4225 Studying Latin
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 10:28:17 -0400
From: Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net>
Subject: [Tango-L] Studying Latin
Listeros,
I've been watching the ins and outs of this list for a little while and
am a novice, but there seems to be something that a lot of folks are
missing. An anecdote will help set the stage.
A buddy of mine was getting his Ph. D. in Medieval Studies and applied
then was accepted for studying Latin in the Vatican with a certain
Brother Reginald. Brother Reginald had (and hopefully still has) the
distinction of being about the only person fluent in Latin alive. He is
the one who used to proofread the Pope's encyclicals, for instance. So,
my buddy is in class with a variety of clergy and a few other scholars
and they begin with Brother Reginald asking what they know about grammar
and in particular, verbs. The class dutifully spews forth conjugations,
exceptions, rules of thumb &c., &c., and it is clear with each
revelation that the good Brother is hearing anything but what he wants.
Finally in total exasperation he looks at them and says "any wino in
Rome could speak Latin, why are you making it so hard?!" He then
proceeds to give a small handful of rules and in about 10 minutes my
friend recounts that every question he ever had about verbs was
answered. [No I don't speak Latin so I don't know what he did.]
The point here is that no matter how technical the dance is, what the
embrace is or steps are, it remains something that has to be done real
time by people who are not "experts". Tango was, as I understand it,
done by common folk and was later adopted by the upper classes.
Effectively I think that they just move to the music within certain
stylistic constraints. Various styles are adaptations of movement for
specific purposes and tastes, that is all. You can pretty much find
someone in BA who does your variation of tango and all that means is
that it is as authentic as the next guy's. The trick is how to teach
some system of movement. Teachers tend to teach what they do (as they
should since it just makes the most sense to them). I suggest the
following approach from my other endeavors: Each teacher is showing you
how they grappled with the issues and resolved them for themselves --
that's where the gold is. As such the benefit of study is not just
steps/figures what have you, but how to approach adapting the dance for
you. A great teacher would be one who could emulate other experts (not
parody) and explain why she/he does it that way.
Most of the recent arguments so far I have seen strike me as people who
are stuck on the plateau between having learned it to more than
technical proficiency and are on the verge of customizing it. It works
so well for them they don't see why everyone doesn't just do it their
way. This is no reason for a flame war and while I understand the
enthusiasm, there is no reason to choke up people's email queues with
this, is there? I've been doing various sports for years and I'm quite
sure I can do stuff that would make most of you burst into flames. I
also realize there was a heck of a lot of hard work that went into it
and it is my prerogative to do it that way. Denigrating you for being
unable to follow my lead would be manifestly unfair now, wouldn't it?
You all pretty much agree, but -- and this is crucial -- you'd shrug it
off because you have no ego investment there. In the case of tango
people seem to identify with it so closely that any discussion is seen
as an ad hominem attack and is answered in kind. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Practicing something for years makes it natural and intuitively obvious.
Accept that other people have practiced other things to this level and
therefore have a slightly different set of what is natural.
Since there is a great deal of technical complexity involved (close
embrace and open embrace are different dances, at least from a
mechanical perspective), this is yet another area people can have a
shouting match without resolving anything. From my perspective as a
beginner, I want to get one approach down (CE these days) before trying
for another. This does not mean I am a fanatic or am being willfully
mislead but the Evil Close Embrace Cadre (ECEC), but I'm just stumbling
along as best I can. Do not ascribe to malice what is easier ascribed to
haplessness.
Oh, don't forget what Churchill said: A person who can neither change
the topic nor his mind is a fanatic.
Cheers,
Jeff
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 13:49:20 -0600
From: "David Hodgson" <DHodgson@Tango777.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Studying Latin
Thank you Jeff;
Nicely written.
David~
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:28 AM
To: Tango-L
Subject: [Tango-L] Studying Latin
Listeros,
I've been watching the ins and outs of this list for a little while and
am a novice, but there seems to be something that a lot of folks are
missing. An anecdote will help set the stage.
A buddy of mine was getting his Ph. D. in Medieval Studies and applied
then was accepted for studying Latin in the Vatican with a certain
Brother Reginald. Brother Reginald had (and hopefully still has) the
distinction of being about the only person fluent in Latin alive. He is
the one who used to proofread the Pope's encyclicals, for instance. So,
my buddy is in class with a variety of clergy and a few other scholars
and they begin with Brother Reginald asking what they know about grammar
and in particular, verbs. The class dutifully spews forth conjugations,
exceptions, rules of thumb &c., &c., and it is clear with each
revelation that the good Brother is hearing anything but what he wants.
Finally in total exasperation he looks at them and says "any wino in
Rome could speak Latin, why are you making it so hard?!" He then
proceeds to give a small handful of rules and in about 10 minutes my
friend recounts that every question he ever had about verbs was
answered. [No I don't speak Latin so I don't know what he did.]
The point here is that no matter how technical the dance is, what the
embrace is or steps are, it remains something that has to be done real
time by people who are not "experts". Tango was, as I understand it,
done by common folk and was later adopted by the upper classes.
Effectively I think that they just move to the music within certain
stylistic constraints. Various styles are adaptations of movement for
specific purposes and tastes, that is all. You can pretty much find
someone in BA who does your variation of tango and all that means is
that it is as authentic as the next guy's. The trick is how to teach
some system of movement. Teachers tend to teach what they do (as they
should since it just makes the most sense to them). I suggest the
following approach from my other endeavors: Each teacher is showing you
how they grappled with the issues and resolved them for themselves --
that's where the gold is. As such the benefit of study is not just
steps/figures what have you, but how to approach adapting the dance for
you. A great teacher would be one who could emulate other experts (not
parody) and explain why she/he does it that way.
Most of the recent arguments so far I have seen strike me as people who
are stuck on the plateau between having learned it to more than
technical proficiency and are on the verge of customizing it. It works
so well for them they don't see why everyone doesn't just do it their
way. This is no reason for a flame war and while I understand the
enthusiasm, there is no reason to choke up people's email queues with
this, is there? I've been doing various sports for years and I'm quite
sure I can do stuff that would make most of you burst into flames. I
also realize there was a heck of a lot of hard work that went into it
and it is my prerogative to do it that way. Denigrating you for being
unable to follow my lead would be manifestly unfair now, wouldn't it?
You all pretty much agree, but -- and this is crucial -- you'd shrug it
off because you have no ego investment there. In the case of tango
people seem to identify with it so closely that any discussion is seen
as an ad hominem attack and is answered in kind. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Practicing something for years makes it natural and intuitively obvious.
Accept that other people have practiced other things to this level and
therefore have a slightly different set of what is natural.
Since there is a great deal of technical complexity involved (close
embrace and open embrace are different dances, at least from a
mechanical perspective), this is yet another area people can have a
shouting match without resolving anything. From my perspective as a
beginner, I want to get one approach down (CE these days) before trying
for another. This does not mean I am a fanatic or am being willfully
mislead but the Evil Close Embrace Cadre (ECEC), but I'm just stumbling
along as best I can. Do not ascribe to malice what is easier ascribed to
haplessness.
Oh, don't forget what Churchill said: A person who can neither change
the topic nor his mind is a fanatic.
Cheers,
Jeff
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:27:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: Lucia <curvasreales@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Studying Latin - Faulty Logic
The point from the Vatican story, as understood by Jeff, is that complex problems could be resolved by applying a few rules. This is true, arguably, most of the times, but ignores the enormous underlying research and analysis that went into defining each rule. Nohing new here, think exact sciences...
If Jeff tries, unconvincingly, to apply the rule concept to tango, he cannot follow up on the concept, simply because Tango has a social life that cannot be summed up in a few rules.
We are witnessing, in the current discussion threads on Tango, attempts by proponents of different styles, to hammer-out their only Rules, put them on their own Pedestal, pray to them and proclaim them them as the only God. Hence the religious wars. Human, all too Human...
The probable cause for this mentality is our monotheitic society... Wouldn't it be better to create a tango mythology with many small Gods, and Nymphs, living in harmony?
Lucia ;-)
following up
, the complexity could be resolved by aplying a few rules. This is ignoring the underlying research and analysis in order to reach that rule.
Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net> escribi?: Listeros,
I've been watching the ins and outs of this list for a little while and
am a novice, but there seems to be something that a lot of folks are
missing. An anecdote will help set the stage.
A buddy of mine was getting his Ph. D. in Medieval Studies and applied
then was accepted for studying Latin in the Vatican with a certain
Brother Reginald. Brother Reginald had (and hopefully still has) the
distinction of being about the only person fluent in Latin alive. He is
the one who used to proofread the Pope's encyclicals, for instance. So,
my buddy is in class with a variety of clergy and a few other scholars
and they begin with Brother Reginald asking what they know about grammar
and in particular, verbs. The class dutifully spews forth conjugations,
exceptions, rules of thumb &c., &c., and it is clear with each
revelation that the good Brother is hearing anything but what he wants.
Finally in total exasperation he looks at them and says "any wino in
Rome could speak Latin, why are you making it so hard?!" He then
proceeds to give a small handful of rules and in about 10 minutes my
friend recounts that every question he ever had about verbs was
answered. [No I don't speak Latin so I don't know what he did.]
The point here is that no matter how technical the dance is, what the
embrace is or steps are, it remains something that has to be done real
time by people who are not "experts". Tango was, as I understand it,
done by common folk and was later adopted by the upper classes.
Effectively I think that they just move to the music within certain
stylistic constraints. Various styles are adaptations of movement for
specific purposes and tastes, that is all. You can pretty much find
someone in BA who does your variation of tango and all that means is
that it is as authentic as the next guy's. The trick is how to teach
some system of movement. Teachers tend to teach what they do (as they
should since it just makes the most sense to them). I suggest the
following approach from my other endeavors: Each teacher is showing you
how they grappled with the issues and resolved them for themselves --
that's where the gold is. As such the benefit of study is not just
steps/figures what have you, but how to approach adapting the dance for
you. A great teacher would be one who could emulate other experts (not
parody) and explain why she/he does it that way.
Most of the recent arguments so far I have seen strike me as people who
are stuck on the plateau between having learned it to more than
technical proficiency and are on the verge of customizing it. It works
so well for them they don't see why everyone doesn't just do it their
way. This is no reason for a flame war and while I understand the
enthusiasm, there is no reason to choke up people's email queues with
this, is there? I've been doing various sports for years and I'm quite
sure I can do stuff that would make most of you burst into flames. I
also realize there was a heck of a lot of hard work that went into it
and it is my prerogative to do it that way. Denigrating you for being
unable to follow my lead would be manifestly unfair now, wouldn't it?
You all pretty much agree, but -- and this is crucial -- you'd shrug it
off because you have no ego investment there. In the case of tango
people seem to identify with it so closely that any discussion is seen
as an ad hominem attack and is answered in kind. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Practicing something for years makes it natural and intuitively obvious.
Accept that other people have practiced other things to this level and
therefore have a slightly different set of what is natural.
Since there is a great deal of technical complexity involved (close
embrace and open embrace are different dances, at least from a
mechanical perspective), this is yet another area people can have a
shouting match without resolving anything. From my perspective as a
beginner, I want to get one approach down (CE these days) before trying
for another. This does not mean I am a fanatic or am being willfully
mislead but the Evil Close Embrace Cadre (ECEC), but I'm just stumbling
along as best I can. Do not ascribe to malice what is easier ascribed to
haplessness.
Oh, don't forget what Churchill said: A person who can neither change
the topic nor his mind is a fanatic.
Cheers,
Jeff
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ?gratis!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 11:31:50 -0400
From: Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Studying Latin - Faulty Logic
Cc: Tango-L <tango-l@mit.edu>
Lucia wrote:
> The point from the Vatican story, as understood by Jeff, is that
> complex problems could be resolved by applying a few rules.
>
Wrong. The point of the story is that people attempt to formulate
systems that are too complex. In the case of Latin there are formidable
theories about how it functions that simply preclude ever using it in
anything approaching real time. Languages must be speakable or they
aren't languages and Brother Reginald's quip about winos really does hit
the nail on the head. If people do something (dance, talk, play music,
etc.) on a routine basis then every part of the analysis should come
from the perspective of making it fit within a real-time framework. Much
analysis fails on this account and the results are simply theoretical
artifices.
> This is true, arguably, most of the times, but ignores the enormous
> underlying research and analysis that went into defining each rule.
> Nohing new here, think exact sciences...
Another way of looking at the problem is to listen to a bunch of dog
owners. They'll argue forever about breeds and their merits but the
basic point is that a dachshund is every bit as much of a dog as a
mastiff. The dogs don't care one way or another and the problem is the
people's attempt at analysis -- you probably can't come up with a
rigorous definition of a dog in the first place so you are always doomed
to argue over the details. Seems to me this is part of the problem with
these arguments on the list, right? My post, I hoped, was to make a plea
that everyone is trying to understand it the way that works best for them.
> If Jeff tries, unconvincingly, to apply the rule concept to tango,
> he cannot follow up on the concept, simply because Tango has a social
> life that cannot be summed up in a few rules.
>
Taken in conjunction with my above statements, much of the discussion on
the list is arguing about the systems involved. A better approach I
suspect (this is possibly my naive beginner mind at work) to think of
tango as being a style of movement and there being a range of acceptable
motions to achieve it. This would be something your average stevedore
could do on a Friday night while slightly drunk. :-) Believe me he's
not thinking about his stylistic purity or some intricate system of
footwork. He's navigating, keeping a connection and playing footsie with
his partner.
>
> We are witnessing, in the current discussion threads on Tango,
> attempts by proponents of different styles, to hammer-out their only
> Rules, put them on their own Pedestal, pray to them and proclaim
> them them as the only God. Hence the religious wars. Human, all too
> Human...
>
> The probable cause for this mentality is our monotheitic society...
> Wouldn't it be better to create a tango mythology with many small
> Gods, and Nymphs, living in harmony?
>
Hmmmm... one of the cornerstones of Hindu belief is that of polytheism.
As it was explained to me, the central idea is that people do not
worship God but are only able to worship what they can conceive to be
God. If you really think a rock is a deity then that is where you are in
your thinking, at least for now. Therefore, one should be allowed to do
as one pleases tempered with the sympathy that everyone is doing the
best they can with what they have. We should strive for that, shouldn't
we? We don't need more small Gods. Heck, I think we have enough on the
list already! We need people who are fallible and realize they are in
the same boat trying to explore.
>
>
>
Jeff
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:50:53 EDT
From: Mallpasso@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Studying Latin - Faulty Logic
In a message dated 5/5/2006 08:07:39 Pacific Daylight Time,
curvasreales@yahoo.com.ar writes:
The point from the Vatican story, as understood by Jeff, is that complex
problems could be resolved by applying a few rules. This is true, arguably,
most of the times, but ignores the enormous underlying research and analysis
that went into defining each rule. Nohing new here, think exact sciences...
If Jeff tries, unconvincingly, to apply the rule concept to tango, he
cannot follow up on the concept, simply because Tango has a social life that
cannot be summed up in a few rules.
We are witnessing, in the current discussion threads on Tango, attempts by
proponents of different styles, to hammer-out their only Rules, put them on
their own Pedestal, pray to them and proclaim them them as the only God.
Hence the religious wars. Human, all too Human...
The probable cause for this mentality is our monotheitic society...
Wouldn't it be better to create a tango mythology with many small Gods, and
Nymphs, living in harmony?
Lucia ;-)
How about godesses, like the pagans, Lucia? Gotta have them to balance the
ying and the yang... ;-)
El Bandido de Tango
following up
, the complexity could be resolved by aplying a few rules. This is
ignoring the underlying research and analysis in order to reach that rule.
Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net> escribi?: Listeros,
I've been watching the ins and outs of this list for a little while and
am a novice, but there seems to be something that a lot of folks are
missing. An anecdote will help set the stage.
A buddy of mine was getting his Ph. D. in Medieval Studies and applied
then was accepted for studying Latin in the Vatican with a certain
Brother Reginald. Brother Reginald had (and hopefully still has) the
distinction of being about the only person fluent in Latin alive. He is
the one who used to proofread the Pope's encyclicals, for instance. So,
my buddy is in class with a variety of clergy and a few other scholars
and they begin with Brother Reginald asking what they know about grammar
and in particular, verbs. The class dutifully spews forth conjugations,
exceptions, rules of thumb &c., &c., and it is clear with each
revelation that the good Brother is hearing anything but what he wants.
Finally in total exasperation he looks at them and says "any wino in
Rome could speak Latin, why are you making it so hard?!" He then
proceeds to give a small handful of rules and in about 10 minutes my
friend recounts that every question he ever had about verbs was
answered. [No I don't speak Latin so I don't know what he did.]
The point here is that no matter how technical the dance is, what the
embrace is or steps are, it remains something that has to be done real
time by people who are not "experts". Tango was, as I understand it,
done by common folk and was later adopted by the upper classes.
Effectively I think that they just move to the music within certain
stylistic constraints. Various styles are adaptations of movement for
specific purposes and tastes, that is all. You can pretty much find
someone in BA who does your variation of tango and all that means is
that it is as authentic as the next guy's. The trick is how to teach
some system of movement. Teachers tend to teach what they do (as they
should since it just makes the most sense to them). I suggest the
following approach from my other endeavors: Each teacher is showing you
how they grappled with the issues and resolved them for themselves --
that's where the gold is. As such the benefit of study is not just
steps/figures what have you, but how to approach adapting the dance for
you. A great teacher would be one who could emulate other experts (not
parody) and explain why she/he does it that way.
Most of the recent arguments so far I have seen strike me as people who
are stuck on the plateau between having learned it to more than
technical proficiency and are on the verge of customizing it. It works
so well for them they don't see why everyone doesn't just do it their
way. This is no reason for a flame war and while I understand the
enthusiasm, there is no reason to choke up people's email queues with
this, is there? I've been doing various sports for years and I'm quite
sure I can do stuff that would make most of you burst into flames. I
also realize there was a heck of a lot of hard work that went into it
and it is my prerogative to do it that way. Denigrating you for being
unable to follow my lead would be manifestly unfair now, wouldn't it?
You all pretty much agree, but -- and this is crucial -- you'd shrug it
off because you have no ego investment there. In the case of tango
people seem to identify with it so closely that any discussion is seen
as an ad hominem attack and is answered in kind. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Practicing something for years makes it natural and intuitively obvious.
Accept that other people have practiced other things to this level and
therefore have a slightly different set of what is natural.
Since there is a great deal of technical complexity involved (close
embrace and open embrace are different dances, at least from a
mechanical perspective), this is yet another area people can have a
shouting match without resolving anything. From my perspective as a
beginner, I want to get one approach down (CE these days) before trying
for another. This does not mean I am a fanatic or am being willfully
mislead but the Evil Close Embrace Cadre (ECEC), but I'm just stumbling
along as best I can. Do not ascribe to malice what is easier ascribed to
haplessness.
Oh, don't forget what Churchill said: A person who can neither change
the topic nor his mind is a fanatic.
Cheers,
Jeff
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ?gratis!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:14:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: Lucia <curvasreales@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Studying Latin - Faulty Logic
Jeff:
Comments included in the text:
Jeff Gaynor <jgaynor@jqhome.net> escribi?: Lucia wrote:
>The point from the Vatican story, as understood by Jeff, is that complex problems could be resolved by applying a few rules.
>
Wrong. The point of the story is that people attempt to formulate
systems that are too complex.
>> Lucia: Wrong. People create first complex models which then try to reduce by applying formulae. Think Aristotle as the first observer of nature, followed by Linnaeus followed by modern science.<<
In the case of Latin there are formidable
theories about how it functions that simply preclude ever using it in
anything approaching real time. Languages must be speakable or they
aren't languages and Brother Reginald's quip about winos really does hit
the nail on the head.
>> Lucia: Spoken, vulgar Latin was a collection of dialects of the written classical one, and it has been lost. No one knows how either one was spoken, how it sounded. But I bet the Roman dancers of yore cursed each other in vulgar - things didn't change, did they??<<
If people do something (dance, talk, play music,
etc.) on a routine basis then every part of the analysis should come
from the perspective of making it fit within a real-time framework. Much
analysis fails on this account and the results are simply theoretical
artifices.
>> Lucia: We have probably a different understanding of the term !real-time!. How do you envision Einstein's work in the world of 1905?<<
> This is true, arguably, most of the times, but ignores the enormous underlying research and analysis that went into defining each rule. Nohing new here, think exact sciences...
>
Another way of looking at the problem is to listen to a bunch of dog
owners. They'll argue forever about breeds and their merits but the
basic point is that a dachshund is every bit as much of a dog as a
mastiff. The dogs don't care one way or another and the problem is the
people's attempt at analysis -- you probably can't come up with a
rigorous definition of a dog in the first place so you are always doomed
to argue over the details. Seems to me this is part of the problem with
these arguments on the list, right? My post, I hoped, was to make a plea
that everyone is trying to understand it the way that works best for them.
>>Lucia: As a dog owner all my life, I can assure you that there are enormous differences between the breeds. My current King Charles watches me through mirrors, and only pees in groves in the pavement :-)<<
> If Jeff tries, unconvincingly, to apply the rule concept to tango, he cannot follow up on the concept, simply because Tango has a social life that cannot be summed up in a few rules.
>
>
Taken in conjunction with my above statements, much of the discussion on
the list is arguing about the systems involved. A better approach I
suspect (this is possibly my naive beginner mind at work) to think of
tango as being a style of movement and there being a range of acceptable
motions to achieve it. This would be something your average stevedore
could do on a Friday night while slightly drunk. :-) Believe me he's
not thinking about his stylistic purity or some intricate system of
footwork. He's navigating, keeping a connection and playing footsie with
his partner.
>> Lucia: The sense of music and rhythm is innate in the human species. Almost everyone sways, or walks !left-right-left! or dances. Higher forms of dance originate in the human sense of achievement and competition, spiritual or sexual. As an aside, Tango IS sexual, What is this non-sense about distant-embrace??<<
>
> We are witnessing, in the current discussion threads on Tango, attempts by proponents of different styles, to hammer-out their only Rules, put them on their own Pedestal, pray to them and proclaim them them as the only God. Hence the religious wars. Human, all too Human...
>
> The probable cause for this mentality is our monotheitic society... Wouldn't it be better to create a tango mythology with many small Gods, and Nymphs, living in harmony?
>
Hmmmm... one of the cornerstones of Hindu belief is that of polytheism.
As it was explained to me, the central idea is that people do not
worship God but are only able to worship what they can conceive to be
God. If you really think a rock is a deity then that is where you are in
your thinking, at least for now. Therefore, one should be allowed to do
as one pleases tempered with the sympathy that everyone is doing the
best they can with what they have. We should strive for that, shouldn't
we? We don't need more small Gods. Heck, I think we have enough on the
list already! We need people who are fallible and realize they are in
the same boat trying to explore.
>>Lucia: I disagree - it is fun to have a nymph of the stream at U.Pittsburgh and another one at Rio de la Plata. One only needs a sense of humor.<<
>
>
>
Jeff
>> Lucia :-)
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ?gratis!
