A very mild man
Always drank the weakest beer and
A very mild man
Always drank the weakest beer and
As far as we know it
No serious poet
Ever wrote a clerihew.
Or very few.
a fly buzzing around
with no idea you exist.
Here is my attempt at translation into Anglo Saxon.
cume drohte mid mec healsgebedda
be geon burn glowendee and ælfscíenee
Come live with me my love
By a stream.
Glowing and bright.
Suddenly, late summer
the millstream's clogged.
All of us jostling against winter.
Cemetery: Half a tree.
Elves: Music legend.
Goblin: Shoe-making (sometimes assisted by Elves).
Gothic: Report illness.
Grave: Seriously illegal party.
Igor: Enthusiastic assistant.
Necromancer: A vampire.
Sorcery: I'm really sorry.
Vampire: Burning van.
Vault: Unit of electricity, as applied by Igor.
Wraith: Beams of light (fatal to a Vampire).
My parents wouldn't understand me now.
Even my neighbors grow rhubarb.
Boil: See sauce
Broil: Not common
Confit: Too big
Fillet: Try anyway
Grater: Less reduced (see reduced)
Mincing: Male voice choir
Oath: Used for porridge
Pastry: Predecessor of pay for
Reduced: Deuced again
Sauce: Painful skin complaint
How do we learn?
Of course it makes a difference *what* we are learning. But evidence suggests that in most fields we will learn better if we structure the new learning.
This is not really a surprise. If we look at informal learning, even in adult life, we see that people fit new information into the matrix of what they already know. Of course they don't know they do this, it's just how they instinctively try make sense of the world. Formal learning often disrupts this process, because it offers fragments learners can't easily fit in.
Back in the 80s Richard Skemp put forward the notion of a "Schema", which is just another word for a framework really. He was interested in mathematical learning, but I think his message applies in any academic sphere. If you want people to learn, make it possible for them to assimilate new information into an ongoing conceptual structure. Otherwise they'll find it hard to learn, hard to retain what they have learned, and at best the learning is likely to be shallow.
What reminded me of all this was that when looking for evidence of what works well if you are preparing for an exam, I wondered what the latest research pointed to.
I found  and from there . I think in many ways this is saying what has been said all those years back, but maybe if we can bring the evidence base together better now these ideas will have more effect.
How we learn - and how educators (such as me) think we learn - has always fascinated me.
In the last 25 years or so medicine has embraced evidence-based practice but we in education have been slower in following evidence.
So I liked an article I just read.
I have tried to summarize its message in the graphic above.
The article is here
[If you get a pop-up about Pi, I'm do apologize and think Sci Am should know better.
How I wish I could evaluate Pi. Sorrow fills the heart.]
No poem's a blanket.
Even the smallest have tiny holes
still remember the morning
your parents were away
As more and further evidence that our Team are Close to the Concerns of the Nation and at the same time -
Well and hale in point of body
Healthy in mind
Sound in mental conception
- we offer the following floral arrangement, or 'ensemble of horticulturalist daffynitions'.
Rose: Orthogonal to columns.
Columbine: Purchase of columns. Usually illegal.
Violets: Aggressive problem resolution.
Feverfew: Gosh, I'm hot!
Primrose: Inhibited rose.
Larkspur: Unlikely purring of lark.
Clematis: So come on, eat yours.
Orchid: Metal Mickey.
Speedwell: Dialect comment in first person plural on successful urinary function, for example after communal consumption of Dandelions.
Peony: Still got problems?
Summer and the same old thing.
Good luck, let's enjoy it you and I.
A relative sent a wounding message to me, on the occasion of yesterday's flippant post, as follows
'How does this stupidity make people admire Science?'
We felt this harsh and lacking in educational principles. As a riposte here are some definitions from our companion 'Dictionary of Poesy'.
Verse: Not better.
Ode: A debt.
Sonnet: Snot offit.
Metre: A date.
Dacyl: Non-scary pterodactyl.
Consonance: Not vowels.
Paradox: Two dogs.
Quatrain: Enquiry about presence of drain.
Iamb : Second part of Cartesian saying.
Pastoral: Beyond words.
We have recently begun work on the Uxbridge Dictionary of the Periodic Table. Here are 10 sample entries
Bromine: A mean brother.
Iodine: Thanks Dean!
Flourine: The floor.
Silicon: Pathetic attempt at a scam.
Boron: I'm not interested but continue if you must.
Gold: Similar to rhinitis.
Antimony: Preferring barter.
Zinc: Place for washing dishes.
Arsenic: Buttock injury.
Hafnium: 50% of Holmium.
Haven't I said I love you?
My sparkles show this is so.
On the far side of nowhere
Two poets were inventing people.
"Where shall we keep them?"
"In a garden."
Tonight at the Moon Under Water, someone read out an article about rhino horn. Then someone else mentioned whale hunting.
This reminded me of the Inky Fool blog (IFB).
What's the connection between Vikings and a well-known coffee chain?
From memory of the IFB.
In Yorkshire (sub-question, where did Yorick come from and why did he get dug up in Elsinore?) there was a place the Anglo-Saxons called 'Sedge brook'. Sedges are a sort of grassy plant that like the verges of streams, but they are pretty common. It's a bit like calling a moor 'Grasmoor" I suppose.) But the sedges must have seemed distinctive enough to name a small village for them. It's quite sensible when you think about it though. The Strand is just a strand=beach and there must be many beaches. Sedgebrook wasn't Redbrook or Rushbrook, which would have been easily distinguished.
Along came the Vikings and had a big local influence, so it got renamed 'Star beck'. You can see the words are the same but Vikings and Anglo-Saxons just had different dialects.
Back to coffee. As The Inky Fool describes some people from Starbeck acquired the surname 'Starbeck' because that's where their ancestry was from. Back then not everyone was a good speller. So we got 'Starbuck'.
People called Starbuck crossed the Atlantic to Natucket Mass.They became big in whale hunting. They were so famous that when Hermann Melville wrote 'Moby Dick' he called one of the ship's main people, apart from the obsessional Ahab, Starbuck.
Now, when the founders of Starbucks were searching for a company name they looked in Moby Dick. I'm not sure why really but the notion isn't silly and turned out rather well.
To go back to the beginning. Regulars at the Moon Under Water hate rhino and whale hunting.
So perhaps the human race is becoming more honourable in spite of all.
When the game was afoot he didn't care
About having unruly hair.
This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.