What you’ve learned this semester in this class
I’ve learned to analyze several stories and poems through the course; it helped me to get further information after reading the item that I was required. All the items we have read along the course also offered training in our English and how types of English started to develop in different parts of the world. History of the creation and development of the first English language was also discussed in our course let alone the several processes it was induced to be upgraded.
Connection of this class with real life
I seem to find no further connection with this in my real life; I managed to learn several ways to interpret items that help me understand several literature items but still I don’t think I might use it in the near future, maybe for my next courses but not outside them
How can the content of this class make you more successful?
Maybe in my next courses, I’ll be able to learn faster and analyze texts more successfully and avoiding previous mistakes I’ve learned to avoid
What other kind of activities would you like to do?
I will say that less work, effort in this class takes most of my time and makes it stressful if you are always occupied and you are required to complete such tasks applied at the course. Also, I’d like to add that if we are able to communicate freely in our classroom it will be a better place to learn, although I’d like to have a more interactive class not just read or answer questions in a quiz that lowers my average by 10 whole points.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Comparative Comment between poems "The Soldiers by Rupert Brooke" and "The Colonization in Reverse by Louise Bennett."
By Hugo Churches
ID. A01036011
Grp. 103
The comparison between these 2 poems will make me lead to understand a little bit their meanings and origins and perhaps the reason why they were writing in first place. I will begin with analyzing the first poem which is “The Soldier by Rupert Brooke” and then I will continue analyzing the next one which is “Colonization in Reverse by Louise Bennett” and after reading these poems I will perform a comparison between these 2 poems.
If you happen to read both poems you should know that these are similarly related, why? Because in the poem “The Soldier by Rupert Brooke” explains that he will die for his country, honor it, not only by doing things that supported England but also by dying for supporting it. As if it wasn’t enough that these character, Rupert Brooke said in his poem that he shall be remembered, although Rupert Brooke liked and glorified death he surely didn’t met the war his country was fighting, he didn’t even experienced the crude sensation of being on one although he was prepared and said that he will die for his country. Further investigation of this author leads that he gave everything to his country or was willing to give all since he had everything from England. But because this character haven’t met the war that he intended to fight, would it be possible to change his way to look at his country If he had experienced such terrible actions in the war, or if he would continue to write his love notes about England? It is certainly though to keep the mind of something that you like and suddenly know the consequences of such actions and likeness but perhaps Rupert Brooke would have changed his mind about England, although he believed that he could accomplish something for his country he wasn’t even able to get to the warzone he instead died before something could struck his mind and his poetry. But now, talking about the poem, he expressed his feelings about England, he described it as an English heaven, so long as a peaceful place. Regarding this previous sentence does the conflicts in there haven’t troubled the area enough to the view of Rupert Brooke or is it that Rupert Brooke was trying to make us memorize how this English country felt with peace and harmony before something atrocious happened? I do believe that it is certainly an instance to make us memorize the way he looked at his country and if dying for it would have cause us to remember him as landscapes of England although it is already mentioned in his poem.
But now, let me take a look at Louise Bennett’s poem, the “Colonization in Reverse”, in this poem I can clearly, well almost since I got to use a more newer version of her poem, a version easily understandable since her language was a little disarranged, in fact I can say that English was something new, something yet to be mastered for her but although there are bad written words is understandable, quite an old English I might add. So, I can see that Louise Bennett is trying to tell us via his poem that civilians from Jamaica are leaving from their country, as the poem continues he expresses that as more people are travelling to England they are getting more power for themselves and are gaining English money (Pounds), and since everybody is going to England the Jamaica locals are starting to set-up the “cheap-fare-to-England, this actions are foreseen as the colonization by Louise Bennett but although it doesn’t mean that Jamaican locals are trying to invade or attack England they are actually seen as filling up the England country, gaining wealth and jobs as they move inside the country. This is seen by Louise as a colonization not only because they are actually moving to other place but also because they are reaching new things, things like money, jobs, valuables and other things, she’s rather happy for this since they are actually getting economical stability. To end this, I can say that in her poem, she cited that since England had problems with warfare she wondered on how England will manage the colonizing in reverse.
Although both poems showed a little context and ambience where it was happening, I took the idea that Jamaican locals where going to England to have economical stability and also because of its beauty, I managed to figure this out because of the previous poem “The Soldier” by Rupert Brooke because he explained that he will die for his beautiful country which leads me to think that who wouldn’t want to go to England. This theory is probably the best to think although there surely have to be other motives. So, the connection between these 2 poems might have been the influence to move to a more producing and beautiful country although there is no reason to think that the poem by Rupert Brooke might have been seen by one of the Jamaicans, but still the slight connection between these 2 poems might have been to one or to none. As now for a final conclusion and reflection about this, both poems contain certain details that inform the reader about the environment they live on, Louise Bennett declares also that these actions are going to change history in England by moving out to there.
Words - 900
ID. A01036011
Grp. 103
The comparison between these 2 poems will make me lead to understand a little bit their meanings and origins and perhaps the reason why they were writing in first place. I will begin with analyzing the first poem which is “The Soldier by Rupert Brooke” and then I will continue analyzing the next one which is “Colonization in Reverse by Louise Bennett” and after reading these poems I will perform a comparison between these 2 poems.
If you happen to read both poems you should know that these are similarly related, why? Because in the poem “The Soldier by Rupert Brooke” explains that he will die for his country, honor it, not only by doing things that supported England but also by dying for supporting it. As if it wasn’t enough that these character, Rupert Brooke said in his poem that he shall be remembered, although Rupert Brooke liked and glorified death he surely didn’t met the war his country was fighting, he didn’t even experienced the crude sensation of being on one although he was prepared and said that he will die for his country. Further investigation of this author leads that he gave everything to his country or was willing to give all since he had everything from England. But because this character haven’t met the war that he intended to fight, would it be possible to change his way to look at his country If he had experienced such terrible actions in the war, or if he would continue to write his love notes about England? It is certainly though to keep the mind of something that you like and suddenly know the consequences of such actions and likeness but perhaps Rupert Brooke would have changed his mind about England, although he believed that he could accomplish something for his country he wasn’t even able to get to the warzone he instead died before something could struck his mind and his poetry. But now, talking about the poem, he expressed his feelings about England, he described it as an English heaven, so long as a peaceful place. Regarding this previous sentence does the conflicts in there haven’t troubled the area enough to the view of Rupert Brooke or is it that Rupert Brooke was trying to make us memorize how this English country felt with peace and harmony before something atrocious happened? I do believe that it is certainly an instance to make us memorize the way he looked at his country and if dying for it would have cause us to remember him as landscapes of England although it is already mentioned in his poem.
But now, let me take a look at Louise Bennett’s poem, the “Colonization in Reverse”, in this poem I can clearly, well almost since I got to use a more newer version of her poem, a version easily understandable since her language was a little disarranged, in fact I can say that English was something new, something yet to be mastered for her but although there are bad written words is understandable, quite an old English I might add. So, I can see that Louise Bennett is trying to tell us via his poem that civilians from Jamaica are leaving from their country, as the poem continues he expresses that as more people are travelling to England they are getting more power for themselves and are gaining English money (Pounds), and since everybody is going to England the Jamaica locals are starting to set-up the “cheap-fare-to-England, this actions are foreseen as the colonization by Louise Bennett but although it doesn’t mean that Jamaican locals are trying to invade or attack England they are actually seen as filling up the England country, gaining wealth and jobs as they move inside the country. This is seen by Louise as a colonization not only because they are actually moving to other place but also because they are reaching new things, things like money, jobs, valuables and other things, she’s rather happy for this since they are actually getting economical stability. To end this, I can say that in her poem, she cited that since England had problems with warfare she wondered on how England will manage the colonizing in reverse.
Although both poems showed a little context and ambience where it was happening, I took the idea that Jamaican locals where going to England to have economical stability and also because of its beauty, I managed to figure this out because of the previous poem “The Soldier” by Rupert Brooke because he explained that he will die for his beautiful country which leads me to think that who wouldn’t want to go to England. This theory is probably the best to think although there surely have to be other motives. So, the connection between these 2 poems might have been the influence to move to a more producing and beautiful country although there is no reason to think that the poem by Rupert Brooke might have been seen by one of the Jamaicans, but still the slight connection between these 2 poems might have been to one or to none. As now for a final conclusion and reflection about this, both poems contain certain details that inform the reader about the environment they live on, Louise Bennett declares also that these actions are going to change history in England by moving out to there.
Words - 900
Friday, August 27, 2010
The History of the English Language by Lucy Rucker
Analysis and reflection done by Hugo Churches
Lucy Rucker article of the history of the old English Language is congruent according to the evolution of Old English, it makes me think how English was a language with strange words with no meaning but nowadays some of these words have a distinctive meaning, let alone the creation of new words in the now Modern English we use at this period of time in our lifes. So as far as I am concerned, according to Lucy Rucker, the appearance of English started with Germanic tribes that settled in Britain up to the eleventh century, after this time, Old English was now a reflection of the Anglo-Norman-French so leads me to think that these languages were later combined to form one English interpretation but its evolution didn’t stopped at this point, Middle English which is “derived” from the Old English, according to Lucy Rucker’s point of view, is a type of English that evolved In that time up to do the present which is now a more Modern and Advanced English which is more easy to understand. So, Lucy Rucker’s point of this is actually telling us the origins of this language by specifying a little story of its first appearance. Some of the most important concepts that this article contain is mainly the title, The History of English Language, which tell us the origins of English from long time ago, also telling that English also came from Britain, Lucy Rucker’s article also tries to inform us that Modern English is a hard language to learn, a language that always changes, always adds new words or forms to correctly learn it and be able to understand it. Lucy’s article about English origins article contains good information but still, some information is missing like the way they were able to maintain it while the Germanic tribes were settling down in Britain, a very difficult information to research I might add but at least some examples would do the job, this examples could maybe help me to compare both old English and Modern English. In conclusion to this article, I might say that I agree with the information distributor (Lucy Rucker), I must say that I didn’t knew that English started to spread thanks to the Germanic Tribes also I think that the author stated her point on how English is a language that is always changing and spreading across the globe.
Lucy Rucker article of the history of the old English Language is congruent according to the evolution of Old English, it makes me think how English was a language with strange words with no meaning but nowadays some of these words have a distinctive meaning, let alone the creation of new words in the now Modern English we use at this period of time in our lifes. So as far as I am concerned, according to Lucy Rucker, the appearance of English started with Germanic tribes that settled in Britain up to the eleventh century, after this time, Old English was now a reflection of the Anglo-Norman-French so leads me to think that these languages were later combined to form one English interpretation but its evolution didn’t stopped at this point, Middle English which is “derived” from the Old English, according to Lucy Rucker’s point of view, is a type of English that evolved In that time up to do the present which is now a more Modern and Advanced English which is more easy to understand. So, Lucy Rucker’s point of this is actually telling us the origins of this language by specifying a little story of its first appearance. Some of the most important concepts that this article contain is mainly the title, The History of English Language, which tell us the origins of English from long time ago, also telling that English also came from Britain, Lucy Rucker’s article also tries to inform us that Modern English is a hard language to learn, a language that always changes, always adds new words or forms to correctly learn it and be able to understand it. Lucy’s article about English origins article contains good information but still, some information is missing like the way they were able to maintain it while the Germanic tribes were settling down in Britain, a very difficult information to research I might add but at least some examples would do the job, this examples could maybe help me to compare both old English and Modern English. In conclusion to this article, I might say that I agree with the information distributor (Lucy Rucker), I must say that I didn’t knew that English started to spread thanks to the Germanic Tribes also I think that the author stated her point on how English is a language that is always changing and spreading across the globe.
The History of the English Language by Risa
Analysis and reflection done by Hugo Churches
English has become a global language, that’s true, but what about its origins? According to Risa’s article, English was a language which wasn’t as old as any other language; in fact, it’s more likely considered to have existed after several old languages had become obsolete or survived when others started disappearing. The old English that has evolved and that now we use nowadays started when some documents regarding its origin gave examples of the “Common Germanic Futharc”, described as the runic alphabet. These documents where written records, records written in English, they date from the mid to late seventh century. So, this language was old, but is it efficient like now? No, Risa’s article specified that English is a “stress language” which we actually use to distinguish words that we use, we stress on a syllable, one example Risa’s used was the FOLKes and folcES, both of these words are unrecognizable if we happened to find them in some document because now, in this modernized English, we now say Folks. Now, this article also shows that old English arrived in England during the fifth century, as told in the past article by Lucy Rucker, this language was spoken by Germanic tribes which were the Angles and the Saxons. These Germanic tribes called their language, “Englisc”. Although this tribe had already settled at England, its language didn’t become common on England until the 10 century. I can now say that English already existed in the fifth century but thanks to England politics and territory gain objectives might have blocked the development of the evolution of English. Risa’s article and all this information published looks good, has detailed explanation, examples where applied which really got me an idea on how English was weird to understand as a common language and contain a little information where other languages where at that time so as far as I am concerned Risa’s articles didn’t missed anything or didn’t forgot nothing to research, I didn’t knew the fact that English came from Angles and the Saxons which were persons that belonged to the Germanic tribes. So, in conclusion, I can say that language “Englisc” from the Germanic tribe (Angles and Saxons), was just a beginning of the evolution of Modern English which now is a global language. If we analyze how people used words in that time we can figure out how difficult was to learn English but now there are electronic and didactic tools that helps us learn English in a faster, better way.
English has become a global language, that’s true, but what about its origins? According to Risa’s article, English was a language which wasn’t as old as any other language; in fact, it’s more likely considered to have existed after several old languages had become obsolete or survived when others started disappearing. The old English that has evolved and that now we use nowadays started when some documents regarding its origin gave examples of the “Common Germanic Futharc”, described as the runic alphabet. These documents where written records, records written in English, they date from the mid to late seventh century. So, this language was old, but is it efficient like now? No, Risa’s article specified that English is a “stress language” which we actually use to distinguish words that we use, we stress on a syllable, one example Risa’s used was the FOLKes and folcES, both of these words are unrecognizable if we happened to find them in some document because now, in this modernized English, we now say Folks. Now, this article also shows that old English arrived in England during the fifth century, as told in the past article by Lucy Rucker, this language was spoken by Germanic tribes which were the Angles and the Saxons. These Germanic tribes called their language, “Englisc”. Although this tribe had already settled at England, its language didn’t become common on England until the 10 century. I can now say that English already existed in the fifth century but thanks to England politics and territory gain objectives might have blocked the development of the evolution of English. Risa’s article and all this information published looks good, has detailed explanation, examples where applied which really got me an idea on how English was weird to understand as a common language and contain a little information where other languages where at that time so as far as I am concerned Risa’s articles didn’t missed anything or didn’t forgot nothing to research, I didn’t knew the fact that English came from Angles and the Saxons which were persons that belonged to the Germanic tribes. So, in conclusion, I can say that language “Englisc” from the Germanic tribe (Angles and Saxons), was just a beginning of the evolution of Modern English which now is a global language. If we analyze how people used words in that time we can figure out how difficult was to learn English but now there are electronic and didactic tools that helps us learn English in a faster, better way.
The History of the English Language by Sammy Stein
Analysis and reflection done by Hugo Churches
English, a language changed by many, used by many. Sammy Stein, creator of this article, makes me think that English wasn’t a pure language. Yes, English had rough turns and transformation in the lapse of its own evolution. I always thought that English was a unique language but knowing that as customs in people or places change its language might as well go affected. In the article Sammy, informs me that English got changed because in the island nation of England got invaded by different civilizations, it even got changed by Romans and Vikings which added new words, and it made a major change to the English language. The Roman’s also contributed in changing English; they managed to introduce to English new words, derived from their native language, Latin. Speaking of Latin, the article made reference on how people where distinguished as a poor by knowing in which language they talked, they differentiate it from rich and from the poor which makes me think about they were categorized by only speaking one language as uneducated. To get things arranged, Sammy’s purpose was to tell us that English was transformed, mish mash and multiple times derived from other languages into a single language. According to Sammy’s statement, English is also a common used language around the world, I should say that I totally agree, it’s a true situation that can be witnessed by anyone, for example, products that come from china usually come with an English written instruction booklet. I must say that I am impressed in the attempts that certain groups commit in order to create a language such as Esperanto, a language used in the music of Era-Ameno (just for some example). Also I would say that the creation of words is normal in such used language because in this time of the year and also those to come, I have witnessed how people create words, words which are assigned to objects that are created by people, like the Pong machine, let’s say. It is true that language is evolving according how time goes. English as a language is a very useful tool to integrate to life, business, social vibes, and successfulness but regardless to say it is still a difficult one to learn, fact that Sammy forgot to mention. In conclusion, how did English managed to conserve such words? To me is basically the use of the words that are added to the vocabulary of an individual, if this individual speaks using newfound or created words should have a nice time bragging about its invention or enjoy explaining the meaning of the new word.
English, a language changed by many, used by many. Sammy Stein, creator of this article, makes me think that English wasn’t a pure language. Yes, English had rough turns and transformation in the lapse of its own evolution. I always thought that English was a unique language but knowing that as customs in people or places change its language might as well go affected. In the article Sammy, informs me that English got changed because in the island nation of England got invaded by different civilizations, it even got changed by Romans and Vikings which added new words, and it made a major change to the English language. The Roman’s also contributed in changing English; they managed to introduce to English new words, derived from their native language, Latin. Speaking of Latin, the article made reference on how people where distinguished as a poor by knowing in which language they talked, they differentiate it from rich and from the poor which makes me think about they were categorized by only speaking one language as uneducated. To get things arranged, Sammy’s purpose was to tell us that English was transformed, mish mash and multiple times derived from other languages into a single language. According to Sammy’s statement, English is also a common used language around the world, I should say that I totally agree, it’s a true situation that can be witnessed by anyone, for example, products that come from china usually come with an English written instruction booklet. I must say that I am impressed in the attempts that certain groups commit in order to create a language such as Esperanto, a language used in the music of Era-Ameno (just for some example). Also I would say that the creation of words is normal in such used language because in this time of the year and also those to come, I have witnessed how people create words, words which are assigned to objects that are created by people, like the Pong machine, let’s say. It is true that language is evolving according how time goes. English as a language is a very useful tool to integrate to life, business, social vibes, and successfulness but regardless to say it is still a difficult one to learn, fact that Sammy forgot to mention. In conclusion, how did English managed to conserve such words? To me is basically the use of the words that are added to the vocabulary of an individual, if this individual speaks using newfound or created words should have a nice time bragging about its invention or enjoy explaining the meaning of the new word.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Why should we learn English as Lingua-franca or formal English?
Maybe the question in here is, Why not? I know that talking in another language may appear or feel weird at sometimes but that only happens because we are used to talk in our native language. Now, the reason to understand why is it important to learn English is basically statistical, as you know, many people currently speak English which means that this language is taking a major role in the world as a "must have learned" language. Seriously, if you were in America, with no map or nothing, just your natal language, let’s suppose Spanish, you'll happen to be lost in a world where there's no help coming.
English is useful all the time, it is important to have this as a Lingua-Franca because it's just an important, must learn language, just see the facts, many people speak English, online videogames are mostly in English (no Spanish subtitles or other languages), office computers may contain English translated software and many instruction booklets appear to be printed in English leaving you with no capability to understand operation procedures and precautions.
To end this, let’s just say that English as a Lingua-franca is just too important to ignore, the experiences you get from travelling around the world will be recompensated with joy if you happen to be a socializing person, of course!
English is LIFE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)