I don't get the language in the new True Grit

[Captain Dan Hamilton]

Want to scare yourself silly. Pick up a set of McGuffey's Readers, all seven.

 

http://www.amazon.com/McGuffeys-Eclectic-R...8520&sr=1-1

 

Remember you were expected to cover all of them by the time you finished the 8th grade.

 

These were grade school books.

 

Look over that table of contents again.

 

Be afraid, very afraid.

 

This stuff isn't covered in High School. You can go through College English and writting courses and never see all the topics that McGuffey's covers.

 

Really shows how dumbed down "modern" education is.

[Remo, SASS #17644]

If you read the book you will get your answer !!! The literacy rate was 85-90% plus. Look at letters and diaries from the Civil War. Pretty good writing. And if you look at some of the writing, sentence structure, grammar, spelling, punctuation and related items on the Wire what Woodrow said is plainly exhibited. The last I looked dictionairies were not in short supply.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

CC, I think Captain Woodrow said that the literacy rate was about 65%. So that would be about 35% as illiterate.

 

And generally those that are illiterate can read and write to some extent. Just not up to the level they define as fully literate.

 

 

Ah yes, a noted distinction, and a careless error on my part. BUT still nearly as shocking!

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

Cyrus - here's the initial link and it has sublinks that go to other areas of interest ... http://www.humorwriters.org/startlingstats.html

 

And this will take you to more detailed studies ... http://nces.ed.gov/search/?output=xml_no_d...&q=literacy

 

They do subdivide the levels down, so the people you encounter (and thank you for your service) all probably fall into that "functional" category where they can kind of read and sign their name, but beyond that they have marginal skills in the reading & comprehension arenas. I believe what the studies show is a literacy rate of 65%. If we had an illiteracy rate that high we'd be doomed as a society.

 

Television and other electronic media just don't provide the kind of mental stimulation that books can. With TV, you blink and it's gone. With a book, you can take the time to absorb whatever the author is conveying, reread it, and incorporate that information into your synapses. TV is all flash and noise, books have permanence. It's been said that TV is written to allow for the intelligence level of a 12-year old. Based on what passes for popular entertainment on TV, the core audience they're writing for must all be pretty dull-witted.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

^Amen. TV is opiate for the brain. We severely limit our childrens' TV watching (one educational video per day at this age, entertaining movies only on special, rare occasions) for that very reason. We taught them both the letters of the alphabet and the sounds they make, and from that our four year-old taught himself to read. We taught him to count to 20, and from that he taught himself how to count to 200 (yes, he's FOUR!). We taught him what the big hand and little hand mean on an analogue clock, and he taught himself how to tell time! Yes, really.

 

We never introduced him to mathematics, but after learning how to count he figured out addition by himself. Yes, he taught himself to add (he gets it right as long as the sum is less than 20 or so). After that I introduced him to subtraction and he's starting to get it.

 

Show me an average four year-old who can do ANY of those things, and I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. The problem is so many parents use the TV as a babysitter and it does NOT, as you mentioned, stimulate their minds. We also have the advantage of my 1.5 incomes, allowing my wife to be a traditional, stay-at-home mom. She spends all day, every day with our beautiful boys, and IT SHOWS.

 

I think it's a testament to how materialism and the quest for wealth have taken over our culture so much that the vast majority of people entrust their child rearing to a minimum wage earner whom they barely know, just so they can pursue two incomes. It's rather sad. We prefer to pass along OUR values and not subject them to the ever-changing-and-ever-less-moral values held by our culture.

 

We're teaching our two year-old the same things, and I'm sure he'll follow along quite nicely Thus far he can recite the alphabet, knows the sounds letters make, and count to ten.

 

And look at my post directly above yours but I think we're STILL doomed.

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

Folks the point to be made is this. In the era of good mail and the telegraph (maybe) VS the era of telephone and internet, we have different NEEDS in terms of communication.

 

If I write a letter to the folks at home expecting they will get it some weeks from now, I HAVE TO be a lot more precise and complete in conveying the information than I do when calling on the phone or an instant messenger. WHY? Because the meaningful ability to clarify, the back and forth of conversation is lost in the letter, where it is more intact on the phone (we lose facial expression, but tone and timing are there) and even on a messenger one can ask "huh?" and get a clarification NOW to help with the understanding of what is being said.

 

Why does that effect literacy? Literacy in the old days was needed for communication, for connecting with family and friends, people we hold as important. The side effect is a literate person can read a book. The down side of that is what book? What ideas were readily available, uncensored, etc. In Benjamin Franklin's time ALL the important books of the world could and were read by a man who would be granted a PhD (man of letters). Today that much information is generated every second, and there is probably no PhD or MD who has read everything important in even his narrow specialty.

 

So on the one hand the achieving of a broad and deep education has become nearly impossible, on the other hand we can and many do become instantly informed on much in short order, given decent literacy.

 

For what it's worth the "literacy stats" are always suspect BECAUSE the definition of literacy is inconsistent both across time and across disciplines. At one time reading and signing one's own name, and reading a simple ballot well enough to parrot the words aloud, or grocery list was considered literate.

Today's BEST definitions are tiered and much more complex

 

on a level of 1 to 4, four being the best, 1 the worst, folks can be literate at levels ranging from the above definition of parroting a ballot or recognizing their own name, all the way up to a level 4 which includes understanding and writing about complex abstract concepts and manipulating them logically. Somewhere in between we have the vast majority of those who can read and write, even those who do so for a living.

 

How many times have we heard a professional reader (aka talking head) on TV parrot some drivel that makes no sense whatsoever, yet they do so with proper sentance structure, diction and inflection. They might even be able to comment in their own words about what they ahve read, and yet not truely understand it a bit. They'd be level 2 or 3 literate, and yes, they vote, run for office, and often "run things".....

 

The true test of literacy at the highest level is not only "what does it say?", but also "what does that mean?" and being able to apply the ideas in the correct context......

 

Appropos of nothing, here we read a variety ranging from memoirs of presidents and other famous folk to the writings of folks like Einstein. My 16 yr old got Dante's "Divine Comedy" for Christmas. We look at literacy as a tool, and seek to play with the ideas others have left for us.

[Four-Eyed Buck,SASS #14795]

I've got boxes and boxes of books stored around here, all bought mostly since high school. My interests are history mostly. Civil War, WW II, and the cowboy era. Next one on my list is Lee Silva's second in the Wyatt Earp series. Double book case in my loading room plus a 6 footer in the living room here. I must be an anacronism!...............Buck

[Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022]

I have read through the many posts on this topic. I now pose a challenge to all. Diagram the sentences from the last four posts.

Muleshoe Bill

[Henry T Harrison]

While we are on the subject

One of my few peeves about the SASS wire is well educated posters trying to post as if they were illiterate cowboys from the 19th century.

Leave the Ebonics for other forums. This was the Victorian age and even semi educated cowboys spoke proper English, and were embarrassed if they couldn’t.

Posting in an illiterate manner just makes you sound dumb, and makes your posts hard to read.

 

HTH

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

While we are on the subject

One of my few peeves about the SASS wire is well educated posters trying to post as if they were illiterate cowboys from the 19th century.

Leave the Ebonics for other forums. This was the Victorian age and even semi educated cowboys spoke proper English, and were embarrassed if they couldn’t.

Posting in an illiterate manner just makes you sound dumb, and makes your posts hard to read.

 

HTH

 

 

I think one point to be taken is we DON'T know how they spoke in the old west. WE only know how those who could WROTE. Could be even a fair number who could write well didn't speak as flowery as they wrote, and those who couldn't read or write WELL almost certainly didn't. Cowboys in particular were often teen runaways, fugitives and not a few former slaves. Surely they didn't write or speak as refined a language as the "book learned" they encountered.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

While we are on the subject

One of my few peeves about the SASS wire is well educated posters trying to post as if they were illiterate cowboys from the 19th century.

Leave the Ebonics for other forums. This was the Victorian age and even semi educated cowboys spoke proper English, and were embarrassed if they couldn’t.

Posting in an illiterate manner just makes you sound dumb, and makes your posts hard to read.

 

HTH

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't see it as often on this board as on others (gun nut forums and police forums are my forte), but it pops up from time to time. People who don't take the time to punctuate, spell 99% of their words correctly, and use proper grammar annoy me because I find it difficult to read. Perhaps I've read so many properly-written books that I can't understand crappy language usage.

 

The 19th-century-illiterate-cowboy-thing is difficult enough, but it's even worse when the poster has no real grasp of our language. That's rare on here, but like I said, VERY common on other forums.

 

when yu dont bother to puntate spel write or use the write words it takes 10 times az long to figure out what your saying even through it mite have taken yu less time to right it in the first place see what i mean this is driving you nuts and its only too lines long now try reading a hole post thats this jacked up

 

^^^Whew! My brain hurts!!!

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Heard they were gonna try to have a "Miss Ebonics" Padget but no-one wanted to be Miss I da hoe.

 

 

 

While we are on the subject

One of my few peeves about the SASS wire is well educated posters trying to post as if they were illiterate cowboys from the 19th century.

Leave the Ebonics for other forums. This was the Victorian age and even semi educated cowboys spoke proper English, and were embarrassed if they couldn’t.

Posting in an illiterate manner just makes you sound dumb, and makes your posts hard to read.

 

HTH

 

I disgree! Ours is a fantasy game...and if a pard wants to speak or write however he/she wants is fine. We have heard of historically, scene on the big screen, and actually know real life cowboys that speak or write from all ends of the spectrum....and you can feel free to skip over a post if'n it be to difficult to read.

 

GG ~

[Danite SASS #27034]

If you read the book you will get your answer !!! The literacy rate was 85-90% plus. Look at letters and diaries from the Civil War. Pretty good writing. And if you look at some of the writing, sentence structure, grammar, spelling, punctuation and related items on the Wire what Woodrow said is plainly exhibited. The last I looked dictionairies were not in short supply.

 

Absolutely. On the way to an History degree I had to read many original items. Things that were written at the time. Their vocabularies were far superior to our standard fare.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

Absolutely. On the way to an History degree I had to read many original items. Things that were written at the time. Their vocabularies were far superior to our standard fare.

 

I agree with your assertion, and on my way to my history degree I had to read many original documents as well, and still do. As I explained in an earlier post, the vast majority of the original documents I've read and continue to read, however, are 18th century and revolve around the Rev. War (which is interesting considering I know much more about the Civil War; most of my study in that regard has been from secondary sources like Shelby Foote, but I have read some original reports from battle survivors).

 

Anyway, the pard you quoted wasn't referring to reading original sources; rather, he was suggesting I read the "True Grit" novel (but then quickly transitioned to primary documents from the Civil War), which, quite frankly, I don't feel inclined to do. In fact, I interpreted his "squinty-eyed" face, underlining, and bold face usage as being directed at me, the OP, in a very accusatory and judgemental way which I chose not to comment on until now. Apparently he thinks I'm being lazy by asking the annunciation question on the wire rather than reading the novel for myself.

 

My stack of "to-read" books on the Rev. War currently stands about five deep and I'm working on another one. So, no, I won't be reading "True Grit" any time soon. I enjoyed watching the movie and I'll leave it at that.

[Quick Draw Granpaw #48525]

Well, ifn my memory serves me correctly I was on the jury when Wyatt was on trial

and I distinkly remember they talked the same as in True Grit! Now I know where

I heard it before! Thanks pard! Things start to go south when you get old and moldy!

Well, Happy trails

QDG

[Remo, SASS #17644]

. My 16 yr old got Dante's "Divine Comedy" for Christmas. We look at literacy as a tool, and seek to play with the ideas others have left for us.

Congratulations to your 16 year old. Around here the kids don't read because their lips get tired.

[Danite SASS #27034]

I agree with your assertion, and on my way to my history degree I had to read many original documents as well, and still do. As I explained in an earlier post, the vast majority of the original documents I've read and continue to read, however, are 18th century and revolve around the Rev. War (which is interesting considering I know much more about the Civil War; most of my study in that regard has been from secondary sources like Shelby Foote, but I have read some original reports from battle survivors).

 

Anyway, the pard you quoted wasn't referring to reading original sources; rather, he was suggesting I read the "True Grit" novel (but then quickly transitioned to primary documents from the Civil War), which, quite frankly, I don't feel inclined to do. In fact, I interpreted his "squinty-eyed" face, underlining, and bold face usage as being directed at me, the OP, in a very accusatory and judgemental way which I chose not to comment on until now. Apparently he thinks I'm being lazy by asking the annunciation question on the wire rather than reading the novel for myself.

 

My stack of "to-read" books on the Rev. War currently stands about five deep and I'm working on another one. So, no, I won't be reading "True Grit" any time soon. I enjoyed watching the movie and I'll leave it at that.

 

Nor have I nor will I. I read very few novels compared to other books. I have read the four in a series from Robert Parker because they are such quick reads and I read a Lois L'Amour whenever I can find one I haven't read. Dad and I called them "brain candy". I usually finish novels the day I start them. History, religion, philosophy etc. take much longer. I didn't look at the quotes quite the same way you did, but looking back I can see how you read them that way.

[Steeldust Dan, SASS #2631Life]

Well, that tears it. I was really enjoying this thread, lots of bandying thoughts back and forth, different points of view, etc. Now someone gets upset, gets his feeling hurt. Too bad. This was such a great thread, unlike what so many others become. But alas, it could not last forever.

 

Steeldust Dan

[Pecos Clyde, SASS #48481]

I have read through the many posts on this topic. I now pose a challenge to all. Diagram the sentences from the last four posts.

Muleshoe Bill

 

 

MB

 

Priceless

 

 

PC

[Guest Paniolo Cowboy SASS #75875]

I got Elocution once overseas,

but a shot of penicillin took care of it!

 

[Nasty Newt # 7365]

The letters that Billy the Kid wrote to Lew Wallace were eye-openers for me. I don't know how much education he had, but whatever he got, it stuck. He had very good command of the language, not to mention excellent penmanship, something else that's gone by the wayside.

[Tarheel Rifleman, SASS # 23477]

Maybe because they were not as far removed from proper old English as we are today.

I agree!

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

The letters that Billy the Kid wrote to Lew Wallace were eye-openers for me. I don't know how much education he had, but whatever he got, it stuck. He had very good command of the language, not to mention excellent penmanship, something else that's gone by the wayside.

 

I have to agree with you there. I haven't read Billy the Kid's letters so I can't comment on them, but for all my harping about how America has lost mastery of its own language, I can barely scratch my name with a pen. My handwriting is ugly; in fact, the only poor letter grade I ever received in grade school was in handwriting (C+, and the teacher was being nice!). I suppose I grew up at a time when typing became a much more important skill.

 

I recall a police academy instructor getting upset that we were typing our reports rather than handwriting the old fashioned triplicate forms. He thought it would take too long to type them. I was shocked, and had to prove to him that I can type almost ten times faster than print, and about 4 times faster than I can write. He, in turn, was shocked.

 

I suppose it was a generational gap. Typing was new to him, something he never did in school and had to "hunt and peck." Typing was an old hat to me, something one could never have graduated high school -- let alone college -- without knowing how to do.

 

So times change, and the skill of writing is lost on me (although out of nostalgia I journal with an old-fashioned fountain pen -- NOT the kind with an ink cartridge, but the really old fashioned kind that must be periodically dipped in ink). However, at least I understand my own language.

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

Congratulations to your 16 year old. Around here the kids don't read because their lips get tired.

 

Yeah, and they thought I was a permissive nutjob when I let him play a violent series of video games called "Assasin's Creed" the last couple of years. But he played the game, set in the 1400s, and got interested in the time period. Hence his request for Dante. What ya get out of something has much to do with what ya had going in