In first period today, Aubrey shared with us the MOST
FABULOUS website – one that we felt should be sponsored by the College Board AP
test writers. (At the very least, it appears to be fertile ground for us to
submit entries for consideration from the AP exam.) Here is a link: http://www.pompousasswords.com/www/index.htm
Our challenge as we move forward this semester, as I see it,
is to A) be on the look out for submissions
and B) to try our best to be become veritable hierophants of PAWs in as
witty a means as feasible. This will
allow us to create a rapprochement between teenage discourse communities and
those of the more pretentious PAW enthusiasts.
I encourage you to review their fabulous deconstruction of particularly
onerous PAW abuses. Our recent passage from the practice AP
multiple choice passage would surely qualify for this kind of analysis. (Opprobrious, anyone?)Since I am a teacher and I am supposed to reflexively think in terms of essential questions, it seems to me the big one is: where is the line between plain speaking and vague/uneducated/lazy writing? Our language is so vast with so many nuanced and precise words that I feel it truly a sin to stick with words like stuff, good, things, sad when words like transcendent and despondent are available. And as I have said many a time in class, I nearly swoon when a writer or speaker can find that sweet-spot between being precise and succinct and obfuscation. J I think that is why I am so very fond of the paragraph on the main page of this site where the author takes pains to explain what is and what is NOT a PAW… and it seems that the definition is intended dissuade reader of the notion that just because a word is more nuanced doesn’t mean it is pretentious. (Consider, specifically, the example used of erstatz.) Anyway, thanks Aubrey, and I will enjoy trolling around this site.