Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
Though I am not a big fan of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, I have to admit that there are pockets of dialogue which I have never forgotten.
One such scene goes as follows:
Elizabeth: Captain Barbossa, I am here to negotiate the cessation of hostilities against Port Royal.
Barbossa: There are a lot of long words in there, Miss; we’re naught but humble pirates. What is it that you want?
Elizabeth: I want you to leave and never come back.
(Barbossa’s men laugh).
Barbossa: I’m disinclined to acquiesce to your request.
There is also one of the most epic exchanges in the Cowboy genre between Tuco and the one armed man in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”:
One Armed Man: I’ve been looking for you for eight months. Whenever I should have had a gun in my right hand, I thought of you. Now I find you in exactly the position that suits me. I had lots of time to learn to shoot with my left.
(Tuco shoots him with the gun he had hidden in the foamy bath)
Tuco: When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.
Locally, we have had a class of orators who have made art with words. There really is no other way to describe their linguistic prowess.
For those willing to go back a bit to “kaiso”, there is hardly a bard who could match “Zandolee” in double-entendre; whether he was throwing wood at Winnie in Grande or letting the judge inspect his iron.
The point I am making is that the English Language, for all its complexities, provides ample depth and breadth for even the greenest of debaters to throw jabs and still come out smelling like a rose.
Of course all words get their meanings in context, so no doubt one would have to be quick on the draw to match linguistic competence with linguistic performance.
In the last year, the one liners which stood out have been more crass than crafty to put it mildly. We went from quips about “rum shop logic” to “if yuh name man, come outside.”
No doubt, in the last week, we have raised the bar in our attempts to be perverse. So headlines were plastered with “we in charge” and “hush yuh stink mouth!”
(Courtesy Baltimore Post)
Then there was “princess.” Our tenacity for prejudice was borne out in the most transparent way with this senseless unforced error. There was not even an attempt to be a cunning linguist and present his argument tongue in cheek.
This was followed by a lesson in Sanskrit, which only proved that we are predisposed to speaking because we have to say something rather than us having something to say.
The contribution from the member for Princes Town was both shallow and pedantic and had we been listening rather than looking at him, maybe that would have been picked up.
It is unfortunate that we are not seeing the efficacy of finesse in the Parliament. We are brutish and uncouth.
Your presence in the Lower House already validates that you have shown your strength of persuasion by numbers. Now that you are there, perhaps it is time to focus on persuasion by the strength of your arguments.
“[…] Ever since she ran in 2015 on a leader-centric election marketing campaign that sold the virtues of Kamla The Read more
“[…] Dr Paul Richards is not only an independent senator, but also a very experienced journalist. He ought to know Read more
Dear Former Minister Darryl Smith, Congratulations on your recent appointment as a commercial officer for the Ministry of Trade. Your appointment Read more
“Grave fiscal irresponsibility!” was former Central Bank governor Jwala Rambarran’s characterization of the announcement of a US$900 million loss by Read more
We all have soundtracks that mark our lives, some inexplicably. As a pre-teen, I heard a haunting song that I Read more
“Have you seen the ad everybody on Facebook seems to be talking about?” “Yuh want to spoil my morning!” Bobby Read more
The quality of the exchanges has been poor but given the fact that we are barely over a month past the election, I am hoping things will improve.
I always remember the first time I went to Parliament. And I was speechless at the sort of snide and crude remarks that came from the late Kelvin Ramnarine.
So this isn’t a new problem at all. It won’t right itself without intervention of some sort.
Correction: Kelvin RAMNATH, Kevin Ramnarine is the last PP man.
Fair enough
And there was this Min of Works, I think he was….shucks I can’t remember his name. darm this poor memory. All that comes to mind is his running out someone else’s house, clothing in hand. EW used to threaten to sic him on the opposition of the time. But, he was as rude and crude as one of them could get. Even in private. Used to make me shudder.
They passed on lots of lessons.
Kelvin Ramnath…Lasana
That was before Par lie ment was aired, but you.would’ve thought that with the advent of TV they’d be a little civilised.
Lol. Yes. Sorry. Kelvin Ramnath!
I don’t know to whom Adkins is comparing our politicians but in my opinion we have excellent debate in Parliament. And that ‘Princess’ line was punning of the highest order. The Sanskrit discussion was welcome too.
“This was followed by a lesson in Sanskrit, which only proved that we are predisposed to speaking- because we have to say something rather than us having something to say.”
Finesse? Wha is dat? The problem is lack of exposure. We reveal our parochialness and not surprisingly perhaps, the village ram personality seems to be the one of choice for most politicians. For some of the women, it seems to be various versions of the fish market lady. Which is not even fine in the village or the fishmarket these days. Retired village rams and fisher ladies must be cringing. Banter,. not batter, I agree.
The problem is Lasana Liburd, that the devisive brand on politics, politicking snd governance of the last five years has left the nation and not least among us, our politicians seething with resentment.
The hatred is palpable!
You mean they need counselling or anger management? Lol
Probably mediation as well.
With this change in governance they should try and remedy this resentment.
They already started badly!
Carlos Charles, remedying the resentment is one thing, the root of the evil is …the people in influential positions are the instigators and when supposedly leaders default in their conduct, the result is what is now transpiring in Parliament, and I mean on both sides. When a certain Pundit uses racial remarks openly, the less fortunate ???, sees this and emulates his actions, it’s like a child observing the parent’s action, he/she thinks it’s the correct thing to do…. WE NEED TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
Some years ago,, I came across a plaque which had the following words engraved on it…
” CHILDREN LIVE WHAT THEY LEARN”..
I bought it and hung it in a prominent position in her room. That plaque also reminded us as parents that we needed to conduct ourselves in an acceptable manner…. TODAY I AM PROUD OF OUR DAUGHTER.
And I am told by Melville Foster that the MP guilty of the senseless “Princess” unforced error may not be a cunning linguist but he certainly does not go easy on debtors so he may not be a fellah to owe.
Akins, it’s hard to fault the essential argument but I take issue with the conclusion. Since there are several “safe” seats among the 41, is it accurate to say to the MP’s representing those seats that “Your presence in the Lower House already validates that you have shown your strength of persuasion by numbers? Isn’t a “safe” seat precisely one where the winning party’s voters do not have to be persuaded?