Re: OT: 'Dry' textbooks (was: Re: CHAT: _Describing Morphosyntax_)
|From:||Mark P. Line <mark@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, August 29, 2004, 20:12|
Carsten Becker said:
> On Sunday 29 August 2004 01:34, Mark P. Line wrote:
> > J. K. Hoffman said:
> > > But, I'm an almost
> > > total non-linguist. I mean, I've never had a formal
> > > class in linguistics and what tiny bit I know I
> > > dragged, kicking and screaming, from some of the driest
> > > textbooks I have ever read. Unfortunately, _Describing
> > > Morphosyntax_ is one of those, for me.
> > What is it exactly that makes you experience these books
> > as 'dry'? I'm curious because I can easily imagine that
> > most non-linguists find much of what I write 'dry' in the
> > same way. But I wouldn't know where to start to make it
> > any wetter...
> Well, you could wrap it in a nice little story :þ
So, Phil the Phoneme walked into this bar, see, and ...
> I think it's just the style such things are written in --
> always explanatory, no action, quite densely written so
> that you must think about what you read. Like an entry
> in an encyclopedia. It's a lot more strenuous (sp?) than
> watching TV at least.
Soccer is strenuous, and lots of people do that for *fun*.
Maybe the subject matter of those dry textbooks just isn't fun for some