Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

linguistics... websites ... art

Expand Messages
  • ERATRIANO@aol.com
    In a message dated 03/07/2000 8:31:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, WendellWag@aol.com writes:
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 7, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 03/07/2000 8:31:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      WendellWag@... writes:

      << Yes, linguistics is that kind of science. Pei's books are pre-generative
      grammar, and while you don't need to know all the details of generative
      grammar, you should know of its existence. >>
      Or then again, I could give up. Struck out a few times today. LOL.

      It could get expensive hanging out here, there are so many tantalizing book
      titles bandied about.

      On another note, I went to one of the sites mentioned in an earlier post, the
      one about what makes Harry Potter so tasty. I read part of it, only part,
      must admit didn't go all the way through. I have a problem with these kinds
      of analyses. Unless it diverged from the typical path later on, this kind of
      article seldom leaves room for the talent of the individual writer. I mean,
      you could take all those elements they mentioned, the orphan thing and the
      special scar thing and so on, and let a different writer go at it, and you'd
      have different results. I don't think things can always be so quantified and

      I still want to look at the Susan Cooper site.

      And what about straight art? Does anyone else like Susan Seddon Boulet?
      What about Ann Paxton? (http://members.aol.com/annpaxton/index.html).
      Stevie Nicks (a popular girl rocker, well not a girl, maybe a woman?) has
      said she drew inspiration from Sulamuth (Sulamith?) Wulfing's art.

      I know I have strong reactions to artists that portray Tolkien stuff.
      Usually negative ones. LOL. But I do like Pauline Baynes. And Tolkien

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.