Isn’t that the truth? But then, haven’t speeches in English lost much of their elegance through the years? Once politicians were no longer educated in classics form, the beauty of the language was no longer utilized to give dignity to the words. Notice in Lincoln’s speeches many inflections taken from his familiarity with the King James Bible. Then look at most modern-day speeches. It’s the figurative difference between a script font and one sans serif. Between a sermon and an advertisement. Between a home-cooked meal and fast-food carryout.
@HERRWEH. Your comment is interesting, and may be part of the explanation. That compression of words and thoughts can still be seen in newspaper banners and headlines, I guess.
.
But then how do you explain the speeches of the speeches of (just to name a few), Bryan, Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill, and even John Kennedy? Their shortening of phrases probably relate to Latin conventions , in this case ellipsis, that don’t exactly carry over well into modern rhetoric — if that term can still be applied) . Such fancy speech is probably considered archaic and elitist. (I like to insert those things into corporate emails just for fun.) Anaphora, chiasmus, litote, synchesis, and many others I can’t remember, are apparent in the best speeches of the twentieth century if you know how to look.
.
Sorry to get all pedantic, here. I miss those old school classes where all of this seemed deeply important and valuable toward future use. (Olim oliorum!) It hasn’t been.
emptc12 over 7 years ago
Isn’t that the truth? But then, haven’t speeches in English lost much of their elegance through the years? Once politicians were no longer educated in classics form, the beauty of the language was no longer utilized to give dignity to the words. Notice in Lincoln’s speeches many inflections taken from his familiarity with the King James Bible. Then look at most modern-day speeches. It’s the figurative difference between a script font and one sans serif. Between a sermon and an advertisement. Between a home-cooked meal and fast-food carryout.
emptc12 over 7 years ago
@HERRWEH. Your comment is interesting, and may be part of the explanation. That compression of words and thoughts can still be seen in newspaper banners and headlines, I guess.
.
But then how do you explain the speeches of the speeches of (just to name a few), Bryan, Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill, and even John Kennedy? Their shortening of phrases probably relate to Latin conventions , in this case ellipsis, that don’t exactly carry over well into modern rhetoric — if that term can still be applied) . Such fancy speech is probably considered archaic and elitist. (I like to insert those things into corporate emails just for fun.) Anaphora, chiasmus, litote, synchesis, and many others I can’t remember, are apparent in the best speeches of the twentieth century if you know how to look..
Sorry to get all pedantic, here. I miss those old school classes where all of this seemed deeply important and valuable toward future use. (Olim oliorum!) It hasn’t been.
.
The following are some related links:
.
https://quizlet.com/6221467/literary-devices-ap-latin-flash-cards/http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/101/RhetoricalDevices.pdf
Mr. Blawt over 7 years ago
Trump has charity toward none, and malice for all.