End of ADS-L Digest - 4 Aug 1994 to 5 Aug 1994 ********************************************** There are 2 messages totalling 76 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Bounced Mail 2. new word contest ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 06:48:07 -0500 From: Natalie Maynor 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) > Subject: ADS-L: error report from VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU > To: Natalie Maynor > > 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. > > Tim Frazer > > 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. > > M. Azevedo > UCBerkeley > ctlntt[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]violet.berkeley.edu >