I was in Dr.G's tutorial class today and we have contradictory statements.
Dr.G was telling us that OE (Old English) pronunciation does not have any diphthongs (2 vowels).
However, I read in a publication that there are diphthongs in OE and they are namely 'eo' and 'ea'.
Hmm, how strange. Dr.G later stated that from his readings, it is said that diphthongs developed later in the OE.
Nobody could be absolutely right or wrong in this case. Answers can only be found through more readings and findings (which we find it a problem because most of us are already busy with other stuff at hand, nope, not 9gag this time, truly course works and co-curriculum).
I remember the saying that nothing in this world is of absolute.
So researchers here now and then are still debating over stuff that are still in the unknown because of lack of evidence.
For example, take our grammarians Chomsky and Halliday.
Fight all you want guys but both theories have their strength and weakness.
Which brings me to thought no.2.
Why are we here?
I myself appreciate the chance of learning and gaining knowledge but I see friends around me taking this lightly and I begin to doubt if I am right.
I don't blame them because they are here for the "passport", as what the Dean meant by the Degree Cert.
I like to learn, but learning now is waaaaay different with learning back then.
People now are more practical. They see things in a yes-or-no fashion.
For instance, is this useful to me? Yes. Proceed. Is this relevant? No. Forget.
What is the point of going through university if we were to categorize every knowledge according to the practicality of it?
Is it necessary or mandatory for us to know everything?
What good will it bring?
I am not saying whether this attitude of questioning is good or bad, it's just a food for thought.
It might be right, it might not be.
They say nothing in this world is of absolute.
Oh P/S, does anyone know anything about the diphthongs in OE?
Do enlighten me.