Technical Terms in Aristophanes

1927 ◽  
Vol 21 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 113-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. Denniston

Every living science, especially in its early stages, is compelled to devise fresh terms, either by coining new words or by giving new meanings to old ones. Unless and until these fresh terms become absorbed in the vocabulary of everyday speech, their unfamiliarity makes them a target for the shafts of the humourist. There can be no doubt that in the late fifth century B.C. literary criticism (using the expression in its widest sense, to include all methodical investigation of literary technique) was still a new science. We can trace its beginnings in the treatises of the Sophists, many titles of which have been handed down to us. Strepsiades' lesson in metric, though of itself amusing enough, would certainly gain in topical appropriateness if enacted at a time when such investigations were not only much in the air, but were still novel. And the whole ‘Agon’ of the Frogs, the character of which is forecasted in lines 796–802, depicts in the strongest colours the contrasted views of technician and inspirationist. We should therefore naturally expect a play of such a kind, written at such a time, to be full of technical jargon, barely understood by the ‘man in the street,’ and forming the object of his half-contemptuous amusement. That is, I believe, exactly what we do find, to an extent insufficiently recognized. Professor Radermacher, in his recent edition of the Frogs, has rendered valuable service by pointing out the frequent occurrence in that play of technical terms which meet us later in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and other critics. But I believe that technical language lurks unsuspected in many other passages, though the precise meaning may often be beyond recovery.

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Gardner

Words change. We use new words to describe old things, and we put new meanings on old words. Take “beddum and bolstrum” for example. For some of you that phrase might conjure up warm memories of spending the night at grandmother’s house after a day of frolicking with cousins in the meadow, and at bedtime hearing her call from the top of the staircase, “Beddum and bolstrum, kiddies!” . . . or it might not. In fact, beddum ond bolstrum (bedding materials) is made up of old Anglo-Saxon words that haven’t been used much since the late 1000s. Whatever grandma was shouting down the stairs, you must have heard it wrong.


1984 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 8-11

Although the career of Sophocles overlapped in its earlier years with that of Aeschylus and later on with that of Euripides, it is very hard to avoid over-simplifying the development of fifth-century tragedy into a progression from Aeschylus to Sophocles to Euripides. The same simplification is found amongst ancient critics, for whom Sophocles is ‘the middle one’ in ways which go beyond mere chronology. Thus Dio Chrysostom (first/early-second century A.D.) in his comparison of the three tragedians’ versions of the Philoctetes story says of Sophocles that ‘he seems to stand midway between the two others, since he has neither the ruggedness and simplicity of Aeschylus nor the precision and shrewdness and urbanity of Euripides, yet he produces a poetry that is august and majestic (σϵμνήν δέ τινα καί μϵγαλοπρϵπἢ ποίησιν), highly tragic and euphonious in its phrasing, so that there is the fullest pleasure coupled with sublimity and Stateliness (μϵτἁ ὕψους καί σϵμνότητος)’ Approximately a century earlier the critic Dionysius of Halicarnassus also found a ‘middle’ quality in Sophocles’ style: between the ‘austere’ (Pindar, Aeschylus, Thucydides, etc.) and the ‘smooth’ (Sappho, Euripides, Isocrates, etc.) he located the intermediate, ‘well-blended’ (ϵὔκρατος) mode of composition, including Sophocles as well as Homer, Demosthenes, Plato, and others. Of this intermediate style Dionysius says he is at a loss to decide ‘whether it is produced by excluding the extremes or by blending them’; but it is at any rate clear that it is defined principally by reference to what it is not.


Author(s):  
Mary Tiles

One indication of the originality of Bachelard’s work is that he was famous for his writings both in the philosophy of science and on the poetic imagination. His work demonstrates his belief that the life of the masculine, work-day consciousness (animus), striving towards scientific objectivity through reasoning and the rectification of concepts, must be complemented by the life of a nocturnal, feminine consciousness (anima), seeking an expanded poetic subjectivity, as, in reverie, it creates the imaginary. In common with other scientist-philosophers writing in the first half of the twentieth century, Bachelard reflected on the upheavals wrought by the introduction of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. The views at which he arrived were, however, unlike those of his contemporaries; he argued that the new science required a new, non-Cartesian epistemology, one which accommodated discontinuities (epistemological breaks) in the development of science. It was only after he had established himself as one of France’s leading philosophers of science, by succeeding Abel Rey in the chair of history and philosophy of science at the Sorbonne, that Bachelard began to publish works on the poetic imagination. Here his trenchantly anti-theoretical stance was provocative. He rejected the role of literary critic and criticized literary criticism, focusing instead on reading images and on the creative imagination.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
John Skalko ◽  

People can certainly attempt to create new words, convince others that certain words have taken on new meanings, or advocate that new meanings should supplant the older, more common ones. However, the introduction of a new definition does not invalidate a word’s older meaning. Today, many have begun using the word gender in a novel way because they claim that gender is a social construct. This article questions the coherence of that usage with other popularly accepted views about the reality of persons who identify as transgender.


2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-298
Author(s):  
Moshe Nahir

The study of the unprecedented revival of Hebrew in (pre-Israel) Palestine (approx. 1890–1914) has focused on the status of the language, because the revival has been rightly viewed as resulting from status planning. However, corpus planning, or codification, also served as a critical component of the Revival. Though Hebrew had been used for almost two millennia in written form, mainly as a language of religion, codification was needed in several areas — selection and harmonization of pronunciation, unification of spelling, etc. Still, the greatest task was adapting the language lexically to the modern world. Codification went on in Hebrew, in fact, for over a millennium by generations of writers and translators of various types of texts, culminating in the formation of a modern literature, probably the most instrumental factor enabling the Revival. Lexicalization in the Revival itself was partly done by the Hebrew Language Committee, but mostly by individuals. Ben-Yehuda drew words from old texts and created his own as a scholarly activity and to meet his lexical needs as a newspaper publisher and the first Hebrew dictionary compiler. Others included the writer and journalist Ben-Avi and the national poet Bialik, who drew words from earlier texts or created their own only when they needed them. Other individuals coined countless words to meet their communication needs — writers, journalists, educators, translators, publishers, editors, and language-conscious political leaders. Apart from drawing words from old texts with their original or new meanings, methods included: coining new words from old roots; using old, dormant words as different parts of speech; reducing expressions into single words; borrowing; loan translation; popular etymology; adding prefixes, suffixes or infixes to existing words; and merging pairs of words into single ones.


1991 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Boyce

This short article is dedicated to a friend and scholar who has greatly promoted the study of Pahlavi by his masterly work on texts and manuscripts, and, earning thereby the gratitude of all, by his truly admirable Pahlavi dictionary. Pahlavi is a language notorious for the challenges it makes to the lexicographer, not the least of which are to be found in the field of technical religious terms. Since priests, setting down instructions for their fellow-priests, could assume a common basic knowledge of the rituals concerned, they felt evidently no need for a precise or consistent use of terms, but relied on context to make their meaning plain. There was moreover a marked tendency, in written as in spoken usage, to abbreviate common phrases and to deal casually with grammatical forms, while among the Gujarati-speaking Parsis Persian technical terms were sometimes given additional or quite new meanings. A student of religion can hope, therefore, by considering perplexing linguistic usages in the light of observances to contribute a little to the lexicographer's pursuit, a small return for the large debt which all such students owe to the work of philologists


1988 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-213
Author(s):  
John Wansbrough

Use of the term ‘exegesis’ is now so general that scholars in the field of scriptural studies must have sensed an impingement upon their conventional prerogative. If, perhaps, they are justified in so doing, they might none the less be prepared to acknowledge the value of ancillary functions accumulated in its extension into areas beyond its standard application to literature. While it may be that these can be encompassed in the general shift from self-consciously ‘interpretative’ to epistemologically ‘hermeneutic’, it would seem more practical to identify as ‘exegesis’ any and every act of perception. That, of course, is facilitated by the now conventional notion of ‘text’ espoused by most practitioners of structuralism. Whether one equates every datum of perception as somehow ‘textual’ or, conversely, the perception of every text as dependent upon the totality of experience, does not really matter. ‘Exegesis’ is conveniently inclusive and may be thought of general utility in the service of every taste and all analytical techniques. As such, it is ineluctably present in every transaction of the intellect: one observes, hears, reads, and makes the necessary adjustments in aid of understanding. In the very interests of survival, one seldom elects not to understand. It is the ‘necessary adjustments’ that require description, abundantly documented in the textbooks of literary criticism: from the rhetorical ‘naming of parts’ to contemporary discourse analysis. If it seems difficult to add to that vast corpus of technical terms, it is certainly possible to take a stand in respect of their presumptive efficiency.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nguyen Thi Nhan Hoa

Ten aspects of test content in the two listening tests: IELTS and TOEFL iBT are investigated from the perspective of test-takers’ judgment. Main findings reveal that there are both similarities and differences in test takers’ attitudes to the two tests although the similarities outweigh the differences. The most obvious difference is that test takers have a more positive attitude to the IELTS listening test than to the TOEFL iBT listening test and test preparation has a strong effect to test takers’ attitude to the test. In addition, test takers’ positive attitudes to the test are strongly associated with better test performance. Substantial differences of test takers’ attitude to the two listening tests can be seen in their judgment of difficulty level, new words/technical terms and familiarity of topics. Test takers found the IELTS listening test less difficult, having fewer new words and technical terms, and containing more familiar topics than the TOEFL iBT listening test. They also find the test method of the IELTS is less challenging than that of the TOEFL iBT listening test although their choice of the test to take heavily depends on which test they are being prepared for.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (Extra-B) ◽  
pp. 58-63
Author(s):  
Regina Gennadyevna Shamsutdinova ◽  
Ananyeva Svetlana Viktorovna

  In literary criticism, structural and semantic correspondences are established between the author and the reader as elements of aesthetic reality. As a result, another text appears before us, different from the original one. With each new reading, a new edition of the text will appear. In this regard, the question of determining the subjective and objective factors of the reception process becomes important. The tasks set determined the need to refer to a comparative analysis of the poems of Russian and Tatar poets, during which the regularities of the functioning of new meanings emerging in interliterary dialogues are considered. Comparative, hermeneutic and receptive methods of analysis were used in solving the set tasks. As a result of the study, the similarities and differences between the works of V. Bryusov and G. Tukai, dedicated to the topic of the native language, were established, and the peculiarities of perception of the additions of foreign literature by bilingual readers were also identified. The results obtained are significant in the study of the role of the reader as a subject of interliterary dialogues.  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document