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!
