Geoffrey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:40 pm
LisaLCFan wrote:
>
No, it doesn't make you sound like an intellectual, it just makes you sound like a person who likes Romantic-era poets!
----------------------------------------
thank you so much for this, lisa - and for
the reassuring continuation
of your post...
"
Reassuring"? You make it sound like being an intellectual is a negative thing! Whew, close call, thank goodness you avoided that!
Seriously, though, what's wrong with being "an intellectual", and why is this something that you are concerned about? An intellectual is merely a person who thinks deeply and logically about things, they enjoy contemplation and introspection, inwardly exploring
the many facets and complexities
of whatever captures their attention -- they are inquisitive and curious and enjoy learning and expanding their knowledge and understanding
of things, which they do easily and often thoroughly and comprehensively. Being an intellectual is not simply about
what interests one has, but in
how one thinks about one's interests --
the depth and complexity
of their thought processes is what makes them "an intellectual".
However, I prefer to use
the adjectival form
of the word, and to say that a person is (or can be, at times) "intellectual", rather than using
the noun form, because one can have many and varied adjectives attached to their persona (perhaps not all
of which would be categorised as "intellectual"), whereas to call one "
an intellectual" seems limiting, placing a restrictive label on a person, which may preclude and/or ignore other facets
of their individuality. I see labels such as that to be problematic because it is quite likely
the case that these labels may mean different things to different people -- not everyone will have or agree upon
the same definitions -- and thus there may be a variety
of positive or negative connotations attached to a label, depending on who is using it. For instance, you seem oddly concerned about being labelled as an intellectual, making a point
of saying that you aren't, which is really bizarre to me, but clearly
the label has some significance for you, which kind
of proves my point that labels can be destructive and unhelpful, and perhaps they should be avoided.
Geoffrey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:40 pm
...why keats' surname comes first in
the keats-shelley memorial association's headings is a good question. it could be to maximise its phonetical value, as
the flow would be less harmonic should there be a 'k' two thirds
of the way in ('shelley-keats').
the letter 'k' has a hard sound, and is actually a plus when coming after someone's first name. less so, perhaps, when being
the latter
of two hyphenated surnames. there are exceptions,
of course. i am no expert in such matters, but it probably has to do with things such as inflection/accent/intonation, etc.
I find it slightly more awkward to say "Keats-Shelley", because
of the two "s"s in succession: one is forced to enunicate them separately, with a clear stop between them, in order to avoid slurring
the "s"
of Keats with
the "Sh"
of Shelley (if one does not say it with
the stop between them, it sounds like "Keatshelley" -- one loses an "s"), whereas "Shelley-Keats" can easily and smoothly be pronounced as a single, undivided word, without a clear stop between them, and not losing a letter in doing so. Perhaps that may be one reason why
the names have been arranged that way, to be sure that people separate them! Shelley was
the older
of the two, which to me would make it more reasonable to put his name first. Also, putting one person's name first can imply an unequal partnership, with
the name listed first being considered more prominent for some reason, although that is not always
the case. Perhaps
the first person to establish a "Keats-Shelley Memorial Association" simply flipped a coin! If you ever learn why
the names have been arranged that way, please do let me know, for I am genuinely curious about it!
