Search results for 'tag:Essays tag:Analogies' matching tags 'Essays' and 'Analogies'

Commentary on Shylock's characterization

Morningrise — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:49:57 GMT

Hi! I have to write a short essay about Shylock and the anti-semitic debate in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. I have taken the material from the English Wikipedia, and rewritten it in my own words. Could you correct the text? Suggestions are welcome!

Elizabethan England was anti-Semitic: Jews had been expelled from the country during the Middle Ages, and were not allowed to return until the rule of Oliver Cromwell. Elizabethan playwrights usually depicted Jews as greedy usurers, with hideous and mocking physical features (hooked noses and bright red wigs, for example); they were characterized as evil, deceptive and greedy. In The Merchant of Venice Shakespeare continued this tradition (we know that in its days the play was known as "The Jew of Venice", and this suggests an analogy with Marlowe's The Jew of Malta), but his main purpose was to make the audience reflect about the anti-Semitic problem: this explains why Shylock's is such a complex character, unlike the comically wicked Barabas of The Jew of Malta.

A thorough analysis of Shylock's acts and words during the key scene of the trial shows us that, though he is definitely a cruel villain, he is made equal to all the Christian that treated him really badly, and so is partially justified. Thus many critics and theatregoers have viewed Shylock's "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech as sympathetic, because the author apparently wants to justify Shylock's thirst for revenge; on the other hand, those who reject this interpretation adfirm that Shakespeare simply meant to contrast the mercy of the main Christian characters with the vengefulness of a Jew, and meant Shylock's conversion as a happy ending, since it 'redeems' him both from his unbelief and his specific sin of wanting to kill Antonio. Finally, there's another aspect of the scene we have to consider: the entire trial is a mockery of justice, since the very people who berated Shylock are forced to resort to trickery in order to win. This can support the sympathetic interpretation along with the final part of Shylock's speech, in which he says that he learned the thirst for revenge from the Christian characters.

Re: drew an analogy/made a comparison between between an essay and a sandwi

Angliholic — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:21:12 GMT

Thanks, Jim, for the elaborate explanation.

I've read many times to get it.

Roger!

Re: drew an analogy/made a comparison between between an essay and a sandwi

CalifJim — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:08:06 GMT

Either one makes sense on its own, but, though very similar, they are not exactly the same.

When you draw an analogy you are doing more than just making a comparison. An analogy is more detailed. You have the phenomenon to be explained with parts A, B, C, D, E. The analogous phenomenon has parts a, b, c, d, e. You show how the relationships among a, b, c, d, e are present in what you are trying to explain -- in the form of the relationships between A, B, C, D, E. I would call an analogy an extended, complex comparison. Analogies often occur between very dissimilar systems of relationships. On the other hand, comparisons are usually made in a simpler way between two individual things that are generally in the same category of things. Essays and sandwiches are very dissimilar, to my mind, so I believe that the better word is analogy in your example.

CJ

drew an analogy/made a comparison between between an essay and a sandwich

Angliholic — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:19:35 GMT

The teacher drew an analogy between an essay and a sandwich to teach students how to organize their writing.

The teacher made a comparisoon between ...

Do both of the above sound right and mean about the same? Thanks.

Re: Persuasive Essay Thesis Statement

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:04:52 GMT

The analogy "playing field" should not be in the thesis, it makes it rather confusing. Make it a straight forward comment and possibly save the analogy for later in the paper, if at all.

Teen metaphor :P

Tearsofjoy — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:31:54 GMT

Courtesy of www.jumbojoke.com

We've been told these are actual analogies and metaphors found in high school essays. Yeah, as if.

---

1. Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a Thigh Master.

2. His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.

3. He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.

4. She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was room-temperature Canadian beef.

5. She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up.

6. Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

7. He was as tall as a six-foot-three-inch tree.

8. The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife's infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM.

9. The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.

10. McBride fell 12 storeys, hitting the pavement like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup.

11. From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city and Jeopardy! comes on at 7 p.m. instead of 7:30.

12. Her hair glistened in the rain like a nose hair after a sneeze.

13. The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease.

14. Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. travelling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph.

15. They lived in a typical suburban neighbourhood with picket fences that resembled Nancy Kerrigan's teeth.

16. John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met.

17. He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant and she was the East River.

18. Even in his last years, Grandpappy had a mind like a steel trap, only one that had been left out so long, it had rusted shut.

19. Shots rang out, as shots are wont to do.

20. The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.

21. The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for a while.

22. He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame. Maybe from stepping on a land mine or something.

23. The ballerina rose gracefully en pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant.

24. It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.

25. He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up.

26. Her eyes were like limpid pools, only they had forgotten to put in any pH cleanser.

27. She walked into my office like a centipede with 98 missing legs.

28. It hurt the way your tongue hurts after you accidentally staple it to the wall.

Enjoy!

- Joy

Re: Linguistics not science

Randy_Tam — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:57:46 GMT

ah... it seems nobody is reading. Anyway, this thing has gone really too far - fetched.

No offense, but that it pains and is time - consuming to do the a - level is a rather common opinion among high school students. At any rate, this is a conclusion that information available to me has led me to draw.

As to the jargon thing, if 'etymon' be defined as 'the root of a lexical item', and given one is going to use the word many times... haha, this is going to be a lot of fun: the root of a lexical item (an etymon) is something that students should at any rate have some knowledge about; however, the study into the root of lexical items (etymology) is par excellence a profound subject that is worth as much attention as such other linguistic subjects as phonetics and semantics.

'Why use jargons when simple words will do?'

in the very same manner, I will ask, 'why use a long expression when a shorter and plainer one is available'? (again, the 2 arguments are treated as 'equally important' in George Ornwell's 1946 essay...) An analogy could be observed from maths:

1. (2x + 2y)

2. 2(x + y)

is the latter one not more palatable?

'Last time I checked, linguistics is still in the Faculty of Arts. Never seen it listed among the sciences. '

That's why every year members and professors from that field take pain in explaining the nature of THEIR linguistics. Go to the open days of those institutes where linguistics classes are given. You will find them all stressing on the irrelevance of studying languages (presumably an arts matter) to linguistics defined in their own fashion. Taxonomy is one thing; the nature of what is taught can be another. Economics is, as a tradition, treated as an arts subject (though yes... it is changing). But does it not fall under a branch of science, with a coherent framework of theories and tools for predictions?

'Your prof. is right to keep your project in hiatus. Students should be well-rounded before they become specialized--there's plenty of time for that yet! Again, going back to what I've said about a lopsided education. '

Not really... linguistics in its own right is a subject, English is another. That I skim through linguistics issues does not mean I am leaving other subjects high and dry. A history major fella tells me he is doing some sort of research into the military history of the Chinese warlords, 1911 - 1927. (a field on which few historians even bother to write). I am somehow envious of him not really because of the freedom (I am going to study myself anyway) he is given, but because somebody is serving for him as a good 'reader'.

' Linguistics is like åµæ³. Too much strategems on paper will turn anybody into a é¦¬è¬.'

That depends on how you define 'linguistics'. If you mean to be so ambitious as to include language phenomena into 'linguistics', then yes. But if the usual sense of this word is preserved, then I must decline. Linguistics, treated on a par with 'French studies', 'Literary analysis', or 'history', is a STUDY of human linguistic behaviour, but not 'human linguistic behaviour' itself: I do not need to know linguistics in order to speak my mother tongue or English, or French. By the same token, an apple does not need to 'know' Newton's laws so that it will fall from a tree. Linguistics is (currently) a study concerned with the nature of the language faculty. So it is appropriate to speak of L1 acquisition, X' theory, etc.

BUT to study the subject is one thing, to APPLY it is another. This is true of... I am sorry to say, everything. One can well attend a so - called 'leadership training camp' and score high, but fail to manage his subordinates in an orderly manner. One may well recite the X theory and Y theory, but still doesn't know to deal with the lack of initiation (on which X theory is based) among his subordinates. But that does not mean a study into such phenomena as aforementioned is unnecessary or will turn a chap into a pedant. That is a matter of how one understands the relationship between a study and the practical application the knowledge he possesses.

Re: When to use 'is' and 'are' has caused an argument in the office

paco2004 — Sat, 11 Dec 2004 03:00:34 GMT

Essay on The Collective Noun by Sophie Johnson

Traditionally, the noun that names a collective is considered to be singular. Being singular, the verbial that denotes its act is also singular:
(1) The family prays every evening.
(2) Australia is playing against Portugal in the final round.
(3) The government is going to propose tough legislation in this matter.
Yet we regularly hear and read 'the government are', 'the family are', and in sports commentaries, even 'Australia are'. What, one might well ask, is going on? Is contemporary English denying the existence of the collective noun? This state of things is particularly bemusing for learners of English. That is little wonder, for the equivalent in their native tongues of 'my government are' is impossibly ungrammatical. The English, they tend to conclude, are disturbingly sloppy with their grammar.

But are we? Or is it that we are left free to use our language as we think reasonable, while everyone else is constrained to toe a pedant line? Unlike most other language areas, ours is not presided over by guardians who legislate upon its use. And that's just as well, in our estimate. For what, to take the case to hand, would be the good in our being ordered to respect the singular-noun status of the collective noun? Would respecting it add even a scrap to the lucidity of the meanings we make? Besides, when we talk about a 'family' that is doing something, or about a 'government' that is doing something, we envisage several people engaged in an activity. So why a singular verbial to pretend that only one person is doing it?

Such a line of argument is handy. But it won't explain all. There is still this sort of thing: We treat 'nation' as a collective noun:
(4) A nation is valiant when it defends itself.
But we treat 'people' as a plural noun:
(5)A people are valiant when they defend themselves.
We do this even though the two expressions are equi-meaning. We just do, that's all!

Nevertheless, what is 'a', the indefinite article that normally goes with singular nouns ('a dog', 'a shovel'.) doing before the plural noun 'people'? At this stage we might explain kindly to anyone who wants to know that the English article is something we use as we do because we know how to use it. Everyone else, sadly, does not.

Other oddities assail us even as we wriggle out of the sticky mire that 'a people are' landed us in. In this business, no news is good news. Now, hold it right there! 'News', apparently a plural noun, 'is'? Oh dear. There's no making light of this one. 'News', despite its plural form, takes the singular copula 'is', not the plural 'are'!

As if this were not vexation enough, there is the prissy business of 'the media are'. Why not 'the media is'? The fact that the Latin word 'media' is the plural form of 'medium' should surely not deter us from using the singular copula with it. The plural form of 'news' did not. But then, 'news' does not have a singular form: We always hear the latest bit of news, never the latest bit of new. 'Media' has a singular form: 'medium'. But that is a spiritual person, not newspapers and radio and television.

Are we getting somewhere, willy-nilly, having so far decided upon a policy of concluding nothing much? We probably are â into another mire: 'Constabulary' is a group noun, has a singular form and its act is denoted as a singular verbial:
(6) The constabulary needs to be free of political control.
A true collective noun!â one might celebrate it. But not for long. Its synonym, `the police', is a plural noun:
(7) The police need to be free of political control.
So why is one name a collective noun and its synonym a plural noun? All is lost!
What? What's this? 'All is? 'All are', surely? 'All' is a plural noun! But wait:
(8) All is lost if the cause is lost.
(9) All are lost if particular things or people are lost.
'All' both is and is not a collective noun, and it is and is not a plural noun. Where are we now in the collective noun/singular verbial showdown?

This sort of perambulation leaves us in no doubt that the collective noun/singular verb usage is in disarray in English. Can it be rationalised or is it now too late? In any case, how would we rationalise? What would happen, for instance, if a rule such as: 'Any noun that names a group as an abstraction is a collective noun and must take a singular verb' were forced upon English usage? Under such a regime we could say that:
(10) A government is good only as a democratic construct.
(11) This Government are doing a good job.
are grammatically proper. But then, we can do this anyway, if we want. And if not, not. Legislation, on the other hand, would deny us the latter alternative. We, being English speakers, do not take kindly to legislation on usage. Nor should we. For once it begins, where does it stop?

Sensible after-thought on a stand in support of the contemporary open-season on the collective noun is this: Tradition always has respectability. It also has clout, because traditionalists tend to out-number rebels and because traditional behavior always has connotations of refinement. To hazard an analogy: One can make meaning creditably without respecting the collective noun/singular verbial, just as one can eschew knife and fork yet dine well on steak. But doing either, what does one lose in polish? Writers should consider respecting collective nouns for reason alone that failure to do so is not appreciated universally. Indeed, many see that failure an ignorance.

Collecive Noun by S. Johnson

Re: The Relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth

Lukas — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:14:02 GMT
3. It's an analogy witch is used to convine Macbeth of killing Duncan.

in the view of their relationship, it's bit more complicated, at least for me
It might be that the 'babe' is actually a male,

on the other hand all scotish women of higher position did feed their own babys with breast milk, not like the british aristocratic women.

more I cannot think of

now will continue on my essays

does anybody see any punctuation or grammar mistakes ? Word didn't but I don't have so much trust in software anymore

thank you!

Re: Need Help Persuasive Techniques For English Essay Due Tomorrow

MrPedantic — Tue, 09 Nov 2004 01:28:59 GMT
Hello Eatmorchikin

I suppose the obvious analogy would be with under-age sex.

You could use 'parallelism' in that context: 'With under-age drinking, XYZ'/'With
under-age sex, ABC'.

You could make a historical allusion to prohibition in the USA. Do laws about
under-age drinking have the same effect as prohibition, and encourage the
very phenomenon they're meant to prevent? Or if you're so inclined,
allude to Dionysus. The original under-age drinker.

Figures of speech: there's endless scope here. Use colourful similes to
describe how you felt after your first intensive bout of under-age
drinking. Personify that first bottle of Scotch. (Very probably it
personified itself.) That sudden unsteady rush to the bathroom
next morning. And all those ready-made metaphors for the effects of
one too many. Talking to Ralph on the big white telephone etc. The
list is endless.

MrP