It seems quite accurate to me. Observing my students supports that. Boris Shoshensky
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "A gift is inherent. Talent is broader; it's the ability to apply the gift." > Still, there are some "nice" distinctions that might be made. For example, I can imagine someone having different notions for "talent" and for "gift". To hell with the particular words, let's just momentarily bear with ones we have while I ask: Could you conjure notions that would make sense of a line like this?: "A gift is inherent. Talent is broader; it's the ability to apply the gift." It may be the implied distinction there is bogus (I haven't thought this through). In show biz, producers talk of XXX's great looks as a gift, but add that she has no talent for acting. You may say, no, the ability to act is as much a gift as good looks. The good-looking good actor simply has two gifts. The coach/trainer may know "how" something should be done, but not himself have the "gifts" required to do it? Someone might think of a "gift" as somethng that arrives full-blown, as distingusihed from a "skill" which requires a gift plus "learning" of some kind. >From my great distance I'd judge you (and my movie-director son) have a visualizing gift that I lack almost totally. But you also have a talent to execute your vision that I also don't have. Again, though, you may see them as two different gifts. (Lest I seem too gloomily self-deprecating, I'll admit I know you envy me my personal charm.) Any thoughts? ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) ____________________________________________________________ Click to become an artist and quit your boring job. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4tu8BpS5bC6vywDybET1DHD0 b6brXHWAySer22NIUcWXlLsI/
