_, _alif_,or _wow_...or depending on the _tashkeel_?

----------


## sofia82

> ah you mean the _te marbootah_  I remeber once when I was little trying to read something that was written on a picture which I thought was arabic and getting really mad because it didn't make sense... turned out it was persian. 
> do you have the differnt sounds for each letter too? Like if it is followed by a _yeh_, _alif_,or _wow_...or depending on the _tashkeel_?


Yes different sound for the same letters. Oh, it really is difficult for me to pronounce the words exactly like Arabs, we don't have such pronunciation, especially reading _Quran_. For example different t sounds. 
About your question can you make an example, I didn't get what you mean by _Tashkeel_ and you mwan te marbootah with different pronunciation.

We have proper Arabic names in Farsi which we do not pronunce this _teh marboote_ any way like _Fatemeh_ just _he_ not _te_.

----------


## Nightshade

I see I mean let me think how to explain,.. teshkeel is the indicater for different sounds of the letter, so sometimes you have the fathah ( line above the letter)so the _B_ letter would say _Ba_ sometimes it has a line below the letter so _B_ would say _bee_ sometimes a _dumah_ ( like a small _wow_  ) so the letter would say _Boo_ and then you have the other ones the names temorerialy escpe my mind so _ben_,_bin_,and _boon_(oo like book) and then _skoon_ so it just says buh . 
and then if you follow it with an alif..it would say Baaaa an a yeh would make it say beeee and a wow would make it say booooooo ( elongating the change sound)
now do you see what I was talking about?

----------


## NickAdams

> Do you know because of the religion Arabic had great impact on Persian language, although it is tried to make it more persian than Arabic.


The spanish language also, because of the Moores in Spain. ال۔ or Al, a definite article (also a very interesting character in Persian and Armenian mythology), has become a prefix in the Spanish language: alacrán (scorpion); Alagoas, a state in Brazil; and the influence goes beyond this prefix.




> if you follow it with an alif..it would say Baaaa


I find I have better comprehension when I know the history of its development: Alif (Arabic: ا, pronounced alif) is the first letter of the Arabic alphabet. Together with Hebrew Aleph, Greek Alpha and Latin A, it is descended from Phoenician āleph, from Proto-Canaanite alp "ox".

----------


## Nightshade

> The spanish language also, because of the Moores in Spain. ال۔ or Al, a definite article (also a very interesting character in Persian and Armenian mythology), has become a prefix in the Spanish language: alacrán (scorpion); Alagoas, a state in Brazil; and the influence goes beyond this prefix.


Are you saying arabic influenced spanish, or vice versa? :Confused: 
Ive been wondering about czech and arabic lately if there are any links they use quite a few identical words and there are many shared sounds and basic sentence structure is similar too.

----------


## NickAdams

> Are you saying arabic influenced spanish, or vice versa?
> Ive been wondering about czech and arabic lately if there are any links they use quite a few identical words and there are many shared sounds and basic sentence structure is similar too.


I've just started a study of linguistics. I've gotten this sudden interest in the history of language, but there is still much I don't know. 

Czech is a part of the Indo-European languages, while Arabic is one of the Semitic languages. Persian is a part of a sub-group in the Indo-European family, but Arabic and Persian still have commonalities.

Language, especially spoken, are in flux. Migration seems a great influence. The Romance languages, didn't stem from academic Latin but Vulgar Latin, that which was spoken by the common Roman. 

You might find this article of interest, especially the section on language. It is about links between Celtics Israelites: http://beyondbabylon.blogspot.com/20...onalities.html

----------


## Nightshade

sorry missing the segnificance of Indo-european? But my other thought was could the influence be from the spanish? or rather the jeusits, coming to prague from spain and starting up their universities etc... would that be why tea is caj and pineapple is ananas? Also is ananas originally arabic or did the arabs borrow it from someone else? yes the history of langage is a fasinating thing.

----------


## NickAdams

> sorry missing the segnificance of Indo-european? But my other thought was could the influence be from the spanish? or rather the jeusits, coming to prague from spain and starting up their universities etc... would that be why tea is caj and pineapple is ananas? Also is ananas originally arabic or did the arabs borrow it from someone else? yes the history of langage is a fasinating thing.


The grouping of languages into families, like Indo-European, is to due to their common heritage and the belief that they came from one proto-language. Arabic and Czech are in seperate families, but Persian and Czech are not. If Persian was influenced by Arabic, then Czech could be influenced through that connection, but I'm speculating. If there did not influence each other, they may have been influenced by another language.

The following is from Wkipedia, so take it with a grain of salt. 
*History of the idea of Indo-European*

Suggestions of similarities between Indian and European languages began to be made by European visitors to India in the sixteenth century. In 1583 Thomas Stephens, an English Jesuit missionary in Goa, noted similarities between Indian languages, specifically Konkani, and Greek and Latin. These observations were included in a letter to his brother which was not published until the twentieth century.

The first account to mention Sanskrit came from Filippo Sassetti (born in Florence, Italy in 1540 AD), a Florentine merchant who traveled to the Indian subcontinent and was among the first European observers to study the ancient Indian language, Sanskrit. Writing in 1585, he noted some word similarities between Sanskrit and Italian (e.g. deva/dio 'God', sarpa/serpe 'snake', sapta/sette 'seven', ashta/otto 'eight', nava/nove 'nine'). However, neither Stephens' nor Sassetti's observations led to further scholarly inquiry.

In 1647 Dutch linguist and scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn noted the similarity among Indo-European languages, and supposed the existence of a primitive common language which he called "Scythian". He included in his hypothesis Dutch, Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, later adding Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages. However, the suggestions of Van Boxhorn did not become widely known and did not stimulate further research.

The hypothesis re-appeared in 1786 when Sir William Jones first lectured on similarities between four of the oldest languages known in his time: Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Persian. Systematic comparison of these and other old languages conducted by Franz Bopp supported this theory, and Bopp's Comparative Grammar, appearing between 1833 and 1852 counts as the starting-point of Indo-European studies as an academic discipline.

----------


## PeterL

> Ive been wondering about czech and arabic lately if there are any links they use quite a few identical words and there are many shared sounds and basic sentence structure is similar too.


What specific words have you noticed. There never was much connection between Central Europe and the Arab regions, but there are some Moslems in Southeastern Poland and Ukrainya.

----------


## PeterL

> sorry missing the segnificance of Indo-european? But my other thought was could the influence be from the spanish? or rather the jeusits, coming to prague from spain and starting up their universities etc... would that be why tea is caj and pineapple is ananas? Also is ananas originally arabic or did the arabs borrow it from someone else? yes the history of langage is a fasinating thing.


If "tea is caj and pineapple is ananas" are the limit of the similarities between Czech and Arabic, then the words probably came in with the products.

----------


## Nightshade

Ananas
caj
kava ( very close to the arabic word for coffee
and then the sounds of the letters many similarities, the czechs keep saying they are amazed i can pronounced the words with so little accent, and it isbecause the sounds are identical to ones found in arabic. But then german also shares alot of sounds and Im fairly sure there isnt alink between arabic and german. 
Also the sentance structure is fairly similar, the way the words are conjucated or whatever its called and the order of the sentances and phrases..
Edit just seen second post: well yes that was my original conclusion but I said that I was just wondering which it was.

----------


## JCamilo

> The spanish language also, because of the Moores in Spain. ال۔ or Al, a definite article (also a very interesting character in Persian and Armenian mythology), has become a prefix in the Spanish language: alacrán (scorpion); Alagoas, a state in Brazil; and the influence goes beyond this prefix.


I am not sure about Alagoas altough all the rest is correct. Must add also that the influence is not only because the iberic uniion period, since Brazil is the country that have more arabian (putting them all in the same bag) in the world, not being one arabian country. Also, the obvious influence with mathematic language.

----------


## NickAdams

> If "tea is caj and pineapple is ananas" are the limit of the similarities between Czech and Arabic, then the words probably came in with the products.


 :Nod:

----------


## PeterL

> Ananas
> caj
> kava ( very close to the arabic word for coffee
> and then the sounds of the letters many similarities, the czechs keep saying they are amazed i can pronounced the words with so little accent, and it isbecause the sounds are identical to ones found in arabic. But then german also shares alot of sounds and Im fairly sure there isnt alink between arabic and german. 
> Also the sentance structure is fairly similar, the way the words are conjucated or whatever its called and the order of the sentances and phrases..
> Edit just seen second post: well yes that was my original conclusion but I said that I was just wondering which it was.


Search for information about Nostratic. It is a hypothesis that the Afro-Asiatic Langues, Indo-European, Finno-Urgric, and another language family are related, although less closely than languages within the families. There are two higher levels of relationship among languages. Those higher level relationships are not widely accepted in linguistics, but have noticed that there are some features of Chinese that seems related to Indo-European. Don't make too much of such apparent relationships, because all humans use the brain structure, which governs sentence structure and grammar, and vocal apparatus, which determines what sounds can be made, so all languages have fundamental similarities, The people who tried to find the original 'proto-world' language have come up with dozens of words that are found all around the world, and a remarkable percentage of them are considered obscene in English. 

This site has a list and is skeptical about proto-world: http://www.zompist.com/proto.html
The subject was a special interest of mine for a time.

----------


## NickAdams

> This site has a list and is skeptical about proto-world: http://www.zompist.com/proto.html
> The subject was a special interest of mine for a time.


Thanks, I've been reading a lot of pro books and it is good to balance studies like this out with an argument.

----------


## sofia82

> I see I mean let me think how to explain,.. teshkeel is the indicater for different sounds of the letter, so sometimes you have the fathah ( line above the letter)so the _B_ letter would say _Ba_ sometimes it has a line below the letter so _B_ would say _bee_ sometimes a _dumah_ ( like a small _wow_  ) so the letter would say _Boo_ and then you have the other ones the names temorerialy escpe my mind so _ben_,_bin_,and _boon_(oo like book) and then _skoon_ so it just says buh . 
> and then if you follow it with an alif..it would say Baaaa an a yeh would make it say beeee and a wow would make it say booooooo ( elongating the change sound)
> now do you see what I was talking about?


Yes! We have these _fatheh_, _zam'meh_, _kasreh_ and _sokoon_ but they are not written. Of course, in some parts it is not like Arabic and it is different.




> The spanish language also, because of the Moores in Spain. ال۔ or Al, a definite article (also a very interesting character in Persian and Armenian mythology), has become a prefix in the Spanish language: alacrán (scorpion); Alagoas, a state in Brazil; and the influence goes beyond this prefix.


Spain and Persia was influenced by Arabic in the same way, being conquered by Arabs and ruled by their Emirs for years.




> Ananas
> caj
> kava ( very close to the arabic word for coffee
> and then the sounds of the letters many similarities, the czechs keep saying they are amazed i can pronounced the words with so little accent, and it isbecause the sounds are identical to ones found in arabic. But then german also shares alot of sounds and Im fairly sure there isnt alink between arabic and german. 
> Also the sentance structure is fairly similar, the way the words are conjucated or whatever its called and the order of the sentances and phrases..
> Edit just seen second post: well yes that was my original conclusion but I said that I was just wondering which it was.


We call coffee ghahve, too. Now where we get this word? I think it is the same word coffee but with different pronunciation, Am I right/?
It is the same for ananas!

----------


## Kafka's Crow

Well, in Lithuanian language coffee is called _cava_ too although they make their coffee with ground roasted acorns! 

Arabic has 'Aaraab' or 'zer', 'zabr', 'paish' 'sakin', then the first three are doubled to add an 'n' sound at the end of the alphabet thus 'alif zabr' (the tiny right slash on top) becomes 'Aa', 'alif zer' (the tiny right slash under) becomes 'Eee', 'Alif paish' (the tiny comma on top) becomes 'Ooo' whereas the smaller and open-topped comma of 'sakin' keeps the alphabet without an accent. These things are later developments as after the conquest of Iran, the Caliph ordered this addition to avoid mis-pronunciation of the Quranic language. Arabic is subtle as slight mis-pronunciation or even stress on the wrong syllabus can totally alter the meaning. Everyday Arabic is still the same and Arabic in newspapers etc does not use these pronunciation marks whereas Quranic Arabic does. 

Arabs were traders. They were visiting India and China centuries before Vasco de Gama and Marco Polo. They took their goods everywhere and naturally the more exotic goods got Arabic names in certain places. 

Spanish is hugely influenced by Arabic because of the highly diverse and vibrant society under the Moorish Caliphs whose rule lasted over 700 years. I am fascinated by that chapter in European history. When Germans were hunting Gypsies with dogs, Moors were welcoming them and letting them bring their exotic arts to their lands. I am fascinated by the history of the Romani Gypsy folks as well. Apparently they were low-caste Hindus from India. When Sultan Mehmmod of Ghazna attacked the Indian and sacked their temples and took away their treasures, only to come back next year, year after year (he attacked India 17 times!), the upper castes 'upgraded' the lower castes to the 'fighting castes' temporarily. Naturally they failed to stop the onslaught. But Sultan Mehmood, that great patron of arts, architecture and literature (oh yes, he had a huge number of very great poets in his court. He paid Firdousi with thirty camels loaded with pure gold for his _Shahnameh_ which is dedicated to Mahmood). All this gold had to come from somewhere and all those palaces and architectural wonders needed cheap labor. The defeated armies of the Hindus were driven over the mountains to Afghanistan (that mountain range is still called _Hindu Kush_ or 'Hindu Killer'). Most died on the way, some escaped and some reached the other side only to build palaces etc. Those who escaped just went away in any direction. Some decided to roam in Central Europe (mainly Romania), some went further. Another fascinating fact pops up here. Nations who were nice to these black-eyed, dark-skinned people received exotic arts and culture in reply. The French, the Spanish culture is all the more colorful because of the gypsy element. Nations who were hostile to them became monolithic, mostly white, and less vibrants. Germans hunted them with dogs, entire forests were burnt to 'smoke out' gypsies who were literally 'hounded' to death. This lasted over five centuries and culminated in the Gypsy holocaust at the hands of Nazis, one long, harrowing tale of prosecution of the innocent. Gypsies were welcomed in the Moorish Spain and France, specially the Southern regions. Some also moved in the British Isles via Scotland. Living in England, I know that these people are still hated here!

Is it relevant here? I think the great influence of the 'Indo'-European languages has something to do with the Gypsy Diaspora which had started in the 10th Century and the movement of these Indic people is still going on. With Romania set to join the EU, we are seeing more and more of these people on the streets. Their complexion, black eyes and language raise eyebrows but I really do hope they bring with them their great and 'outrageously' exotic traditions of singing, dancing and story-telling.

----------


## sofia82

> Well, in Lithuanian language coffee is called _cava_ too although they make their coffee with ground roasted acorns! 
> 
> Arabic has 'Aaraab' or 'zer', 'zabr', 'paish' 'sakin', then the first three are doubled to add an 'n' sound at the end of the alphabet thus 'alif zabr' (the tiny right slash on top) becomes 'Aa', 'alif zer' (the tiny right slash under) becomes 'Eee', 'Alif paish' (the tiny comma on top) becomes 'Ooo' whereas the smaller and open-topped comma of 'sakin' keeps the alphabet without an accent. These things are later developments as after the conquest of Iran, the Caliph ordered this addition to avoid mis-pronunciation of the Quranic language. Arabic is subtle as slight mis-pronunciation or even stress on the wrong syllabus can totally alter the meaning. Everyday Arabic is still the same and Arabic in newspapers etc does not use these pronunciation marks whereas Quranic Arabic does.


As you said it didn't have these pronunciation marks, I think it is called _Koofi_, then they are added as you said mis-pronuncing a word which leads into another meaning, which is important in reading _Quran_.




> Arabs were traders. They were visiting India and China centuries before Vasco de Gama and Marco Polo. They took their goods everywhere and naturally the more exotic goods got Arabic names in certain places. 
> 
> Spanish is hugely influenced by Arabic because of the highly diverse and vibrant society under the Moorish Caliphs whose rule lasted over 700 years. I am fascinated by that chapter in European history. When Germans were hunting Gypsies with dogs, Moors were welcoming them and letting them bring their exotic arts to their lands. I am fascinated by the history of the Romani Gypsy folks as well. Apparently they were low-caste Hindus from India. When Sultan Mehmmod of Ghazna attacked the Indian and sacked their temples and took away their treasures, only to come back next year, year after year (he attacked India 17 times!), the upper castes 'upgraded' the lower castes to the 'fighting castes' temporarily. Naturally they failed to stop the onslaught. But Sultan Mehmood, that great patron of arts, architecture and literature (oh yes, he had a huge number of very great poets in his court. He paid Firdousi with thirty camels loaded with pure gold for his _Shahnameh_ which is dedicated to Mahmood). All this gold had to come from somewhere and all those palaces and architectural wonders needed cheap labor. The defeated armies of the Hindus were driven over the mountains to Afghanistan (that mountain range is still called _Hindu Kush_ or 'Hindu Killer'). Most died on the way, some escaped and some reached the other side only to build palaces etc. Those who escaped just went away in any direction. Some decided to roam in Central Europe (mainly Romania), some went further. Another fascinating fact pops up here. Nations who were nice to these black-eyed, dark-skinned people received exotic arts and culture in reply. The French, the Spanish culture is all the more colorful because of the gypsy element. Nations who were hostile to them became monolithic, mostly white, and less vibrants. Germans hunted them with dogs, entire forests were burnt to 'smoke out' gypsies who were literally 'hounded' to death. This lasted over five centuries and culminated in the Gypsy holocaust at the hands of Nazis, one long, harrowing tale of prosecution of the innocent. Gypsies were welcomed in the Moorish Spain and France, specially the Southern regions. Some also moved in the British Isles via Scotland. Living in England, I know that these people are still hated here!
> 
> Is it relevant here? I think the great influence of the 'Indo'-European languages has something to do with the Gypsy Diaspora which had started in the 10th Century and the movement of these Indic people is still going on. With Romania set to join the EU, we are seeing more and more of these people on the streets. Their complexion, black eyes and language raise eyebrows but I really do hope they bring with them their great and 'outrageously' exotic traditions of singing, dancing and story-telling.


How interesting! All languages influce each other in different ways.
But what about other languages influence on Arabic!?

----------


## Brasil

*For Kafka's Crow*
I haven't seen Mel Gibson's Hamlet cause I don't think he is a good actor, but that is my personal oppinion.
I've seen (on youtube) a performance of Shakespeare's menestrel (I don't know the title of that in english). Very good text, still current!


*For anyone who wants to know Machado de Assis*
Machado de Assis is read by several personalities, among them Woody Allen. 
For those who want to read O Alienista and other short stories, I recommend the book: 
50 stories of Machado de Assis, selected by John Gledson.

John Gledson is Professor of Brazilian Studies at the University of Liverpool.

For Machado's novels, seach Quincas Borba and The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas. It's good for starting.


*For anyone in this forum*
I have posted in this very forum some images about Brazilian art:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...559#post583559

There are paintings (from Brazilian Romanticism, Modernism and other styles), examples of Baroque sculpture and futuristic architecture.

*If someone wants to learn Portuguese* ... or if you like to know about language history there is also: the History of Portuguese language (a resume, written by myself) at the same thread (Brazilian Literature). 

*For all professors in this forum*, I give you this beautiful phrase:
"It is impossible to talk about education without love"
Paulo Freire

Have a nice weekend  :Yawnb:

----------


## PeterL

> Thanks, I've been reading a lot of pro books and it is good to balance studies like this out with an argument.


For a time I thought highly of the Proto-world idea, but the more I read and thought about it, the less confident I became in it. There are a few words that are nearly universal, 'mama' for example, but the widespread of those few words may be an artifact of the way the words are produced physically. 

Some of the other relationships among apparently unrelated languages are true mysteries: 30% of the root words in one North American language family are Basque roots, and there is no historical explanation for that.

----------


## sofia82

> For a time I thought highly of the Proto-world idea, but the more I read and thought about it, the less confident I became in it. There are a few words that are nearly universal, 'mama' for example, but the widespread of those few words may be an artifact of the way the words are produced physically. 
> 
> Some of the other relationships among apparently unrelated languages are true mysteries: 30% of the root words in one North American language family are Basque roots, and there is no historical explanation for that.


The Tower of Babel!

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> The Tower of Babel!


No! Diaspora, immigration, migration, trade, Jews, Gypsies, Arabs. The spirit of adventure, the movement of the masses, the restlessness in human heart. Baudelaire explained it best: "Cette vie est un hôpital où chaque malade est possedé du désir de changer de lit." Some are forced to move, some can't be stay put in one place! We take our words with us wherever we go, we leave them anywhere we stop, still we carry them with us everywhere! What curious disposable/undisposable baggage!

----------


## sofia82

> No! Diaspora, immigration, migration, trade, Jews, Gypsies, Arabs. The spirit of adventure, the movement of the masses, the restlessness in human heart. Baudelaire explained it best: "Cette vie est un hôpital où chaque malade est possedé du désir de changer de lit." Some are forced to move, some can't be stay put in one place! We take our words with us wherever we go, we leave them anywhere we stop, still we carry them with us everywhere! What curious disposable/undisposable baggage!


better explanation than a myth.

----------


## NickAdams

> For a time I thought highly of the Proto-world idea, but the more I read and thought about it, the less confident I became in it. There are a few words that are nearly universal, 'mama' for example, but the widespread of those few words may be an artifact of the way the words are produced physically. 
> 
> Some of the other relationships among apparently unrelated languages are true mysteries: 30% of the root words in one North American language family are Basque roots, and there is no historical explanation for that.


Current North America or another period? I'm reading The Story of Language by Mario Pei, is was last revised in 1965, so I know it might be outdated. It does mention deceptive cognates.




> better explanation than a myth.


It is a better explanation, but the myth is more poetic. :Smile:

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> Current North America or another period? I'm reading The Story of Language by Mario Pei, is was last revised in 1965, so I know it might be outdated. It does mention deceptive cognates.
> 
> 
> 
> *It is a better explanation, but the myth is more poetic.*


No, nothing is more poetic than the human heart and its longings, its utter craziness, the fearlessness of the human spirit, the pursuit of the unknown in spite of all its unimaginable horrors. This is how civilisation grew, this is how languages grew, this is the source of all birth and resurrection.

----------


## PeterL

> Current North America or another period? I'm reading The Story of Language by Mario Pei, is was last revised in 1965, so I know it might be outdated. It does mention deceptive cognates.


It was an American Indian language that was not overrun by people in the last couple hundred years. There are many deceptive cognates, which is why have doubts about the Nostratic super family; but there were too many for it to be a false cognate. I can't remember where I read about that, but I think that, but I believe that it appeared in a journal at some point. Historically it can't be explained, unlike that large percentage of Basque and Portuguese roots in some of the Indian languages of Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New England, areas that were regularly visited by Basque and Portuguese fishermen from 1200 to 100 CE.

----------


## sofia82

> No, nothing is more poetic than the human heart and its longings, its utter craziness, the fearlessness of the human spirit, the pursuit of the unknown in spite of all its unimaginable horrors. This is how civilisation grew, this is how languages grew, this is the source of all birth and resurrection.


I wonder how beautifully these sources of birth and resurrection are conveyed through myth and literature by the ancients. I love mthys and how different civilizations describe different phenomena.

----------


## Dante

well i passed one term Italian Language and i can assure you that Italian is very easy to learn and to work on literary books of it's own.but the thing is like you,i am some kind of confused by selecting between German and French...however i passed French one term too but that was horrible i couldn't even make a little poor connection with that language.lots of exceptions!lots of writing-reading differences!and the worst case is the Grammer which was so so unorganized for me!i didn't like it at all despite Italian!but i think German should be more attractive and richer than Italian...am i right or not?!!

----------


## PeterL

There a great works of literature in many languages, so look at which language would make the most ense for you.

----------


## lichtrausch

> Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New England, areas that were regularly visited by Basque and Portuguese fishermen from 1200 to 100 CE.


Feel free to back that up with some evidence.

----------

