Quote:
Peter A Goldsbury wrote:
Who said anything about dictation? In your way of expression, you are making a value judgment here.
|
Judgment yes,... of value, no. Making scholars the source of legitimacy in language is a BIT dictatory. I grant they have a great role in preserving language, but not, I think, in advancing its development or further creativity a great deal -- at least, not by scholarly methods.
I merely pointed out that at least one prominent influential scholar of English and several other tongues, by both scholarly work AND personal, creative example has championed the durability (and seriousness and accessibility) of
play in language over its analytic use. If scholars have deemed a way of creative reading no longer "legitimate" and "foreign" in the sense of excluded, then they seem to take upon themselves a power of judgment nowhere granted. They do not stand any further outside language than the non-scholars. And they miss a large part of the point by making an
a priori judgment that the uses of language may be adequately judged by its analysis, to the exclusion of its play. Analysis can be play, and vice versa, but play means more and lasts longer.
The play's the thing...
