BF2S Forums D&ST - Science

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

jay shut up and drop the attitude when you are clearly completely in the dark about things (as per usual)

i enjoy your ignorance more when you're making entertaining hegelian commentaries out of it

Enlighten me uzique, what does research by an English department consist of?

http://lmgtfy.com/

why should i have to answer your pig ignorance? but yeah you're right prestigious universities worldwide have these english departments dedicated 24/7 to finding rare books and investigating just what that darned semi-colon is all about. here's a hint: if i know vast amounts more about hegel than you, and have written research papers on hegelian dialectics, perhaps i'm not only trying to find obscure manuscripts in dusty libraries, like some 50 year old antique dealer.

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

jay shut up and drop the attitude when you are clearly completely in the dark about things (as per usual)

i enjoy your ignorance more when you're making entertaining hegelian commentaries out of it

Enlighten me uzique, what does research by an English department consist of?

http://lmgtfy.com/

why should i have to answer your pig ignorance? but yeah you're right prestigious universities worldwide have these english departments dedicated 24/7 to finding rare books and investigating just what that darned semi-colon is all about. here's a hint: if i know vast amounts more about hegel than you, and have written research papers on hegelian dialectics, perhaps i'm not only trying to find obscure manuscripts in dusty libraries, like some 50 year old antique dealer.

Why do you constantly bring up one post? Are you Macbeth? Have I gotten under your skin to so great an extent that you feel the need to try to shut me up by bringing up one post I've made here in over two years? Lol. Next you're going to start calling me galt.

Look, it's obvious you don't have an answer to give here. You don't know. So, you're trying to be a dick to cover up your ignorance. Typical uzique. Good show.

i also like how you're trying to subtly mock the academic rigour and demands of english departments worldwide when you graduated from a completely non-academic college, experienced a completely non-academic, non-research intensive degree, and have approx. 0 hours experience of any academic teaching. you're doing really really well, galt, don't worry. keep buying those amazon 'guides to' philosophy and pontificating here in d&st. that's all being intellectual takes! all these proper departments with their research standards and principles and fields and disciplines... what a load of hogwash just to try and get to the bottom of the comma conundrum!

Jay wrote:

Look, it's obvious you don't have an answer to give here. You don't know. So, you're trying to be a dick to cover up your ignorance. Typical uzique. Good show.

i don't know? seeing as you're incapable of using google to look at the academic department website of ANY english department WORLDWIDE (surely this is a testament to your own research capabilities, young jedi!), here's a list of successfully completed research projects conducted by students at an english department for a college near you:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/post … warded.htm

as you can tell by this small and by no means exhaustive list of research topics, you can see that the average english researcher is pretty much using a cross-disciplinary approach to explore issues from all areas: from maths/logic, to philosophy, to history, to sociology, to politics, to economics, to psychology, and beyond. often merging many disciplines. literature itself is merely a device or a prism from which to conduct this research: you simply anchor your thought in an author, or a book, or a literary concept. i know this may be really really hard for you to understand, but please do try. i know you struggle with this high-minded academic stuff-- and that's okay. but there's no need to be pig-ignorant, or to insinuate that english departments worldwide don't do anything demanding. i know it makes you feel incredibly small and uncomfortable to know that there are people out there of greater intelligence than you, reading longer, much more complicated books... i know, i know this hurts you. with your proudly-assembled bookshelf of textbooks at home and your popular science and popular history non-fiction sections. i know you like to think you've reached the intellectual apex thanks to your well-honed socratic dialogues here on d&st... the gruelling demands of the back-and-forth here are enough to exercise any mind into pristine form, i agree. but so it is, jay: english departments exist, and they do real academic research, and it is completely above your understanding. i'm sure we can all find a way to carry on living after acknowledging this little inconvenient truth. i'm always here for a PM conversation if you feel as though you need some help accepting this knowledge.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-15 07:46:49)

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i also like how you're trying to subtly mock the academic rigour and demands of english departments worldwide when you graduated from a completely non-academic college, experienced a completely non-academic, non-research intensive degree, and have approx. 0 hours experience of any academic teaching. you're doing really really well, galt, don't worry. keep buying those amazon 'guides to' philosophy and pontificating here in d&st. that's all being intellectual takes! all these proper departments with their research standards and principles and fields and disciplines... what a load of hogwash just to try and get to the bottom of the comma conundrum!

You've got some serious self esteem issues.

i've got self-esteem issues? read the tone of your posts for the last 2 pages. we were having a completely ordinary discussion until you dived in with SO WHAT WORK ACTUALLY DO ENGLISH DEPARTMENTS DO? THINK ABOUT THE COMMA? DO YOU GET GRADED HIGH FOR INVENTING A NEW PHRASE? and i have self-esteem issues? no jay, no. that's very bad psychiatry by you, there! if i had self-esteem issues, i'd be the one asking the scientists here discussing the higgs-boson: "so what actual work do you science researchers do? lol!!!". but that's you assuming that role, isn't it? poor baby.

Uzique, if you had the confidence that you profess to possess you wouldn't get all worked up and defensive at the mere hint of a slight.

I was genuinely curious because I can't for the life of me think of anything an English department could do for research. English as a language isn't that old. It's origins are known. The only thing I could come up with was chasing down obscure writers from the days before Guttenberg. You're in a science thread waxing poetic about English research and I was just trying to understand how it's comparable.

as i said in my very first post in response to you, english departments are not linguistics departments.

lol. you really are something.

and how was i "waxing poetic" about english research? i was saying that all pure-academic research nowadays has an onus to tick a newly-established 'relevancy' column in their proposals. it's what happens in a recession. it is what has brought politicians to start talking about "entrepreneurial" science. how am i waxing lyrical? seems you're being a little over-sensitive here.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-15 07:53:49)

Uzique wrote:

as i said in my very first post in response to you, english departments are not linguistics departments.

lol. you really are something.

and how was i "waxing poetic" about english research? i was saying that all pure-academic research nowadays has an onus to tick a newly-established 'relevancy' column in their proposals. it's what happens in a recession. it has what made politicians start talking about "entrepreneurial" science. how am i waxing lyrical? seems you're being a little over-sensitive here.

Hardly sensitive, I couldn't care less. As far as relevancy, well, every other department has the ability to turn their research into some form of popular presentation. History research can be turned into a history book for publishing, science research can too. English research can not. No one wants to read someones reinterpretation of what Chaucers Wife of Bath means except other English graduate degree holders. It's masturbation.

lol. you make so many wrong assumptions it's hilarious. yeah language departments at places like MIT closed as soon as they figured out just where the english language came from. that was, after all, the only pressing question relevant in the entire field of study. i also love how you keep dropping "popular non-fiction" knowledge, as some way of qualifying that you know all-so-much about this stuff, too... like mentioning gutenberg, and now going onn about "germanic via the norse" rootes. lol. because it's all totally wrong, too. language departments (or more properly named, philology departments) actually class the root of the english language (in its speech syntax and etymological roots) in the indo-aryan area of study. not "germanic via norse". but it's cute that whilst displaying yet more pig ignorance, you can fumble your popular-fiction facts too!

Uzique wrote:

lol. you make so many wrong assumptions it's hilarious. yeah language departments at places like MIT closed as soon as they figured out just where the english language came from. that was, after all, the only pressing question relevant in the entire field of study. i also love how you keep dropping "popular non-fiction" knowledge, as some way of qualifying that you know all-so-much about this stuff, too... like mentioning gutenberg, and now going onn about "germanic via the norse" rootes. lol. because it's all totally wrong, too. language departments (or more properly named, philology departments) actually class the root of the english language (in its speech syntax and etymological roots) in the indo-aryan area of study. not "germanic via norse". but it's cute that whilst displaying yet more pig ignorance, you can fumble your popular-fiction facts too!

Oh, so the English language was not handed down from the Danish invaders? It flew like a bird across the European continent and settled itself down there independent of the rest of the continent? Funny, because all European languages are indo-aryan at root except Hungarian and Finnish.

I know a guy doing a linguistics degree. He can speak Spanish, English, French, Italian, and Portuguese. He's struggling to learn German while also studying. In one of my classes we touched briefly upon language death and cultural meaning. Pretty interesting stuff really.

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lol. you make so many wrong assumptions it's hilarious. yeah language departments at places like MIT closed as soon as they figured out just where the english language came from. that was, after all, the only pressing question relevant in the entire field of study. i also love how you keep dropping "popular non-fiction" knowledge, as some way of qualifying that you know all-so-much about this stuff, too... like mentioning gutenberg, and now going onn about "germanic via the norse" rootes. lol. because it's all totally wrong, too. language departments (or more properly named, philology departments) actually class the root of the english language (in its speech syntax and etymological roots) in the indo-aryan area of study. not "germanic via norse". but it's cute that whilst displaying yet more pig ignorance, you can fumble your popular-fiction facts too!

Oh, so the English language was not handed down from the Danish invaders? It flew like a bird across the European continent and settled itself down there independent of the rest of the continent? Funny, because all European languages are indo-aryan at root except Hungarian and Finnish.

I've always thought English was the combination of French, from when the Franks invaded Britain, and Germanic (for the most part). That is why the majority of English is a combination of the two. For example, the word construction is pronounced the same way in french, except for the "SH" part. The "sh" is a german impression left on the word.

I preferred Beijing when it was called Peking.

Kmar wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lol. you make so many wrong assumptions it's hilarious. yeah language departments at places like MIT closed as soon as they figured out just where the english language came from. that was, after all, the only pressing question relevant in the entire field of study. i also love how you keep dropping "popular non-fiction" knowledge, as some way of qualifying that you know all-so-much about this stuff, too... like mentioning gutenberg, and now going onn about "germanic via the norse" rootes. lol. because it's all totally wrong, too. language departments (or more properly named, philology departments) actually class the root of the english language (in its speech syntax and etymological roots) in the indo-aryan area of study. not "germanic via norse". but it's cute that whilst displaying yet more pig ignorance, you can fumble your popular-fiction facts too!

Oh, so the English language was not handed down from the Danish invaders? It flew like a bird across the European continent and settled itself down there independent of the rest of the continent? Funny, because all European languages are indo-aryan at root except Hungarian and Finnish.

I've always thought English was the combination of French, from when the Franks invaded Britain, and Germanic (for the most part). That is why the majority of English is a combination of the two. For example, the word construction is pronounced the same way in french, except for the "SH" part. The "sh" is a german impression left on the word.

the point was that philology and linguistics departments research and study language at all stages of its development - as much of our basic word construction and lingual structure comes from indo-aryan roots as from german and french. where does it get you in research to say "english is an almalgamation of several northern and gallic tongues? well, where do they come from? basic units of speech like the phoneme cannot be understood by just looking at a french dictionary. you guys are presenting an incredibly short-sighted view of what linguistics research entails-- it's a science, ffs. it's like saying "well we know the basic structure of the atom, that's that then". uuuum, you have to trace these things back to their philological/etymological root. anyway...