This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Orality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Orality appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 August 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed the phrase "Have they heard the warning of Socrates?" from the title of the main picture--What is this? A commentary? Anapologetos ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ong's characteristic #2 -- Additive rather than Subordinative -- cites Ong's reference to the Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis. Someone added a different translation, demonstrating that the multiple appearances of "and" do not occur in the new one, thus challenging Ong's example. Should this be included? The article already mentions that "these are subject to continuing debate" and it seems to me therefore that the debate doesn't belong in this section; rather, what Ong contributed to the debate (or perhaps how he sparked a debate) belongs here.
Not to mention that the second translation was not provided in Ong's works (as far as I am aware), nor is it cited to be from any other published critique of Ong (which might be helpful, I suppose, in clarifying the "continuing debate" while not actually debating).
I suggest we remove the second [agonistic, as it were] translation of the Bible in this section. - Begeun ( talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it should read (paraphrasing Brett epic's comments above)The New American Bible (1970) offers a translation that is grammatically far more complex.
- Begeun ( talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Demonstrating how oral modes of communication tend to evolve into literate ones, Ong additionally cites The New American Bible (1970), which offers a translation that is grammatically far more complex.
I have just deleted the following statements from the article because even though they are probably true, they seem to me too remote from the subject of the article:
Dear A Lot to Learn: I'm not sure why you consider this remote from the topic. A major goal of development practice is to teach villagers to hold governments and private sector institutions accountable for service delivery. Their inability to do so is considered an important obstacle to rural development. This inability is a direct result of the oral-literate gulf between villagers on the hand, and the service providers on the other.
Kindly return this to the orality page. Best regards Brett epic ( talk) 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
-- AlotToLearn ( talk) 06:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
References
A 'dubious tag' was placed on the text below.
"While literacy extends human possibilities in both thought and action, all literate technologies ultimately depend on the ability of humans to learn oral languages.[dubious – discuss]" The tag was posted by Succubus MacAstaroth, who wrote "What of the deaf-mute? What oral languages do they know? And yet they read, write and produce literature just like everyone else."
The text does not dispute the remarkable capacities of many deaf and mute people. It refers not to the capacities of individuals to use communications technologies, but to the capacities of societies to develop them. Our modern system of writing is based on the phonetic alphabet. A phonetic alphabet could not have been developed by a deaf-mute, because the letters unpack sound and represent it as text. A deaf-mute cannot access sound directly. This takes away absolutely nothing from their capacity to use text once it has been developed.
To make the point clearer, I have edited the text as follows. "While literacy extends human possibilities in both thought and action, all literate technologies ultimately depend on the ability of humans to learn oral languages and then translate sound into symbolic imagery." Brett epic ( talk) 16:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. That it is the
is self evident from the word (with a little thinking), but what is characterizing orality? Is it folks etymologies, special conventions, reliance on knowledge authorities or ... ? Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 06:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
And yet no page for Orality and Literacy. I know that's not his only book on the subject but it seems strange to have this page, which seems pretty well developed, and not that one. Any particular reason? --— Rhododendrites talk | 16:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Ong's concept of secondary orality is mentioned three or four times in the intro but not linked to the separate Secondary orality article that exists. It is finally linked from the one other mention in this article, at the end of the residual orality section, although prefaced with "a kind of" qualifier that seems to imply it is not a solid concept in its own right. That is in contrast to "primary orality" and "residual orality" having their own sections in this article while secondary orality does not. I guess I'm confused about what this seemingly inconsistent handling is indicating and how to best rectify it. My thought would be to add links in the intro, plus to make the current last ¶ of the Residual orality section into its own new Secondary orality section that, after that existing text, refers readers to the separate existing article. But I defer to those of you with more knowledge in this area. Newsplexer ( talk) 20:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)