Thursday, January 8, 2009

super califragilistic expee alidocious


how do you spell it? um diddle um diddle um diddle eye. is that right? I tutored today and we worked on vocabulary.. words with the root "nom". Nomenclature, anonymous, homonym, renown... and others I can't remember. I am amazed at how students "know" words. Some can spell anything they've laid eyes on once. Some can glean from anything spoken: the word and its meaning. Some can not remember words of a certain family ... my son said he didn't have a vocabulary to discuss theological topics like the Incarnation. Really, I ask? he's been taking religion classes for years! or is that just an excuse? or is that true? he has a vocabulary for facets of human experience that I don't, like sports and the dynamics therein, for example. He can talk about the San Jose Sharks play by exciting play, or the Oakland A's, or the Pomona Pitzer Sagehens. I think I need to find just a friend or two to talk theology with me, so I am not disappointed when my kids can't create dinner table conversation for ME. I'm reminded though, back to vocabularies, that the Body needs all of its parts, as Jesus said. Like the rowers in a crew boat, we each bring our particular strength to bear... and then, oh! the power!

1 comment:

Robbie said...

Mom... I have just become aware of a relevant precedent. Today, you called me on skype because Dad was trying to talk to you about the Sharks game from last night and you thought I would rather hear it. After hanging up, I began reading your latest blog entries. When I stumbled upon this one, I realized that important similarities exist between your desire to discuss theological topics and my desire to discuss athletic ones. I think you may have shot yourself in the foot by deflecting Dad's Sharks analysis my way. That could be considered a precedent that establishes the right of the listener to deflect less compelling discussion to a more eager ear. Now, this is done for the benefit of all three involved parties. The instigator gets the advantage of a more involved discussant (and an additional two minutes in the penalty box), the original target slips away from what would probably be a less productive talk, and the new listener gains a valuable opportunity (a power play?). What do you think of my analysis? Relevant, yes?