the below sent to me by
Gilles-Maurice de Schryver,
ANNOUNCING A NEW PORTAL: African Language Technology (AfLaT)
URL: http://aflat.org/
Interest in language technology research for African languages has
seen a tremendous increase in recent years. This is marked by the
growing availability of digital corpora, dictionaries and tools for
many (formerly) resource-scarce African languages. The AfLaT website
aims to catalogue these resources for the benefit of researchers
interested in African language technology.
AfLaT.org contains a steadily growing collection of bibliographic
resources, web links and tools, provided by AfLaT members. We would
like to invite you to join this community effort and share
information, discuss research topics or just simply browse through
the available content. Registration is free of charge.
We hope to see you soon!
Guy De Pauw, Belgium
Gilles-Maurice de Schryver, Belgium & South Africa
Peter Waiganjo Wagacha, Kenya
hadas / faeries
lately i´ve been thinking that it can be said that there are two types of people in this world, those who appreciate fairytales (cuentos de hadas) and those who don´t. i find it fascinating the responses elicited in those who don´t like fairytales, or call them ridiculous, or say stories are far-fetched, or even escapist. and i ask myself "what´s so wrong with make-believe that it needs to be denounced in such a fashion?" for thát is how i would characterise some of the responses i´ve heard. well, for one, i have seen the movie "the Holiday" twice, and base much of my opinion on that. i´ve heard many an animated discussion, with people either liking the movie or not liking it (both vehemently). for me, cinema has always been a form of escape, which inherently sounds negative but isn´t meant to. i like being engrossed in the story on the screen. but this post is not so much about an appreciation of/for cinema as it is an opinion about the appreciation of/for fairytales, even when (let´s say "in spite of being") "grown up". I think people who can´t appreciate good storytelling just take themselves and the world far too seriously (says she who can be súper-serious sometimes).
then the other day i´d bought a new old tori amos cd, and one of the songs goes:
We may fall then stumble
Upon a carousel
It could take us anywhere
that´s when i posted some pics of a
carousel on flickr (i´d removed all other pics some days before, motivated by the idea of "a new year, needs new pics"...) subsequently, when i´d enthused about the tori amos lyrics, the imagery she conjures up, and her general playfulness with language, a friend mentioned that her imagery was so fairy-like, and so wasn´t sure if that appealed.
what bothers me really, and the reason for this posting, is this sense that there is a fear in folks. yes, a fear of fairytales. you´ll say "she´s gone cuckoo". my question is why must people be so resistant to considering the possibility of what make-believe can conjure up? and you see it in all spheres of life, not just in whether people like/dislike actual fairytales.
interesting.
Oh, while pondering the above, there appeared an interview in a college newsletter, with Dr Diane Purkiss, Fellow and Tutor in English:
Q: Are supernatural figures, such as fairies, still relevant in today´s society?A: Fairies have become a symbol of cute disbelief: people may want to believe in them, but they are not credible. This has a lot to do with their portrayal in the works of Shakespeare.Fairies have died as an active belief, but have been replaced by aliens who come from a largely undiscovered universe but perform the same function as supernatural figures, abducting us and impregnating us. A reason for this change is that the world has largely been discovered and mapped, mysterious beings such as fairies need to come from the unknown.Okay, interesting opinion. I don´t agree that aliens have replaced fairies, but well... Also, fairies and fairytales exist in other cultures, where Shakespearean portrayals would be irrelevant. So, maybe the Purkiss´ assertion could hold for English-speakers, but not necessarily anywhere else. But, see the
entire interview, why don´t you, which dealt with her start at the uni, women at oxf, and the childrens´ books she writes with her son and daughter.
Labels: fairytales, fear
about SL (again) & capitalism
Some weeks ago I blogged about Second Life as seeming to me a digi expression of a capitalist ethic, a là "...merely some digital instantiation of a capitalist ethic. yeah, let´s call it "EXTREME CAPITALISM". the fiscal equivalent of extreme sports!? "
So, imagine my surprise (though maybe "surprise" is too strong a word) when I saw the below in an online newspiece:
"Second Life is a subscription-based, 3-D fantasy world
devoted to capitalism — a 21st century version of Monopoly that generates real money for successful players." (my emphasis).
This is from the story titled:
IBM to build virtual stores in Second Life (9 Jan, Assoc. Press)
The story starts as follows:
"International Business Machines Corp. didn't throw a lavish casino party or set up an over-the-top booth to mark its return to the International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) after a decade away. Rather, the company reserved its most ambitious consumer initiative for the virtual world. On Monday, IBM announced plans to build virtual stores for Sears Holdings Corp. and Circuit City Stores Inc. in the popular online world Second Life. The partnerships could help IBM expand its consulting services to corporate clients interested in the growing number of people who belong to immersive online environments, also called the "3-D internet.""
The piece then goes on to describe the nuts-and-bolts of these online virtual stores:
"At the Sears Virtual Home, avatars of IBM architects greeted guests with glasses of merlot and invitations to sit in recliners and watch flat-screen televisions in a fantasy home theatre.
The idea is to help consumers see how Sears refrigerators, televisions, counter tops, garage doors, storage cabinets and other products look in a 3-D environment. Visitors can swap cabinets and counter tops to determine which combination they like most, and they may follow links to purchase items from the main Sears website."
What the story highlights for me, apart from the devotion-to-capitalism bit, is this blurring between the virtual and the real. (See my
earlier blog re this matter.) To me it is that the virtual becomes subsumed in the real, and so is "real-yet-different". Does that make any sense? I mean that digital reality is still reality, but just different by degrees. I guess that´s why we´ve had the coining of the term "virtual reality".... Interesting question, I can´t recall the history of the term.
So, let´s go over to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality#BackgroundTerminology
The origin of the term virtual reality is uncertain.
The Judas Mandala, a
1982 novel by
Dan Brodes where the context of use is somewhat different from that defined above. The VR developer
Jaron Lanier claims that he coined the term
[1]. A related term coined by
Myron Krueger, "
artificial reality", has been in use since the
1970s. The concept of virtual reality was popularized in mass media by movies such as
Brainstorm and
The Lawnmower Man (and others mentioned below), and the VR research boom of the
1990s was motivated in part by the non-fiction book Virtual Reality by
Howard Rheingold. The book served to demystify the heretofore niche area, making it more accessible to less technical researchers and enthusiasts, with an impact similar to what his book
The Virtual Community had on
virtual community research lines closely related to VR.
Thanks to Willard McCarty at KCL for the pointer via the
HUMANIST list. (HUMANIST was the first list I subbed to when I first got online, and it´s been ever the pleasure since, to receive those mailings, even though i haven´t made as much time as i should to read them in recent times. maybe the problem had its source there...) The below is copied twice. The original uses "man", so I went along and substituted all of those instances with "woman" etc, merely to see how the text would read. see comments below.
para varones>The proper function of a University in national education is tolerably
>well understood. At least there is a tolerably general agreement about
>what a University is not. It is not a place of professional education.
>Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men
>for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not
>to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and
>cultivated human beings. It is very right that there should be public
>facilities for the study of professions. It is well that there should be
>Schools of Law, and of Medicine, and it would be welt if there were
>schools of engineering, and the industrial arts. The countries which
>have such restitutions are greatly the better for them; and there is
>something to be said for having them m the same localities, and under
>the same general superintendence, as the establishments devoted to
>education properly so called. But these things are no part of what every
>generation owes to the next, as that on which its civilization and worth
>will principally depend. They are needed only by a comparatively few,
>who are under the strongest private inducements to acquire them by their
>own efforts, and even those few do not require them until after their
>education, m the ordinary sense, has been completed. Whether those whose
>speciality they are, will learn them as a branch of intelligence or as a
>mere trade, and whether, having learnt them, they will make a wise and
>conscientious use of them or the reverse, depends less on the manner m
>which they are taught their profession, than upon what sort of minds
>they bring to it--what kind of intelligence, and of conscience, the
>general system of education has developed in them. Men are men before
>they are lawyers, or physicians, or merchants, or manufacturers: and if
>you make them capable and sensible men, they will make themselves
>capable and sensible lawyers or physicians. What professional men should
>carry away with them from an University, is not professional knowledge,
>but that which should direct the use of their professional knowledge,
>and bring the light of general culture to illuminate the technicalities
>of a special pursuit. Men may be competent lawyers without general
>education, but it depends on general education to make them philosophic
>lawyers--who demand, and are capable of apprehending, principles,
>instead of merely cramming their memory with details. And so of all
>other useful pursuits, mechanical included. Education makes a man a more
>intelligent shoemaker, if that be his occupation, but not by teaching
>him how to make shoes: it does so by the mental exercise it gives, and
>the habits it impresses.
para mujeres>The proper function of a University in national education is tolerably
>well understood. At least there is a tolerably general agreement about
>what a University is not. It is not a place of professional education.
>Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit women
>for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not
>to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and
>cultivated human beings. It is very right that there should be public
>facilities for the study of professions. It is well that there should be
>Schools of Law, and of Medicine, and it would be welt if there were
>schools of engineering, and the industrial arts. The countries which
>have such restitutions are greatly the better for them; and there is
>something to be said for having them m the same localities, and under
>the same general superintendence, as the establishments devoted to
>education properly so called. But these things are no part of what every
>generation owes to the next, as that on which its civilization and worth
>will principally depend. They are needed only by a comparatively few,
>who are under the strongest private inducements to acquire them by their
>own efforts, and even those few do not require them until after their
>education, m the ordinary sense, has been completed. Whether those whose
>speciality they are, will learn them as a branch of intelligence or as a
>mere trade, and whether, having learnt them, they will make a wise and
>conscientious use of them or the reverse, depends less on the manner m
>which they are taught their profession, than upon what sort of minds
>they bring to it--what kind of intelligence, and of conscience, the
>general system of education has developed in them. Women are women before
>they are lawyers, or physicians, or merchants, or manufacturers: and if
>you make them capable and sensible women, they will make themselves
>capable and sensible lawyers or physicians. What professional women should
>carry away with them from an University, is not professional knowledge,
>but that which should direct the use of their professional knowledge,
>and bring the light of general culture to illuminate the technicalities
>of a special pursuit. Women may be competent lawyers without general
>education, but it depends on general education to make them philosophic
>lawyers--who demand, and are capable of apprehending, principles,
>instead of merely cramming their memory with details. And so of all
>other useful pursuits, mechanical included. Education makes a woman a more
>intelligent shoemaker, if that be her occupation, but not by teaching
>her how to make shoes: it does so by the mental exercise it gives, and
>the habits it impresses.
Note how, if the masculine form is used, the text can
seem sexist. However, when the feminine form is used, the text can
seem paternalistic...
The words are those of John Stuart Mill
<
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Essay.php?recordID=1274>
Labels: education, humanism, HUMANIST
filming in Oxford in January you say??
the below from
http://www.cinesrenoir.com/proximas_noticias.htmlquick summary: The filming of the screen adaptation of the crime novel Oxford Murders by Argentinian author
Guillermo Martínez is to be started 22 January right here in good ol´OXF. The Director is Basque
Alex de la Iglesia, and the lead star will be Elijah Wood, though mention was made of Gael García Bernal in an
earlier interview with the Director (IMHO I prefer García, but well...). See the Oxford student paper the Cherwell for an
interview with Martínez.
---
ELIJAH TRAS LOS PASOS DE VIGGO
Parece que los vínculos del cine español con los protagonistas de la saga de “El señor de los anillos” no cesa. Si primero fue Viggo Mortensen quién aceptó encarnar al mismísimo “Alatriste” en el exitoso film de Díaz Yanes, ahora parece que se confirma la presencia de
Elijah Wood como protagonista en
”Los crímenes de Oxford”, la película que prepara en Londres el director vasco Alex de la Iglesia. Este ambicioso proyecto, producido por
Tornasol Films , Estudios Picasso, Kevin Lauder (Gran Bretaña) y La fabrique des filmes (Francia), parte de la novela homónima de Guillermo Martínez, Premio Planeta en Argentina 2003, y se empezará a rodar, en inglés, el 22 de enero en la capital británica. Además del conocido actor estadounidense, el reparto de la película se completa con Jim Carter (“Shakespeare in love”), Julie Cox (“El viaje de Felicia”), el director y actor de culto Alex Cox (“Perdita Durango”) y el mítico
John Hurt. Para su director la película es “el enfrentamiento de dos personas inteligentes, enamorados además de la misma persona. La acción es la lucha de diálogos y la confrontación de caracteres”. Podeis obtener información puntual, detallada y divertida sobre “Los crímenes de Oxford” en el
blog que el señor De la Iglesia administra para la ocasión.
Labels: oxford
Aye, debería estar en España ahora mismo, disfrutando de la cabalgata... me encanta tantísimo el desfile del 5 de enero. Cuando la vida laboral ya ha empezado en el mundo anglosajón, el día 2 (o día 3, depende), las personas hispanoparlantes todavía están de vacaciones. Es más, se trata, a mi ver, de estar junto a
buen@s amig@s, charlando y tomando una buena comida durante horas, etcétera. Pero, no puedo (aunque quiero, sin duda alguna) viajar más ahora (ya que estuve en Madrid durante algunos días en diciembre para asistir al Acto de Entrega de Titulos por la UC3M). Pero, así es.
--------
An explanation of (part of) the Spanish Xmas copied below, click-thru to the URL for more,:
http://www.spanish-fiestas.com/spanish-festivals/christmas-in-spain.htm31st December - New Year's Eve is known as NocheVieja. It is a big celebration all over the country with street parties and special nights in hotels and clubs everywhere. Until midnight people tend to stay at home and on the stroke of midnight it is traditional to eat 12 grapes, one on each stroke of the clock to bring good luck for the new year. In Madrid and other main cities revellers congregate in the main square (Puerta del Sol in Madrid) and eat the grapes along with a celebratory bottle of cava then head out into the night until after sunrise.
1st January - A low key public holiday with plenty people sleeping off their excesses.
5th January - There are processions all over Spain this evening where sweets are thrown from the floats to all the people who come out to watch. Every town has its own variation such as in the Sierra Nevada where the Three Kings can be seen to ski down to the village.
6th January - This is the Feast of the Epiphany when the Three Kings arrived in Bethlehem. For Spanish children this is the most important day of the year when they wake up to find that Los Reyes Magos (the Three Kings) have left gifts for them in their house. Santa may leave them a token gift on 25th but the Three Kings are their favourites, especially Baltasar who rides a donkey and is the one believed to leave the gifts. During the day of 6th the Three Kings continue their good work and are seen distributing gifts to children in hospitals all over Spain.
7th January - The day after receiving their gifts children return to school, their parents go back to work and Christmas in Spain is all over for another year.
Labels: christmas, spain
