tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67441109946813439752024-03-08T00:33:42.039-08:00Renewable LanguageAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-52009270389087029592013-09-27T17:56:00.000-07:002013-09-27T17:56:16.001-07:00A Lesson in Economy of Characters*turns on the lights*<br />
<br />
Wow. There is a lot of dust in here. And a half-eaten sandwich? Bologna? I don't even like bologna. Where did this come from.<br />
<br />
*tosses sandwich into handy trashcan*<br />
<br />
I knew one day this would be useful. It was expensive to install, but it is so worth it. Now where was that on switch. Ah, there.<br />
<br />
*flips switch on Blog Vacuum XL3*<br />
<br />
I'll let that run a minute before i do anything else.<br />
<br />
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br />
<br />
Hello everybody! I see everyone has been waiting a long time. Looks like everyone's here. My mom's in the corner with her puzzle. I see the random fellow i've never met before is still hanging around with his notepad. If you're expecting me to make a grammatical error you can correct, i'm sure you'll find one soon enough, sir. And i think i see the spambots outside the windows, peeking inside for any signs of life. I'm sure they'll join us soon enough.<br />
<br />
Well, i'll get right to it.<br />
<br />
I've gathered you all here to let you know of a temporary project i'm going to tackle. I've not done anything with this blog in *checks last post* a year and five months! Honestly, i thought it would be longer than that. Since the last time i've written anything here, i've not done much writing at all. It's a shame, i know, which is why i've decided to perform an experiment.<br />
<br />
I'm turning 30 tomorrow. Yes, thank you for the applause, Mom. Since 30 is associated with the length of time we call a month, i thought i'd take part in a 30-day challenge starting on my birthday. Every day, i will post something new, something original, something thoughtful or funny to my twitter account, <a href="https://twitter.com/jargonator" target="_blank">@jargonator</a>.<br />
<br />
Little known fact, i've had a twitter account for over three and a half years, maybe even four. Up until now, i've only used it to enter myself into contests or other such shenanigans. For the next 30 days, i'll be using it for a more important task, getting to me think creatively.<br />
<br />
Not only will this force me to write something meaningful or witty at least once a day, it's also constraining. With only 140 characters to use, i can't very easily craft a full story or build up the details that so often make something funny. This will be a lesson in economy of characters.<br />
<br />
For full disclosure, i must let you know that i've already starting thinking up entries. I figure if Bill Watterson could draw as many Calvin & Hobbes comics in a day as he wanted so build himself some room to work or relax, i can do the same, even if i'm nowhere near same level as Mr. Watterson.<br />
<br />
Follow me (<a href="https://twitter.com/jargonator" target="_blank">@jargonator</a>) if you'd like. I will do my best to make you laugh, or make you think, or at the very least entertain you. You will never see me posting meaningless filler because that's my main complaint with twitter. Who knows, maybe i'll even be able to craft a story Hemingway would be proud of.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-15371566643339266322012-04-20T13:24:00.002-07:002012-04-20T13:24:56.702-07:00The Grass-Mud HorseOver a year later, my entry post <a href="http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2011/02/pyramids-are-revolting.html">The Pyramids are Revolting</a> proves prescient. In that post, i wrote about how the efforts of the Chinese government to tightly monitor and prevent talk of the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere were doomed from the start. I wrote about how language cannot be cut off, that people will create new ways of talking about the taboos.
An article in <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/03/slang-chinese-bloggers-use-subvert-censorship/49882/">The Atlantic Wire</a> gives a very short list of the slang phrases used by the Chinese to talk about what they aren't supposed to talk about. One example has to do with Chinese artist and dissident Ai Weiwei. He was under arrest until a few months back, and even now is closely monitored and cut off from doing what he is best at, stirring up controversy with his art. Supporters have begun talking about him using the phrase 'Love the future.' His surname 'Ai' sounds like the word for 'love'; his given name 'Weiwei' can be converted to the word 'future' with the simple addition of two strokes to the second character.
This whole phenomenon is referred to as the Grass-Mud Horse lexicon. The <a href="http://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/Introduction_to_the_Grass-Mud_Horse_Lexicon">China Digital Times</a> has even put together an actual lexicon of the phrases used. As they describe it, the Grass-Mud Horse was a creature that appeared in a 2009 viral video. The phrase 'grass-mud horse, which sounds nearly the same in Chinese as “f*** your mother” (cáo nǐ mā), was originally created as a way to get around, and also poke fun at, government censorship of vulgar content.' Things really took off after a video of the grass-mud horse defeating the river crab, a homonym for 'harmony' which is a governmental propaganda buzzword.
Language, like life, is a hardy beast and will always find a way. Chinese citizens have proven that time and again, but it's always fun to see exactly the creative ways they find to undermine and mock those in charge.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-39517072755100821642011-12-22T12:12:00.001-08:002011-12-22T12:12:44.205-08:00Two for the Price of One< dust off ><br />I don't have time to properly put together a new blog post, but this will do for now. Both for enjoyment and for instruction.<br /><br />If you haven't known about Dinosaur comics before now, please click on either comic to check out the backlog of comics. Ryan North is one of those consistently funny people you sometimes come across on the internet.<br /><br />< /dust off ><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1984"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-1995.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 272px;" src="http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-1995.png" border="0" alt="" /></a></a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2121"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-2121.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 272px;" src="http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-2121.png" border="0" alt="" /></a></a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-13679071063366677672011-07-20T09:48:00.000-07:002011-07-23T09:51:25.392-07:00Lumos, Squibs and Mundungus, TooLast week, in honor of the final movie based on the last half of the final book in the series, <a href="http://www.wordnik.com/">wordnik.com</a> wrote about the language and words of Harry Potter.<br /><br />Something fans of the series have known all along is that J.K. Rowling enjoys populating her wizarding world with words and phrases from various areas of science, language and life. Some of them are more obvious, like 'squib.' In our world a squib is a firework that emits sparks without exploding but in her's it's a nonmagical (or magically deficient) offspring of magical parents. Other words aren't noticeable unless you know the original. Dumbledore is the name for the greatest headmaster Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry has ever seen. Rowling states she she named him after an Early Modern English word for bumblebee because she '<a href="http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/0399-barnesandnoble.html">imagined him walking around humming to himself</a>.'<br /><br />She also appropriated Latin for her own uses, altering words such as 'lumen' (light) into the light-giving spell 'Lumos!' or 'reparare' (repair) into 'Reparo!', a spell for, well, repairing. Because of her use of real Latin words in her fake magical spells, there are many people who take issue that she is teaching real magic to children. The only thing real about the spells Rowling created for Harry Potter is their basis in the real language of Latin.<br /><br />Since we're on the subject of spells, let's look more closely at my favorite, and by favorite i'm referring to the Rowling's creation of the words of the spell itself, not what it does in the stories. If you talk about magic or magicians, the first spell people think of is 'abracadabra,' the nonsensical word stage magicians often say when pulling a rabbit out of a hat, or putting a woman sawed in two back together. The word itself is now nonsense, but as close as linguists and philologists can pin down, '<a href="http://worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-abr1.htm">it seems likley that abracadabra [...] derives from one of the Semitic languages, though nobody can say for sure</a>.' Rowling makes a not-so-subtle nod to this word with the Killing Curse, 'Avada Kadavra.' Not only is the curse a close homophone to the nonsensical word we already know, but the second word is 'kadavra,' also a near homophone to the word 'cadaver,' or dead body. This phrase, too, has history. According to a 2004 interview with Rowling, <i>avada kedavra</i> is an ancient spell in Aramaic meaning 'let the thing be destroyed.' She said it was directed at illnesses. She turned it around on its head and made it her own. <br /><br />I think Rowling's inclusion of this little word-snack is one of the subtleties you don't notice on the first read, but that help make the world more vibrant and real. In fact, the use of names like Skeeter (a term for an annoying pest) and Mundungus (a worde describing either waste animal product, or poor-quality tobacco with a rancid smell) help explain the characters before we even 'meet' them.<br /><br />Excuse me, all this talk of Harry Potter has me reminiscing. I think i need to go reread the books, again.<br /><br />(For more language of Harry Potter, visit <a href="http://www.languagerealm.com/hplang/harrypotterlanguage.php">LanguageRealm.com</a>.)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-18760967643163037382011-06-11T11:11:00.000-07:002011-06-11T12:46:27.510-07:00Effing BuffaloA friend of mine once postulated that the eff word was the most versatile in the English language. As someone who has taught English in another country, he can make this claim more genuinely than, say, a college student attempting to excuse swear words in an essay.<br /><br />My friend's reasoning was that eff can be used as a noun, a verb, an adjective or an adverb. No other word can claim to be the four most common types of words we use to build our sentences. <br /><br />A noun is a person, place, thing, or idea. Basically, if it exists, it's a noun: 'What do you effers think you're doing?'<br /><br />A verb is action. It moves, helps or allows nouns to exist: 'Eff this class, i don't need it.'<br /><br />Adjectives are descriptive words. They give color to nouns: 'Badges? We don't need no eff'ing badges.'<br /><br />Adverbs do the same as adjectives, but with verbs: 'Can we stop? I'm tired of eff'ing running.'<br /><br />You could even string them together: 'Eff'ing eff off eff'ing eff'er!' Sure, you sound like Jay from <span style="font-style:italic;">Jay and Silent Bob</span> but it's doable, that's the point.<br /><br />Recently, i came across another word that's even more versatile than eff. Well, it's not true that i recently learned of the word. I've known it for years, but it was only the past month that i became aware of how it can be used in more ways than the usual.<br /><br />The word? Buffalo.<br /><br />It's obviously a noun. That large beast we sing about in 'Home on the Range' ('Oh give me a home, where the buffalo roam...') as well as various cities across the United States, like Buffalo, New York.<br /><br />Speaking of Buffalo, NY, they are the home of the Buffalo Bills, which illustrates the use of buffalo as an adjective. It's not as pronounced in its 'adjectivity' as 'snowy' or 'green,' but it's an adjective none the less.<br /><br />It doesn't end here. Buffalo is also a verb. To buffalo someone can mean either to confuse them or to intimidate them. I can almost imagine how both definitions came from the great beast of the plains.<br /><br />Since 'buffalo' is a noun, a verb and an adjective, we can correctly write 'Buffalo buffalo buffalo.' A synonymous sentence would read 'North American bison intimidate other North American bison.' To obfuscate things further, let's try out 'Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.' This could read ''North American bison from the city of Buffalo, New York intimidate other North American bison, also from the city of Buffalo, New York.'<br /><br />If you think that's the extent to which this absurdity can go, i have a quote from The Princess Bride to answer. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes?qt=qt0482733">You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?</a><br /><br />Linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky has stated that you can string together any number of 'buffalos' together without any punctuation or any other words and it will also be a legitimate sentence. Since Dr. Chomsky is considered to be one of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Contributions_to_linguistics">fathers of modern linguistics</a>, i think we can take his word for it.<br /><br />So despite how versatile the eff word can be, it appears buffalo reigns supreme. Which is good. Gives us all one more reason not to swear when we're trying to show off our linguistic skills.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-32224904490956037282011-04-28T17:00:00.000-07:002011-04-28T17:34:52.229-07:00Computers and Language: Part 2I had to do a bit of dusting to this blog, it's been unused so long. My lenten fast from the internet didn't lend itself to writing an entry, which i didn't take into account when i promised a sequel to <a href="http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2011/02/computers-and-language-part-1.html">this entry</a>. Well, now that the cobwebs are gone and the countertops have been wiped clean, let me get to the point.<br /><br />Every year since 1991, Dr. Hugh Loebner has offered up a prize of $100,000 to whomever can create a computer program that can pass the Turing Test and pass itself off as a human. The test was thought up in the 50s by Alan Turing in a paper that questions how we understand the idea of machine intelligence.<br /><br />The basic premise for the test pits humans and machines against one another, but not in the way we've seen on film. Neither Schwarzenegger nor Will Smith have any part of this test. The way Turing proposed to test machines was to give a judge five minutes to converse with both a computer and a human, then determine which was which. If computers ever got more than 30% of the vote, Turing stated we could consider them as thinking machines.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/03/mind-vs-machine/8386/">In 2009</a>, journalist Brian Christian took part in the test, put on by Loebner. Since the year previous was a dismal year for the Confederates (the humans attempting to prove their humanness), where one more vote for a computer would have put them over the 30% mark, Christian's goal was to be the best humanity could offer against the computer intelligence onslaught.<br /><br />Two awards are given at the end of the test: Most Human Computer and Most Human Human. By the end of the test, after facing 12 judges in five minute chat intervals, Christian is given the certificate acknowledging him as the Most Human Human of 2009. Where 2008 was a close call, 2009 was hardly a race. Not a single computer was mistaken by a judge to be human.<br /><br />As i said in Part 1, there is a small bit of chaos in our interactions with one another. In natural conversation, our minds aren't tracking out the next five things we'll say like a verbal chess match, but that's how we design computers. IBM's Jeopardy master, Watson, would be a horrible conversationalist because it is only programmed to respond in a specific and regimented fashion. <br /><br />On the flip side, some of the conversations from Turing Tests in years past are quite chaotic.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Judge</span>: it looks like i’ve got to go, Catherine. its been nice talking with you<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Judge</span>: do you need water or something before the 5 minute rounds?<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Computer</span>: OK, yes on balance … Time to get off this one I think and onto something more down to earth!<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Judge</span>: like what?<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Computer</span>: Almost certainly! let’s move on<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Computer</span>: I suppose it depends on where you’re coming from, but as the song goes in My Fair Lady, “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”<br /><br />The problem becomes what measure of chaos do we use on a daily basis? When we converse with one another, our personalities mix together like a margarita and create a sometimes tasty sometimes disgusting mix of conversational flow. Topics shift like the tide, ebbing and flowing with ease, revealing previously unknown beaches, covering up that which was recently exposed...<br /><br />Actually, i've lost where this is going. So, let's regroup.<br /><br />Oxford philosopher John Lucas said that if we fail and allow our machines to appear more human and pass the Turing Test, it will be “not because machines are so intelligent, but because humans, many of them at least, are so wooden.”<br /><br />The real test of Turing is not how we can program computers to be more like us, but after the computers have become more human, what does that mean for us? How can we constantly be pushing against ourselves, against humanity, to make us the best versions of ourselves?<br /><br />To help simplify that down to something manageable, let's go back to Brian Christian's article: 'A look at the transcripts of Turing Tests past is, frankly, a sobering tour of the various ways in which we demur, dodge the question, lighten the mood, change the subject, distract, burn time: what shouldn’t pass for real conversation at the Turing Test probably shouldn’t be allowed to pass for real conversation in everyday life either.'Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-85757060633075317852011-03-03T16:54:00.000-08:002011-03-03T16:57:18.032-08:00OK!I had things come up today that took away my time i was going to use to write part 2, so to hold the fort until tomorrow when i (probably) will finish up, here is a short article on the word OK that is intriguing. Enjoy!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12503686">bbc.co.uk/ok_article</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-6392847975705797772011-02-25T23:29:00.000-08:002011-02-25T23:57:37.014-08:00Computers and Language: Part 1Last week, peppered amidst the news of uprising in the Middle East and Northern Africa are reports of a more more sinister nature. Well, according to the conspiracy theorists among us. For the rest of us, the computer Watson and his romp on Jeopardy was simple, light fun and a small precursor to what the future may hold for us.<br /><br /><a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHhDLUVAtqU”>This video</a> is of the first half of the first episode airing the matchup of Watson against the two best contestants humanity could offer, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. Feel free to watch the whole nine minute ordeal, but the section that interests me is at the beginning when IBM has a small documercial (documentary commercial, a word i made up for this sentence) about Watson and the team who designed him.<br /><br />With Watson and IBM so prominent in the news, articles are cropping up left and right concerning machine intelligence and the day, looming ever closer, we can refer to a machine as a thinking entity.<br /><br />So far, we are safe from a machine uprising. In the first of two games, Watson went into Final Jeopardy with a commanding lead over the two human opponents. Under the category of ‘U.S. Cities,’ the clue given somehow managed to trip up Watson and leave even non-Jeopardy players scratching their heads.<br /><br />‘Its largest airport is named for a World War II hero; its second largest for a World War II battle.’<br /><br />The correct answer: Chicago.<br /><br />Watson’s answer: Toronto.<br /><br />Obviously, and most North Americans would know this, Toronto is not a U.S. city, residing as it does in the grand country known as Canada.<br /><br />Jennings and Rutter both answered correctly, so why did Watson get the answer so very wrong? Steve Hamm at IBM, through their <a href=”http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2011/02/watson-on-jeopardy-day-two-the-confusion-over-an-aiport-clue.html”>Smarter Planet blog</a> through their had an answer for us as to why Watson was so very wrong:<br /><br /><blockquote>First, the category names on Jeopardy! are tricky. The answers often do not exactly fit the category. Watson, in his training phase, learned that categories only weakly suggest the kind of answer that is expected, and, therefore, the machine downgrades their significance. The way the language was parsed provided an advantage for the humans and a disadvantage for Watson, as well. “What US city” wasn’t in the question. If it had been, Watson would have given US cities much more weight as it searched for the answer. Adding to the confusion for Watson, there are cities named Toronto in the United States and the Toronto in Canada has an American League baseball team. It probably picked up those facts from the written material it has digested. Also, the machine didn’t find much evidence to connect either city’s airport to World War II. (Chicago was a very close second on Watson’s list of possible answers.) So this is just one of those situations that’s a snap for a reasonably knowledgeable human but a true brain teaser for the machine.</blockquote><br /><br />The problem Watson ran into what partly due to its programing and training--not putting as much weight on the category as was necessary--and partly due to the wording of the question.<br /><br />Jeopardy, as difficult as it can be due to the puns and wordplay often involved in the clues, is a static medium. There is always a category, always a clue, and always an answer question that answers the clue and fits within the category. It’s not the fluid, dynamic web of language we call a conversation.<br /><br />As Dr. Katharine Frase states in the documercial, normal humans communicate more in a style she calls ‘open-question answering.’ There is a small bit of chaos in our interactions with one another.<br /><br />This idea of chaotic conversation leads to more roads, and another blog for next week. <br /><br />For the record, the final totals after the two games left Watson and IBM with $77,147, Jennings with $24,000 and Rutter at the bottom with $21,600. IBM says it will donate the money to charity.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-51613988061285822952011-02-10T13:53:00.000-08:002011-02-10T17:36:59.814-08:00A Rape by Any Other NameLast week, the Republicans in the House of Representatives removed a provision from at Act on the floor that would have been detrimental to women's rights and sent the wrong message to the public. Not to mention the damage it would do to language.<br /><br />The 'No Taxpayer Funding for an Abortion Act' originated with Chris Smith, a Republican Representative from New Jersey. The purpose is pretty obvious—prevent the use of government money earmarked for health care and medicare being used to pay for abortions. The obvious goal behind this is to chip away at the current stance the government takes on abortion, with the ultimate goal to make it illegal. The stated impetus is to save government money in a time when our deficit is measured in numbers generally reserved for grade school children attempting hyperbole.<br /><br />I won't get into the complicated and muddied topic of abortion; that's not in the scope of this blog, nor is it a topic i have considerable knowledge it. Suffice it to say, i know it's not always as black and white as each side paints it, so let's leave it there.<br /><br />Instead, i want to talk about one word used in the No Taxpayer Funding for an Abortion Act, from this point referred to as House Resolution 3, or HR3. So much more concise. In the <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text">resolution</a>, one passage stands out above the rest. It states the Act 'shall not apply to an abortion' if, for instance, 'the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest.' The document has since been changed to remove the word 'forcible,' but only after websites such as <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion">Mother Jones</a> and <a href="http://pol.moveon.org/backalley/">MoveOn.org</a> brought attention to the matter.<br /><br />If 'forcible' were included in the bill, it would leave certain women up a creek without an option, for example, a woman raped while drugged, or a mentally challenged woman taken advantage of, or even certain instances of date rape.<br /><br />I read a passage in President Obama's book <span style="font-style:italic;">The Audacity of Hope</span> that rang true for this circumstance. <blockquote>'Much of the time, the law is settled and plain. But life turns up new problems, and lawyers, officials, and citizens debate the meaning of terms that seemed clear years or even months before. For in the end laws are just words on a page—words that are sometimes malleable, opaque, as dependent on context and trust as they are in a story or poem or promise to someone, words whose meanings are subject to erosion, sometimes collapsing in the blink of an eye.' </blockquote><br /><br />What Obama refers to is the trouble we often have with interpretation of laws, often even the Constitution. We like to think of our laws, and especially our Constitution, as being immutable and firm. Firm they may be, but never immutable. The three branches of government are constantly re-examining documents and laws to further refine them.<br /><br />The problem with HR3 is how it attempted to shortcut the process by refining the definition of 'rape.' Whomever was inspired to add the word 'forcible' probably thought they were being smart, removing the case for statutory rape, but being compassionate and allowing for abortions for those women who were physically beaten into submission.<br /><br />Whether HR3 passes and becomes law is still to be seen, but if it does, it will allow for the original, broader and more compassionate, coverage.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-4727106060951346932011-02-03T13:27:00.000-08:002011-02-03T14:11:15.454-08:00The Pyramids Are RevoltingIn response to the recent unrest in Egypt, the government in China has been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/asia/01beijing.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26">closely monitoring</a> the internet, specifically preventing netizens from searching for the term 'Egypt' on social networking sites, as well as keeping the news coverage in official channels to the bare minimum.<br /><br />Censorship in China is no new practice, even when it comes the internet. Since 2003, they have operated what is known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China">Great Firewall of China</a> to be able to prevent their citizens from gaining access to certain sites, IP addresses, and keyword searches.<br /><br />When it comes to technology, especially when using it to prevent people from doing something, there are always work-arounds. For the Great Firewall, proxy servers outside of China, virtual private networks and various free programs allow, to varying extents, access to information and websites not allowed by the Great Firewall.<br /><br />As for the keyword searches, there is an even easier fix: different keyword. In order to better monitor their citizens, China has their own version of Twitter called Weibo. It is one of the sites which prevents users from searching for the 'Egypt.' As any high school student in the United States can tell you, when one word is disallowed, another more innocuous word takes its place. Where Chinese citizens cannot search for 'Egypt,' they might very well be looking around for posts and articles about 'pyramids,' 'Nile,' 'Cairo,' or countless other new keywords.<br /><br />Short of killing the entire country's internet, dissident information will always leak to the people looking for it. Even without internet, people are able to coordinate well enough to disseminate information, and <a href="http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Communicate_if_Your_Government_Shuts_Off_Your_Internet">this</a> Wired article tells you how.<br /><br />That's the beauty of language for me; like Malcolm tells us in Jurassic Park, '[language] finds a way.' As literacy grows, so does knowledge. As knowledge grows, so do the possibilities. Language and literacy are doors that open to wider worlds, not smaller. I guess that's what makes it so scary to the Chinese government.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-21618433665955679342011-01-27T13:29:00.000-08:002011-06-04T11:56:56.848-07:00An Overnumerousness of LettersLast week, NPR's Robert Krulwich threw down a gauntlet. He didn't know he had, but he did. He wrote an <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/01/21/133052745/whats-the-longest-word-in-the-english-language?">article</a> concerning the longest word in the English language. He lists a few candidates, then goes down the list, taking them down one by one.<br /><br />First there was <span style="font-style:italic;">honorificabilitudinitatibus</span>. This 27-letter monstrosity was coined by Shakespeare for <span style="font-style:italic;">Love's Labour's Lost</span> and means 'loaded with honors.' Krulwich disqualifies it because it was likely crafted for the sole purpose of being lengthy.<br /><br />Then there is the long favorite among schoolmates, mostly because it's both fun to say, intelligent sounding and semi-comprehendible. <span style="font-style:italic;">Antidisestablishmentarianism</span> is also disqualified as being only 'attention-grabbing hummock.' By the way, this collection of 28 letters describes the political position that opposed the disestablishment of the Church of England in the 19th century.<br /><br />The word Krulwich eventually settles on is one we all know from our classic Disney films, <span style="font-style:italic;">supercalifragilisticexpialidocious</span>. Invented without meaning and sung by Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke in <span style="font-style:italic;">Mary Poppins</span>, this word, at 34 letters long, wins the prize for longest non-technical word, at least according to our friend at NPR.<br /><br />(There are a slew of other words, mostly within the scientific community, that are far longer and even less interesting, but since they are technical, and mostly consist of stacking prefixes on top of one another to describe molecular bonds, they don't qualify, especially since they are very rarely spelled as words. The longest molecule wouldn't qualify, having published in the much-appreciated shorthand, but never written out as a word. The one that slips through is 1,185 letters long and is a tobacco protein. Yet, being a technical word, it doesn't qualify, rightfully so.)<br /><br />William Lee Adams at Time NewsFeed picked up Krulwich's gauntlet and wrote his own <a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/25/tongue-twisters-whats-the-longest-word-in-the-english-language/">article</a> about long words. WIthout the technical muscle of Krulwich, he does little more than stoke the flames. Where the NPR article dismissed one word, the NewsFeed article quotes author Sam Kean's opinion of the matter with as near a final word on the matter as it gets. Kean's view is that the slang word <span style="font-style:italic;">pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis</span>, at 45 letters long, is worthy of the title. It refers to a disease you acquire when breathing in silicon dioxide.<br /><br />The NewsFeed article then lists a few slightly-off topic locals with longer-than necessary names. One is in Wales, another in New Zealand, and the longest is the ceremonial name for Bangkok. Since they are all in Welsh, Maori, and Thai, respectively, none of them qualify as the longest word in English, which is what we actually care about.<br /><br /><a href="http://kottke.org/11/01/whats-the-longest-english-word">Jason Kottke</a> briefly steps into the mix (he's always brief, so it's allowed) with his choice in the matter: <span style="font-style:italic;">twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettuce-cheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun</span>. It's a definitive non-word, but still fun to say: two-all-beef-patties-special-sauce-lettuce-cheese-pickles-onions-on-a-sesame-seed-bun. Kottke also links to the Wikipedia article about the longest words, which lists one none of the previous articles did.<br /><br />At 35 letters, it beats out Mary Poppins by one letter, and unlike silicon dioxide it's not technical. <span style="font-style:italic;">Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia</span> means the fear of long words. You could argue that it's redundant, since <span style="font-style:italic;">sesquipedaliophobia</span> means the same thing, AND is used professionally. However, what we call a jaw, doctors refer to it as a mandible; both are still correct.<br /><br />My vote is cast. I say <span style="font-style:italic;">hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia</span> is the longest word in the English language. Maybe it's the humor in it all. Much like the humor in this clip from The IT Crowd.<br /><br /><br /><iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kulOriEmue4" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe><br /><br /><br />(For the record, Negative One's word is real; Moss' word is not. I fact-checked on the Oxford English Dictionary online, which has a promotional trial through February 5. Use 'trynewoed' as both username and password for access.)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-40990107546160943902011-01-20T12:03:00.000-08:002011-01-20T12:51:46.390-08:00VocabularyI'm the first to admit my vocabulary has not grown in the last few years. I have not worked on growing it. As someone who goes on about how much he enjoys words, how important words are to our lives, i stink at learning new words to enhance my worldview. Yes, enhance my worldview. Learning a new language expands your cultural worldview. On a smaller scale, learning new words in your native language expands ways to see your own culture.<br /><br />For a bit of fun, here are two videos of Conan.<br /><br />Conan's Campaign to Bring Back Thrice<br /><object width='442' height='375' classid='clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000' id='ep'><param name='allowfullscreen' value='true' /><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always' /><param name='movie' value='http://i.cdn.turner.com/tegwebapps/tbs/tbs-www/cvp/teamcoco_432x243_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&videoId=240037' /><param name='bgcolor' 'value='#000000' /><embed src='http://i.cdn.turner.com/tegwebapps/tbs/tbs-www/cvp/teamcoco_432x243_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&videoId=240037' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' bgcolor='#000000' allowfullscreen='true' allowscriptaccess='always' width='442' height='375'></embed></object><br /><br /><br /><br />Thrice Returns Once More<br /><object width='442' height='375' classid='clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000' id='ep'><param name='allowfullscreen' value='true' /><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always' /><param name='movie' value='http://i.cdn.turner.com/tegwebapps/tbs/tbs-www/cvp/teamcoco_432x243_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&videoId=240592' /><param name='bgcolor' 'value='#000000' /><embed src='http://i.cdn.turner.com/tegwebapps/tbs/tbs-www/cvp/teamcoco_432x243_embed.swf?context=teamcoco_embed_offsite&videoId=240592' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' bgcolor='#000000' allowfullscreen='true' allowscriptaccess='always' width='442' height='375'></embed></object><br /><br />Conan has the right idea. It seems every week there's a new word crafted that lasts about as long as a disposable cup (and i'm not talking about <a href="http://www.dontpaniconline.com/magazine/arts/permanently-disposable">the styrofoam kind</a>). For example, 'hevage' is a word created to describe male cleavage; 'facepalm' is the act of striking your face with your palm due to another stupidity; and a 'dork knob' is a short ponytail. Do we need these words? Not really.<br /><br />So how does one go about learning new words? Word-a-Day Calendars?<br /><br />If you'd like, yes, but a more standard answer is reading slightly above your level. Another answer is adopting a word. <a href="http://www.savethewords.org/">SaveTheWord.org</a> lists thousands of little-used English words one can 'adopt' by pledging to use said word in everyday conversation as often as possible. I am adopting labascate, which means to begin to fall or slip. With how i walk, this will get used, i'm certain.<br /><br />If you like a bit of fun to learning, try out <a href="http://freerice.com/">FreeRice.com</a>, a vocab game that donates 10 grains of rice for every correct answer. It starts out easy, then gets harder the more you succeed, until it hits upon your reading level, which is where you learn many fabulous words, like quadrennium, hydrophyte, and numismatics. I made it to level 40 without missing a word. That's right, i'm throwing down the gauntlet, to see who picks it up.<br /><br />I hope i only labascate, as i invariably will, and don't succumb to the whims of gravity and introduce my face to the pavement after such an invitation for word sport. (See what a little bit of learning does?)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-33612972636263087492011-01-14T13:19:00.001-08:002011-01-14T13:19:55.068-08:00Metaphors, Superlatives and the Political DiscourseThe attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords last week was an eye-opener and a forceful shock to the entire country. One of the debates that has begun because of the attack is one i wished had started without such a high cost. As a country, we have now begun to focus on the harsh rhetoric of partisan politics. Much of the blame has been unfairly pinned on Sarah Palin. I’ve made it a known how much of a fan of Palin i truly am <a href=”http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2010/12/i-refudiate-use-of-this-word.html”>(not)</a>. Yet even if i don’t agree with her politics, or her use of language, i don’t think it fair to paint her as the source of the attack, however indirect.<br /><br />Yes, Palin marked <a href=”http://noahfairbanks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/PalinMap771-thumb-390x6352.jpg”>a map</a> with crosshairs over the representative seats she and other Republicans wanted to take back in the midterm elections. She also used the phrase ‘Don’t retreat . . . reload’ to describe her strategy after a loss. Couple those two together, and after Republicans lost to Giffords in the midterms in a fierce Republican district, it could be interpreted as a call to arms: if the recipient of the call had no concept of illustrative language.<br /><br />We use it all the time, mostly in the form of similes, metaphors and superlatives.<br /><br />A simile uses ‘like’ or ‘as’ to compare two things. (The cat is acting like it doesn’t love us.)<br /><br />A metaphor uses non-literal language to describe something. (You scratch my back, i’ll scratch yours.)<br /><br />Superlatives are the over-the-top language we use all too often in every day life. (That splinter was the worst pain i’ve ever been in.)<br /><br />When Palin talks of reloading, and puts crosshairs on a map of United States Representatives, she is not being literal, she is using both metaphorically. Not only that, but she’s not the only political figure using language in this way. The political dialogue for as long as i can remember has been characterized by superlatives and metaphors, especially concerning war imagery. Granted, i’m only 27 and didn’t pay attention for many of those years.<br /><br />Not to let Pain off the hook. (See, another metaphor; they fill our language like the air we breathe.) During a <a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13palin.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24“>video response</a> she filmed in response to the accusations thrown at her, she used the phrase ‘blood libel:’<br /><br /><quote>Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.</quote><br /><br />Being nearly eight minutes long and with the reflection of the monitor in her glasses, we know the speech was written in advance and not an off-the-cuff response, which makes her use of the term <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Libel”>‘blood libel’</a> even more astonishing. Historically, it is a reprehensible and false accusation against Jews of killing children and using their blood in religious rites. To use the term this way, especially when Gifford is herself Jewish, is not only careless, but irresponsible.<br /><br />It presents a further illustration of why the language surrounding and used in our national political dialogue needs to be carefully considered and intentionally weighed for merit and value. You can try blaming the shrinking sound bite, but at least <a href=”http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/02/the_incredible_shrinking_sound_bite/?page=full”>some</a> are saying they are a symptom and not the cause of our increasingly degraded political conversation.<br /><br />What we can do is applaud the politicians who are doing their best to change not only the language they use, but the environment surrounding the political discourse. A few politicians are calling for <a href=”http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/dems-embrace-mixed-party-seating-for-state-of-the-union/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24“>mixed seating</a> during the State of the Union address later this month. Historically, the House and Senate have been seated according to the party line, a visible split in how our government runs. This intermingling shows promise to begin a transformation in dialogue we so desperately need.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-62774834860200865242011-01-13T17:13:00.000-08:002011-01-13T17:14:29.956-08:00Lists: ver. 2010It’s a universally acknowledged fact that if you are traveling through time, year end lists are your friend. They allow you to discover what year it is, as well as what happened in the previous 12 months, without attracting attention to yourself by asking such strange questions as ‘What year is it?’ or ‘Could you sum up the last year for me, in a nice top 10 list of soundbites or video clips?’, which is by far a newbie time traveler mistake.<br /><br />Perhaps the most telling, if you read deep enough, are end of the year word lists. Not only do they tell us what was on our collective consciousness, they give insight into the happenings of the previous year.<br /><br />For the past 35 years, Lake Superior State University released a list on New Year’s Day of the list of words they would like to ban for the coming year. The biggest source of publicity for LSSU, each year’s list is submitted by the public. In an effort to <a href=”http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2010/10/correct-me-if-im-wrong.html“>stay positive</a>, i won’t get into the nitty-gritty of the list. Suffice it to say, they agree with me about <a href=”http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2010/12/i-refudiate-use-of-this-word.html”>refudiate</a>, as well NPR’s Simon Scott concerning the phrase <a href=”http://www.npr.org/2010/12/18/132160770/its-rude-its-crude-its-stupid-just-sayin#commentBlock“>’i’m just saying’</a>. Check out the list for yourself, if you’d like: http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current.php<br /><br />More interesting to me is the list compiled by the American Dialect Society. Their list is much more positive. For your enjoyment, the winners (with commentary).<br /><br /><u><b>Word of the Year</b></u><br />APP: I find it a bit amusing that the winner won’t be found in any dictionary apps on your smart phone. <br /><br /><u><b>Most Useful</b></u><br />NOM: Did you know it was based on the noise Cookie Monster makes when he destroys his food?<br /><br /><u><b>Most Creative</b></u><br />PREHAB: It’s descriptive of going into rehab to prevent a relapse. I like the second place better; the suffix -sauce, like in ‘lamesauce.’<br /><br /><u><b>Most Unnecessary</b></u><br />REFUDIATE: Did anyone like this word?<br /><br /><u><b>Most Outrageous</b></u><br />GATE RAPE: The TSA didn’t make many friends this year. They had another entry on this list under Most Euphemistic: enhanced pat-down.<br /><br /><u><b>Most Euphemistic</b></u><br />KINETIC EVENT: Who in the military thought calling a violent attack a ‘kinetic event’ would make it sound better? Also, ‘bed intruder’ had an entry in the last two categories. Google ‘Antoine Dodson’ if you have no idea what that’s talking about.<br /><br /><u><b>Most Likely To Succeed</b></u><br />TREND: Twitter is going mainstream, it seems. At least, accord to the ADS.<br /><br /><u><b>Least Likely To Succeed</b></u><br />CULTUROMICS: Try saying it. It’s awkward on the tongue. It’s supposed to describe a historical analysis of culture and language by Google. All it does it make my mouth hurt.<br /><br /><u><b>Fan Words</b></u><br />GLEEK: We can thank Dead Heads (fans of the Grateful Dead) for starting this trend of nicknaming the fans based on the source of the fandom.<br /><br />So if you do happen to stumble through time and come across this list, recently published, remember the year it came from and you will reserve those crackpot looks for another time.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-53372945449493622552010-12-17T12:57:00.000-08:002010-12-18T11:15:15.723-08:00Christmastime is here...I recognize i tend to go off on miniature rants, or at least take more of a negative spin on language as i find it addressed in life around me. In light of the season (as well as taking into account my thoughts <a href="http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2010/10/correct-me-if-im-wrong.html">my thoughts</a> on a typographic video of Stephen Fry), i thought it would be nice to elucidate and illuminate the meanings of words we toss around willy-nilly at the end of the year, often without knowing what in angels we heard on high we are talking about.<br /><br /><b>Advent</b>: It comes from the Middle English, from the Latin word <i>adventus</i> which means 'arrival;' it's used to mark the arrival of Jesus as a baby. Quite appropriately, it's also used in some circles to talk about his return. Seems Jesus is all about the advent.<br /><br /><b>Myrrh</b>: Most of us don't even know how to spell this one, let alone what it is. (I had to use google's autocorrect to get the proper spelling.) It's an aromatic resin that comes from trees found in eastern Africa and Arabia (the around called the Horn of Africa). The Egyptians used it on their mummies, but most everyone else considered it a medicine, equal to its weight in gold.<br /><br /><b>Frankincense</b>: Like myrrh, frankincense is a resin from a tree, also from the Horn of Africa. It is used as an incense, hence its name, and because the smell is said to represent life, it's often used to anoint newborns or individuals entering a new spiritual phase of life.<br /><br /><b>Yule</b>: Comes from the Old Norse 'jōl', a pagan midwinter festival. Still called 'Jul' by Scandinavians today.<br /><br /><b>Christmas</b>: The origin of the word is in Old English, that language that predates the English as we know it. Christmas, or <i>Cristes mæsse</i>, literally means 'Christ's Mass.' There is probably not a singular source for the cause of celebration on December 25. There were a plethora of winter feasts during the winter months: Roman Saturnalia, Scandinavian Yule, Germanic feasts and celebrations. Most pointed was a later Roman festival which took place on the specific date we now take to be Christmas Day. It was a celebration called <i>Dies Natalis Solis Invicti</i> and it centered around 'the birthday of the unconquered sun,' or as we call it, the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. The way the Romans they saw things, Sol invictus, the 'unconquered sun,' would be born anew and take back the heavens, slowly reclaiming winter's kingdom. Some early scholars link the festivals with the birth of Jesus, calling him the 'unconquered' one.<br /><br /><b>Nativity</b>: It means, at its simplest, 'the process of being born.' So this isn't really a holiday word, except when we add 'the' to the beginning of it. My own nativity was in September, and my roommate's was in June. There might not be Christmas in July, but nativity in July, very possible.<br /><br /><b>Noel</b>: This is the French word for Christmas. It comes from the Latin <i>natalis</i>, meaning 'birth.' When it's not capitalized, it also refers to a Christmas carol. Not sure how that fits in with 'birth.'<br /><br /><b>Grinch</b>: Invented by Dr. Seuss specifically for his beloved Christmas story, 'How the Grinch Stole Christmas,' it refers to someone who's a killjoy. BONUS: Seuss also invented the word 'nerd' for his story 'If I Ran the Zoo.'<br /><br />Merry Yule, and happy New Year to all.<br /><br />In case this wasn't enough on language, a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/whatever-most-irritating-word-poll_n_797476.html#">recent poll</a> described 'whatever' as the most irritating word. Discuss.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-7975308539509056982010-12-03T13:49:00.000-08:002010-12-03T15:27:19.806-08:00I Refudiate the Use of This WordA couple weeks back, the New Oxford American Dictionary released their <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2010/11/refudiate-2/">words for 2010</a>. Various dictionaries, worldwide, release words every year that came to prominence. The fact a word makes it on the list means nothing in regard to usefulness, longevity, newness or even correctness. The criterion that most matters, in the words of NOAD's <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2010/11/refudiate-history/">Ammon Shea</a>, is whether a word 'has attracted a great deal of new interest' that calendar year.<br /><br />The word NOAD picked as this year's top word was 'refudiate.'<br /><br />Thank you, Sarah Palin.<br /><br />It started when she used it on a cable news show, asking Michelle Obama to 'refudiate' that the Tea Party movement is racist. That same weekend, she tweeted the following: <blockquote>'Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.'</blockquote> I've already touched on the use of the moniker 'Ground Zero mosque' <a href="http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2010/08/prepositions.html">in another post</a>, so i don't feel the need to say anything more on that subject.<br /><br />She didn't initially mean to use the word. Her original tweet was taken down and replaced with <blockquote>'Peaceful New Yorkers, pls <span style="font-style:italic;">refute</span> the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real.'<br /><br />*emphasis mine</blockquote>. She originally acknowledged that her use was wrong. Then, as politicians tend to do, she stood her ground that English is alive and ever-changing.<blockquote>' "Refudiate," "misunderestimate," "wee-wee'd up." English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!'</blockquote><br /><br />I agree. English is alive, fluid and changing, and nothing can stop that. It's a natural evolution to any language that is only prevented once the language dies, as it has with Latin.<br /><br />She also grouped herself with Shakespeare, the originator of over 1,000 new words to the English language. Not to belittle Sarah Palin any, but the words he coined--the likes of 'eyeball', 'apostrophe,' and 'obscene'--he truly invented, purposefully. Palin did not.<br /><br />Refudiate is by no means a new word. The New Oxford American Dictionary blog lists the first recorded use in a Texas newspaper in the late 1800s. It is also mentioned in a headline in the 1920s, and, more recently, by a senator in 2006. What brings Palin's use to prominence in both her personality, as well as her continued insistence upon using the word.<br /><br />I take issue with her use of both the 'living language' argument as well as the 'Shakespeare: word maker' argument. If she had intended to use 'refudiate' from the beginning, that pairing would make sense. However, she did not.<br /><br />Given that her impact on American society has been so prevalent, regardless that she's only been in the spotlight for 3 years, it amazes me she can have such an impact, even accidentally, as to make a misspoken word a national news story.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-64476871297100258172010-10-22T09:47:00.000-07:002011-01-27T14:34:59.454-08:00Correct me if i'm wrong...<iframe width="408" height="251" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/J7E-aoXLZGY?fs=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen=""></iframe><br /><br />The video above us here is of Stephen Fry reading a piece he wrote, which was then typographically animated by Matt Rogers. (You may remember Fry from my post <a href="http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2010/07/nouns-and-verbs.html">Nouns and Verbs</a> back in July.)<br /><br />There are two things that immediately come to mind when i'm watching this. The first is wondering if Stephen Fry was the voice of the Guide in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000410/">He was.</a>) The second is how much i both agree and disagree with his thoughts on language.<br /><br />He talks of those he calls pedants acting more like dictatorial school masters than lovers of language. I agree that those of us who know the rules need not run around like we have the blessing of Lynn Truss (who's books i thoroughly enjoy), Sharpie in hand correcting the obvious-to-us mistakes of billboards, advertisements, highway signs and store-front windows. (I'm not talking about <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129086941">this guy</a> specifically, but he did come to mind.) More can be done to promote proper use of language through illustration than correction. <br /><br />Even where i disagree, it's only because i don't agree fully with his assertion that these pedants who fight for the clarity of language don't give a hoot about clarity at all. It's true that the sign reading '10 items or less' is just as clear as the grammatically correct '10 items or fewer.' Yet we are surrounded by many who's daily lives are inundated with the use and manipulation of language, yet even they are often failing to illustrate accurate meaning through their words.<br /><br />I'm talking of course about those who work in the fast-declined newspaper business. I would dare to say, as a group they are more often responsible for the lack of clarity in language than those in any other profession, and their jobs are directly tied to the handling of language! I realize there are many constraints, from editors to time to space. Yet so very often, we still read headlines like 'Briton killed by drone tied to Times Square bomber.' What they meant to say was 'linked,' not 'tied.' Sometimes it's not clarity they lack, but specificity. 'The nuclear submarine USS Seawolf surfaced after spending 60 days submerged in water' is clear enough, but with a specific body of water listed, the sentence becomes far less silly.<br /><br />On one hand, Fry states that using language well is more beneficial than correcting those who don't, yet those who use language most aren't always using it well themselves. I think where Fry finds himself frustrated is the way in which correction often happens. Most often we are corrected with the air of self-righteous indignation that language herself has been abused, when, in fact, it's mostly mistakenly misused. Very rarely is language actually abused and where it is, we should stand up with indignation (leaving the self-righteousness at home locked in the basement where it belongs). But when mistakes occur, as they so often do, correction should be done with care and gentleness, then we won't need to hide behind any sort of mask of clarity.<br /><br />Edit: Finally got the video above to fit into the page parameters.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-64194832830869177202010-08-18T12:04:00.000-07:002010-08-18T14:47:27.660-07:00PrepositionsThere has been a lot of discussion recently concerning a certain building in a certain location. Some call it the 'mosque at Ground Zero,' others use the more simple moniker 'Ground Zero mosque,' and still others say it is the 'Cordoba House on Park Place.'<br /><br />The building in question is slated to be a cultural center, complete with a prayer room for Muslims in need of a place to pray one of the 5 times a day they are required. Being located in the heart of New York City is not why this building is being discussed ad nauseum on cable news and the internet. It's the exact location that caused the debate. The Cordoba House is being constructed two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, now known as Ground Zero, which is itself under construction to build a monument to the victims of the September 11 attacks.<br /><br />Much of the debate centers around the location of this building. Many of the framers of the debate label the Cordoba House as a mosque being build at Ground Zero. Without placing myself on the political spectrum, i want to illustrate the problems with this label.<br /><br />Firstly, there is simple matter of the preposition. Prepositions are small, but powerful, words we use to describe an object's placement in a three dimensional world. (Even in four dimensions: with the use of words like 'after' and 'before' we place the object in time.) It might only be a two letter word such as 'in' or 'by' or 'at,' yet it helps us to orient our world.<br /><br />A baseball coach asking his player to 'throw the ball to first base' would be rightfully upset if the player's definition of the word 'to' was more akin to 'near'. Traveling to Grandma's house, we must go 'over the river' and 'through the woods,' because any other way leads us not to Grandma's house, but to getting lost, or in the case of 'into the river,' drowned.<br /><br />Saying the Cordoba House is 'at' Ground Zero places it within spitting distance of the soon to be constructed Freedom Tower. In reality, it's two blocks away. The correct preposition is 'near' or 'by' or even the hybrid, 'nearby.' It may seem like semantics, but when location is the reason behind the debate, it's interesting to note how often people against the center are using the wrong preposition.<br /><br />Not only is the preposition wrong, but they tend to call it a mosque. This is where English shortchanges the Arabic. Muslims have two words for mosque, one for the place where daily prayers are held and another for the location where not only daily prayers are held, but also Friday sermons are preached. The Cordoba center will only be the former, not the latter.<br /><br />This is a notable distinction. Devout Muslims pray five times every day, preferably in groups. To do so, they need a reliable place to gather to pray, privately. To call such a place a mosque is accurate, but misleading. The term 'cultural center' better describes the mission of the Cordoba Center. The word 'mosque' paints a picture which include minarets, Friday services, teachings on the Qur'an, and calls to prayer. None of those things will be present.<br /><br />Whether or not it's cold-hearted to set up the building in the coming shadow of the Freedom Tower, the framers of the debate have twisted the facts into minor inaccuracies which in turn color the discussion an entirely different color. An inaccurate use of language can be just as powerful rhetoric as any.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-10620715415763941942010-07-23T12:06:00.000-07:002010-07-26T13:04:27.517-07:00Nouns and VerbsThis week i found out about a five-part series on language, titled Planet Word. That it will air on BBC2--meaning without cable or satellite i'm unable to watch it--doesn't considerably quell my excitement. <br /><br />The creator of the series, Stephen Fry, is nationally renowned (in Britain) as the quizmaster of QI and was voted the most intelligent man in 2006 by the readers of RT.<br /><br />In a recent interview, he said something intriguing, yet profound. 'We are not nouns, we are verbs,' said Fry. 'I am not a thing – an actor, a writer – I am a person who does things – I write, I act – and I never know what I am going to do next. I think you can be imprisoned if you think of yourself as a noun.'<br /><br />How often do we think of ourselves as nouns? We use nouns to describe ourselves relationally as brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, co-workers, friends, classmates, roommates and neighbors. We use nouns to talk about our vocations: fire fighter, chef, salesman, street vender, exterminator, construction worker. Even some of our accomplishments are listed as nouns. We talk about being high school or college graduates, environmental advocates, philanthropists, investors, artists and gardeners.<br /><br />When we use nouns to describe ourselves, we are using inactive words to describe active people.<br /><br />We may be brothers, daughters, neighbors and classmates, but if we don't act as a brother, daughter, neighbor or classmate, we aren't truly fulfilling the meaning of the word.<br /><br />Additionally, our jobs should not define us as inactive nouns. A job is active and moving, even if it takes place at a desk in a cubicle.<br /><br />Especially when we talk about our accomplishments, what we say should be full of the life and activity only verbs can give language. There is subtle difference between a 'graduate' and one who 'graduated,' but that subtlety is crucial. Like the man who exercises every day, the difference fails to manifest immediately. Gradually, a new picture is painted of a man who is healthier, more fit, and more energized.<br /><br />Our lives are not defined by what we are, but what we do. Our language and the words we use to describe ourselves should reflect as much.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-46213101833136141222010-07-13T15:52:00.000-07:002010-07-13T16:22:48.245-07:00AcronymsIt's been said many times before that the world continues to become busier and move faster. It's our own doing, really. We push to expand our profits, our margins, our customer base; we drive fast cars to fast food in fast forward lives. Our company names reflect that.<br /><br />Recently, the world-renowned YMCA (and it's sister, the YWCA) changed their corporate name. What was once four letters drops to one, the Y. It seems the impetus behind the name change came from the people who belonged to the organization.<br /><br />The New York Times quotes Kate Coleman, senior vice president and chief marketing officer, as saying it was how they decided to become 'warmer, more genuine, more welcoming' by calling themselves what everyone else calls them.<br /><br />(It wasn't a complete change over. The individual clubs will retain the full acronym.)<br /><br />What does it mean when an organization changes their official name to their nickname? There must be some need for companies and organizations to sound more friendly through nicknames, it's becoming a wicked habit.<br /><br />Proctor & Gamble keeps their full name, but in all the marketing, they dropped down to P&G.<br /><br />British Petroleum, after acquiring a few other oil companies, dropped everything but the letters, BP.<br /><br />Kentucky Fried Chicken is legally KFC, but uses both in promotions. Might have something to do with the rumor they changed their name due to a lack in chicken in their food.<br /><br />General Electric, like Proct....P&G, keeps their full name for official business, but gets buddy buddy with the consumer through the initials GE.<br /><br />AT&T, NPR, and countless others use their initials for marketing purposes, or officially changed their names to only letters. Some, like IBM, used their initials from the beginning, leaving consumers in the dark to their meaning all along. (For the record, IBM stands for Industrial Business Machines.)<br /><br />I'm frustrated by a nation that feels the need to officially shrink the names of businesses in order to reach out to customers. It's one thing to accept and embrace a nickname; it's entirely different to take that moniker as your official title.<br /><br />Shortening the names that once stood for something is taking out the meat between the bones. All that's left is a skeletal structure of a name. I might as well change my name to mb and be done with it.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-72728879804230506052010-06-28T12:07:00.000-07:002010-06-28T12:52:09.810-07:00Hello, Lady!In one of my first posts, back in <a href="http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2009/04/filler-words.html">April of last year</a>, i mentioned the word 'dreary' and how it's lost power and meaning throughout the centuries of use. That's now the only direction language flows. It also fills words with more depth, more meaning, more fullness as time wanes onward.<br /><br />I came across the origin of the word 'lady.' It comes from the Old English (similar to the word 'dreary'). Originally it was spelled 'hlāēfdīge.' Don't ask me to pronounce it; i don't speak Old English. Through the Middle Ages, it transformed into 'lafdi' then 'ladi' to arrive at something close to our current 'lady'. However, the meaning was thoroughly different from what we hold today; 'hlāēfdīge' means 'loaf-kneader.'<br /><br />The original lady was a job description, similar to butcher, baker, or candle-stick maker. (Maybe that last one went a bit too far.) Our current use, by contrast, is much more broad, and much more rich. We use the term 'lady' today to refer to a woman in a polite manner. We also use it as a title, referring to an individual's social status. We group it in phrases such as 'ladies and gentlemen'--an opening phrase of respect for both genders--and 'lady and the tramp'--a juxtaposition between two individuals of distinctly separate social standing. What once was considered a title of menial labor has become a dignified label of courtesy.<br /><br />It has also kept a bit of a brusque nature. When used in lieu of a name--'Lady, please pass the salt'--it holds a more direct and impolite weight behind it. Yet even this is a filling out of hlāēfdīge. The word 'lady' projects more than the task of a simple loaf-kneader. It displays a certain vanity, a distinct femininity behind even the most abrupt usage, a femininity that extends beyond kitchen or housework.<br /><br />Where 'dreary' acts as a cautionary tale of the life that can be drained from a word when used poorly, or overused, 'lady' is a standard to which we can aspire. Language is a sword. When used properly, it is the foil or sabre of fencing; designed for style and specific attack targets. Wielded carelessly, it becomes a machete, a utility that does the job, but tears down much in the process.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-44949727880502524892010-06-11T12:27:00.000-07:002010-06-11T13:35:14.309-07:00Tweet! Tweet!Phil Corbett, the standards editor at the New York Times, has issued a decree: no longer will the word 'tweet' be used in news articles.<br /><br />For the uninformed, a 'tweet' is a 140-character message published on Twitter, a social-networking site. For those who didn't quite understand all of that, Twitter is a company based in San Francisco that simply asks you the question 'What's happening?' and your answer to that (in 140 characters or less) allows you to connect with friends in small pieces. You can send status-updates on your whereabouts, thoughts, musings, interactions, overheard conversations, whatever you can fit. You can update through mobile phone, computer, instant messaging, email, and a host of other methods. (Which became useful last year when the Iranian government attempted to silence the political protesters; they still managed to keep the world at large updated through Twitter.)<br /><br />So a tweet is a short message sent across the ether to the internet at large and your friend/followers specifically. Now that everything is squared away, here's what Corbett says about the word:<br /><br /><blockquote>Some social-media fans may disagree, but outside of ornithological contexts, “tweet” has not yet achieved the status of standard English. And standard English is what we should use in news articles.<br /><br />Except for special effect, we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. And “tweet” — as a noun or a verb, referring to messages on Twitter — is all three. Yet it has appeared 18 times in articles in the past month, in a range of sections.</blockquote><br /><br />His alternatives are that people 'use Twitter, post to or on Twitter, write on Twitter, a Twitter message, a Twitter update.' He also suggests that once Twitter is mentioned as the medium of communication, reporters 'should simply use "say" or "write" ' for what is published on the site.<br /><br />I don't disagree with his assessment. The New York Times is a respected news organization. The use of jargon like 'tweet' is a chink in the armor of their credibility and readability.<br /><br />Where i disagree is in Corbett's use of the attribution. In journalism, the attribution is the most often seen in the words 'John Doe said'. 'Said' is the go-to attribution in news. Simplicity is strength. No need to put 'I love raising beef,' MacDonald beamed. Not only does it distract from the quote itself, but how does beaming say anything? The only action that took place that resulted in the words 'I love raising beef' was MacDonald saying something. Not gufawing, not laughing, not joking, saying.<br /><br />There are other words to describe this action (speak, utter, claim...), but all others indicate more beyond the simple transmission of words. To say something is enough. It's the neutral action that helps to keep the reporter neutral.<br /><br />However, Corbett offers 'say' and 'write' as attributions for tweets. Again, this is where i disagree. I'm certain he put 'say' in there as the old standby. However, nobody says anything on Twitter, and i'm not being philosophical. Twits (people who use twitter) write, text, email, post or publish, they don't say. As much as 'Kutcher said' looks newsie, it would more accurately reflect reality, and be correct use of language to put 'Kutcher wrote.'Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-11856794995018349302010-04-08T12:44:00.000-07:002010-04-08T14:49:20.107-07:00Big Pimpin'If language has power (and if 'the pen is mightier than the sword,' how can we argue it doesn't), then we must first recognize what power does to understand what language can do.<br /><br />There are two things in this world each of us is able to do, two ways of using power. Either we build, create, form and design or we destroy, eviscerate, ruin and obliterate. Create or destroy: those are our options, our <i>only</i> options.<br /><br />Therefore, since language has power, it may either build or tear down.<br /><br />We build when we preach 'Love is the final fight' or sing out 'One life but we're not the same/We get to carry each other.' We build when we tell our kids 'Good job,' 'I love you,' or 'Thank you for doing your best.' We build in those moments we talk about injustice as if it were a foreign invader to our way of life. We can build in the quiet moments and when we are louder than the mountains.<br /><br />Even more easily, we can tear apart and destroy. What takes years to build in words of trust can be destroyed with one tactical lie. Biting sarcasm creates wedges which destroy relationships. The silver-tongued serpent inflicts more pain than brutal honesty from a true friend.<br /><br />It is with this in mind that i read about Demi Moore and Kim Kardashian's clash over Twitter last week. This conversation via Twitter is what followed. <br /><br /><blockquote>kk: Big pimpin w @SerenaJWilliams @LaLaVazquez @Kelly_Rowland Love u girls!<br /><br />dm: Are you using the word 'pimpin' as in pimping?<br /><br />kk: Doesn't everyone? LOL <br /><br />dm: No disrespect I love a girls night out but a pimp and pimping is nothing more than a slave owner!<br /><br />_lyricsexpress: [Kim] may have meant it in the "NEW AGE LINGO" - as in "pimpin" = Cool?<br /><br />dm: Yeah but a pimp is nothing more than a slave owner!<br />if we want to end slavery we need to stop glorifying the "pimp" culture<br /><br />jaeearly: tru but she doesnt mean it quite so literally<br /><br />dm: It's not her! i/we have allowed it to be considered cool, but it still is what it is!<br />Just so ya'll are clear I like @KimKardashian I was just making a point about how we have used a word and desensitized the real meaning.<br />Clearly I stirred up a s**t storm, but to create change you have to be willing to take a risk and be willing to provoke thought & conversation<br /><br />kk: Nothing wrong with dancing to Big Pimpin' by Jay Z in the club! Having a girls night out, gotta love that song!<br />Good point! I agree! It was just a song not literal<br /><br />dm: Thanks for understanding!<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Unintentionally, Kardashian used the word 'pimping' in a way that acted in a more destructive manner than necessary. On one level, she used the word as casually as any other and only to colorfully illustrate her night. Unfortunately, it seems more often than not we use language like a young toddler; our only goal is to navigate around our world, but we seem to be stumbling and knocking over mugs of coffee and falling down stairs more often than we gracefully traverse from kitchen to living room.<br /><br />Using words casually, without knowing the weight of the meaning behind them is akin to tossing a sledgehammer onto the counter; it will break your grandmother's mug, or knock over the blender, spilling smoothie onto your best cookbook.<br /><br />Carefully consider what words you use. 'Pimpin' glorifies the pimp culture of slavery and prostitution. 'Gyp' is a derivative of gypsy, equating that ethnic group with thievery and cheating. 'Hooligan' first referred to Irish immigrants in Britain who made a ruckus at the various pubs around London.<br /><br /><br />So watch your words; they have the power to either destroy or create. I know which i want them to do.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-44935993078691976112010-03-22T17:03:00.000-07:002010-03-23T13:49:05.765-07:00America the BeautifulSorry for the long delay in postings. In the interim, i have moved, nearly been hired at a new job, disappointed at not getting new job, gained more hours at work, and acted as temporary transportation for a girlfriend without a car. No excuses, but it is my life.<br /><br />So, without further ado, fuss or any other interference, here are more thoughts on language and how we use it:<br /><br />It goes without saying that citizens are proud of their countries. It <i>should</i> go without saying, but it doesn't seem to.<br /><br />Yes, there are most certainly times when a government of whatever country acts in a way certain individuals disagree with, even strongly (universal healthcare, for instance). Yet the very heat of their indignation illustrates just exactly how much they care for and hold high their country, even as they are upset at how it is being run.<br /><br />There is nothing inherently wrong with being proud of your home. It's natural, even healthy. It's common sense to understand that if you don't like where you live, you should move.<br /><br />Unfortunately, some people take this natural attitude of appreciation and enjoyment to an extreme.<br /><br />Let me back up a bit.<br /><br />Words hold tremendous power. How you talk about something, or even use a word, informs people's understanding of that thing. Therefore, if the leaders of a country use language that refers to their country as 'blessed by God' or 'the place the world looks to for guidance' or other such lofty phrases, it places great weight upon the people.<br /><br />C.S. Lewis wrote briefly about love of one's country in his book <u>The Four Loves</u>. In the book, he talks about how love becomes a demon when we make of it a god. Continuing the thought along the thread of patriotism, he writes, 'Demoniac patriotism in their subjects . . . will make it easier for [rulers] to act wickedly; healthy patriotism may make it harder.' Therefore, Lewis continues, 'they may by propaganda encourage a demoniac condition of our sentiments in order to secure our acquiescence in their wickedness.'<br /><br />We see this strikingly in the era between the two world wars in Germany. Through propaganda and due to the countries depressed state, Hitler was able to convince and even encourage the citizenry to fall in line with his wicked plans, including the planned extermination of the Jews and other ethnic and people groups.<br /><br />Yet even the not-so extreme propaganda is harmful.<br /><br />Take a deeper look at the United States. How often do we, as citizens of that country, refer to it as the United States? Often, we shorthand it to America, even as we are told by the map and by history that America consists of the entire 'new world,' from Alaska and northern Canada down to the tip of Chile, just north of Antarctica; one pole to the other. The way in which we refer to ourselves betrays that, even subconsciously, we consider ourselves to be the standard to which the rest of the hemisphere should and must fall in line behind.<br /><br />There is nothing wrong, as i said before, of thinking your home, your country, your nation is the best. There is a reason you have chosen to continue to live there, despite its faults. However, setting up your country as the favorite and degrading all others are close neighbors; one can easily hop the fence over to the other yard without much thought.<br /><br />The more we idealize and idolize our country, the more prone we become to degrading all others. Yes, the United States is a beautiful country, but where is our Black Forest, our Amazon River? Yes, the United States is vast and grandiose, but can we hold a candle to Himalayas or the the congo? Our mountains are not the largest, our rivers the largest, our monuments the grandest.<br /><br />Yet even how we speak of our fair country, the words we use to describe her, illustrates our nationalist point of view. Therefore, be mindful of the words you use, the phrases. Even so much as to call us 'America,' while acceptable, shoves a message of elitism into the face of the world.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744110994681343975.post-54446343959919095832010-01-26T11:00:00.000-08:002010-01-26T11:06:41.942-08:00What's in a Word?Just finished reading an article. I'm generally not a fan of the word 'just' unless you're talking about if something is right or not. Most of the time people use it as a filler word, stealing away it's true meaning of 'no more than' or 'very recently.' In this case, however, it's true. I just finished reading an article written by Jon Foreman.<br /><br />In in, he talks about some of the things i've talked about in this blog (see: <a href="http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2010/01/connotation-of-words.html">Connotation of Words</a> & <a href="http://renewablelanguage.blogspot.com/2009/11/race.html">Race</a>). Except, he takes them both into new areas. It was a good read, an enlightening read. Here is an excerpt as well as the link to the rest of the article.<br /><br /><blockquote>In many ways, words are metaphors pointing to the objects they represent. The word "tree" is not a tree; it is simply a placeholder for the real thing. Our understanding of the world is built upon a deeper set of presuppositions. Meaning demands meaning. Reason demands reason: 1+1=2, only when we agree upon the meaning of these symbols. The same is true for words. Words are our framework of meaning. Every one is a metaphor reaching to something beyond it's simple spelling and articulation. </blockquote><br /><br />(From <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-foreman/whats-in-a-word_b_423969.html">What's in a Word</a>)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17829468231281872965noreply@blogger.com0