7/18/2006
Dear Adidabbles,

As we were on the subject of phonetics, thought I’d challenge you with this jewel:

            “Ow, eez y-ooa san, is e?  Wal, fewd dan y’ d-ooty bawmz a mather should, eed now bettern to spawl a pore gel’s flahrzn than ran awy athaht pyin.”

           A)    please translate
           B)     please identify the work in which it occurs

Correct answer to A) earns 100 points.  Incorrect answer earns 98 points plus 6 additional points to reward and encourage effort as per guidelines instituted by Fairness In Education program.  The surplus reward margin offsets the unfair advantage that students who answer questions correctly continue to enjoy outside the test.  This damn well fixes that.    

Students who fail to give an answer at all will receive only the 98 points.  While penalizing their behavior, this will allow them to receive an A like other students, thus avoiding stigma resulting in further alienation from learning.  This “Everybody Wins” approach vastly improves over prior oppressive practices.  

Question B) is a bonus opportunity worth 5,000 extra points.  So it is possible to score 5,104 maximum points out of 100, should a student miss the test question but nail the bonus.    

Students answering all questions correctly and therefore scoring 5,100 points may be required to share some points with students scoring lower if, in the judgment of the teacher or local educational authority, sound educational policy requires this measure under the prevailing circumstances.  In such case, no student answering all questions correctly shall have his or her score reduced (point-shared) to less than 98 points except in the most extreme instances.         

If YOU fail to answer, Advante, it will be construed as panic, and ye’ll git nuthin.’.

Smugly I remain,
Floopsin

7/20/2006
Dear Fidgetation,

You tempt me to recite extensive swaths from memory.  Know it, taught it, put years into being Higgins to thousands of Elizas, within scope of my specialties.  Indeed, such a one were you.  Sadly, results do vary.

A)    “Oh, he’s your son, is he?  Well, if you’d done your duty by him as a mother should, he’d know better than to spoil a poor girl’s flowers and then run away without paying.”

100 points, please.  The full brisket—I share nothing.

B)     Pyg as in malion as in Shaw’s play.  Act One. 

Interesting line in the Preface to the published work, to the effect of “It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman despise him.”  The context is a discussion of the—um, pronounced — significance of accents and Shaw’s stance against phonetic anarchy.  Whereas today for every linguistic & cultural soupçon that lingers on the globe, hovering by there’s some desperate Heritage Society For Preservation Of.  Which for you, Fruples?  The alleged peace of uniformity or the preserved, chaotic spices of life?      

You may distribute (only) my bonus points among the needy!

Unalienably,
Attatoxus

7/21/2006
Dear Abendabay,

That man loved his language!  Suspect he didn’t really want everyone as slick as himself—he wouldn’t be special anymore.  Couldn’t lord around, railing on everyone’s incompetence…

…But how you speak the language and what you create with it are two much different things, ay?  Bernie Shaw would still have been the Georgie-Pooh wot went ’n’ hit it big, ay?  Went ’n’ hit ’er big.

Here’s a song:  She wore cruuuuuushed vel-vet (music etc.  Don’t know the rest.)

Depends on the subject: I think some uniformity is essential and preferable in some matters, likewise spice of life in some.  Nuances of English accent I leave for better men to ponder. 

I did see of which you speak in that Preface.  Also there I noticed that our man Shaw can take a right mean turn when he wants.  Lissen what he bit off at the flower girls:

            “Ambitious flower-girls who read this play must not imagine that they can pass themselves off as fine ladies by untutored imitation.  They must learn their alphabet over again, and differently, from a phonetic expert.  Imitation will only make them ridiculous.”  

An’ I’m like slappin’ the dude, right?  I got him wedged up against the sooty bricks of the Globe Theatre or whatever, back in the alley behind some crates, and I’m like slappin’ the pee out of him for every flower girl that ever got her heart & spirit broke when she grew up & found out there are classes of human beings, categories proclaiming a quality basis, fundamental inferiority and superiority and their implications about the right to be alive, and her daddy and momma and brothers and sisters and she are animated jokes to some people, zoo specimens to some, nothing more than dirt to others—I mean, I’m slappin’ this guy’s gold caps out his mouth, and starting to visit his ribs a little with uppercuts, when somebody pulls me off and says, “Wait a minute!  Take a closer look at who you’re hammerin’!”

And I guess I got the wrong guy here, because Shaw’s not condemning anyone to social immobility, rather trying to help them attain a position for thriving, given hard realities and the fact that self-improvement has constantly and properly been considered a desirable, even essential objective.  He wants elevation to be a practical option for all.  Yes, he judges, but of course that ability to see differences follows from their existence.  Improvement has to mean from a weaker position (or “lower level”) to a stronger (higher); that is, levels do exist and they are apparent.  That a flower girl’s position is the weaker/lower is reflected in Shaw’s observation that without refinement she cannot secure good employment.  ’Nuff said!   

My bad, Shaw. 

—Tho of course, Admeerl, you could've jumped in there any time. You know much more about how Shaw felt than I do. How's that jaw-boxin' likely to sit with 'im?

Here I go,
Floohardy