2. How would the poem and its message change if it were written in standard English?
Tuesday 13 November 2012
John Agard: Mr Oxford Don
2. How would the poem and its message change if it were written in standard English?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Find three grammatical irregularities in the poem. Correct them and EXPLAIN in Danish what the problem is. If all errors are found and explained you can elaborate or comment on the effect.
ReplyDeleteVi er ikke sikre på hvad det er du mener…
Me not no oxford don = I am no Oxford don/I am not an Oxford don.
Der mangler et verbum. Han siger me I stedet for I
I ent have no gun = I do not have a gun/I have no gun.
Stavefegl + ain’t er forkert ordvalg !
But I tekking it quiet = But I am taking it quiet.
Stavefejl + mangel på verbummer.
2. How would the poem and its message change if it were written in standard English?
Well the idea is that his critic of the Queen’s English and the Oxford don’s is underlined by his spelling (double message power!) so if the poem was written in prober English it would ruin the message or at least not make the poem so nice and funny.
Samuel, Bastian, Saaser og Michelle
i agree by changing the poem into prober english, it might also seem more political. rather than the funny poem it is at the moment.
DeleteA little confused answer to the first question to the Union Jack poem, answered with the Listen MR Oxford don
ReplyDeleteJohn Agard is criticizing the prestige education gives. He proves that even though he has no education he still is able to create poetry. A don is a university professor/teacher and in the title he is addressing this type of people. We think that the “name” Mr. Oxford don is a sort of nickname and shows his contempt of the Queen’s English.
1) "Me not no Oxford don" - I am not a Oxford don...
ReplyDeleteNår man omtaler sig selv i første person, som her "jeg er", bruges I efterfuldt af en form af to be.
2) "but I tekking it quiet" - but I am taking it quiet...
For det første er taking it stavet forkert, for det andet mangler der en for af to be efter I, altså her "am"
3)"Dem accuse me of assult" - They accuse me of assult...
Dem/them er i betydningen "dem" fx "han beskyldte dem"
They er i betydningen "de" fx "de beskylder mig..."
Woops here is the second part:
DeleteIf all this was written in plain English, or the Queens English as Agard calls it, the effect of "mugging" the English language would not be present as he does not spilt the syntax or mash up the grammar
"I didn't graduate
ReplyDeleteI immigrate"
Han skifter tid. Korrekt ville det have været;
"I did not graduate
I immigrated"
"I slashing suffix in self defence" - I am slashing suffix(es?) in self-defence
Han er ikke meget for at bruge verber efter "I" noget sted i teksten.
Jeg synes at sætningen Sebastian rettede; "But I tekking it quiet = But I am taking it quiet.", er meget fin. Man er da ganske overbevist om, at han tager det roligt med anklagerne, idet han ikke laver sit sprog om.
As René writes the text would lose all meaning, if it had been written in proper English. Speaking and writing isn't the same though and despite a thick accent, the text could have been written with less typing errors, and keep the grammar mistakes, keeping its meaning. I think the text is written in full out speaking language to emphasize that he is a "criminal" and maybe even to show contempt for the Oxford dons and the whole way the English language is forced upon people in colonies.
Nå ja, det kunnst vist også have været "I did immigrate".
Delete
ReplyDeleteGrammatical mistakes:
Dem accuse me of assault - They accuse me of assault. "Them" er pronomen for "dem"; 3. person pluralis, bestemt form, mens "they" er pronome for "de"; 3. person pluralis, ubestemt form. Og eftersom der ikke oplyses om, hvem der skal referreres til, er det ubestemt.
Desuden bruger han mange ing-suffixer, hvilket er lidt sjovt, da de dermed bruges som beskrivelse af en egenskab - og han bruger dem om mugging, slashing, bashing, der alle er i forbindelse med hans "nedbrydning" af grammatikken... Altså nedbryder han grammatikken grammatisk korrekt. Fun, yeh?
The poem wouldn't have the same effect if it was written grammatically correct as he would spit double standards all over. When complaining about how everyone are grammar nazis, it's sort of important that he's not one himself.
My previous statement do bring some food for thought though. He does use bad grammar and the poems is flooded by spelling mistakes, yet he uses grammar to focus on his "skills" in non-correct grammar...
Oh well... I'm not sure if this is just a mistake of his or me over-interpretending. But as I said: Food for thought!
I think you are right, the poem would lose its power. Just because he is not grammatically correct,he is still able to get his message Through.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletelistening to the poem, i get the feeling of a nice rhythm in there, and im pretty sure by changing the lyrics into "correct english" this rhythm will be lost.
ReplyDeleteplease listen to these songs and comment on them.
I would very much like your opinions, if these songs would have been just as good with "correct english"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUGFhVWPOFs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtILxBszyf8
you got a very good point there about the rhythm
DeleteI agree with Troles. John Agard writes in the same way as they speak in the Caribbean, so I think it is natural for him to write that way.
ReplyDeletewell said !
Delete"I dont need no axe to split up yu syntax"
ReplyDeleteHan staver "your" forkert. Det er vel en form for slang at han siger "yu" i stedet for, men sådan er det vel generelt igennem digtet at han staver ordene som de lyder for eksempel også med "dem" som han bruger flere gange i stedet for "them"'
"I only armed wit mih human breath"
Igen er det stavelserne. Det skulle være "with" og "my". Derudover mangler han et verbum: "I am only armed..."
I have to agree with Søren that the slangs gives the poem a rhythm and it would not be the same if he pronounced all the words correct because then it would be much longer and clumsy.
1) Comments ahead of mine have already been correcting the grammar, so I will just stick to commenting on it...
ReplyDeleteto be honest, it is kinda difficult to pick a line that is not wrong in some way, and that is the whole point of the poem. It is radiant with rebellion because of the languange. using his "own" wrong English basically goes well with what it is he is criticizing, he is criticizing this perfect English language that the queen speaks and every British person strive to speak. This leads to him being looked down on when he uses his own language "Dem accuse me of assault on de Oxford dictionary". He is basically using the poem to make fun of/mock the perfect English language you have to speak to be considered British.
2) It quite simply would not work at all since the whole rebellion and mocking theme of the poem would be lost, and thus also the fun part of the poem.
- Alexander
Many good points so far!!
ReplyDeleteIs it just the language he agard is addressing here? Note the verbs he has chosen: Bash, split up, inciting, accuse, slashing... And what about all the weapons in the text?
You are being way too polite, ladies and gentlemen! Read deeper!
I don't see the deeper meaning in this poem other than those are very dark/angry verbs used to express himself, and say that he can use, bend, slaughter, and destroy the language as he wants regardless of what the British people say. In the end He does not really care what they think, he can speak his own English.
DeleteAlso looking at Agard's background, the mentioning of weapons he does not need might actually be a criticism of how the English Empire controlled and conquered the world with force, and he does not even need any weapons to start his own rebellion... A rather far-fetched idea but it's there!
- Alexander
1) cant do it.
ReplyDelete2) All the fun we are having, by reading the poem will dissapear and the message will still be the same, but i dont think that people will wonder and/or think so much about, the meaning of it.
the way the poem and the words are spelled and said out loud has a connection, and that we cant take away, or it wont be the same poem.
-Mikael
1. ”wit mih” – “With me” Dette er talesprog og det har den effekt at gøre digtet mere naturligt. Det gør også digtet mere uhøfligt.
ReplyDelete“me not no Oxford don” – “I am not an Oxford graduate (don?)” again it’s spoken language although here the words are placed completely wrong which instantly makes the reader think that the person talking is an immigrant of some sort. One thing to conclude for sure is that English isn’t his first language.
“I ent have no gun” – “I have no gun” same as before.
2. Well the poem would make much less sense because this poem is made up of dark comedy telling the story of a man who likes his accent and won’t change it. John is an immigrant and he talks the way he wants to talk. The effect it has would be far lower if changed to standard English.
Janus
Kristina:
ReplyDeleteDel 1:
This poem is addressed to "Oxford Don", but I do not think that it is written to just one person - rather, I find it hard to believe that all his rage could be directed at just one person. I find it more likely that this "Oxford Don" represents the entire English people, or at least those who feel that they are better than the immigrants, the Oxford Dons.
Part 2:
I do not think that you can correct the grammatical irregularities in the poem without changing the point and message it has, if you do that you change the way it is written (like how he speaks it out loud). So yes, the message would change if it was written on Standard English.
Dem accuse me of assult - They accuse me of assult
ReplyDeleteMe not no Oxford don" - I am not a Oxford don
I ent got no gun - I ain't got no gun
The poem would not have the same effect if it was corrected to standard english.