h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just finished reading "The Great Vowel Shift" A980624 and I just *knew* you'd have other interesting things to say.

And wow, do you ever have other things to say.

However, I think the strongest point of your other article is missing here: Non-academic academia. In other words, the concepts have not been properly introduced, and the breakdown of the argument is buried in (to most readers) obscure references.

I think a small reorganization where you introduce the idea by using some (very clear) samples (like you did with "Once upon a time," or, "In a galaxy far, far away.") and then breaking-down your argument ahead of time will help get people interested. It won't keep them interested, that requires additional trickery.

There is an interesting idea hidden in the article, you just need to make it more clear. The "Vowel Shift" article had the advantage in this, as most people are at least moderately familiar with the concept of accents, if not a historical background for them, and are eager to learn more. This doesn't mean you should give up! This is an equally interesting phenomenon you are discussing, it just is less easily associated with. Unless you write articles on sex you need to "hook" people with something.

Also, if you could use a smaller set of examples to propel more arguments, it would reduce the overload effect you have created. Again, your article is perfectly fine if it is aimed at upper-level linguistics scholars and professional academics. But, for the more likely audience, some references are obscure or unheard of.

Things you need to help people get their brains around:
1. The study of the "Hero on the Beach" oral-formulaic theme (Can you explain the principle or application a bit more, or more clearly? This is important because your conclusion draws on an understanding of this piece [see 6. below] In fact, I think your whole argument revolves around this.)
2. Andreas 234-47 and Beowulf 562-570a (Assume I have never read either of these. [Good, are they?] Can you give me a frame of reference for these samples and what I'm looking for in your argument?)
3. One example Crowne cites in his article is that which concludes Beowulf's fight with the monsters during his swimming match with Breca (See 2. above. If you hilite a specific line or two in the translation and keep it tight, it won't be overwhelming. Starting the sample in translation first also gets me braced for the original text.)
4. The "Theme" has been "found" in the Finsburh Fragment, the Nibelungenlied, the Hildebrandslied. "The Dream of the Rood," Guthlac, the Phoenix, the alliterative Morte Arthure, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and at least one Icelandic prose saga, the Fóstbrœðra Saga. J. A. Dane, in a radical article, has argued that the "theme" appears in the Iliad. (The Iliad, I've heard of that one. What theme were you talking about though? [I'm just being devil's advocate here, to make the point] )
5. Old High German to less insular traditions such as the Middle English, and finally to more insular traditions such as that of the Icelandic saga (How does insularity factor here? Can you find a better way to phrase this? Since you bring up the terms, a brief history or comparison of differences and how they relate to your argument are key to helping this make sense to a general audience. It also would make a fascinating article of its own. [hint] )
6. Hamlet, Dante, Aeneas, Beowulf, Judith, Guthlac, Moses, or even characters in popular songs may find themselves on beaches (Without the preparation, this could be taken quite literally, losing most people. Moses did find himself on a beach, remember? )

To wrap up, I must say I eagerly anticipate anything else you have to contribute. I think you've cornered the H2G2 market on Language History.

Pie

thank you for your comments. At some point after the distraction of world events ceases I will likely get back to this one and I will certainly sort out the entry in many of the ways you suggest.

(sorry about your brain)

I installed an inline fuse in my noggin, so I will suffer no permanent brain damage .

Real-life does go popping its ugly head up all the time, doesn't it. Well, I look forward to the next contribution you are able to make, whenever the timing is appropriate.

Stay Well!

Actually, I may get a vastly revised version of the Hero on the Beach done tonight. I'm also planning one on the Cluny Earthlodge Village, an unjustly obscure archaeological site in southern Alberta.

thanks againfor your interest

Okay, it's vastly revised. Take a look, if you'd like.

Ooo. I think it makes much more sense. I will need to read it again fresh one more time and I can give you more feedback. Let me know what you think the weak points are, and I will look-out for those things especially. (I know, that sounds weird , but it really helps.)

ttfn

I don't know! I've been living with this for so long, I can't even see it any more. (Perhaps there's a someone-else's-problem field involved here.)

LOL

oh, I've done that other entry I mentioned: A1004969

Hiya! Just read it fresh, and there's little left for me to contribute. I think you got it "nailed-down" enough, but if you want to polish it, here's where I think the effort should focus:

(these are mostly piddly-bits so you know I did read it again)

1. Title and introduction-Consider switching and slightly revising the first and second sentences to tie-in the title with the thesis directly. Tidbits to consider include using caps after colons, and removing "may" from sentence one, which detracts from the point of your article. Also, is "Humanities" a broad enough word to cover Beowulf and other Anglo Saxon works, I though it only covered ancient Greek and Roman texts, possibly "Literature" would be more appropriate?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=humanities
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=literature

I agree with the thought in PR that putting "Scientific Theory in the Humanities (or Literature )" into the title would be better preparation for the uninitiated.

2. The piece, "The theory was originally developed by Milman Parry and his student Albert Lord. The model has led to a breakthrough understanding of the epic poems of Homer which are now seen as being a product of a similar compositional method. The work of Parry and Lord is one of the most elaborate and sucessful demonstrations of the scientific method in the humanities." disrupts your line of thought, it would be less distruptive as the second paragraph after "how it works" subtitle, with the third paragraph then starting, "Those unfamiliar with the model and works composed using such a method may feel that there would be little room for originality."

3. Re: Subtitles in the section "Oral-Formulaic Theory: an overview". What about something like "How it works/Regular discourse is built up of words..." "The Theory/(The theory was originally developed by...)Those unfamiliar with the model..." "Application of theory/Anglo-Saxon(Old English) poetry has been subjected"

4. This one is just a question, where does the "ghost" in the title "A ghost oral-formulaic theme" come in?

5. For reference, stress and clarity, you could break out the list (l) a hero on the beach (2) with his retainers (3) in the presence of a flashing light (4) as a journey is completed (or begun) into an actual line-item list.

6. If you're interested you could use


English verse


Germanic Verse


To make the texts appear in two side-by-side columns.

7. In "Where it went" you might break the first paragraph into lots of little paragraphs, which isn't the best thing in a letter, but in a paper like this, it adds clarity and stress. Breaks at "Scholars also suggested that..." and "Other scholars pursued the theme..." Perhaps even at "Then J. A. Dane" in the second paragraph.

8. At the point "The story of the 'Hero on the Beach'" which is the second-to last paragaph, you begin your conclusion. I think you should consider a title or subtitle break here, something along the lines of "So, should we just give up on this whole Scientific Method thingy?" but in your own words and style.


More Piddly-Bits: (Including the "Great List of Spelling and Grammar Corrections, First Edition")

1. I think you may have an open tag at the end of paragraph 1, it displays crowded against the title "Oral-Formulaic Theory..."

2. In your description of Oral-Formulaic Theory, I keep getting hung up on the use of "Serbian and Croatian" My brain just stalls trying to figure out where the sentence is going. Could just be me, but it happens *every* time, so I bring it up.

3. After the verse from Beowulf, you say (the speaker in the above passage). You could rewrite as "In this passage, Crowne would argue that the speaker, Beowulf, is the hero on the beach..." Two benefits would be more directly tying-in the passage and also avoiding using the parens (which should be reserved for my *exclusive* use).

4. I missed the hour or so that you referred to the Guide in your article, but as an aside, Adams cameos in the Guide miniseries for TV in an appearance on the beach, beginning a journey into the sea (naked, no less). I agree on the comment that references to the Guide don't suit this paper, but I think you should know that Adams was "in on the joke".

5. There was a "This" in the beginning somewhere which should have been "The", but I can't find it. Maybe you fixed it preemptively, to avoid me saying anything.

6. A bunch of other things, aka "The Great List":
A. "What follows is an exciting story which demonstrates that" should have a comma before "which".
B. "The theory was originally developed by Milman Parry and his student Albert Lord" is passive voice, try "Milman Parry and his student Albert Lord originally developed the theory" to avoid that.
C. "poems of Homer which are" also needs a comma before "which".
D. "elaborate and sucessful demonstrations" S-u-c-c-e-s-s-ful. You missed a "c".
E. "built up of words which are" one guess... yep, comma before which.
F. "posits a specialized repetoire of more" repertoire is misspelled.
G. "a comparison to Fairy-tale formulaicism would suggest" formulae or formulas is adequate, "formulaicism" is not in my dictionary.com .
H. "The formulae themeselves are often part of a higher level organization" themselves is misspelled. higher-level, in this case, should be hyphenated.
I. "found incessently in Homer's Iliad" incessantly is misspelled.
J. "but every warrior puts them" would read better with an also, like "but every warrior also puts them".
K. "Saxon(Old English)" needs a space before the paren, the paren which I will allow this time, but only 'cause I'm in a good mood .
L. "old oral-formulaic style which has become" needs the magic comma before "which".
M. "made up wholy of formulae" wholly is misspelled.
N. "Where it Started" and "Where it Stopped" are the only titles with caps after the beginning. Frankly, I like the way this looks better, but you just need to make them all consistent for that "high-end" look your article deserves.
O. "details were a theme the they would show up in other" Uh, something happened to this one. You can sort it out, I'm sure.
P. "successful predictions bagan to" began is misspelled.
Q. "This state of affairs was pointed out in the 1987 meta-analysis 'The Critic on the Beach', by John Richardson who pointed out that virtually any literary character will at some point be in a situation which could be interpreted as fitting the definition of the 'theme.'" It's a poorly-observed no-no to start a sentence with "This or These" try "John Richardson pointed out in the 1987 meta-analysis 'The Critic on the Beach', that virtually any literary character would at some point be in a situation which could be interpreted as fitting the definition of the 'theme.'" to avoid this. You also have some other things in the original sentence to take care of if you don't like this re-wording. In this case, the which *doesn't* need a comma first.

Whew! Bet you thought you'd never get through that one, eh? Again, nicely done article. I *really* like that you aren't afraid to put some actual content into your contributions. Some others are almost "Guide Entry Light" versions of things, and I think you strive for a higher and more admirable intellectual goal. Let me know if you'd like to have my help again (like on A1004969), I'd be glad to if you do!

I look forward to seeing this entry on the front page . Let me know how it goes.

Meanwhile, I think I shall add you to my Friends list *goes off to your user page*

P.S., Sorry if that was too brief!

goodness. thank you. I'll probably not get to this until tonight.

one small point:

around here we use the term "Classics" for Greek and Roman stuff. Humanities is a sort of catch-all term for everything that isn't "Science". I realize that Humanities also has the stricter meaning of Greek and Roman. "Literature" really isn't what I'm looking for here as part of the point is that the method is used everywhere. Also, based on the dictionaries I've consulted, it looks like the restriction of "humanities" to the classics is becoming what will be called archaic. My Websters from the 30's already refers to that meaning as somewhat secondary (although it describes the humanities as "the subjects of polite learning"). Anyway, I'll get to the rest later.

and according to the links you provided, here's what humanities means:

"n : studies intended to provide general knowledge and intellectual skills (rather than occupational or professional skills); "the college of arts and sciences" [syn: humanistic discipline, liberal arts, arts]"

Actually, there's a lot more about my definition than about the old restrictive one of just "the classics".

okay, here goes:

mostly piddly-bits.

1.Title and introduction - I've considered your suggestion and rejected it.(please understand the word "respectfully" preceding the word "rejected" in all occurrances in this post.)
I'm not using caps after colons; it's just not right.
I'm not removing "may" because I consider myself to be a scientist and I do not have a problem with etc. I'm sure there are others like me.
I've made my feelings clear elsewhere about "humanities".
I like my title.

2.I have revised the bit in question but have not moved it. This revision also addresses your concern in "more piddley bits", 2.

3.I have rearranged the section in question but have not added subheaders.

4.The ghost has been exorcised.

5.The list is in Crowne's words. I can't break it out and keep it as a quote and I want to keep it as a quote.

6.See 5, above.

7.I can't break up the paragraph. Sorry. It just doesn't work. I also don't think another subheader is necessary.

8.I have added a header. It has no style.

More piddly-bits

1.In fact, I did. It is remedied.

2.see mostly piddly-bits, 2, above.

3.I'm fond of parentheses.

4.I'm sorry you missed the reference. The relevant passage is now on my Personal Space.

5.Apparently already solved.

6. The Great List

A. no, it shouldn't.

B. to paraphrase Tom Stoppard: screw the whale; save the passive. There are rhetorical considerations other than simply maintaining powerful active constructions (a comma is not needed between "powerful" and "active"; the construction is active and it is the active construction as a unit which is powerful [a comma is not needed between unit and which and I won't say why]). The theory is the focus, not Parry and Lord.

C.You are correct.

D.and again.

E.another one for you.

F.you're on a roll.

G.get a new dictionary.

H."G" was the necessary exception.

I.Oh, yes . . .

J.Okay. (you know this is just a made up example. Homer's heroes don't really put their greaves on like this.)

K.Yes.

L.A comma was not required, but I've revised the sentence anyway.

M.Yes.

N.Okay.

O.it's amazing what a little "n" can do for the meaning.

P.Yes.

Q.I disagree. The no-no with the word "this" is it's use without definite antecedent. There is no good reason (apart from pedantry [which is no good reason]) to avoid completely the use of the word "this" as the beginning of a sentence if it is properly antecedanted, as it is in this case.



There.

You mention: "I think you strive for a higher and more admirable
intellectual goal." No. This is a hobby. I have my real stuff published in scholarly journals. Over that I slave quite strenuously; over guide entries I have fun, usually just working from memory. But thank you.

Indeed, all my suggestions are just that, suggestions. I believed you to wanted to be aware of the possiblities and then to reject them individually, rather than to possibly be ignorant of the situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there it is.

I am complimented by you considering my suggestions , and there is then no insult in their rejection. I am not as leathery as some editors, but I can apply an SEP field to the results and immediately forget them!

Since your writing is strong, and you have more than an average grip on language, I gave many small suggestions and also intended no insult.

As I and others have said, the article is very good. I suspected you wrote academic papers by your writing style, so I emphasized areas which I thought might improve the popularity of the paper, I have no question about your accuracy.

...and I'm glad that you don't add contributions professionally to h2g2, they don't pay so it would quickly end in poverty for you.

Pie

and, believe me, I appreciate the detail of your suggestions (and I'm glad you took no offense where, certainly and indeed, none was intended). I, too, enjoy parentheses (and commas).

(and I [being adept at language (as a student of English)] understand (that is to say, "Am converted on") your point on Literature v. Humanities)

When feeling archaic (which is most of the time) I like to think of myself as a philologist.