Enes' Online Journal

Upon finding the escape of her memories, breaking the containment chambers, sirens withered. Sealment cracks began to show up the grime coating the exterior enclosure as the bursting memories murmured throughout to attempt to remember-anything to distinguish its whereabouts. I ring out wild piping notes a warning and lure to any others threatened by the escape of

Azerel

-powerful wizard

-(azar) health or support

-longer sentences

The same old game, Saturday’s training and we weren’t happening to enjoy ourselves. Pleasing the old man with some old fashioned hit ‘n’ run bringing them back down to they’re lowly juniority smashing around getting a pummeling by senior figures was just acquiring the support from their bottomless pockets.

There’s

nowt – using example slang

wrong

with slang

Emma Thompson of

all people ought to

appreciate that

Shakespeare’s slang – comparing to what legends of language have done

became part of our

everyday language

!

!

Belinda Webb

Friday 8 October 2010 12.00 BST

!

That epitome of Hampstead luvviness, Emma

Thompson, has apparently started a campaign

against the use of “sloppy slang” and “street talk”.

It follows a visit to her old school, Camden High

for Girls. What’s to be expected from a

Cambridge graduate? It is still an institution of – rhetorical question

received pronunciation. She is not alone in this

call to arms against slang. Fellow north Londoner

Tom Conti agrees, as does Kathy Lette, that writer

of such timeless classics as Puberty Blues, which

is about “top chicks” and “surfie spunks“, and – alliteration

Alter Ego, about a “knight in shining Armani“. – pun

Lette attempts to show off her punnilingus by

calling slang a “vowel cancer” and urging teens to

study “tongue fu“. – pun

This kind of talk has got me well vexed. Listen up, – embedded example

yeah, there’s nowt wrong with slang, so you need

to stop mitherin’, d’ya get me? Those who are – omission

from the north will recognise nowt as nothing and

mitherin’ as bothering. And “d’ya get me?” is,

well, comprende? Slang has been around for a

long time. Far from showing the user as “stupid”,

as Thompson contends, it demonstrates

inventiveness and quickness of thought; a

language plasticity, if you like; a language on the

go, evolving not just from one generation to the

next, but one year to the next. Its use shows that

students are able to learn and speak a wide range

of vernacular. The British Library certainly seem to

think so, with its upcoming exhibition on evolving

English.

Types of slang can be seen as distinct dialects in

their own right. Yet there are those who would

complain that it excludes many more than it will

let in. The same argument has been made

regarding novels such as Irvine Welsh’s

Trainspotting – the use of the Leithian dialect a

clear statement that, to get “them”, requires work;

the same work it would take for them to learn RP.

British literature is served well by

slang – it can energise prose –

and there is also Will Self’s

“Mokni”, from The Book of Dave.

I remember reading Anthony

Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange,

with its “nasdat” and being so – neologism

blown away that I rewrote a

contemporary female-centric

version called A Clockwork Apple.

I used archaic and old Celtic

words in order to get away from

the language so favoured by the

Blytons (think Thompson). This

use was then mocked when a

middle-aged male reviewer

attempted to write a nonsensical

review on it.

What Thompson et al may be put

out at is feeling out of touch with

the reality of this younger

generation. Slang can be seen as

a sophisticated attempt to

communicate in a semi-private

language, only a step removed

from Wittgenstein’s “private

language”. Also a Cambridge

graduate, Wittgenstein came to

believe that the idea that

language can perfectly capture

reality is a kind of bewitchment.

Yet teenagers in each generation

seem intent on trying, which is to

their credit. They may not

consciously know this is what

they are doing, but they are

seeking a language that

represents their reality, and a way

of creating a private space for those with whom

they identify.

!

The issue is, perhaps, what makes people feel in

the right to say that anyone who does not speak

like them, or in the way they were taught, is wrong

and “stupid”? What is stupid is the ignorance of – rhetorical question

such highly educated public figures who seem not

to have realised that Britain’s greatest

writers used slang and those words became part – irony

of our language. Shakespeare helped popularise

words such as nervy, rancorous, puke,

assassination and sanctimonious. Allow me to

illustrate the use of these words:

Sanctimonious Oxbridge grads are rancorous at

the use of teenspeak and slang, which makes

them so nervy that they want to puke, which could

be avoided if they stopped the slang

assassination.

I am not saying that slang is a substitute for

“standard” English, but should be recognised and

capitalised upon for what it is – a love of

communication and an inventiveness of speech

that continues to make English one of the most

interesting languages.

Her points and examples are logical and I’m in complete agreement with her.

Quotations that are the most convincing:

have realised that Britain’s greatest

writers used slang and those words became part

of our language. Shakespeare helped popularise

words such as nervy, rancorous, puke,

assassination and sanctimonious.

I am not saying that slang is a substitute for

“standard” English, but should be recognised and

capitalised upon for what it is – a love of

communication and an inventiveness of speech

Slang can be seen as

a sophisticated attempt to

communicate in a semi-private

language

it demonstrates

inventiveness and quickness of thought; a

language plasticity, if you like; a language on the

go, evolving not just from one generation to the

next, but one year to the next.

Types of slang can be seen as distinct dialects in

their own right. Yet there are those who would

complain that it excludes many more than it will

let in.

Text:

Homophone, initialism, emoticons,

Spoken:

Speed, rising terminal infliction, body language,

Both:

Colloquialisms, verbal filler, ommission, sarcasm, acronyms,

You can tell more about someone from how they speak then what they say.

The most important factor with spoken language is not the words that someone says but how those certain words are spoken. Expression in the voice gives a massive insight into what a person is like, how they act, and what they think of someone else or something that has happened. For example if the word ‘hello’ can be said in multiple different ways and mean completely different things. If the word is said in a sarcastic tone then it can give the impression that a person is not actually pleased to see someone. Alternatively if ‘hello’ is said with a rising terminal inflection it can imply that the speaker is interested in the matter. To imply that someone is interested in something, would be more natural then stating it, so showing not telling the person. Something can mean the absolute opposite to what is said by the tone of a voice.

[11:15pm, 18/09/2014] D: Shall I send you the pictures now?

[10:14pm, 18/09/2014] B: Thomas said he’ll send me fine stuff as well

[10:14pm, 18/09/2014] B: Of you want the file I can email it to you

[11:15pm, 18/09/2014] D: Yh can you email it to me as well please?

[8:24am, 19/09/2014] B: OK when I get back tonight

[6:29pm, 20/09/2014] D: What are you up too tomorrow?

[7:04pm, 20/09/2014] B: Homework and going to my aunties for lunch and swimming

[7:10pm, 20/09/2014] D:

OK cool

<background music>

Alistair: we can have it with the music in the backgroundbackground

^ vague language

Barnaby: why not? Or maybe not…

A: how’s it going miss?

^vague language

B: I think it might be a bit loud for the microphone though

^ vague language, using pronoun not noun

A: let’s do it–

^interruption

B: it’s really hard finding the best spot to record

Miss Shuil: Barnister! You are here because?

B: we’re doing English

S: so you should be in English?

A: nah, we-we’re trying to record a conversation between ourselves, we need to find a place, a quiet place

^ dialectdialect/verbal filler

S: well this isn’t quiet!

A: yeah I know but-

S: go into the corridor where it’s quiet

A: nice background music!

B: ha let’s go, Come on Alistair!

^ verbal filler

A: this is it

^vague language

Vague language/pronouns instead of nouns : 4

Interruptions: 2

Sarcasm

Colloquialism

Verbal filler

Abreviation

Dialect/Idiolect

^Ommision

Confirmation request

<phone rings>

1. yeah

2. oh fanks for answerin gheezer, ^ know what I mean?-

3. Gimme dat, Where ^ you bin’ fool? ^ makin’ us rinse out our credit leaving you messages n’dat

2. Mr. Doors is well on the war path wiv you bruv, yeah?

1. Coz of the bag n dat?

2. What bag? Coz you messed a lesson you chief-

3. Gimme dat, the bag weren’t a problem, tigsy never mentioned it, he bottled it

3. Oi you coming round to mine later to play ^ computer?

1. Nah man I’m at home now, I got business I gotta to run

3. What business?

1. Business that minds it’s own! <kisses teeth> I’m out

Shakespeare constructs our understanding of Lady Macbeth by presenting her as the dominant character in her marriage, playing against the stereotype of women in the Jacobean era (as they would have been looked upon as the inferior Gender) and using language devices.

One way Lady Macbeth is portrayed as the dominant character is the manner in which she speaks to Macbeth, which is the language she uses when directly talking to/about him without his presence. This is definitely not how a typical Jacobean woman would refer to her husband. The phrase: “Tis not done. The attempt and not the deed confounds us.” is a strong example of how Lady Macbeth thinks about her husband. The attempt and not the deed is a phrase that Lady Macbeth uses which doubts whether the ‘Deed’ (the attempt to kill King Duncan) has been completed. The very fact that Lady Macbeth is doubting her husband and is involved in such murder shows that Lady Macbeth is not a typical wife.

This quotation would have been said without realising that her husband has just appeared behind her-this is shown by a note in the side-lines of the play stating so. By this we are sure that Lady Macbeth is speaking only her thoughts as she has nobody to force false thoughts and opinions into her head.

Lady Macbeth states in another scene “If you loved me then you would do as I ask” and clearly shows that she has power over Macbeth’s actions, and the main controller of the operations and tasks that Macbeth is carrying out. This presents the theme of Power Imbalance inside the relationship which is also against the stereotypical impression of a Jacobean woman. Women at the time were expected to be: loyal; obedient; respecting of their husbands and to be the woman of the house- whose job would to be to bring up children, not to be involved in such business that Lady Macbeth is in.

Shakespeare’s authorial intent was clearly to create Lady Macbeth to be unusual and different to what the audience would have expected- to make the play more controversial and to create an impression of Lady Macbeth that would outdo the evil of Macbeth to the point that you start to pity Macbeth. The intention of pitying Macbeth could have different interpretations. A person at the time could have thought that the reason for this was to make you go against the character of Lady Macbeth as you would feel that she is threatening the male authority, this would connote that the decisions made were to show the dangers of female dominance. On the other hand, especially nowadays this could show female dominance in a positive manner, and support Lady Macbeth herself. Personally I feel that Shakespeare’s authorial intention was to show what a place that had a dominant female could be like and show the dangers of it. Shakespeare also seems to present this as a minor occurrence as there is only one character that is female that plays any significant role- and that is Lady Macbeth.

Another instance in which Lady Macbeth is presented as the dominant character is when she states “But I shame to wear a heart so white.” Again this is an accusation towards Macbeth, this time she is saying his ‘heart is to White’. A white heart has the connotations of a good one- white being the opposite of dark and evil. This connotes that Lady Macbeth believes that Macbeth’s heart is too good, not evil enough to complete the simple tasks he has to undertake to become King. This is an effective use of a metaphor to strengthen understanding of the difference between heavenly and evil. The accusation includes emotive language such as shame to present Lady Macbeth’s severe disappointment. As we can see- again the roles in this relationship have been swapped to make Lady Macbeth the dominant character (presenting the theme of role reversal).

Lady Macbeth has directly described her husband as too frail and weak to perform the task, which typically would not have been what women do in the Jacobean era. This shows us an example of irony in the text as women were usually presented as weak and fragile. Shakespeare is again presenting Lady Macbeth as an unusual character choice, who manipulates her husband using metaphors and emotive language. Emotive language is the most important device used as it makes Lady Macbeth able to get inside Macbeth’s emotional head and make him feel guilt to change the ways in which he acts. Since Macbeth is emotionally attached to his wife she uses this against him to manipulate him.

Over the course of the play Shakespeare has created a character of Lady Macbeth that is cold, sly and a dominant character in comparison to Macbeth. This is done by acting against stereotypes and using devices such as emotive language, metaphors and manner of speech. Shakespeare constructs her to make a controversial character and put an interesting twist on the play of Macbeth. I think Shakespeare did this to promote what could happen if the tables turned and Jacobean women acted differently- effectively a precaution.

Nope, she’s not. A change in what surrounds a person- no matter how different does not particularly shield a person from sight, just cloud them from usual life. The book ‘She is not invisible’ was given to me by Christopher Waugh~head of the London Nautical school English department as an award and yes it’s a nice book. For the pleasure of Miss Drewett I shall perform the honours of making a wonderful and (if a little pointless) book review to show that I can and have read a series of words in the holidays rather than sleeping and wasting time- as such a normal holiday goes.

To begin this review (and definitely not to try and lengthen my review a little by adding pointless information) I would like to talk about the cover of the book. The Book aesthetically jumps out at you as it has nice colours. there seem to be quite a lot of words on the front cover so that at first it is partially unclear who the Author is and what the book is called this if what I have found out: In red writing, different from all the others colours id a series of two words which I must depict as the Authors name because Marcus is a first name. I (Sherlock) then moved on to the title that was surrounded by random uplifting and encouraging words like ‘hope’ that had positive connotations <- note key word. I presumed these must have something to do with the character in the book and where they will lead her- *her because I had seen that the person on the front cover had long hair tied back and therefore must be a girl. The Font is wispy and mysterious and I like it because… I just do, it looks nice.

So for first impressions this looks like a good book. Tune in next time for when I will describe what the story in the book is actually like- till next time and goodnight…