¡No Me Gusta!
At the start of this semester I had been out of touch with Spanish for about 3 years. I had debated whether I should go finish my secondary language requirement with one semester of Spanish or tough out two semesters of Swedish. Ultimately I chose Spanish partly out of convenience, but also because I wanted to brush up on the language. The thing is, I considered this the best move career-wise and not something out of personal fulfillment. I never really had a good time learning Spanish in high school, mainly because of my classmates but also a lack of engaging teachers. My mom, who just so happened to be my middle school Spanish teacher, assured me that as I progressed to higher levels of Spanish the idiots would thin out and I would only be left with intelligent, well motivated classmates. Alas, this was not true. The morons just kept coming, utterly useless study partners and atrocious accents and always pronouncing the silent H.
My GATE and AP classmates all took French and they were clearly academic and motivated, plus they at least tried to get the accent right. I think the majority of my crushes in high school happened to study French, and there I was in crummy ol' Spanish. I sort of resented the kids that took French; did they think they were too good for Spanish? Of course I recognized this wasn't the case all the time, French is a very important, globally useful language and if people like the sound of French better, that's their choice. The people I could never abide, and still can't, are the ones who took French because they didn't want to speak "Mexican" as though merely learning their language might infect them. People who think it's a coarse and dirty language of peasants. I'm not exaggerating here, these are all things people have told me. Now granted, folks around Nogales really do sully the language's reputation and if you go to Spain or talk to someone from central Mexico the language suddenly becomes a lot more pleasant.
It also doesn't help my feeling toward Spanish that they have all manner of crazy verb tenses. Even when it's clearly written down and explained in English I still don't know what the hell the unconditional subtransitive perfect participle is. Or why they decided to make all of the most commonly used verbs the ones that completely defy all of the rules of the language. Seems like they should be setting an example for the rest of the verbs.
And then there's swearing in Spanish. Now swearing is a tricky thing in most every language and I haven't been immersed in a Spanish speaking culture so my observations are more limited, but it seems cursing in Spanish is fundamentally different than in other languages. From my understanding of the language you really can't have fun swearing, there's no real joy in it. You can call someone a "lucky son of a bitch" in English but "hijo de puta" is something quite different. In Sweden during the gasques (a formal dinner) the entire table toasts the V-Dala librarian, calling him a "skitstoval" which basically means bastard. The only contexts I have ever heard Spanish swearing is if someone is being mean or cruel, never in a joking or light tone. Of course, I get irritated when people swear too casually, where they say "fuck" with the frequency which Valley Girls say "like". But that's because it's still vulgar and inappropriate and it shouldn't be used all the time. But just because of that it shouldn't mean you can't have fun with it. I also have to consider I might be spoiled by English, as people from all over the world have told me that swearing in English is just better. Whether they are aiming for humor, vulgarity, anger or just aural appeal, people find English to be a good cursing language.
When it comes down to it, I know comparing different languages is like comparing apples to oranges and you can't ever expect that a culture should follow your rules. But that doesn't mean I have to like them equally. I've plowed through years of Spanish with the nagging thought that maybe it just isn't my thing. I always figured it was just because I was learning a new language and such feelings were unavoidable. But after learning another language (admittedly one that is closer to English) I realize this doesn't have to be the case.
So Spanish, I guess what I'm trying to say is I still think you're a good language to know and you're really interesting, but I just don't love you. I'm sorry.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Turtles
TMNT with James Arnold Taylor and Nolan North. As a lifelong ninja turtles fan, I would have been happy with most any movie they made (unless it had resembled the 3rd movie), but I was especially pleased with the way this one turned out. It's a pleasant shade darker than the other movies or series (but not necessarily the comic books) and the animation was very well done. I was glad Raphael, my favorite turtle, was given such a major role and was very pleasantly surprised that Leonardo's character was expanded upon and finally made interesting. It was a welcome change from him simply being the bland, level-headed voice of reason and now we see him shouldering the burdens of leadership. The fight scenes alternated between large scale, video game-esque battles and one-on-one intense combat, something the live action movies never really could do. It also reminded me I have a big stack of DVDs of the '87 series on my desk that I haven't even touched. I need to get on that.
TMNT with James Arnold Taylor and Nolan North. As a lifelong ninja turtles fan, I would have been happy with most any movie they made (unless it had resembled the 3rd movie), but I was especially pleased with the way this one turned out. It's a pleasant shade darker than the other movies or series (but not necessarily the comic books) and the animation was very well done. I was glad Raphael, my favorite turtle, was given such a major role and was very pleasantly surprised that Leonardo's character was expanded upon and finally made interesting. It was a welcome change from him simply being the bland, level-headed voice of reason and now we see him shouldering the burdens of leadership. The fight scenes alternated between large scale, video game-esque battles and one-on-one intense combat, something the live action movies never really could do. It also reminded me I have a big stack of DVDs of the '87 series on my desk that I haven't even touched. I need to get on that.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Spartans
Ah spring at last. Finally I can wear shorts again, as opposed to Sweden where I had to wait until May and even then only on hotter days.I have to say, my favorite thing about spring in Tucson, aside from the girls on campus wearing more revealing clothing, is the orange blossoms. It may not have been the most eventful spring break I've ever had, but at least I got orange blossoms.
300 with Gerard Butler and Lena Headley. I think I'm one of the few people that can snootily claim they read the book before seeing the movie. I liked both quite a bit though it might be one of the few times where the movie is better. Aside from the simple fact that fight scenes are better in motion than in panels, the characters were made better, I thought. Leonidas was made more likable than he was in the book and some depth was given to the characters. Inevitably there will be some who claim it's not historically accurate, and it may not be completely faithful, but so what? It's definitely how the Spartans would have retold the story. Though I do think it's funny that the Spartans looked down on all those that didn't stay and fight as cowards when in reality it was more of a strategic retreat rather than just running away. The 300 were trying to stall the Persians while the rest of the Greek armies regrouped and assembled. I think people tend to forget that stylization and just plain good storytelling are just as important as, if not more than, historical accuracy.
Ah spring at last. Finally I can wear shorts again, as opposed to Sweden where I had to wait until May and even then only on hotter days.I have to say, my favorite thing about spring in Tucson, aside from the girls on campus wearing more revealing clothing, is the orange blossoms. It may not have been the most eventful spring break I've ever had, but at least I got orange blossoms.
300 with Gerard Butler and Lena Headley. I think I'm one of the few people that can snootily claim they read the book before seeing the movie. I liked both quite a bit though it might be one of the few times where the movie is better. Aside from the simple fact that fight scenes are better in motion than in panels, the characters were made better, I thought. Leonidas was made more likable than he was in the book and some depth was given to the characters. Inevitably there will be some who claim it's not historically accurate, and it may not be completely faithful, but so what? It's definitely how the Spartans would have retold the story. Though I do think it's funny that the Spartans looked down on all those that didn't stay and fight as cowards when in reality it was more of a strategic retreat rather than just running away. The 300 were trying to stall the Persians while the rest of the Greek armies regrouped and assembled. I think people tend to forget that stylization and just plain good storytelling are just as important as, if not more than, historical accuracy.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
God
A conversation I had the other day dealt with what proof an atheist would need to believe in a god. Now naturally, most atheists I've met reject the Judeo-Christian God since that's the one most prevalent in our culture and we're taught that the gods in all other cultures are, of course, false. I suggested that outside of monotheism, the requirements for godliness are relatively low. After all, the Aztecs thought Cortez was a god cuz he had shiny armor and facial hair. Even actual gods like Hermes or, say, Freyr are pretty achievable deities, relatively speaking. If one takes the conservative route, then Storm from the X-Men would be a full fledged goddess. But no one now would call a bearded man in armor a god, and Storm is just a mutant. I think the atheists don't believe in gods outside their culture not because it's the 1st Commandment but because they are raised with the idea that nothing short of the Judeo-Christian God qualifies as a god at all. The atheists reject Christianity but still define a deity by their rules.
The qualification for godliness in modern society I think is the cause of atheism. God, according to Wikipedia, is supposed to have "omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence" and since people have difficulty conceiving all those omni's and consider "good" to be subjective they then deduce that no deity or deities exist. Personally, don't see how these are necessary qualifications for a god. I think transfinite knowledge and power are good enough to be a god, especially since people try to argue God doesn't exist along the lines that He can't make a rock heavy enough that He can't lift it and is therefore not all powerful. One of the necessary abilities that was mentioned in my conversation was that a deity should be able to make something out of nothing. This isn't inconceivable since matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. That ability falls within the laws of physics, unless one considers energy to be "something" and therefore not creating something out of nothing. I find that idea flawed since that suggests a deity would be infinitely (or at least very) powerful without using any energy. Another criterion was that they have to have at least the ability to create, even if they did not themselves create, the Universe or the Earth. Except fro creating the Universe, this is not so hard. All one needs to do is bump a nebula and it will eventually it will create a solar system. Then you just guide organic molecules to a planet in a habitable zone around a star. If one thinks like the scientific atheist in this regard, the Universe does this naturally so none of this should require omnipotence.
To refer to the world of sci-fi, would we consider a being which meets all the criteria for a god as a god, or just a very powerful alien? The Q from Star Trek are effectively gods but they do not claim themselves as such. The ascended Ancients and the Ori in Stargate SG1 have seemingly limitless power, but only the Ori claim themselves as gods and demand worship. If humans were to one day encounter such beings, why not call them gods? As they say, "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck..." Is it the obligation of worship that is then the defining characteristic of a god? Might that be the root of it all? Again, the standards for worship are low; from worshipping the bones of really good people to praying to the sun. My personal opinion is that worship isn't mandatory for deities any more than it is for the seasons. So basically, if you ignore our culture's requirements for being a god and remove the worship aspect, why is it difficult to imagine such beings exist?
A conversation I had the other day dealt with what proof an atheist would need to believe in a god. Now naturally, most atheists I've met reject the Judeo-Christian God since that's the one most prevalent in our culture and we're taught that the gods in all other cultures are, of course, false. I suggested that outside of monotheism, the requirements for godliness are relatively low. After all, the Aztecs thought Cortez was a god cuz he had shiny armor and facial hair. Even actual gods like Hermes or, say, Freyr are pretty achievable deities, relatively speaking. If one takes the conservative route, then Storm from the X-Men would be a full fledged goddess. But no one now would call a bearded man in armor a god, and Storm is just a mutant. I think the atheists don't believe in gods outside their culture not because it's the 1st Commandment but because they are raised with the idea that nothing short of the Judeo-Christian God qualifies as a god at all. The atheists reject Christianity but still define a deity by their rules.
The qualification for godliness in modern society I think is the cause of atheism. God, according to Wikipedia, is supposed to have "omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence" and since people have difficulty conceiving all those omni's and consider "good" to be subjective they then deduce that no deity or deities exist. Personally, don't see how these are necessary qualifications for a god. I think transfinite knowledge and power are good enough to be a god, especially since people try to argue God doesn't exist along the lines that He can't make a rock heavy enough that He can't lift it and is therefore not all powerful. One of the necessary abilities that was mentioned in my conversation was that a deity should be able to make something out of nothing. This isn't inconceivable since matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. That ability falls within the laws of physics, unless one considers energy to be "something" and therefore not creating something out of nothing. I find that idea flawed since that suggests a deity would be infinitely (or at least very) powerful without using any energy. Another criterion was that they have to have at least the ability to create, even if they did not themselves create, the Universe or the Earth. Except fro creating the Universe, this is not so hard. All one needs to do is bump a nebula and it will eventually it will create a solar system. Then you just guide organic molecules to a planet in a habitable zone around a star. If one thinks like the scientific atheist in this regard, the Universe does this naturally so none of this should require omnipotence.
To refer to the world of sci-fi, would we consider a being which meets all the criteria for a god as a god, or just a very powerful alien? The Q from Star Trek are effectively gods but they do not claim themselves as such. The ascended Ancients and the Ori in Stargate SG1 have seemingly limitless power, but only the Ori claim themselves as gods and demand worship. If humans were to one day encounter such beings, why not call them gods? As they say, "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck..." Is it the obligation of worship that is then the defining characteristic of a god? Might that be the root of it all? Again, the standards for worship are low; from worshipping the bones of really good people to praying to the sun. My personal opinion is that worship isn't mandatory for deities any more than it is for the seasons. So basically, if you ignore our culture's requirements for being a god and remove the worship aspect, why is it difficult to imagine such beings exist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)