<p>well, I want to pump my english grades... I wouldnt say tat my english is lousy but rather, it is quite average compared to my siblings and cousins. I have spoken english for almost all my life, even though i have a mother tongue, but still.... I know that it is better to learn a language when u r young. But is it still possible to master english and I mean really GOOD at it? How do u go abt it?</p>
<p>start by spelling correctly?</p>
<p>ok,thank you. Is there any methods? Like do i have to read a lot or etc?</p>
<p>are you joking or what...</p>
<p>Yes, start by reading a lot. </p>
<p>Also, getting good in English? I would rephrase that as it isn't English that you're trying to get good at, but rather, your rhetoric. This you can get good at through reading, and learning the ways in which you can express your thoughts better.</p>
<p>mechanics first.. then rhetoric</p>
<p>look into taking an adult ed class from a nearby school...it may seem dumb, but it will get down the basics, and will be "review" for you, which is always good</p>
<p>The capstone of a Roman education is......you said it, rhetoric. Ok, I dont know if that helped but I'm a history major chomping at the bit to apply my classroom endeavours to the real world :)</p>
<p>repetition, reading GOOD writing, having a larger vocab, but not so much where it seems like you're only using big words. Every word means something, and the ones that mean the same; send different connotations out.</p>
<p>Are you asking to "master" english...in the writing aspect or language aspect?</p>
<p>If writing...choose a newspaper article once in a while and try summarizing it as short and concise as you can...each time adding new vocab and trying new "cliches" and such.</p>
<p>Mi feil inglish? dats unpassuhbhul!</p>
<p>if u want to master english, go read some books.
why bother with mastering english? it's such an easy language compared to some languages like french or italian. sometimes i used to purposely load my sentences with big words and tried to sound sophisticated. but, i realized it was a waste of time. but, reading difficult material i find worth the time. books like utopia, or republic really makes u thinking language wise. utopia is just too pathetic because the translation tried to copy the sophistication and richness of latin so u find some english words that are not even foun din the dictionary. but, still it lets the readers know the state of english language in the renaissance. republic is really good because it really presents difficult concepts using a really succinct form of english not found in the verbose prose of renaissance and enlightenment. dickens is for middle and high schoolers, i think. shakespeare is too poetic for my taste. milton is way too complicated not to mention his more difficult english (because he was agenius). 19th century literature is okay, but not really challenging (makes me feel like i'm in high school again). i think philosophy books are best: locke, hobbes, plato, etc.
i heard gibbon's decline and fall of roman empire is magnimous (probably more because of its insane length and prose than factual accuracy).</p>
<p>now, as i said improving english is no longer my interest since i find it quite boring having used it all my life. learning foreign language can be more fun than merely memorizing vocabulary for sat or gre or whatever the reason u want to improve ur english.</p>
<p>easy language: spanish</p>
<p>interesting, but hard languages: french, italian</p>
<p>tough languages: russian, german, arabic</p>
<p>insanely difficult language: latin</p>
<p>pathetic languages: elvish, loxian or other artifical langauges</p>
<p>First, find reading sources of your interest and order them from easiest to hardest according to their reading difficulty. Then, create a daily reading routine. Read each source until you feel your reading skills have improved enough to allow you to comprehend a harder reading source. </p>
<p>Say you're interested in politics. Depending on your current reading level, your reading order could look like this (in order of easiest to hardest): USNews, NYTimes, Policy Review, novels such as Democracy in America by Tocqueville, Harpers, and scholarly publications by research institutions. </p>
<p>In a nutshell, by reading what interests you and gradually increasing the difficulty of the readings, you should see your overall english skills improve. I noticed a significant improvement in my grammar, spelling, and style when I was able to see it correctly through my readings. At one time I was subscribed to Barron's, Wall Street Journal, NYTimes, and Policy Review. Most of them had around a 50% student discount too.</p>
<p>Milton a genius? Have you actually read any of Milton's work?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
insanely difficult language: latin
[/QUOTE]
Huh? Why do you think that?</p>
<p>I consider Latin one of the easiest languages since it's mostly vocabulary and memorizing some grammar. Granted, it's a lot of work but it's not "difficult". My first language is German though, so my perception may be different from yours.</p>
<p>"Milton a genius? Have you actually read any of Milton's work?"</p>
<p>Milton is a bloody genuis. Have you try to write a 12,000 lines poem on an event that takes up 2 pages on the standard bible? Almost every single major English literary figure had read Milton at least once. If you like Homer and Virgil, it is almost impossible to hate Milton.</p>
<p>"Have you try to write a 12,000 lines poem on an event that takes up 2 pages on the standard bible?"</p>
<p>Explain to me how writing a 12,000 line poem about an "event that takes up 2pages on the standard bible" can be considered genious. Is the immensity of a work, in accordance to its subject matter, what we should consider when we label something a work of a genius? I once had a friend who wrote a ten page poem describing the "nuances" of a door knob. He must be a genius.</p>
<p>"Almost every single major English literary figure had read Milton at least once."
First of all, how can you make this claim? And if every great writer did read Paradise Lost, what does that have to do with anything?</p>
<p>"If you like Homer and Virgil, it is almost impossible to hate Milton."
This statement doesn't make sense. So if you like a typical genre (epic poetry), so would like every other work in that genre as well? </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I think Milton is undeniably a good writer. But great? No. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same tongue as Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Dante, to mention a few. The many theological inconsistencies, his futile attempt to make the vengeful God of the bible "glorious," and horrendous attempts at, to quote Mark Twain, "chromos," are among the few reasons that has led to its disfavorable position amongst scholars today.</p>
<p>Major writers and critics in the romantic, transcendental, modern, post-modern and beyond had all read Milton, it doesn’t mean they all think it’s the best, but most have recognize the genius of the work. Western literature since Milton is influenced by Milton, we can argue till next year about the degree of its influence, but to say there that it was small or none existence is na?ve. You can look at Wikipedia for a better list of his influence on subsequent literary figures.</p>
<p>"his futile attempt to make the vengeful God of the bible 'glorious,'"
I’m sorry, but “What?” Have you actually read Milton and the Bible together? The Bible is divided into two parts. Milton based Paradise Lost on the New Testament, and NOT the Old Testament where God is vengeful. Milton’s God is NOT the same guy who smite people because they happen to trip while carrying the Ark (talk about anger management). Both of his works-Lost and Found-are about the events of the New Testament where God is and his son are redeemers of mankind. If you don’t think God is a redeemer but a vengeful deity then you have to criticize the New Testament, not Milton. Old Testament did not directly mention Jesus, only in New Testament, especially in the Gospel of John, was Jesus mentioned at the beginning of creation. Milton adopted the setting of the Old Testament, but most of the contents and theme are of the New. Furthermore, Satan was not mentioned as a fallen angel anywhere in the Old Testament, he was seemed as a prosecutor of mankind but still God’s servant. The bad-boy image is only present in the New. I fail to see how this critique is valid in anyway to Milton’s Paradise Lost. </p>
<p>"The many theological inconsistencies,"
Huh? I don't remember Milton claiming himself to be a theologian. He is not writing a piece a philosophical treatise on genesis and fall of man, he is writing a poem about temptation, betrayal, love, and redemption using genesis as the starting point. I don't see anything wrong with taking an artistic license on literary work. Reading Milton as a theologian is like reading Shakespeare as a novelist. Homer wasn’t there when Troy fell, or when Odyssey took his journey; Virgil certainly did not have credible source detailing Aeneas’s influence on the founding of early Rome beyond myths. Shakespeare himself adopted previous stories and play when he was working on Hamlet (i.e. The Spanish Play). If you want to persecute Milton and his works claiming them as inferior because they have a few theological inconsistencies, then you have to persecute every single author in the history of literature for the flaws and inconsistencies they bought to their works.</p>
<p>Milton took an event that is so well known to everyone of us, or at least those who grew up in the Western tradition, and expand on it to make an epic poem. To write a 12,000 lines poem without wasting a single word is genius. The length only makes it more impressive. Most of Shakespeare’s play can be shorten to 10 minutes, but the genius of Shakespeare is to expand on a 10 minutes plot and develop a four hours play (depend on edition). In term of literary epic poetry, Milton is among the finest in the genre. NO other work outside the range of Homer’s and Virgil’s can be considered Paradise’s equal.
You can dissect Shakespeare on an academic level and conclude that most of his works are crap (T.S. Elliot certainly doesn’t keep his negative view about Hamlet quiet). The same can be apply to Milton, Homer, Whitman, Thoreau; if you can name them, then there are haters of their works. But these works are not meant to be scrutinized to the finest detail. They are works that are meant to be read and enjoy. If they survive the literary taste of time, then they can be considered a masterpiece. I can bet you that you will not find an accredited college’s English department that doesn’t have a course teaching on Milton, or subject relating to Milton’s works. I don’t know your definition of a masterpiece and genius, but if a piece of work met all the above criteria should be considered a literary masterpiece and its writer is a genius. </p>
<p>P.S.
I don’t think Cervantes, or anyone in the history of literature, can be considered an equal of Shakespeare in term of world wide impact. Hate or love, Billy here is in a whole level to himself.</p>
<p>I agree to an earlier point in the thread.</p>
<p>Latin is NOT a difficult language. Though I do/did well in the subject, Latin comes easily if one has a good grasp of English grammar and vocabulary. </p>
<p>I would think that it would be tough for a NON Oriental to study an Oriental language like Mandarin, Japanese, Vietnamese or Korean because of the tones.</p>
<p>Now, to answer the OP. How do you improve your English?</p>
<p>1) READ. Read till your eyes bleed. Once you think you have enough, open up some poetry to relax, and then read some more again. I recommend Mark Twain and Dubois. Both are great writers to read if you want to improve your own writing skill: Twain for Pathos, Dubois for Ethos. </p>
<p>2) Don't go to forum like this one and don't use AIM, or text-messaging. Nothing degrades your writing skill faster that those. Using "pwned" for owned, "your" for you're, and "u" for you will wreak havoc on you writing. Sometime, you will accidentally write them in your essay without realizing it. And don't tell me that it can't happen.</p>