Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 06:48:07 -0500
From: Natalie Maynor maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]RA.MSSTATE.EDU
Subject: Bounced Mail
When including something from a previous posting, be sure to edit out
ADS-L in the headers of the old mail. Otherwise your message will bounce.
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 12:49:25 -0400
From: BITNET list server at UGA (1.7f) LISTSERV[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]uga.cc.uga.edu
Subject: ADS-L: error report from VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU
To: Natalie Maynor MAYNOR[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]RA.MSSTATE.EDU
The enclosed mail file, found in the ADS-L reader and shown under the spoolid
3720 in the console log, has been identified as a possible delivery error
notice for the following reason: "Sender:", "From:" or "Reply-To:" field
pointing to the list has been found in mail body.
------------------ Message in error (67 lines) -------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 09:47:44 -0700
From: ctlntt[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]violet.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Forrest Gump
David Johns observed Martin Sheen's difficulty in doing Gen. Lee's accent
for "Gettysburg," and the difficulty of getting accents right.
Mike Picone talked about the larger problems in the
motion picture industry.
I agree with David that maybe it's too much to expect for non[native
speakers to get it exactly right. But I do not think much of an effort
is made. I have a lot of respect for Martin Sheen as an actor and a
human being; I can't help thinking that he might have done better if the
director had made that a bigger part of the the role.
Which gets me to Mike's point. Yes, there is a lot of arrogance in the
movie/TV industries. And I suppose it ticks me off as a professional
linguist/dialectologist that a lot of what we know gets ignored by the
people who produce this stuff. And I supose part of being ticked off has
sg. to do with the failure of the culture at large to take what we know
about language variation very seriously. The press invariably reports on
any research in dialectology--even the appearance of a humongous project
like DARE--very humorously, with a lot of jokes. That's a bummer sometimes.
Hmmm -- Is it "the failure of the culture at large to take what we know
. . . very seriously" or is it rather our failure as professionals to
impress upon the culture at large that what we know is worthy of its
attention? Scholars from other fields --theologians, for example--
might make a similar comment. Somehow T. Frazer's comment ties up very
naturally with recent debates on topics such as mainstream vs. nonmainstream
linguistics and popularization. Assuming that the subjects of our study
and research are intrinsically important, the unanswered question is
how to convince the general public that this is the case. It cannot be
said that the profession has been particularly successful in doing this.
ctlntt[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]violet.berkeley.edu