I think that Shakespeare knew something that I just figured out today.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
I'm teaching the kids about nouns using the Montessori Grammar method (which I really like). Today, I was thinking about how the curriculum is very careful to treat nouns as names that we give objects. I was taught that a noun is a person, place, thing, or idea, but the object itself really isn't a noun, the word that labels the object is. A rose is still a rose even if I call it a oomylaken. The rose itself is an object, the word rose is a noun. I've never really thought about the difference, but I think that it is important, even if it is subtle.
5 comments:
Very true. I never thought about that, either. A very nice picture, as well. Strong work, babe.
Nice thought! So is oomylaken the scientific term?
By the way, did you get my email about your lesson on Sunday? I was just checking in to see if you needed anything. Let me know, but I probably won't be there since Eliza and I are home sick today.
Huh. Well done. I hadn't either. Great. Should I pitch my grammar program? Here I thought I was doing soooo well and teaching my kids all these important concepts about english and I've missed the whole philosophical point of it all. Woe is me. Good for yoU!! And awesome for Abby who wouldn't let you off so easy!
By the way, grammatically speaking, shouldn't it be AN oomylaken, not A oomylaken since it begins with a vowel? i mean, we are speaking GRAMMAR here! love you :)
ah, you caught me. I just made up the word. I left a big blank there while I was writing and came back and added jibberish later. Thanks for catching it :).
Post a Comment