The Chocolate Interrobang

Salon Letters Beta — The Whole Enchilada

2009-12-02T08:43:00.000-08:00

[(27/06/10) Salon has randomly changed the message header format on some letter pages causing the reformatting script to crash on those pages. I have written a patch that will fix this and incorporated it in the script posted below. To install, follow the instructions below for installing the script. Don't forget to uninstall the old version before installing the new; otherwise the new version won't be installed.]
It has now been about three weeks since Salon unveiled its “beta” pages, obviously designed by someone nostalgic for the red, white, and black color scheme so popular at the Nuremberg rallies. While the main pages at Salon are bad enough, the Letters pages were particularly hideous, with the previous more or less uncluttered format replaced with a page design where the letters are crammed into a space half the width of the page or less in order to make room for two additional columns, links were not marked in any way, and HTML tags that had previously been functional no longer worked.

I offered an update to the Salon Letter Filter that would work on the beta pages and also provided snippets of code that could be integrated into the Letter Filter script to relieve some of the clutter and the the poor design features that made trying to read the letters pages stressful as I developed them.

Now, by popular demand, a full Greasemonkey script that embodies both the Salon Letter Filter and the Salon Beta letter page reformatter is provided here. I have added some tweaks that let the script run on all Salon letters pages, including the letter posting page and individual author archive pages. The letter filter does not run on these pages as it is unneeded. The Letter Filter also will not run if the ‘killfile’ variable is not configured (i.e., it is empty or contains only the word “authors”). I have also added a switch to disable the Letter Filter even if the ‘killfile’ variable is configured. In short, if you do absolutely nothing after installing the script the Letter Filter will not operate — only the reformatting part of the script will run.

I have also added some bells and whistles that weren't part of the earlier scripts, including a “linkifier” that makes any properly formulated URL in the letter body into a clickable link. I have added commentary to the script that identifies the purpose of each block of code so that it will be easier for users to modify values or disable unwanted features. Here I give a brief summary of the features of the new script and how to manipulate it to suit the individual user's preferences.

First, however, and in keeping with the nature of this blog as a forum for language and grammar, a few remarks on the use of the term “comment” by programmers will be useful. All programming and scripting languages have a device that allows the compiler or interpreter to ignore lines in a program. In JavaScript (which is what Greasemonkey uses), the comment marker for an individual line is two slashes (‘//’). Programmers use comment (usually with “out”) as a verb meaning “to provide with comment markers” and any line with comment markers is said to be “commented out”. To uncomment a line is to remove the comment markers. I will be using these terms extensively in what follows.

The Letter Filter

//LetterFilterOn = "false";

Reformat the name of the author of the letter

<span style='font-size:110%;color:black'>

[

]

Ad Remover

Letters Help

Remove columns two and three

Function to make global style changes

Change link colors

[

]

Links

Visited Links

Hover Color

ad libitum

color:blue

color:#0000FF

color:rgb(0,0,255)

here

Change width of letter components

Reformat the <li> HTML tag to display bullet points

Remove the huge navigation panels at the top and bottom of the page

Change the harsh red background color of the copyright notices at the bottom of the page

foot.style.backgroundColor = 'white';

Reformat the letter posting page

Expand the space for the letter subject

newSize.setAttribute('size','70');

Expand the space for the letter text

newTextarea.setAttribute('rows','20');

newTextarea.setAttribute('cols','70');

Remove the gray background for the letter preview

Linkification

INSTRUCTIONS: General instructions are given in the script. To create the Greasemonky user script, copy everything below from //BEGIN CODE to //END CODE (you do not need to copy the BEGIN CODE and END CODE lines, but since they are comment lines it won't hurt anything if you do) into a new text file. Do not panic if it appears that the lines of code end in midair on the blog page. It is all there even if it doesn't display because of the Blogger page layout. Simply select the code, copy it, and paste it into a new text file.

IMPORTANT: DO NOT USE A WORD PROCESSOR TO CREATE THIS FILE. Word processors insert formatting codes into files. Scripts must contain nothing but text. If you do use a word processor (such as Wordpad), be sure to save the file as TEXT ONLY. It is recommended to use Notepad or some equivalent text editor (note: a text editor is fundamentally different from a word processor).

Once you have created the file, chose “Save As” and save the file with the extension .user.js. It doesn't matter what you name the file since Greasemonkey takes the name of the script from the “@name” element in the script itself, but it is essential that it have the extension .user.js otherwise Greasemonkey will not recognize it as a Greasemonkey user script.

When you have the file saved and Greasemonkey enabled on your browser, simply drag the file and drop it on the browser. Greasemonkey will recognize it as a user script and ask if you want to install it. Say yes.

IMPORTANT AGAIN: Once you have installed the script, you can no longer edit it from the original file. Well, you can edit it of course — it just won't have any effect on the script itself. When Greasemonkey installs the script it copies it to a directory far, far away, and that becomes the working copy of the script as far as Greasemonkey is concerned. You can edit this file with the “Edit” function in the “Manage User Scripts” dialog panel provided by Greasemonkey. If you want to edit the original script file, you can, but you will then have to uninstall the script and install it anew for your edits to have any effect.

//BEGIN CODE
//
var LetterFilterOn;
//
//          MANUAL CONFIGURATION REQUIRED FOR LETTER FILTER
//
// To configure the letter filter, you must have a "killfile" variable configured.
// A template for this variable is given below.  The "killfile" varable includes a 
// comma-delimited string of the nyms of the authors that you wish to filter out.
// A sample "killfile variable configuration looks like:
//
//            new String(killfile = 'author1,author2,author3');
// or
//            new String(killfile = 'author');
//
// Simply replace the word "authors" in the template below with the nyms of the authors you
// wish to expunge, each one separated by a comma, and save the file.
// Entries are case insensitive. Since the "killfile" will become a regular expression,
// regular expression metacharacters (such as "." or "+") appearing in a nym should be
// preceded by two backslashes ("\\"; e.g., 'L\\.W\\.M\\.') in order to work properly.
// If you do not wish to use the Letter Filter function, no configuration is necessary,
// although reformatting parameters may be reconfigured by the user if desired.
//
   new String(killfile = 'authors');

// Remove the "//" in front of the following line if you wish to disable the Letter 
// Filter in all circumstances:
//
//LetterFilterOn = "false";
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// This is a Greasemonkey user script.
//
// To install, you need Greasemonkey: http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
// After installing Greasemonkey, restart Firefox and revisit this script.
// Under Tools, there will be a new menu item to "Install User Script".
// Accept the default configuration and install.
//
// To uninstall, go to Tools/Manage User Scripts,
// select "Salon Letter Filter and Reformatter", and click Uninstall.
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// ==UserScript==
// @name          Salon Letter Filter and Reformatter
// @author        Frankly, my dear, ...
// @namespace     http://language-grammar.blogspot.com/2009/01/salon-letters-beta-whole-enchilada.html
// @description   Filter and reformat letters from Salon. WARNING: manual configuration required. If you wish to use the Letter Filter you must edit the script and enter your "killfile" in the string variable near the top of the script. If you wish to use only the reformatting features, no configuration is necessary.
// @include       http://letters.salon.com/*
// @version       0.0.1
// ==/UserScript==
//
// Shortcut function to evalute an XPath in the document
//
function xpath(query, sourceDoc) {
  return document.evaluate(query, sourceDoc, null, XPathResult.ORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE, null);
}

// *BEGIN LETTER FILTER*
//
if (! LetterFilterOn) LetterFilterOn = true;
if (! document.getElementById('letter_source_container') && ! document.getElementById('letters_send_msg') && LetterFilterOn != 'false' && killfile.length != 0 && killfile.search(/^authors$/) == -1) LetterFilterOn = true;
else LetterFilterOn = false;
if (LetterFilterOn) {
 myregexp = new RegExp(killfile.replace(/, */g, "|"), "i");
//alert(myregexp);
 var allLets, thisLet, allAuthors, thisAuthor, allFooters, thisFooter, allHeads, thisHead;
 allHeads = xpath("//div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/h2[@class='headline md'] | //div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/h3[@class='headline md']",document);
 allLets = xpath("//div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='deck md']",document);
 allAuthors = xpath("//div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='byline'] | //div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='byline premium']",document);
 allFooters = xpath("//div[@class='letter_entry_footer']",document);
 for (var i = 0; i < allLets.snapshotLength; i++) {
  thisHead = allHeads.snapshotItem(i);
  thisLet = allLets.snapshotItem(i);
  thisAuthor = allAuthors.snapshotItem(i);
  thisFooter = allFooters.snapshotItem(i);
  var author = thisAuthor.innerHTML;
  thisAuthor.innerHTML = "<span style='font-size:90%;color:black'>" +  thisAuthor.innerHTML + "</span>";
  if (myregexp.test(author)) {
   mymatch = myregexp.exec(author);
   thisLet.innerHTML = "<h2><b>Letter from " + mymatch + " deleted</h2></b>" + thisFooter.innerHTML;
   thisHead.innerHTML = "";
   thisFooter.innerHTML = "";
   thisAuthor.innerHTML = "";
   //thisLet.innerHTML = "";
  }
 }
}

// *BEGIN REFORMATTING*
//
// change color and increase size of author's name if Letter Filter didn't run
if (! LetterFilterOn) {
 allAuthors = xpath("//div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='byline'] | //div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='byline premium']",document);
 for (var i = 0; i < allAuthors.snapshotLength; i++) {
  thisAuthor = allAuthors.snapshotItem(i);
  thisAuthor.innerHTML = "<span style='font-size:90%;color:black'>" + thisAuthor.innerHTML + "</span>";
 }
}

// ad remover
var allAds, thisAd;
allAds = xpath("//div[@class='ad_content'] | //div[@id='ad_Top']",document);
for (var j = 0; j < allAds.snapshotLength; j++) {
 thisAd = allAds.snapshotItem(j);
 thisAd.innerHTML = "";
}

// save the letters help section and place it before the letters
var allBoxes, helplist,helpbox, letters;
allBoxes = xpath("//div[@class='box']",document);
helplist = allBoxes.snapshotItem(1).innerHTML;
helpbox = document.createElement('div');
helpbox.class = "box";
helpbox.innerHTML = helplist
letters = document.getElementById('letters_archive');
if (letters) {
letters.parentNode.insertBefore(helpbox, letters);
}

// remove the irrelevant second and third columns
var allCols, thisCol;
allCols = xpath("//div[@id='col2'] | //div[@id='col3']",document);
for (var k = 0; k < allCols.snapshotLength; k++) {
 thisCol = allCols.snapshotItem(k);
 thisCol.innerHTML = "";
}

// Function to make global changes in style
function addGlobalStyle(css) {
var head, style;
head = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0];
if (!head) { return; }
style = document.createElement('style');
style.type = 'text/css';
style.innerHTML = css;
head.appendChild(style);
}

// change link colors
addGlobalStyle('a:link {color:#0088FF ! important; }');
addGlobalStyle('a:visited {color:orange ! important; }');
addGlobalStyle('a:hover {color:rgb(0,0,255) ! important; }');

// change width of letter components
addGlobalStyle('p {width:650px ! important; }');
addGlobalStyle('blockquote {width:650px ! important; }');
addGlobalStyle('h2 {width:650px ! important; }');
addGlobalStyle('h3 {width:650px ! important; }');
addGlobalStyle('li {width:650px ! important; }');

// format the <li> HTML tag so it gives bullet points instead of garbage
var thisList, allLists;
allLists = xpath("//div[@class='posts preview']/div[@class='letter clearfix']/div[@class='deck md']/ul/li | //div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='deck md']/ul/li",document);
if (allLists.snapshotItem(0)) {
 for (var m = 0; m < allLists.snapshotLength; m++) {
  thisList = allLists.snapshotItem(m);
  thisList.style.marginLeft = "25px";
  thisList.style.listStyleType = "disc";
  thisList.style.listStylePosition = "outside";
 }
}

// remove huge navigation panel at top and bottom of page
xpath("//div[@class='sitemap_wrap']",document).snapshotItem(1).innerHTML = "";

var header = document.getElementById('header');
header.innerHTML = "";

// remove the harsh red background from the copyright section at the bottom of the page
var foot = document.getElementById('footer_inner');
foot.style.backgroundColor = 'white';

// *Reformat the letter posting page
// expand the space for the letter subject
var theSize, newSize;
theSize = document.getElementById('letter_subject');
if (theSize) {
 newSize = document.createElement("input");
 newSize.type = 'text';
 newSize.setAttribute('size','70');
 newSize.value = theSize.value;
 newSize.id = 'letter_subject';
 newSize.name = 'subject';
 theSize.parentNode.replaceChild(newSize, theSize);
}

// expand the area for the letter body
var theTextarea, newTextarea;
theTextarea = document.getElementById('letter_body');
if (theTextarea) {
 newTextarea = document.createElement("textarea");
 newTextarea.setAttribute('rows','20');
 newTextarea.setAttribute('cols','70');
 newTextarea.value = theTextarea.value;
 newTextarea.id = 'letter_body';
 newTextarea.name = 'body';
 theTextarea.parentNode.replaceChild(newTextarea, theTextarea);
}

// remove the gray background from the letter preview
pre = document.getElementById('letters_archive');
if(pre) pre.style.backgroundColor = 'white';

// make all URLs in letter body clickable links
var isURL = new RegExp("[a-z]+://[a-z0-9_-]+\\.[a-z0-9_#%&\?\/.,;:!'~=+-]+", "ig");
var isLink = new RegExp("http://static\\.open\\.salon\\.com", "i");
var allTexts, thisText, p;
allTexts = xpath("//div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='deck md']/* | //div[@class='posts preview']/div[@class='letter clearfix']/div[@class='deck md']/*",document);
if (allTexts.snapshotItem(0)) {
 for (var n = 0; n < allTexts.snapshotLength; n++) {
  thisText = allTexts.snapshotItem(n);
  if (isURL.test(thisText.innerHTML)) {
   myURLs = thisText.innerHTML.match(isURL);
   for (p = 0; p < myURLs.length; p++) {
    myURL = new String(myURLs[p]);
    if (isLink.test(myURL)) break;
    myURL = myURL.replace(/(\&gt;.?|[.,:;'!]+)$/,"");
    newURL = myURL.replace(/([.?])/g,"\\$1");
    var oldURL = new RegExp(newURL,"i");
    thisText.innerHTML = thisText.innerHTML.replace(oldURL,'<a href="' + myURL + '">' + myURL + '</a>');
   }
  }
 }
}

//
//END CODE

Optional Additional Code for Salon Letter Filter beta

2009-11-10T18:26:00.000-08:00

The following additional code can be added to the Salon Letter Filter beta greasemonkey script to correct deficiencies in the Salon formatting:

1) Mark visited links — The letter page formatting does not mark links that have been visited. This means that you cannot tell which pages of the letter commentary you have read and which you haven't. If you navigate away from the page or close your browser you have to remember which page you were on when you come back. This can be fixed with the following code, which can simply be copied and pasted at the end of the Salon Letter Filter beta script:

function addGlobalStyle(css) {
var head, style;
head = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0];
if (!head) { return; }
style = document.createElement('style');
style.type = 'text/css';
style.innerHTML = css;
head.appendChild(style);
}
addGlobalStyle('a:link {color:blue ! important; }');
addGlobalStyle('a:visited {color:orange ! important; }');

2) Remove Navigation panel at the bottom of letter pages — A huge amount of space at the bottom of each letter page is taken up with a navigation panel that will take you almost anywhere in Salon. For most people it is simply a distraction. It can be removed by adding the following line of code to the Salon Letter Filter beta script:

xpath("//div[@class='sitemap_wrap']",document).snapshotItem(1).innerHTML = "";

Be sure to copy the entire line of code since you can't see the end of it because of blogger's page layout.

3) Remove the second and third columns containing “Most Active Letter Threads” (the scoreboard) and “Currently in Salon” — The size of the letter area has been considerably reduced by the need of the “business model” to include graphic links to everything else on Salon. You can get rid of these two additional columns that are mostly merely distracting from the letters by adding the following code to the greasemonkey script:

var allCols, thisCol;
allCols = xpath("//div[@id='col2'] | //div[@id='col3']",document);
for (var k = 0; k < allCols.snapshotLength; k++) {
 thisCol = allCols.snapshotItem(k);
 thisCol.innerHTML = "";
}

Unfortunately, this will also remove the “Letters Help” box in the second column, which might actually prove useful, but you can't have everything. I'll try to find a way to put the “Letters Help” back somewhere unobtrusive.

4) Preserve the “Letters Help” box — the following code will preserve the help box for letters and place it unobtrusively before the letter archive:

var allBoxes, helplist,helpbox, letters;
allBoxes = xpath("//div[@class='box']",document);
helplist = allBoxes.snapshotItem(1).innerHTML;
helpbox = document.createElement('div');
helpbox.class = "box";
helpbox.innerHTML = helplist
letters = document.getElementById('letters_archive');
if (letters) {
letters.parentNode.insertBefore(helpbox, letters);
}

WARNING: This code must be placed before the code given in section 3) above. You have to snarf the letters help box before you trash column 2.

5) Remove the red background from the copyright notices at the bottom of the page — The hideous and stressful red background to the copyright notice at the bottom of the letter pages can be removed with the following two lines of code:

var foot = document.getElementById('footer_inner');
foot.style.backgroundColor = 'white';

6) Spread the letter text across the page — Now that columns 2 and 3 have been removed it is possible to spread the letters across the page to make them more readable. The following code will accomplish this:

addGlobalStyle('p {width:700px ! important; }');
addGlobalStyle('blockquote {width:700px ! important; }');
addGlobalStyle('h2 {width:700px ! important; }');

These lines will work only if the addGlobalStyle() function defined above in 1) has been included. Otherwise you will have to copy the function from 1) and paste it into the script before these lines will work.

I have set the width in pixels at 700. This is the width I find most comfortable for the browser width that I use. You can make the lines longer or shorter just by changing the number to suit your own preference.

That's all for now, but stay tuned for further developments.

Salon Letter Filter Script beta

2009-09-15T08:01:00.000-07:00

[(11/10/09) Salon has again changed its Letter format in conformance with its new beta page layout. Presumably this change will be permanent]

Salon has changed the format of their letters pages, obviously in order to make them even less readable than they were before, and the earlier Salon Letter Filter Greasemonkey script no longer works. Here is the text of a revised script that should function until Salon changes the format again. To install, copy everything between //BEGIN CODE and //END CODE into a text file (do not copy //BEGIN CODE and //END CODE). Name the text file salonletterfilterbeta.user.js and save it. If you already have Salon Letter Filter installed, you do not need to uninstall it before installing the new file. Simply open the new file in your browser (you can drag and drop). If Greasemonkey is installed and active, when you open the file a Greasemonkey dialog will appear asking if you want to install the script. Click on install.
Alternatively, if you think you know what you are doing, you can simply edit the installed script and replace those lines of code that have been changed with the new ones.

IMPORTANT: Your file name must end with .user.js for Greasemonkey to recognize it as a user script.

Do not panic if it appears that the lines of code end in midair on the blog page. It is all there even if it doesn't display because of the Blogger page layout. Simply select the code, copy it, and paste it into a new text file. Notepad or some other fairly simple text editor is recommended for this.
This version also removes ads from Salon Letter pages. If you actually prefer to see the ads, simply remove the code at the end that begins with “// ad remover”.
There is also an enhancement that increases the size of the poster's name slightly to make it easier to see. If you prefer the original setting, edit the file and put “//” at the beginning of the line that begins “thisAuthor.innerHTML = "<span style=”.
The greasemonkey script for the letter filter is no longer available as a download. To install it, you must copy the code from here into a file on your own computer. We regret the inconvenience.

//BEGIN CODE
//
//          MANUAL CONFIGURATION REQUIRED
//
// To configure the letters filter, you must have a "killfile" variable configured.
// A template for this variable is given below.  The "killfile" varable includes a 
// comma-delimited string of the nyms of the authors that you wish to filter out.
// A sample "killfile variable configuration looks like:
//
//            new String(killfile = 'author1,author2,author3');
// or
//            new String(killfile = 'author');
//
// Simply replace the word "authors" in the template below with the nyms of the authors you
// wish to expunge, each one separated by a comma, and save the file.
// Entries are case insensitive. Since the "killfile" will become a regular expression,
// regular expression metacharacters (such as "." or "+") appearing in a nym should be
// preceded by a backslash ("\"; e.g., 'L\.W\.M\.') in order to work properly.
//
   new String(killfile = 'authors');
   if (killfile.length == 0) exit;
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// This is a Greasemonkey user script.
//
// To install, you need Greasemonkey: http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
// Then restart Firefox and revisit this script.
// Under Tools, there will be a new menu item to "Install User Script".
// Accept the default configuration and install.
//
// To uninstall, go to Tools/Manage User Scripts,
// select "Letter_Filter", and click Uninstall.
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// ==UserScript==
// @name          Salon Letter filter beta
// @author        Frankly, my dear, ...
// @namespace     http://language-grammar.blogspot.com/2009/09/salon-letter-filter-script-version-002.html
// @description   Filter letters from Salon. WARNING: manual configuration required. Before use you must edit the script and enter your "killfile" in the string variable near the top of the script.
// @include       http://letters.salon.com/*
// @version       0.0.1
// ==/UserScript==

//
//  Set debug to 1 to see debug output in Javascript console
//
var debug = 1;
// 
// Only print information to console if debug is on
//
//function myGM_log(args) {
//  if (debug == 1) {
//    GM_log(args);
//  }
//}    

//
// Shortcut function to evalute an XPath in the document
//
function xpath(query, sourceDoc) {
  return document.evaluate(query, sourceDoc, null, XPathResult.ORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE, null);
}

myregexp = new RegExp(killfile.replace(/, */g, "|"), "i");
//alert(myregexp);
var allLets, thisLet, allAuthors, thisAuthor, allFooters, thisFooter, allHeads, thisHead;
allHeads = xpath("//div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/h2[@class='headline md']",document);
allLets = xpath("//div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='deck md']",document);
allAuthors = xpath("//div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='byline'] | //div[@class='posts']/div[@class='letter']/div[@class='byline premium']",document);
allFooters = xpath("//div[@class='letter_entry_footer']",document);
for (var i = 0; i < allLets.snapshotLength; i++) {
 thisHead = allHeads.snapshotItem(i);
 thisLet = allLets.snapshotItem(i);
 thisAuthor = allAuthors.snapshotItem(i);
 thisFooter = allFooters.snapshotItem(i);
 var author = thisAuthor.innerHTML;
thisAuthor.innerHTML = "<span style='font-size:90%;color:black'>" + thisAuthor.innerHTML + "</span>";
 if (myregexp.test(author)) {
  mymatch = myregexp.exec(author);
  thisLet.innerHTML = "<h2><b>Letter from " + mymatch + " deleted</h2></b>" + thisFooter.innerHTML;
  thisHead.innerHTML = "";
  thisFooter.innerHTML = "";
  thisAuthor.innerHTML = "";
  //thisLet.innerHTML = "";
 }
}
// ad remover
var allAds, thisAd;
allAds = xpath("//div[@class='ad_content' | //div[@id='ad_Top']",document);
for (var j = 0; j < allAds.snapshotLength; j++) {
 thisAd = allAds.snapshotItem(j);
 thisAd.innerHTML = "";
}
//END CODE

Latin for Bloggers

2009-09-13T07:47:00.000-07:00

[Author’s note: I started this contribution more than two years ago, but had to set it aside for more urgent undertakings (like a filter for Salon letters), but the recent posting by Joe Klein on Time’s Swampland blog in which he casually inserted what he apparently thought was a Latin phrase, *ad nauseum (I say apparently because he put the phrase in italics, indicating that he didn't consider it English). Since this solecism, while extremely common on blogs, now has the imprimatur of Time Magazine (presumably Swampland doesn’t have an editor, or at least not one familiar with Latin), it is clearly time to dust off this little excursus on the misuse of Latin by bloggers in hopes of, if not encouraging the miscreants to mend their ways and look up things that they don't know (after all it is hard to change the habits of a lifetime), at least heaping well-deserved ridicule and scorn on their pretentiousness.]

Yeah, I know — this blog is supposed to be about English. But English is a voracious language that accepts not only unlimited loan words but also takes over foreign words and phrases wholesale. In fact, according to James D. Nicoll:

We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
— James D. Nicoll

But I digress. Not only was English syntax consciously remodeled after Latin in the 17th and 18th centuries, but the prestige of the classical languages led to a great number of neologisms based on Latin and Greek roots as well as many loanwords taken directly from the classical languages. Indeed, many common abbreviations used in writing were based on Latin phrases (i.e., e.g., loc. cit., etc.). By contrast, English's sister language rejected most of the Latin/Greek etymologies and instead calqued (loan translated) the English into German (E. rhinoceros [‘nose horn’], G. Näshorn; E. exposition, G. Ausstellung; E. television, G. Fernseher, and so on) and uses German abbreviations rather than abbreviations of Latin (d.h., z.B., a.a.O., usw.).

The prestige of the classical languages has also ensured that many Latin phrases and expressions are used in English prose to give status to the author as an educated person (there was a time, not all that long ago, when a knowledge of Latin and Greek was simply the mark of an educated person; no one went to university without knowing Latin and Greek). Indeed, in many European universities dissertations were still written in Latin well into the twentieth century.

Latin (and to a considerably lesser extent Greek) expressions thus find their way into English prose, either because they are well known and familiar, or because writers wish to show, by their knowledge of Latin, that they are educated persons. What then of those who misuse Latin expressions in their writing? — get the wrong expression, misspell them, use the wrong case, or just generally demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of Latin vocabulary, grammar, and syntax? If one is generous, one could just say that they made a mistake — everyone makes mistakes; if one is less generous, one might be inclined to say that they are trying to capitalize on the prestige generated by the use of Latin and mark themselves as knowledgeable and educated when, in fact, they lack the knowledge and education that they are implicitly claiming.

Here then are some of the most common mistakes to be found in the use of Latin by bloggers (and by blog commenters):

Habeas Corpus

Most common mistake: habeus corpus (Google gets about 112,000 hits for “habeus”, but is self-correcting in that a search for “habeus corpus” returns habeas corpus as well)
Reasons for the mistake:
- Lack of knowledge of Latin plus a general belief that all Latin words end in -us or -um.
- There is a natural linguistic tendency for making word pairs, especially when the words are foreign/not understood (i.e., nonsense), phonetically congruent. Thus ‘hocus pocus’, ‘abra cadabra’, ‘jibber-jabber’, and so on.
- A pronunciation spelling since the final a of habeas is unstressed and hence pronounced as shwa (an uh-sound; [ə]) and thus phonetically matches the final syllable of corpus triggering the spelling of habeas as *habeus.
The correct form and interpretation:
- The expression ‘habeas corpus’ is now fully English. There is no need to italicize it (although it frequently is) and it will be found in practically any dictionary of English. It represents the Latin habeās corpus, “produce the body,”, from habeās, second person sing. present subjunctive of habēre, ‘to have’ + corpus, ‘body.’
- Using this expression cannot be considered a bid for prestige, since it has no English equivalent, there is no simple English phrase that expresses the concept; for the reason for this, see here. There is, however, no excuse for misspelling it if one is at all familiar with Latin.

Casus Belli

Most common mistakes: cassus belli, causus belli
Reasons for the mistakes:
- It is difficult to characterize cassus belli as a mistake because the form cassus does occur in Latin. This is the result of a process that is fairly common cross-linguistically, usually known as metathesis of length or quantitative metathesis. This often involves two consecutive vowel sounds, one short and one long, where the length is transferred from one vowel to the other, but it also occurs between a long vowel and a following consonant so that the vowel is shortened and the consonant is lengthened (doubled). The basic form is cāsus so in living Latin the form cassus is a natural variant. As for English, it has no long vowels (although most speakers don't realize this), so if the pronunciation given by the OED is followed ([keɪsəs], i.e., with the same vowel sound as in English ‘case, cases’), then the spelling <casus> is likely. However, if the more common value of written a ([æ]) is used in imitation of Latin a then the spelling <cassus> is natural (compare the a-sounds in ‘plate’ and ‘platter’) and “cassus” is again a pronunciation spelling.
- A secondary reason for the use of “cassus belli” is name recognition: Cassus Belli is a well-known rapper from Lyon.
- The error “causus belli” comes from confusing Latin causa, “cause,” with Latin cāsus, “case,” and then making causa into *causus, again in the mistaken belief that all Latin words end in -us or -um, perhaps abetted by a faint memory of “casus belli.” This mistake is perhaps natural because cāsus bellī is frequently translated, or at least thought of, as “cause of war” rather than the more appropriate “case for war.” There is nothing wrong with causa bellī, “cause of war”; it is perfectly good Latin. But *“causus belli” is not.
The correct form and interpretation:
- The correct English form is casus belli, representing the Latin cāsus bellī, “case for war.” It is usually italicized as a foreign phrase. The phrase came into use in the 17th and 18th centuries as as a technical term as part of the political “just war” doctrine. Anyone intending to wage a “just war” was expected to provide a cāsus bellī or a “case for war.” Thus the term comes from New Latin, rather than from the living language of the classical period and hence “cassus belli” is not a natural variant. The technical term chosen was cāsus bellī and that is what the correct term is. While causa bellī is good Latin, it also is not the technical term used in connection with the “just war” doctrine. And *“causus belli” is nothing but a mistake, pure and simple.

Ad Nauseam

Most common mistake: ad nauseum (although I confess to having seen ad nauseaum at least once)
Reasons for the mistake:
- Lack of knowledge of Latin plus a general belief that all Latin words end in -us or -um plus analogy to similar phrases, such as ad infinitum, that properly have the case ending -um.
The correct form and interpretation:
- This one is really a no-brainer. The Latin word for ‘nausea’ is — surprise, surprise — nausea; the preposition ad when it expresses motion governs the accusative case; the accusative singular of nausea is nauseam. Therefore, the correct expression is ad nauseam, “to the point of disgust/revulsion/nausea.”
- The expression is actually a shortening of a term from logic, argumentum ad nauseam, in which an argument is repeated over and over until your opponent just gets sick of hearing it. There are many such terms based on the argumentum ad … format, and, since many Latin nouns are second declension masculines or neuters and since the accusative singular of both masculine and neuter second declension nouns is -um, those who are unfamiliar with Latin may be led to believe that the object noun in this construction always ends in -um. However, everyone is familiar with the expression argumentum ad hominem (often shortened to ad hominem, but, interestingly enough, never seen as *“ad hominum”) so everyone has the means at their disposal to disprove this belief and realize that the -um ending in this formula is not invariant. Moreover, there are a sufficient number of first declension feminines used in this formula (argumentum ad consequentiam “to the consequence”, ad crumenam “to the purse”, ad ignorantiam “to ignorance”, ad logicam “to logic”, ad misericordiam “to pity”, etc.) that it should be obvious to anyone with any familiarity with Latin or logic or even English that there are more endings than -um possible in the argumentum ad … formula.

I'll call a halt to this here, but there are, needless to say, many other Latin phrases that can be, and are, abused regularly. These are just three of the most common abuses, seen on an almost daily basis and done by those who ought to know better. There is no excuse for this, especially when there are numerous lists of common Latin phrases available on the intertubes. Wikipedia has one and while Wikipedia may not alway be reliable on controversial issues, for straightforward matters of fact they are pretty good. If you don't want to use Wikipedia, there is always “The Google” and you can simply Google “list of Latin phrases” and take your choice.

A writer's use of Latin phrases here and there is expected to give his or her work a certain cachet and accord the writer a certain amount of respect for his or her knowledge and education. But nothing screams ignorance and incompetence more loudly than misusing the very devices meant to demonstrate knowledge and competence.

###

Joseph K. meets Alice

2009-07-21T09:47:00.000-07:00

...in Wonderland [sic] where they exchange "war" [sic] stories about their own experiences with authority run amok. (Anonymust)

One trial makes you larger,
And one trial makes you small,
And the ones that Obama ordered,
Isn't really a trial at all,
Go ask Ali, when he was just small.

And if you go chasing terrorists,
And you know you're going to fall,
Tell them a Yoo-bah written memo,
Has given you the call,
Call Khalid, when he was ten feet tall.

When the Uighurs in the prison,
Get up and tell you where to go,
And you've just tried to stop due process,
And your court date is moving slow.
Go ask Al Marri, I think he'll know.

When law and due process,
Have all fallen slowly dead,
And the Audacity of Hope is talking backwards,
And the OLC has lost it's head,
Remember, what the AG said,

Reason has fled,
The law is dead.

-- ondelette

Update:

For those who've forgotten the tune

here's the link to the song for which ondelette just provided new lyrics.

-- Jim White

Let the government define?

2009-07-08T17:17:00.000-07:00

It's up the Bush Administration,and now the Obama Administration to define words, and NPR's ( & other "journalists") job to adopt those definitions unchallenged? Sheez!!! She actually said that!? Had to listen to it twice, to make sure I heard that.

Re the latest proposed travesty, (as I said back in '01) somebody should inform these depraved a-holes that Kafka didn't intend to write a #!&^#@!!! how-to manual.

-- mikeinportc

Permalink Wednesday, July 8, 2009 12:11 PM

The above comment appeared in a comment thread which accompanies a typically hard-hitting Greenwald post. I was inspired to respond that perhaps we should parody an "official" government-sponsored dictionary.

Please feel free to add the most odious and officious definitions and euphemisms that you have heard of-- or are willing to invent-- in the comments here.

Salon Letter Filter Script

2009-04-04T13:23:00.000-07:00

[WARNING: This script can no longer be used due to changes in Salon's Letter format. The new script is here.]
[On 11/10/09 Salon again changed the format of their letter pages. A new script to filter Salon letters is again available here. The old code is left here in case Salon changes the format back again.]
For those who have been unable to install the Salon Letter Filter Greasemonkey script from the link to the file, here is the text of the script. To install, copy everything between //BEGIN CODE and //END CODE into a text file (do not copy //BEGIN CODE and //END CODE). Name the text file salonletterfilter.user.js and save it. Open the file in your browser (you can drag and drop). If Greasemonkey is installed and active, when you open the file a Greasemonkey dialog will appear asking if you want to install the script. Click on install.

IMPORTANT: Your file name must end with .user.js for Greasemonkey to recognize it as a user script.

Do not panic if it appears that the lines of code end in midair on the blog page. It is all there even if it doesn't display because of the Blogger page layout. Simply select the code, copy it, and paste it into a new text file. Notepad or some other fairly simple text editor is recommended for this.

//BEGIN CODE
//
//          MANUAL CONFIGURATION REQUIRED
//
// To configure the letters filter, you must have a "killfile" variable configured.
// A template for this variable is given below.  The "killfile" varable includes a 
// comma-delimited string of the nyms of the authors that you wish to filter out.
// A sample "killfile variable configuration looks like:
//
//            new String(killfile = 'author1,author2,author3');
// or
//            new String(killfile = 'author');
//
// Simply replace the word "authors" in the template below with the nyms of the authors you
// wish to expunge, each one separated by a comma, and save the file.
// Entries are case insensitive. Since the "killfile" will become a regular expression,
// regular expression metacharacters (such as "." or "+") appearing in a nym should be
// preceded by a backslash ("\"; e.g., 'L\.W\.M\.') in order to work properly.
//
   new String(killfile = 'authors');
   if (killfile.length == 0) exit;
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// This is a Greasemonkey user script.
//
// To install, you need Greasemonkey: http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
// Then restart Firefox and revisit this script.
// Under Tools, there will be a new menu item to "Install User Script".
// Accept the default configuration and install.
//
// To uninstall, go to Tools/Manage User Scripts,
// select "Letter_Filter", and click Uninstall.
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// ==UserScript==
// @name          Salon Letter filter
// @author        Frankly, my dear, ...
// @namespace     http://language-grammar.blogspot.com/2009/04/filter-for-salon-letters.html
// @description   Filter letters from Salon. WARNING: manual configuration required. Before use you must edit the script and enter your "killfile" in the string variable near the top of the script.
// @include       http://letters.salon.com/*
// @version       0.0.1
// ==/UserScript==

//
//  Set debug to 1 to see debug output in Javascript console
//
var debug = 1;


// 
// Only print information to console if debug is on
//
function myGM_log(args) {
  if (debug == 1) {
    GM_log(args);
  }
}


//
// Shortcut function to evalute an XPath in the document
//
function xpath(query, sourceDoc) {
  return document.evaluate(query, sourceDoc, null, XPathResult.ORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE, null);
}

myregexp = new RegExp(killfile.replace(/, */g, "|"), "i");
myGM_log(myregexp);
var allLets, thisLet, allAuthors, thisAuthor, allFooters, thisFooter;
allLets = xpath("//li[@class='letter_node']",document);
allAuthors = xpath("//div[@class='letter_entry_author'] | //div[@class='letter_entry_author premium']",document);
allFooters = xpath("//div[@class='letter_entry_footer']",document);
for (var i = 0; i < allLets.snapshotLength; i++) {
 thisLet = allLets.snapshotItem(i);
 thisAuthor = allAuthors.snapshotItem(i);
 thisFooter = allFooters.snapshotItem(i);
 var author = thisAuthor.innerHTML;
 if (myregexp.test(author)) {
  mymatch = myregexp.exec(author);
  thisLet.innerHTML = "<h3><b>Letter from " + mymatch + " deleted</h3></b>" +    thisFooter.innerHTML +"<hr>";
  //thisLet.innerHTML = "";
 }
}
//END CODE

A Filter for Salon Letters (Important Update below — 9/15/09) (Updated again — 11/10/09)

2009-04-03T05:29:00.000-07:00

In view of the vitriolic and acerbic nature of the comment section of Glenn's recent postings at UT, many commenters have asked for a filter to remove certain authors' letters from the comment thread. It got so bad, that one commenter was ready to kill:

Baring that, I'd kill for a "ignore" or "filter" option. At least that way I can completely skip the crap and not waste the time and bytes downloading text I'm not going to read.
— KB4Hire

At the time, I said that I was too busy to take the necessary steps to produce such a filter, but this is the kind of simple programming task that I just can't pass up. So I brushed up my javascript and read a book on Greasemonkey and then wasted a day of my life writing a Q&D^® filter to remove letters from specified authors from comments pages. It turns out it was about as simple as I predicted. And while it doesn't save on downloading, because you have to download the letters before you check and eliminate them, it does mean that you don't have to read the vitriol and invective that some people seem to be incapable of excluding from their writing. This will be a boon to those with peptic ulcers and high blood pressure.

The file is salonletterfilter.user.js, and, if you already have the Greasemonkey add-on for Firefox installed and active, it can be installed simply by clicking on the file name and selecting "Install" when the Greasemonkey dialog panel appears. If you don't already have Greasemonkey, install it by clicking on the link. If you're using Internet Explorer, eat your heart out.

Note that there is some manual configuration necessary to make the script functional. After installing the script, open the Greasemonkey "Manage User Scripts" dialog either by right-clicking on the Greasemonkey icon in the status bar at the bottom of your browser window or from the browser's "Tools" menu. Once the dialog panel is open, select "Salon Letter Filter" and click on "Edit". This will open the script in your designated text editor. Then go to the first line of the script that is not a comment (i.e., does not begin with "//") and replace the word "authors" with your kill list. Use a comma to separate individual authors if you want to exclude more than one author. Save the file, and the next time you open a Salon letters page, letters from the authors listed in "killfile" will be deleted.

The configured version is fairly "polite" in that it leaves behind a notice that a letter from a particular author has been deleted, the permalink to the message (as an icon) and the datestamp. As a less polite option, there is also a more vicious version that removes letters completely. To implement this, edit the script and in the last line of the code (//thisLet.innerHTML = "";) delete the "//" at the beginning. Unwanted letters will disappear without a trace.

You can, of course, retrieve deleted letters by editing the "killfile" variable at any time. And there is no need to uninstall the script if you no longer wish to have a killfile. Simply set the variable "killfile" to an empty string ('') and the script will stop. The only thing to keep in mind is that the "killfile" variable is used to create a regular expression so regular expression metacharacters have to have a backslash ("\") in front of them for the script to work properly.

[Disclaimer: No warranty, expressed or implied, is associated with this script. The use of this script is entirely at the user's risk. This offer void where prohibited by law.]

UPDATE: While we were sleeping, Salon changed the format of their letters pages (obviously to make them less readable than they were before). This means that the old version of the Salon Letters Filter no longer works. I have revised the Greasemonkey script and it is still available through the link above in this posting. In order to install the new version you will have to first delete the old one. For those who are unable to access the script through the link, the text of the new script is now available.

LATER UPDATE: Salon has mercifully restored the previous letters settings. There is now no need for version 0.0.2 of the Salon Letter Filter and the original version works fine. That is all.

STILL LATER UPDATE: Salon has now changed the format of their letter pages in conformance with their new beta "business model". This change is likely to be permanent. The text of the new script for the beta layout is now available. The link to a downloadable version of the script no longer works.

The Earnestness of being Important

2009-03-19T11:40:00.000-07:00

Twice in the current month a poster at UT has criticized Glenn's use of sentence initial "most importantly", insisting, rather pedantically, that the "correct" form is "most important":

Usage

"Importantly" means "in an important manner." Thus, the phrase "most important" should replace your frequent "most importantly."
Monday, March 9, 2009 11:00 AM

and

Usage

Glenn writes:

UPDATE II: Rather oddly, the NYT article I quoted above, by David Herzsenhorn, has been moved on the NYT site and is now at this link (see here). Most importantly, it has been re-written to reflect that fact that it was not Dodd who inserted the exception for past contracts:

"Importantly" means "in an important manner." The correct form is: "Most important, it has been rewritten..."
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 02:38 AM

However, despite the poster's certainty about the "correct" usage, the issue is not so clear-cut:

Usage note:
Both more important and more importantly occur at the beginning of a sentence in all varieties of standard English: More important (or More importantly), her record as an administrator is unmatched. Today, more importantly is the more common, even though some object to its use on the grounds that more important is an elliptical form of “What is more important” and that the adverb importantly could not occur in such a construction. More importantly probably developed by analogy with other sentence-modifying adverbs, as curiously, fortunately, and regrettably.
Based on the Random House Dictionary
Dictionary.com

Usage Note: Some critics have objected to the use of the phrase more importantly in place of more important when one introduces an assertion, as in More importantly, no one is ready to step into the vacuum left by the retiring senator. But both forms are widely used by reputable writers, and there is no obvious reason for preferring one or the other.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Dictionary.com

importantly, adv.
1. In an important manner or degree; weightily, momentously.
Now esp. common as a kind of sentence adverb preceded by more or most; in some contexts it is interchangeable with important and so has the function of a quasi-adj. Cf. IMPORTANT a. 4.

Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required)

important, a.
4. Preceded by more or most: used as a kind of sentence adjective. Cf. IMPORTANTLY adv. 1.
This construction is discussed in R. Quirk et al. Gram. Contemp. Eng. (1972) §5.26 (p. 255).

Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required)

Either the adjectival more/most important or the adverbial more/most importantly may serve as a sentence adverb; both are Standard in this use: More [Most] important [importantly], we now have the right answer.
Bartleby.com

A nice analysis of the usage was written by Evan Jenkins for the Language Corner blog of the Columbia Journalism Review, which is worth quoting extensively here:

Important/Importantly
Important ? Well, Interesting

By Evan Jenkins

Steve Parrott, associate director (later director) for university relations at the University of Iowa, e-mailed to ask, “Please consider a few words on ‘more important / more importantly.’ ”

Okay. Mr. Parrott had in mind sentences or clauses that begin with one of those phrases, like “Most importantly, the charges are tied directly to the original topic Mr. Starr was supposed to investigate.”

The short answer is that either form of the word is acceptable. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage (1994) has a lengthy and interesting (really) discussion of the longstanding argument (really) over important vs. importantly, with many citations, and concludes that “both are defensible grammatically and both are in respectable use.”

The tilt here, though, is toward “importantly.” The adverb can stand alone at the start of a sentence or clause — without “more” or “most” or any other modifier — and the adjective can’t.

Try it. Drop the “most” from the example quoted above; the sentence still works. Then, with “most” gone, drop the “ly” from “importantly”; the sentence no longer works.

(Some mindless aversion to “ly” adverbs at the start of a sentence — an extension of misguided rigidity about “importantly”? — must have been at work in the following sentence, since no human being ever spoke this way: “Not surprising, a variety of polls indicate...”)

The arguments for “most important” are strained, as an e-mail discussion with the freelance copy editor Christy Goldfinch of Fort Worth made clear.

“Important” commonly fails to modify any specific part of its sentence, so the adjective advocates contend that it can be understood to modify the whole thing — a “sentence adjective.” Well, “importantly” can certainly be called a “sentence adverb.”

But with “importantly” there’s no need for that dance. The adverb has an element to grab hold of within its sentence, the verb or the overall predicate. (And that, quite apart from any “sentence adverb” justification, makes the literalists’ objection to “hopefully” at the start of a sentence fallacious, as well as outmoded.)

Another argument for “most important” is that the phrase “What is” is understood to precede it. If that were a natural supposition, all sorts of adjectives (with modifiers) could start sentences. But “Most happy, the storm ended,” just doesn’t make it.

The “most” approach is acceptable (not preferable) with the one adjective “important” not on logical grounds but because it is widely used and well established. And in passages that start with modifiers ending in “ly” — “equally” comes to mind — using “important” is handy.

So the consensus is clear. Either more/most importantly or more/most important is acceptable, but it is fairly clear that more/most important is the interloper here. Sentence initials are frequently used as absolutes (i.e., they modify the entire sentence rather than any particular part of the sentence). Generally speaking, such absolutes are usually adverbial (in what manner, by what means). To use more/most important as a sentence initial it must be considered elliptical for (What is) more/most important (is the fact that) ....

Furthermore, 'importantly' is a synonym of 'significantly'. It is quite natural to say "More significantly, there is no other choice available" — considerably more natural than saying "More significant, there is no other choice available." Initial adverbials used as absolutes are quite common (e.g., "regrettably, curiously, surprisingly). One would never think of replacing them with an adjective:

Regrettably, his attempt failed.
*Regrettable, his attempt failed.
Curiously, no one was bothered by this.
*Curious, no one was bothered by this.
Surprisingly, the meeting was well attended.
*Surprising, the meeting was well attended.

even though doing so could be considered elliptical for (What is) regrettable/curious/surprising (is the fact that) ....

Extending this to more/most expressions completes the analogy:

Regrettably, his attempt failed. More regrettably, he died in the attempt.
*Regrettable, his attempt failed. *More regrettable, he died in the attempt.
Curiously, no one was bothered by this. More curiously, some were even pleased by it.
*Curious, no one was bothered by this. *More curious, some were even pleased by it.
Surprisingly, the meeting was well attended. More surprisingly, no one left before the end.
*Surprising, the meeting was well attended. *More surprising, no one left before the end.

Thus the elliptical "(What is) {adjective} (is the fact that)..." model is unnatural and there is no doubt that more/most importantly is the original usage and that more/most important is no more than an accepted interloper.

At last! A president whose sentences might be diagrammed....

2009-02-18T16:49:00.000-08:00

From Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post...

Something that most people - even his political opponents - agree on is that President Barack Obama is a fairly gifted orator. On those occasions when he speaks extemporaneously, he still struggles with vocalized pauses - those lengthy "Uhhmmms" and "Errrrrs" - but in general, he can compose articulate sentences and typically does fine work with a prepared speech.

But is GRAMMAR, itself, in the tank for Obama? Apparently so, and all it takes to reveal this truth is a trip back to the most hated part of your middle school education: sentence diagramming. [At left], blogger Garth Risk Hallberg diagrammed a sentence from Obama's recent press conference - coincidentally, his response to the question put to him by our own Sam Stein:

My view is also that nobody's above the law, and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that, generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.

You can read the rest of Linkin's post here, including some of Hallberg's analysis... the rest of Hallberg's post may be found here.

a new GOP-specific form of aphasia?

2009-02-11T16:41:00.000-08:00

The inimitable Bob Cesa, at the Huffington Post, has published a litany of examples of how the Republican Party is losing its mind, its logic, sense of syntax, etc. Of course, this should not be a surprise, given the past eight years, when their party's leader was one of the most linguistically challenged politicians within memory.

After giving dozens of examples of plain lunacy-- including a very strange Bushism that was completely new to me and I thought I'd heard them all-- Cesca concludes with the following:

They have indeed totally lost their shpadoinkle and despite purely involuntary spikes in my blood pressure, it's so much fun to watch. By successfully debunking their lies, rising above their bait and merely presenting a contrast of character, President Obama is making the Republican A-listers appear small, petty and absolutely befuddled. They're frantically struggling to figure out how to counterpunch, so they're grabbing, borrowing or downright plagiarizing ideas from anywhere, irrespective of the general quality of the idea. And if the Republicans are at all interested in continued survival, someone they respect should probably smack their hands and scold: Drop that filthy Limbaugh quote! You don't know where it's been! [emphasis is mine]

But if this is their "voice" and they're satisfied with it, I for one welcome the new Republican "voice" and wish them a hearty and very sincere: Good luck with that.

Proof in Japan that we have truly entered a new phase...

2009-01-23T12:24:00.000-08:00

We never could have expected to see a headline similar to this one during the Bush Years...

Japanese Use Obama's Speeches To Learn English

TOKYO — Aspiring English speakers in Japan have made President Barack Obama's book of speeches and accompanying CD a national best-seller.

In Aichi, central Japan, a Buddhist monk has reportedly been playing the president's speeches during his temple service. And dozens of students in an English-language class in Tokyo have been memorizing his 2004 Democratic Convention speech to improve their understanding and pronunciation.

Click here to read more.

Words

2008-12-06T21:26:00.000-08:00

Just discovered this site, Wordie, which has all sorts of interesting lists with words like louche and crepuscular, and comments like this one about the word rumored:

A highly unusual verb in Present-day English: it has only this one verb form. Although it was historically a full verb with all its parts ('Come hither Catesby, rumor it abroad, That Anne my Wife is very grieuous sicke.'—Richard III, IV.ii), for most of us today it can only be a past participle.

This raises the question of why it should be counted a verb at all, rather than an adjective: compare 'she was rumoured to be dead', 'she was keen/eager/reluctant to be dead': adjectives can take infinitival clause complements.

Well last night I found the answer, when I read this sentence opening Dorothy Parker's 'Mrs. Hoftstadter on Josephine Street':

That summer, the Colonel and I leased a bungalow named 947 West Catalpa Boulevard, rumored completely furnished: three forks, but twenty-four nutpicks.

'Completely furnished' is an adjective phrase (AdjP), and adjectives can't take AdjP complements, but verbs can: compare *'eager/easy/pleasant completely furnished' with 'considered completely furnished'. And indeed, on checking Google this morning, I find quite a few "was rumoured dead"—not the way I'd say it myself (I'd much prefer to add 'to be'), but common enough to prove it's verbal in Standard English. So, another discovery.

The Palin Challenge

2008-10-03T14:19:00.000-07:00

Since our masthead boasts that we “sometimes reminisce about diagramming sentences,” I thought when I came across an article by Kitty Burns Florey that outlines the perils of trying to diagram the classic Palin utterance that has become the hall- and mintmark of the vice-presidential candidate, that it was something to be shared here.

One really needs to read Ms Florey's article to get the background, but since she clearly asked for help at one point, it seems a worthwhile project to see if anyone has ideas of how to crack the Palin Challenge.

From Ms Florey:

Other Palinisms are not so tractable. From the Charlie Gibson interview:

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

I didn't stop to marvel at the mad thrusting of that pet political watchword "families" into the text. I just rolled up my sleeves and attempted to bring order out of the chaos:

I had to give up. This sentence is not for diagramming lightweights. If there's anyone out there who can kick this sucker into line, I'd be delighted to hear from you. To me, it's not English—it's a collection of words strung together to elicit a reaction, floating ands and prepositional phrases ("with that vote of the American people") be damned. It requires not a diagram but a selection of push buttons.

There you have it. Anyone who thinks he or she is up to the Palin Challenge is welcome to take a shot at it. Or, if anyone feels the urge to try to diagram any of Palin's other sentences, feel free. Who knows, it might become a growth industry.

Quotes of the week...

2008-07-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

from Don Eggen at The Washington Post:

Quote of the Week No. 1

"Well, you know, God bless him, bless his heart, the president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject, and for him to be challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."

-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), when asked by CNN about Bush's criticism of Congress

Quote of the Week No. 2

"And they have no disregard for human life."

-- President Bush, referring to enemy fighters in Afghanistan

Don't you just love the English language and all of its little idiosyncracies? I know I do.

the Myth of Centrism

2008-07-21T10:57:00.000-07:00

Definitions of centrism on the the web:

a political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of left and right by taking a moderate position or course of action
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
Any moderate political philosophy that avoids extremes

But, as George Lakoff knows, that center is something of a myth.

Jim White (noted UT commenter) attended Netroots 08, and shared with us in a post at AchievingOurCountry his experience at a session videotaped for DFA's night school. The session was based on work from Lakoff's latest book, The Political Mind.

Jim writes:

To illustrate the concept that there is not a linear scale, Lakoff holds up the brilliant example of Senators Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel. The popular press incessantly describes both as “centrists”, yet they share virtually no views. On social issues, Lieberman is consistently progressive and Hagel is solidly conservative. On the war, Lieberman is conservative and Hagel is progressive. They share views on nothing, yet both are branded as centrists. How can there be such a thing as a centrist, or a center, if these two agree on nothing?

And isn't it interesting how often we use words that are just as likely to be Reality-challenged as if they were everyday items? As if they were things that you can use and touch.

So, that mythic centrist space doesn't really exist, especially not as a spot in one-dimensional space. After all, in politics, even three dimensions can seem inadequate for describing what the hell is going on.

To Karen. Thanks.

2008-06-27T11:30:00.000-07:00

Thus far, with rough and all un-able pen,
Our bending author hath pursued the story,
In small room confining mighty men,
Mangling by starts the full course of their glory.
Small time ...

Reckless at Any Speech

2008-06-08T01:26:00.000-07:00

One commenter over at Daily Kos pointed out this sentence in John McCain's trainwreck of a speech Tuesday night:

I don’t oppose a reckless withdrawal from Iraq because I’m indifferent to the suffering war inflicts on too many American families.

While I would not characterize this sentence as a "major gaffe"—it's more like some loopy garden path sentence—(and this is, after all, John McCain, and the campaign has just begun), I somehow enjoy imagining, say, Dennis Steele in some ad, solemnly intoning:

John McCain: He said he was indifferent to the suffering that the Iraq War inflicts on many American families. And, therefore, he would not oppose even a reckless withdrawal from Iraq. John McCain. Reckless. Indifferent. That's not a leader we can believe in.

One might have hoped for some attempt at an elegant syncrisis—I don't oppose X because Y; I oppose X because…—but, well, that might have raised the question of what sort of withdrawal John McCain could support or, perhaps, if he could support any type of withdrawal at all.

I know what it says, but what does it mean?

2008-06-03T08:57:00.000-07:00

On the subject of rhetorical devices, here, by popular demand, is my vision of what the ultimate anti-McCain campaign ad would look like:

Actual news footage — McCain standing at the microphone, Joe Lieberman in the background.

MCCAIN: "Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate."

Lieberman steps forward, takes McCain by the arm, and whispers in McCain's ear.

MCCAIN: "I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda."

The scene shifts; a child is in bed sleeping; in the background a phone is ringing.

NARRATOR: "It's 3:00 AM and your children are safely asleep. But somewhere in the White House a phone is ringing. Something is wrong in the world. Who's going to answer that phone?"

Still shot of Lieberman whispering in McCain's ear (above)

NARRATOR: "What if it's John McCain and Joe Lieberman isn't there to tell him what to say?"

Fade to text:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT
AS WELL AS WHAT HE'S SAYING.

A Free Press

2008-05-26T08:23:00.000-07:00

In honor of Glenn's two most recent posts (here and here), I thought I'd post this little homily on the role of a free press in a democracy. While it may look like a handout for a ninth grade civics class, the source may surprise you.

A Free Press

In a democracy the press should operate free from governmental control. Democratic governments do not have ministries of information to regulate content of newspapers or the activities of journalists; requirements that journalists be vetted by the state; or force journalists to join government-controlled unions.

A free press informs the public, holds leaders accountable, and provides a forum for debate of local and national issues.

Democracies foster the existence of a free press. An independent judiciary, civil society with rule of law, and free speech all support a free press. A free press must have legal protections.

In democracies the government is accountable for its actions. Citizens therefore expect to be informed about decisions their governments make on their behalf. The press facilitates this “right to know,” by serving as a watchdog over the government, helping citizens to hold government accountable, and questioning its policies. Democratic governments grant journalists access to public meetings and public documents. They do not place prior restraints on what journalists may say or print.

The press, itself, must act responsibly. Through professional associations, independent press councils, and “ombudsmen,” in-house critics who hear public complaints, the press responds to complaints of its own excesses and remains internally accountable.

Democracy requires the public to make choices and decisions. In order for the public to trust the press, journalists must provide factual reporting based on credible sources and information. Plagiarism and false reporting are counterproductive to a free press.

Press outlets should establish their own editorial boards, independent of government control, in order to separate information gathering and dissemination from editorial processes.

Journalists should not be swayed by public opinion, only by the pursuit of truth, as close as they can get to it. A democracy allows the press to go about its business of collecting and reporting the news without fear or favor from the government.

Democracies foster a never-ending struggle between two rights: The government’s obligation to protect national security; and the people’s right to know, based on journalists’ ability to access information. Governments sometimes need to limit access to information considered too sensitive for general distribution. But journalists in democracies are fully justified in pursuing such information.

Yeah, well, you say, everyone should know this, and, yes, everyone should. This is basic ninth grade civics. But just run through these points and see how many our “free press” and our “democratic government” violate or ignore.

But what, you say, is the point in posting this if this is something everyone knows? The point lies not in the information itself, but in its source: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/freepress.htm.

That's right, this little homily on the role of a free press in a democracy is part of the State Department's primer on democracy — what we preach to the rest of the world while at home the government assiduously goes about subverting and suborning the press. Yes, the same State Department that hires Blackwater, Inc. to massacre Iraqi civilians (or at least doesn't fire them when they do).

Well, you say, since the government and the press are supposed to be adversaries shouldn't the government try to subvert and suborn the press? The answer is, not in a democracy according to the USDOS. Consider the following quotations from the above: “Democratic governments grant journalists access to public meetings and public documents. They do not place prior restraints on what journalists may say or print” and “A democracy allows the press to go about its business of collecting and reporting the news without fear or favor from the government.”

Perhaps a little statement to the effect that “the press should expect the government will try to subvert and suborn it” would be a helpful warning to a press that seems to be so easily subverted and suborned.

So long as the press is willing to provide favorable coverage of the government in exchange for access, we do not have a free press or a democratic government. A democratic government is supposed to provide access to journalists regardless (“no prior restraints” and “without fear or favor”). The State Department says so (just not for domestic consumption).

And note particularly the final paragraph concerning the admission that “journalists in democracies are fully justified in pursuing such [national security] information” and compare that with the insistence of Billy Kristol that the NY Times be prosecuted for publishing national security information (that coincidentally revealed that the president of the US was a felon). Why has the State Department never explained to Billy Kristol the duties and responsibilities of the journalist in a democracy as they themselves promulgate them? Does no one in the State Department ever speak to Kristol?

[Sorry, I couldn't find any way to work language and grammar into this; someone else will have to do that.]

Vapid is as vapid does

2008-04-28T06:52:00.000-07:00

From KarenM in comments:

Perhaps it's time for a post about synonyms for vapid?

Good idea! Here's my list:

Vapid:

insipid	flat	lifeless	dull
boring	trite	banal	uninspiring
flavorless	tedious	listless	tiresome
spiritless	prosaic	unanimated	tasteless

Anybody else?

Additions from comments (5/9/08):

vacuous

tired

hackneyed

uninspired

Forcing vs. Pouring?

2008-04-24T11:44:00.000-07:00

From a diary at Kos by Elsinora... transcript from Dan Froomkin's column

Ashcroft: "Now, listen here. You're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don't do anything like what you described."

Elsinora: "I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat. . . . "

Ashcroft: "'Pouring'! 'Pouring'! Did you hear what she said?: 'Putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them.' That's not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before [about the Asano case]!"

Elsinora: "'The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.'"

Ashcroft: "You hear that? You hear it? 'Forced'! If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring. . . . Does this college have an anatomy class?

If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring. . . . "

pour
v 1: cause to run; of liquids
2: move in large numbers; "people were pouring out
of the theater" [syn: swarm, stream]
3: pour out; of wines or sherry [syn: decant, pour out]
4: flow in a spurt; of liquids
5: supply in large amounts or quantities: "We poured
money into the education of our children"
6: rain heavily; "Put on your rain coat-- it's
pouring outside!"
[syn: pelt, stream, rain cats and dogs, rain buckets]

force
v 1: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by
physical, moral or intellectual means :"She forced him
to take a job in the city" [syn: coerce, hale, pressure]
2: urge or force (a person) to an action; constrain or
motivate
[syn: impel]
3: move with force, "He pushed the table into a corner"
[syn: push] [ant: pull]
4: impose or thrust urgently, importunately, or inexorably;
"She forced her diet fads on him" [syn: thrust]
5: squeeze like a wedge into a tight space; "I squeezed
myself into the corner" [syn: wedge, squeeze]
6: force into or from an action or state, either
physically or metaphorically; "She rammed her mind into
focus"; "He drives me mad" [syn: drive, ram]
7: do forcibly; exert force; "Don't force it!"
8: cause to move along the ground by pulling; "draw
a wagon"; "pull a sled" [syn: pull, draw] [ant: push]
9: take by force; "Storm the fort" [syn: storm]

I guess if it will ease Ashcroft's mind semantically, we can agree on using some variation of forcibly pouring, or poured by force. However, the words and phrases emphasized above should have sufficed.

And, perhaps Knox College will, in future, make sure that the distinction between pouring and forcing is added to their anatomy curriculum. [/sarcasm]

Definitions: http://dictionary.die.net/
Image: "Waterboarding in Vietnam," from Stop Torture: the Harvard anti-Torture Coalition

Elites and Elitism

2008-04-19T19:01:00.000-07:00

Time to reclaim these words. They don't really sustain their proper meanings when applied, e.g., to our esteemed Press.

"Elites," as I understand the term, are the cream of the crop, those with expertise to share, and with verifiable discernment. Journalism's true elites are not those who think it is too difficult to do actual research, or that they merely have to present two opposing views, no matter the facts of the case, in order to be objective. Nor do they think that facts have a liberal bias, but rather understand they are simply based in Reality.

"Elites" may or may not belong to the uppermost income brackets. Although they often do, belonging to that bracket does not automatically confer "elitism" on a person; nor should it. Merit also counts.

Can someone suggest to Glenn that he find a new word to characterize America's press coverage?

2008-04-05T09:11:00.000-07:00

While Glenn's regular use of the adjective "vapid" to describe the writings of the mainstream media is a completely apt descrption, he needs to insert a little variation into his narrative or else he's creating his own google bomb. If you google greenwald vapid, you get about 20,000 hits. An occasional post without "vapid", using instead some equally valid synonym such as "insipid", "pointless", "inane", "lifeless", or "tiresome", probably wouldn't damage the thrust of Glenn's prose and might even make it less predictable and, heaven forbid, "vapid".
On the other hand, perhaps Glenn intends for "vapid" to become a signature word, so that "vapid press coverage" is automatically associated with Greenwald much as Carthago delenda est calls to mind Cato the Elder. If so, he's well on his way.
(Update 4/6/08): Never mind. I've just read Glenn's post on the AP fluff piece on AG Mukasey and there really is no other word for it than vAPid.

A Call for Support...

2008-03-08T14:17:00.000-08:00

Another way to support Black Flag Week...

2008-03-03T19:50:00.001-08:00

...would be to display one of the above ads

on your blog or website
and support the Rule of Law.

And please tell us about your efforts and participation at:
AchievingOurCountry.blogspot.com
in the comments.

Rule of Law

2008-03-02T17:04:00.000-08:00

from "ondelette:"

Next week, March 9-15, is Black Flag Week in Pakistan. The lawyers in Pakistan will carry black flags. And they will probably march, as they have done since November, for the reinstatement of the judiciary, for the rule of law, and for the return to the Constitution and democracy in Pakistan. The head of the lawyers, Aitzaz Ahsan, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has been knocking heads with the government over the rule of law during multiple dictatorships going back to Zia ul Haq and Ayub Khan. Pakistan has not had a steady democracy, but rather military dictatorships alternating with often corrupt democratic rule, for most of its history.

Brief History of the Lawyers Protests

The current military government took power in a coup in 1999 at the end of a standoff with India at the line of control, the separation between the two countries in Kashmir. Pervez Musharraf rewrote the Constitution, and ruled as both the head of the military and the president, and has staged rigged elections to maintain power. When the Constitution forbade him to run again this year, he fired the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudry, hoping to get a better decision on running. Ominously, he had also been apprehending and interrogating terrorism suspects, holding them without charge, and allegedly turning them over to the Americans for interrogation. The Court released many of them, and demanded that the government either bring charges against the others and arraign them in court, or release them.

The rest of the court did not go along with Musharraf’s move, and reinstated Chaudry. On November 3, 2007, Musharraf declared an Emergency, and suspended the Constitution. He placed many thousands under house arrest, he sacked the entire Supreme Court and judiciary and made signing an oath to support the rules he replaced the Constitution with a precondition to reinstatement. He created a packed court, but most of the original justices refused to sign, and many justices and barristers were placed under house arrest. As well, many human rights workers, in particular Asma Jahangir, the Pakistan Human Rights Commissioner, were put under house arrest, as were political candidates, including Benazir Bhutto. With his permission to run in hand, Musharraf scheduled elections, but there were many flaws, and many protests. Musharraf, under both domestic and international pressure, lifted the Emergency, but many remained under house arrest, especially many lawyers, including Aitzaz Ahsan, and Justice Iftikhar Chaudry (who still are).

Most of the world knows that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007. This led to postponement of the elections, many realignments, and the issues of democracy, the Constitution and the judiciary coming to the fore. On February 18, opposition parties delivered a crushing defeat to Musharraf’s party, and a new government is forming around the Pakistan People’s Party, the Pakistan Muslim League - N (Nawaz), and the Awami National Party in the FATA region. There was an overwhelming vote in this referendum for the return to the rule of law, to secular government, and to reinstate the Constitution and judiciary.

The Pakistani Parliament has two houses, the lower house, and the Senate. Musharraf’s people maintain a majority in the Senate, although it is weakening (6 senators broke with the majority last week bringing his lead there to 51-49). But although the incoming coalition has the two thirds majority it needs in the Lower House, it does not in the Senate, and therefore impeachment or a restoration of the 1973 Constitution (the last completely ratified) will wait until the necessary votes are there. Most observers believe this is only a matter of time as long as the pressure is on, and hopefully not too much longer. Stunningly, the government of the United States is continuing to treat Musharraf as if he has not suffered such a massive defeat. If democracy is to mean anything, the will of the people cannot be thwarted, and the U.S. support has brought criticism and suspicion of Americans in Pakistan.

Where does it go from here?

Throughout the crisis since November 3rd, people who watched the news in Pakistan have seen pictures of the lawyers, dressed in their trademark black suits, demonstrating for reinstatement of the judiciary and the return to the rule of law. These haven’t been the most peaceful of demonstrations, lawyers have been beaten, some arrested, there are allegations of harsh interrogation, in one case a lawyer’s kidneys failed during imprisonment, and tear gas. These lawyers have persevered, and continue to demonstrate.

For those paying attention, this has been a drama that is at once uncomfortably violent, and inspiring in the courage shown by the lawyers, by the people who attend the demonstrations where it is not unheard of for people to be injured or die at the hands of bombers, by the people who went out to vote, by the bloggers and press, who maintained the flow of information both internally and out of the country and shot down concocted stories and propaganda that governments use when they are in trouble. Before the elections, the new military chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, ordered the army to vacate all government positions, and to maintain a separation between the military and the government. This move was instrumental in keeping the level of vote rigging low enough for the will of the people to be heard during the February elections.

So the signs are right for a real return to democracy, for a real return to the rule of law, and for reinstatement of the Constitution and the judiciary in Pakistan. A healthy secular democracy there is an outcome that will benefit the entire world, and as we have learned in many countries over the past two decades, the real basis for a healthy democracy is respect for the Constitution, and the rule of law.

On Black Flag Week, there is an opportunity to show solidarity for the Pakistani lawyers and their struggle for the things that we in this country hold to be fundamental — civil rights, democracy, law, and a Constitution. It isn’t there yet, and it won’t be unless the pressure is kept on. Even once it comes, it will be a slow climb out of corruption and broken rule, and the country has many problems including poverty, religious militancy, and illiteracy. The new government will more than have its hands full. It will have a much easier job if the laws of the country are secure.

Please help show support for these lawyers. Please wear a black armband or other black clothing during the Black Flag Week, and please take the time to educate others on what that clothing or armband means. If the rule of law is fundamental, then it is never too unimportant to grow and strengthen it, anywhere in the world.

Torture is torture, except when it's news

2008-02-14T09:25:00.000-08:00

The issue of word manipulation in politics and media is really Glenn Greenwald's claimed territory, but I can't let this week go by without commenting on it. Why? Because I heard a short news clip from the BBC about the six Guantanamo prisoners who have finally been charged with some sort of crime. And the broadcaster did something that made me want to break things: he said that one suspect's confession was under question because it had been gained using "the controversial waterboarding technique," a phrase that news media have universally decided is an acceptable way to refer to torture.

By not calling waterboarding torture, news media around the world are complicit in the US government's flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions and the ease with which they discard their humanity. By not simply saying straight out that acts such as waterboarding are wrong and evil, news media are pushing a pervasive doublethink on populations around the world. This is where we get our information--if the BBC doesn't call it torture, it must be at least debatable, if not perfectly okay, to partly drown people in order to make them say things. Must be okay, then, to deprive them of sleep, give them electric shocks, kick them, pull their hair, herd them into camps designed to cut them off from families, cultures, and societies, and then gas them. What the hell is the difference?

We're all familiar with the idea of doublethink and how it has infiltrated our news outlets and common culture. We're also familiar with the tricks politicians use to make their atrocious positions more acceptable. We all know, here on a blog devoted to language use, that words can be used to manipulate and trick and redefine how we think. Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is "energy exploration." The Refuge itself is made more vague by calling it ANWR. Coal gained from blowing up pristine mountains and leveling them is a source of "clean energy." Global warming is now "climate change" (although I think that one backfired a little bit). And torture is a "vital interrogation tool."

It is unacceptable that news media play along with these tricks, just to keep the Bush administration happy. Pollution is pollution. Coal mining is filthy and destructive. Compassionate conservativism means absolutely nothing. And torture is torture.

The administration claims, as we all know, that they need permission to use these techniques to preserve our national security. What sort of security are we talking about? Our simple physical existence? What kind of physical security do you have if you've sold your soul to the devil (sorry for the melodrama)? What could possibly be more important to our national security than preserving our humanity?

Looking for Real Words

2008-02-07T13:31:00.001-08:00

So I missed out on my promised Thursday post last week. A teething baby, a house full of guests ... ack.

There are a number of minor language topics on my mind this week: politically correct terms, thoughts on The Golden Compass series, questions of mass language manipulation. But the most recent one to come up is one of those niggly little issues that annoys me like a mosquito buzzing around my half-asleep ear every time I turn the light out.

I'm looking for words for two concepts that, as far as I know, don't have real words. The first is one I heard for the first time this week: heterosexual life partner. This, I'm told, is something like what a bosom friend used to be, except we don't really use that phrase anymore outside of bra shopping. My younger sister has one, and another old friend has one. But what an ugly thing to call the person you consider to be more than a best friend but less ... attached, shall we say, than a spouse! Besides which, to me it can be confused with the relationship of heterosexual people who live as spouses but aren't married.

In fact, I hate the word "partner" for describing that kind of relationship. It sounds so much like a business arrangement, nothing romantic or hopeful or optimistic in it, really.

Anyway, any good suggestions for heterosexual life partner?

The other is a little more complicated. It's a writing issue. I'll try to explain.

Sometimes you write a scene in a story, or go into a long thought-chain in an essay, in which the character or narrator is meant to be in a particular place -- this especially comes up in travel writing. And you get caught up in your narration or thoughts on the character or whatever, and your words go on long enough that the reader forgets where you are meant to be. When this happens, bringing the reader back to that place can be a little jarring.

So when you're revising, or someone's editing for you, you need to put in little placement reminders. For example, I was working on a colleague's essay about Cuba. She was describing sitting at an outdoor restaurant there, and was writing about Cuban economics and people's personal career situations and so on. She thought it went on too long, but all she needed was a little reminder that we were sitting in the restaurant: "The waiter brought us beers and I shifted the milk crate I was sitting on to let an old woman pass" or something like that.

I find these lines really important, and for myself I made up a shorthand name for them. I call them 'locator lines.' But I'm thinking there either must already exist a good term for them, or someone can come up something a little shorter or more poetic. Any ideas? If I haven't explained very well, please say so.

Bring on the Babbling

2008-01-24T08:10:00.001-08:00

(Note: Introvert Girl--me--is going to attempt posting on the Choco-Bang every Thursday. Hurrah for New Year's resolutions!)

Introvert Girl is not a talker. But you probably guessed that. Being an introvert, of course, I can thrive on a really meaningful conversation with one or two people whose opinions and ideas fire my imagination. For a couple of hours. Once a week. But I don't like being on the phone (really don't like it). I don't like frequent social gatherings. I don't like having guests in my house who can't entertain themselves. I usually need a day to myself to recover from a party, and a solid week to myself to recover from houseguests.

So what could possibly turn I'Girl into a babbly, chatty, talking idiot? If you know that I've recently had a baby, you know the answer.

It's not that his gummy, gorgeous smile prompts me to go "coochy-coo" at him on a whim. Nope, it's worse. It's a book.

When I told her I was pregnant, my sister presented me with What's Going on in There? which is a book about baby brain development written by a neurobiologist. And it's good, really good -- interesting and educational and persuasive. I have some issues with the research the author quotes, which involves horrible behavior toward rats, monkeys, and orphaned and abused children, but that's a very small part of the book.

A very large part is given over to the development of language in babies. And I've discovered, to my sorrow, that talking constantly to a baby (not just around the baby or near the baby) during its first couple years lays a a foundation for complex language development that can never be made up in later life. Research has shown that, no matter what your economic class or social background, the more you talk to a baby, the better its brain develops. The effects of early language exposure last well into elementary school, and, if maintained through childhood years, throughout a kid's learning life.

You've got to talk, talk, talk. And it's hard. For someone who revels in silence and who can go whole happy days not saying a word to anyone, it's a massive shift in habit. (I usually use up my chatting energy by doing filial duty on the phone. I thought I could rack up talk credits while expressively directing my words at him while I was on the phone, but somehow he knows the difference and doesn't engage.) My only incentive is the overwhelming evidence that my constant chatter is really, really important to this fourteen-pounder's little brain.

What's Going on in There? has been a true mind-opener for me. But as I try to remember to tell my son what I'm doing as I'm trying to make myself lunch, or spend an hour exchanging babble with him in his room, I kind of wish, secretly, that I hadn't read it. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

[sigh] ...and it was written by a "journalist"

2008-01-16T23:30:00.000-08:00

Wouldn't you think that a Serious Journalist would be more careful about email composition, especially considering how easily one's emails can appear in places where one least expects to find them... such as here. The following example simply cries out for a bit of editing (at a minimum), and, if I'm honest, a bit of embellishment, as well.

While the rest of the peasants continue to go to town on Mr. King's so-called credentials as a journalist, his sense of ethics (or lack thereof), the pride that should be inherent in anyone choosing to call himself or herself a journalist, not to mention the the hypocrisy of our media's superficial attacks on serious presidential candidates, I thought we might have some more narrowly-focused fun...

Please! Feel free to chime in with your own suggestions.

~ ~ ~

From: King, John C

To: GGreenwald@salon.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:40 PM

Subject: excuse me? [Tone: my limited understanding of the rules of Rhetoric makes me think that starting off immediately with such a sarcastic and defensive tone is probably a mistake.]

I don't read biased uninformed drivel so I'm a little late to the game. [Okay, where are the conjunction and/or the commas?]

But a friend who understands how my business works and knows a little something about my 20 plus years in it sent me the link to your ramblings. [A friend? Really? Perhaps the friend thought there were some things you should know, e.g., how your work is perceived by others, namely your audience. Sometimes it's very difficult for a friend to be that honest, but a true friend will take advantage of an opportune opening when one is provided.]

Since the site suggests you have law training, maybe [perhaps?] you forgot that good lawyers to [sic] a little research before they spit out words. ["Law training" ...is that usage meant to belittle Greenwald's own professional experience... a tit for tat? And "spit out words" ...is that a synonym for "present an argument?" I've never actually seen a lawyer spit, though they do have a reputation for trying to catch their quarry unaware.]

Did you think to ask me or anyone who works with me whether that was the entire interview? No. [Did the interview conclude with "to be continued?" If not, then one would reasonably conclude it was complete.] (It was not; just a portion used by one of the many CNN programs.) [The phrase following a semi-colon technically should be able to stand as a complete sentence. This one does not, since it lacks a proper verb: "it was just a portion used" or "just a portion was used".]

Did you reach out to ask the purpose of that specific interview? No. [Again, I am not an expert in Rhetoric, but shouldn't the purpose of an interview (that is published in good faith) have been revealed in the actual interview-- as published-- rather than publishing it with the expectation that every reader or skeptical critic will call CNN or Mr. King himself to make inquiries? Shouldn't such interviews be able to stand on their own? Do CNN and Mr. King really have time to deal with so many inquiries?]

Or how it might have fit in with other questions being asked of other candidates that day? No. [See above.]

Or anything that might have put facts or context or fairness into your critique. No. [This "non-question" is a bit trickier, because it is more manipulative, implying that the burden of supplying facts, context and fairness rests even more heavily on the shoulders of the critic, than on the author of the original work. Certainly, the point is debatable, although Mr. King clearly does not think so.]

McCain, for better or worse, is a very accessible candidate. If you did a little research (there he goes with that word again) [Was the intention in that parenthetical phrase to sound Reaganesque? If so, the attempt failed. I don't recall ever hearing Reagan refer to himself in the third person. Further, an interesting critique of Reagan's own rhetorical techniques can be found in Oliver Sachs's book, The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat. Very provocative.] you would find I have had my share of contentious moments with him over the years. [I must be of the older generation now, since I came of age expecting that the journalists would do the research, and that we, the readers, would read the results of their research. I don't recall any suggestions that I should do my own supplemental research, but only that I should keep an open and skeptical mind before coming to a conclusion.]

But because of that accessibility, you don't have to go into every interview asking him about the time he cheated on his sixth grade math test. [Is this the sort of loaded question that today's journalists now believe constitutes being "hard-hitting?" Just curious. More to the point, the initial phrase does not work well with the one it is meant to parallel in the previous paragraph. Another possibility might have been to write "because Sen. McCain is so accessible, [one] does not have to..." The many jumps between between first, second and third person are very disconcerting.]

The [purpose of the] interview was mainly [primarily?] to get a couple of questions to him on [Implies a delivery... perhaps: "ask him a couple of questions about..."] his thoughts on the [proper?] role of government when the economy is teetering on the edge of [a] recession, in conjunction with similar questions being put to several of the other candidates. [We readers (and viewers) would have greatly appreciated being able to find these questions. Were they accidentally misplaced or filed elsewhere? Also, who were the other candidates with whom Sen. McCain was being compared? The sentence is ambiguous, and could refer to any part of the GOP or Democratic fields, or to all of the candidates. Perhaps this information should also have been included in the interview.]

The portion you cited was aired by one of our programs -- so by all means it is fair game for whatever "analysis" you care to apply to it using your right of free speech and your lack of any journalistic standards or fact checking or just plain basic curiosity. [Again, tone, is so important. Why is "analysis" in quotes? Are the quotes intended to impugn Greenwald's analysis with irony? How ironic, considering the vast streams of irony that pour forth from our newspapers, and, even more, from our news broadcasters every day. Further, "fair game" implies an adversarial relationship that is generally missing from most mainstream reporting on figures who are beloved by the press, e.g., Sen. McCain. Finally, although the program was also "fair game," as Mr. King notes, he undercuts that statement by implying a lack of fairness on Greenwald's part by using such phrases as "whatever 'analysis' you care to apply," "lack of any journalistic standards or fact checking or just plain basic curiosity.]

You clearly know very little about journalism. [And, clearly, Mr. King knows very little about Greenwald's areas of expertise, e.g., the many failings of contemporary journalism when reporting on constitutional issues (among others), but then, he has admitted that he does not read such drivel. Still, a bit of "research"-- e.g., reading some of Greenwald's prior posts-- in advance of writing this email, might have been beneficial.] But credibility matters. It is what allows you to cover six presidential campaigns and [still?] be viewed as fair and respectful, while perhaps a little cranky, but Democrats and Republicans alike. [Does "but [by] Democrats and Republicans alike" refer to being "viewed as fair and respectful," or "perhaps a little cranky." The awkward construction leaves the reader wondering.]

When I am writing something that calls someone's credibility into question, I pick up the phone and give them a chance to give their side, or perspective. [And yet, reviewers and critics never make such calls, as a number of Mr. Greenwald's commenters have noted. A distinction has been left floundering: both original reporting and reviewing/critiquing require sufficient background and knowledge, supplemented by research when necessary, but only reporting requires making calls and checking facts with sources, because the original work is still being written. The critique or review is of that finished work, and does not require the permission of, or any rationalizations from, the original author, although the author is certainly free to respond, just as Mr. King has done.]

That way, even on days that I don't consider my best, or anywhere close, I can look myself in the mirror and know I tried to be fair and didn't call into question someone's credibility just for sport, or because I like seeing my name on a website or my face on TV. [Frankly, a little more skepticism would be welcome, not for sport or fame, but because our country faces so many serious challenges, many of which might have been avoided entirely if our current president had faced more skepticism during his first campaign, or even during his second.

In fact, a great many of us -- according to polls, at least 75%, and perhaps as many as 80% -- awake each morning to look in our mirrors and reflect on the many misdirections to which we have been subjected -- by both the Bush administration and an acquiescent press -- and which have, far worse, sorely affected our country's reputation throughout the world.]

~ ~ ~

The original post on Greenwald's blog can be found here.

Have your donut and your doughnut, too

2008-01-10T12:25:00.000-08:00

Today I bow my head to the gods of language devolution. I give up. The stupidifiers of language win. Today my Gmail automatic spell-checker told me I had spelled "doughnut" incorrectly. "Donut" was the right formation of letters to describe a ball of dough fried in oil.

Fine. Go ahead. Have your strawberrys and your two week's notice and your donuts and your nucular energy, too. I'm too tired to argue.

But why is it that people who insist on certain spellings or pronunciations out of ignorance always get to win? Don't we get one? Just one? A little one? Me, I'd really like to keep the word "nauseated." I realize it's a lost cause, that there are few of us anymore who shiver when someone says, "I feel nauseous," but that's my pick. It's a perfectly good word, as is "nauseous," and I don't see why language should be muddied by using the latter for more meanings than it previously had. Talk about downsizing! Residents of dictionaries oughta complain. They're being fired right out of existence.

Speaking of which, I'm having lovely little time-wasting sessions playing vocabulary games on the Free Rice link recommended by Karen. But does anyone else find some of their definitions a little ... odd?

Put your vocabulary to work...

2007-12-27T12:48:00.000-08:00

...and donate free rice to feed hungry people.

from the FAQ...

If FreeRice has the rice to give, why not give it all away right now?

FreeRice is not sitting on a pile of rice―you are earning it 20 grains at a time. Here is how it works. When you play the game, advertisements appear on the bottom of your screen. The money generated by these advertisements is then used to buy the rice. So by playing, you generate the money that pays for the rice donated to hungry people.

Does FreeRice make any money from this?

No, it does not. FreeRice runs the site at no profit.

The Conjugations of Bush

2007-12-07T14:01:00.000-08:00

George W, everyone's favorite murderer of the English language (as I'm sure he would be of other languages if he bothered to learn any) recently proved that he knows the very simple forms of the verb "to be," for which I applaud him. In a boring, ponderous speech strangely reminiscent of the ones he gave before the invasion of Iraq, he informed the American public that "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous." For his next trick, I'd like him to diagram the last verse of the song, "In the hole in the bottom of the sea." (The grammar geeks on this site would likely love that activity, wouldn't we?)

On a side note, I've always been frustrated with the way grammar is taught in the US, as I'm sure most grammarians are. When I first learned a foreign language, the concepts of conjugating verbs and declining nouns were ... well, foreign. And difficult. It took me years to realize this was partly because I was never taught the concepts for English. And, although English isn't quite as predictable as some languages (like German) in its grammar rules, that doesn't mean they have to be taught, or understood, in such a sloppy fashion. Surely there's a simple, methodical way of teaching the public how to use English correctly? Even George Bush, it seems is capable of learning the basics.

Any Words Leave You Silly or Sore?

2007-09-28T18:59:00.000-07:00

I can sum up my last six weeks by something my husband said at the beginning: "The word 'NICU' should never be in anyone's vocabulary." Our son, now home and healthy, was born seven weeks early and spent a month in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the hospital.

The nurses and doctors were beyond amazing; they make me believe in humanity again. But my reaction now to the word NICU is an interesting one--half shrinking, horrified fear, and half grateful, hopeful desire.

There are other words or names that have these sorts of effects. There are two particular male names that make me almost physically ill, due to the manner in which I encountered them in childhood (no, not the way you think). The words "guppie" and "mug" always bring a smile to my face, evoking as they do my first year of college and my beloved, crazy roommate. "Perspicacity" brings to mind, simultaneously, tentative ambition with the memory of a strict and admired high school English teacher, and slight shame, as it came up in a bad Piers Anthony novel that shouldn't have interested me so much.

If I dredged my mind, I'm sure I could come up with plenty of other examples--words with such strong emotional impact that they almost count as a significant relationship. Anyone else find their reaction to various words less than objective?

Stealing Publicy

2007-09-03T09:50:00.000-07:00

Everybody knows about privacy. Privacy is the ability to keep things private. It is the thing you respect when you do not talk publicly about things that were done privately. Public and private are, in this context, opposites. So what should publicy mean? Does a swap do it?

Nobody knows about publicy. Publicy is the ability to keep things public. It is the thing you respect when you do not talk privately about things that were done publicly. No, a swap makes things muddy.

Because we adopted the wrong statements about privacy?

Privacy is the ability to control what things about ourselves are private. It is respected by not usurping the control of the private space from the individual. Public and private are, in this context, very similar. Now what happens with a swap?

Publicy is the ability to control what things about ourselves are public. It is respected by not usurping the control of the public space from the individual. A swap now works.

A definition of publicy has already been offered, going back as far as 1998: "the response from public institutions a private person is able to elicit." M. Veldboer is credited. Doc Searls took a crack at it, starting by wondering what the opposite of privacy would be. He talks of private enterprise of private ownership, of public spaces, of commons. All very good. And private and public have these connotations in some contexts, so fine. But the context I have given is fundamental to the contexts that Searls gave. His public spaces are European coffee shops and pubs, where people have public life.

How fundamental?

I grew up in New England. Oh, yes, the dreaded place of puritans and witch trials, of blue laws and dunking stools. But also the place of commons, of commonwealth, of town meetings. Of the publicy that Searls dreams. Think about what people did in those days to enter the public space: They dressed according to the way they wished to be perceived (in early New England days, that would be brown, grey, white, or black, anything else was indulging in the pleasures of the senses). They would go to the public forum at which they wished to be perceived, the commons, Buckman's tavern, the church, the market. They would say what they wished to be heard, a speech, a sermon, a raucous discussion, a sales pitch.

They participated in the public space, they had a public aspect, they controlled that public aspect. Without that control, their participation in public activity would be difficult, and lead to detrimental results. This happened in Salem, where rumors became edits on the persona of people in the public space, where past actions were replayed with new meaning, and finally, where people were hung.

So before you can have a functioning commons, a public space where people have publicy, as Searls and Veldboer define it, you need publicy as an aspect of an individual that is controlled by that individual, and respected by others.

The first people whose publicy began to be infringed were the Hollywood stars. And you can see very important aspects of the concept in the long-term study of their public persona: They exist at many different public ages simultaneously: We can watch Road To Perdition, and then Cool Hand Luke, and Paul Newman has two simultaneously different ages and appearances. In real life this would bother us immensely (look at what we think of, say, Count Dracula), and it still has remnants of this uncomfortableness when you see a picture in the obits of a person in their prime that you knew more recently. They can't transform: Marilyn Monroe is believed by many to have commit suicide over being unable to shed a sexpot image and be appreciated as a serious actress -- regardless of, say, the difficult role played in "Some Like It Hot", or her association with the power elite. They have no privacy: They are public figures, so hanging around their backyards with cameras is tolerated at the supermarket checkout counter. They can cheat aging by dying: Monroe, but also JFK and Jimi Hendrix, are forever young because no new pictures can be taken, and they are picture people. This last dates back a long way, Abraham Lincoln has only two ages, with and without the beard.

But the same is true in these figures as of the puritans at Salem: infringement of their right to publicy resulting from restructuring public facts to support rumors or to support slurs, or to alter the impression they would make in a public space, can build to a maliciousness that destroys them, destroys their careers, in some cases destroys or ends their lives.

Now to datamining. As our own lives, those of ordinary citizens, those of We the People, become more and more like those of celebrities of the 20th century, infringement becomes more useful, becomes more general, and begins to look like the things Magna Cartas and Constitutions were fought for. A new concept appears, necessary to the world of Doc Searls, the world of the European café. Before everyone in the world becomes a public figure, and all information is fair game, it is time to talk about the equivalent of Fourth Amendment rights for the public space. The right to reasonable protections against infringements of our publicy. At the very least, it should, when placed back into the world of our ancestors, become the protection of one's ability to present the image they wished to present in public -- even if the public refused to accept that image or called them out on it in public.

In the 18th century, you had the right (unrecognized because it seemed inevitable) to put on the clothes you wished to be seen in, check yourself in the mirror, head out the door to the place you wished to be heard, pick the kind of soapbox you wished to stand on in the commons, and deliver the speech you wanted to deliver -- regardless of whether you got drunk twenty years before. Only after you had been granted that right to non-infringement of your publicy did public criticism, laughter, derision, tomatoes, eggs, and the rest follow.

In the 21st century, you have the right to put on the clothes you wish to be seen in, check yourself in the mirror, write the resume that highlights the accomplishments you wish to be examined, practice your responses to questions and your explanations of the ideas you've had, go to the interview -- and find you have been datamined: that the human resources department has called people it Googled on the Internet, not the references you gave them, that they know how much your medical expenses cost in the past ten years, and have a picture of you at a party when you were in high school. Your publicy has been infringed, because nobody knows you have such a thing, and nobody worries about infringing it.

So I am stealing publicy. It makes more sense as the basis for a right to publicy, paralleling a right to privacy, than as an opposite, defining an effect. And the enshrining of this right, preferably in the same document as the right to privacy, would make possible the world that Doc Searls envisions. Because people have a hard time participating in the public life of a café if they can't be certain who they are when they walk in.

Request for comments (RFC)

2007-08-15T21:28:00.001-07:00

Some while back (as in down the page) I posted Passion in the Age of Reason, in order to recount and hopefully stimulate additional discussion about a conversation that occurred on Glenn's blog on Salon. Follow the link on that post to read the original. I am, in first life, writing a paper, and would like to cite the entire conversation. Which leads to an interesting format, an interesting etiquette problem, and an interesting ethics problem.

Scholarly articles are supposed to be, in some sense, immutable. In recent years, there has been much debate about citing electronic sites -- they could disappear, links could go dead, material can be changed, it's all bits, after all. So what should be a format, and how does it establish its permanence? Personal communication is a catchall, and can always be used, but somehow public communication is a new one. Some blogs, like Salon, maintain archives, and so could be assumed to be permanent, I'll probably assume this.

The second problem is an etiquette problem: Can one go on a public space, and ask people to stand up and be cited? Doesn't asking people, in some domain like Salon, invite questions of whether or not you've overstepped familiarity? So I am writing here, where the domain is smaller -- but still uneasy about whether or not it is polite. On the other hand, what could be less polite than failing to give credit?

The third problem or pair of problems, is ethics. Anonymity is one of the defining factors of the comment environment, the right to a nom de plume. Asking people for their names is unethical, it is like outing them. I, for one, was once cited on the Internet, by name, in a derogatory fashion that I hope never to see again. But not asking is unethical, it is failure to give credit where credit is due.

Shall I cite by nom de plume then? Does a person's concept of anonymity change if credit is due? Please let me know your thoughts, I think it would be a shame if comments were only allowed to be cited by blogs and newspapers, and never in a proceedings. I give you fair warning that if the consensus is to cite by genuine name, I shall be contacting those authors by email to get permission, and I don't know what to do for those I don't know how to contact. If the decision is to use nom de plume, I will do that instead.

Note: Due to a privacy problem with blogspot, I had to delete and repost this entry. That's why the comments disappeared.
Note Update: Karen M was able to resurrect the comments for the original entry, they are amalgamated into one comment and attached. Thanks!

Battling the meaning of Chocolate... I'm not kidding. Chocolate: a political synecdoche...

2007-08-07T17:26:00.000-07:00

Words mean things... at least they once did, prior to the GWB administration's implementation of Orwellian double-speak, as when they decided to gut an EPA program that once fought air pollution and call it "Clear Skies," or allowed the timber industry to help rewrite forestry standards to favor their clear-cutting methods, and called the program "Healthy Forests." Today, I have once again come across an unbelievable news story about the ongoing battle over what it means to call something CHOCOLATE.

[I am not implying that Karl Rove is actively trying to thwart millions of dark chocolate consumers... only that BushCo, of all modern White House administrations, is the one most likely to allow such a thing... given that most of their base is already focused on the upcoming Rapture, and not really thinking long term, if you know what I mean.]

Wouldn't a reasonable person expect that the manufacturers of a product with a market that is still growing, as the market for chocolate must be, have learned a thing or two-- perhaps in business school?!-- by observing what happened when other similarly situated industries made either or both of two serious errors:

a) ignoring what their customers want;

b) attempting to compromise quality-- while hoping that no one would notice-- just so they could make a few more dollars in the short term... and let the long term be damned.

But avoiding both of those errors appears to be too high a bar for some members of the American chocolate industry, i.e., those who wish to adulterate their product without suffering any consequences, while substituting alternative fats for the chocolate liquor, or by adding other, non-chocolate, ingredients... and I don't mean wonderful flavors like orange or roasted almonds or espresso.

Obviously, there are some chocolate producers who truly do not understand their base, given that chocolate politics are now in danger of following the mold cast in Washington, DC. But back to the topic...

The current state of the American automobile industry is a prime example of what happens when manufacturers continue to ignore what their customers say they want... decade after decade. Detroit's main business and its once-large profits found their way across the Pacific to manufacturers of high quality cars with better gas mileage and important safety features.

And if trying to save a bit of money-- those pesky stockholders!-- really is all that Mattel had in mind (temporarily forgetting that you get what you pay for) when they outsourced all of those (lead-)painted toys to China's underpaid workforce, they're probably about to find out the meaning of that old Reality saw, "penny-wise and pound-foolish." To be fair... Mattel's fiasco is a brand-new story, but there have been other recent examples available for learning purposes, the most dramatic being the contaminated wheat gluten responsible for the deaths of too many beloved pets. Shouldn't American manufacturers have learned by now that endangering the lives of consumers' children and/or pets is not just immoral, but also bad for business?! Apparently, that collective learning curve is pretty steep.

Remember what happened to Coke when someone thought they could simply change the formula? ...and that was without any life or death consequences!

If you also care about the quality of some product that is important in your life, and nostalgic for the days when most companies were run by people who cared deeply about the product or service they provided, then you understand why I am so devoted to Green and Black's, and why I am presuming that IntrovertGirl feels similarly.

There are plenty of other manufacturing industries that could employ those whom I would have BigChocolate sack; for example, let industrial chemists mess around with tobacco all they want. It's not as if they could make tobacco any more harmful to humans than they already have with all of the noxious, carcinogenic, and just plain poisonous, additives that have been used to make it more addictive. Perhaps they really could-- as has often been promised-- improve tobacco products and make them even a little bit less harmful.

But, Chocolate?! Why should industrial chemists have anything to do with so-called improvements (aka cost-cutting measures) to a product that is as near to perfect in this imperfect world as chocolate... which is also known to westerners as Theobroma, or "food of the gods?" Yet, there are those who wish to substitute a bit of hydrogenated vegetable oil (yes, a trans fat!) for a portion of the cocoa butter, and its health-giving properties.

If only BigChocolate could exercise a bit of restraint, some patience. Medical research is even now showing some proof of cardiovascular benefits from a moderate intake of dark chocolate... and the chocolate industry is not even having to spend the billions of dollars that BigPharma does whenever they come up with a new drug that will likely have serious side-effects. Those savings should be considered as cash in hand, but instead, some members of the chocolate industry think it a better idea to mess around with the (potentially) healthful benefits of a product for which the projected market growth is probably a steep incline.

Ai yai yaiii.... [sigh] Would someone please send the Chocolate Manufacturers Association a copy of the children's tale about killing the goose that lays the golden egg?

Consider, too, the wider view... perhaps the critical state of our national politics has not really sunk in for you yet. If not, then just contemplate what could happen to chocolate if companies like Nestle and Mars were allowed to have their way. Equivalent scenarios have already happened in so many other areas of our lives...

In fact, the politics of chocolate might once have been considered a synecdoche for American politics... except that so many of the worst-case scenarios have already come to pass in DC politics, and the government-sanctioned adulteration of chocolate is not yet a FISA accompli.

* * *

[Anyone who wants to sign a petition to save the integrity of chocolate, in general, can do that from here.]

Chicago's Style Advice

2007-08-02T12:37:00.000-07:00

As a paying member to the Chicago Manual of Style website, I get regular email updates of the latest question-and-answer page of editorial advice. These can be as funny as they are helpful -- just thought I'd share some with my fellow bloggers.

Q. When you use parentheses to indicate that a noun might be plural, is it necessary to use them to indicate that the verb might be plural as well? For example, "The participant(s) was (were) informed of the procedure in writing." Is there a rule about this, or is it a stylistic choice? Am I justified in adding the second verb to an author’s manuscript?

A. I don’t know about a rule, but the construction is clumsy, and it’s better to avoid it. Just write “Participants were informed of the procedure in writing,” which doesn’t rule out the possibility of there being only one participant.

*****

Q. Contracts often employ defined terms in quotes and parentheses, e.g., ABC Corp. (the “Seller”) shall sell ten widgets to XYZ Corp. (the “Buyer”). When drafting such a contract, I always put a period after the close parenthesis if it is the end of the sentence, such as in the above example. But it’s like listening to nails on a chalkboard to me to have a period essentially (ignoring the parenthetical) follow the period employed in an abbreviation. What do you recommend?

A. Yoga?

*****

Q. This headline appeared in the New York Times on Friday, May 11: “A Tough Fight Still Looms, Cheney Warns G.I.’s in Iraq.” I thought no apostrophe was necessary here, as the s represents a plural, not a possessive. What’s up at the Times?

A. What’s up is that the Times uses New York Times style, not Chicago style. (Tsk!)

*****

Q. My fashion expert daughter insists that denim does not go with “almost anything,” as I say it does. What is your opinion? Does denim match almost anything, including other colors and other fabrics, e.g., silk?

A. Finally, a real style question! If only we Chicago manuscript editors were a little more fashion-forward . . .

A Lunch of New Words

2007-08-02T12:04:00.000-07:00

I'm reading an excellent nonfiction book at the moment, and engaging in that healthiest of tasty little pastimes, noting down words that I have never heard (or read) before, along with ones I know I've read a hundred times but am unsure of the exact meaning of. Of course, this activity is enabled through moderate consumption of Green & Black's organic chocolate (dark, mint-filled squares in my case) and tea. Karen and I share a passion for Green & Black's. But back to my words, whose definitions I've arbitrarily plucked from either Oxford's English Dictionary or the American Heritage Dictionary.

My author, almost all of whose books I've read and whose wordsmithing is usually flawless, littered the word faience many times over several pages, when describing ancient, exquisite tombs, shrines, and mosques he encountered in a three-thousand-mile journey through China, the 'Stans, and the Middle East. I thought that he had to reuse it so often because it must describe something so absolutely specific that no other word could do, but now I'm not sure. Thoughts?

faience: (OED) Fr. probably an appellative use of the proper name Fayence, Faenza in Italy, one of the chief seats of ceramic industry in the 16th century.
"A general term comprising all the various kinds of glazed earthenware and porcelain."
e.g.: "The mosaic floors and faienced walls convey even today an image of perfection." --Koestler

Chiaroscuro is one I've run into so many times that I decided it's high time I looked it up: (OED) clear, bright.
1. style of pictorial art in which only the light and shade, and not the various colours, are represented; black-and-white, or dark brown and white
2. The treatment or disposition of the light and shade, or brighter and darker masses, in a picture.
3. Used of poetic or literary treatment, criticism, mental complexion, etc., in various obvious senses, as mingled 'clearness and obscurity,' 'cheerfulness and gloom,' 'praise and blame,' etc.
5. Partly revealed and party veiled.

Definition number 5 reminds us of where poetry springs from: looking at words, objects, and meanings in new lights. I am so pleased with that definition, partly because it's finally given me a title for an essay that until now was stuck with something hopelessly bland.

Two others, the first I didn't know the meaning of, and the second I felt in need of defining to myself more clearly, again after running into it for several years, both definitions from AHD, which is wonderfully practical if not quote so poetic as the OED:

caravanserai: (in AHD as caravansary)
1. An inn built around a large court for accommodating caravans along trade routes in central and western Asia.
2. A large inn or hostelry. In both senses also called serai.

callow: Lacking adult maturity or experience; immature: a callow young man.

Don't you find that one of the great satisfactions of reading really good writers is that you stumble across words either rarely used, or words used well for the first time?

In Defense of Harry Potter

2007-07-24T08:45:00.000-07:00

(While this isn't technically a post about grammar, books, we all agree, hold a starring place in how we employ language. In Harry Potter, I'm not interested in how JK Rowling uses syntax--although I find her creativity and exposition delightful--but what she has chosen to give us through her use of language.)

So the last Harry Potter has finally come out, and, as was predictable, scads of critics and reviewers have attempted to pretend that they enjoy these (holding them delicately with two fingers far away from Dostoevsky so they don't infect 'real literature') "children's books," and ended up proving, once again, that they have no idea what the story is about.

The Salon reviewer complained that the books are "boarding school" books, so why didn't the last one take place at Hogwarts? That argument doesn't even deserve a reply. And, as many critics have, she relates the books to The Lord of the Rings, thinking she's giving a compliment but once again showing ignorance by looking simply at plot mechanics rather than at the underlying themes of the fantasy genre. The NPR reviewer tried not to say the same thing regarding boarding schools, but whined that the first 400 pages was like a whirlwind trip around the English countryside and he wondered if Rowling knew what she was doing.

After listening to that last review on Monday morning, I switched off the radio and vowed not to read or listen to a single review about Harry Potter again. The ignorance of these people just served to annoy me, and their failure to appreciate the importance of the epic ruined my enjoyment of it. So I now stick to only discussing the books with my over-educated sister and mother.

The three of us delighted in the fact that Rowling made the last book live up to, and exceed, the expectations of the previous six. It would have been all too easy to fail, but at almost every turn she chose to make the story live a little more rather than plugging in easy, loose-end-tying plot developments.

What interested us, though, was not the explanation of Snape or Harry's final actions or even the exciting plot twist of the Deathly Hallows. No, what we talked about was the same thing that is keeping millions of readers hooked to these books, whether they know it or not. It's not just about the magic, as many critics and snooty "these are just children's books" readers would like to claim. Do you know how many books about magic and other worlds and good vs. evil have been published in the last fifty years? Do some research. There are thousands, and huge numbers of them, surprise, are actually very good, such as Susan Cooper's 'The Dark is Rising' series.

But none of them, not even The Lord of the Rings, which I have read and loved and lived in once a year since I was eight years old, addresses the question of personal choice in that good-vs.-evil struggle. That is the power that Rowling has brought to her excellent series. Amid all the humor and the whimsy, the incredible creativity and imagination brought to bear on creating the Potter world, and lovely character developments, what gives these book come-back-and-stay power is the fierce internal struggle each character, but especially Harry, has to make in the fight against evil in the form of Voldemort. What makes these books important is their emphasis on personal choices.

The fantasy genre has always had as its paramount theme these question of right vs. wrong embedded in the struggle of good over evil. But very few books address the personal choices the heroes have to make when they face a decision between, as Dumbledore put it, "what is right and what is easy."

My older sister pointed out that most of 20th-century literature has dropped any discussion of these questions, which is perhaps why we're both so much more attracted to 19th-century British and Russian novels. For some reason, the last century has been fascinated with the sordid, despairing details of modern life. It insists that, not only is "truth" found only in the minute, but that the truth so found is never something that uplifts us.

It is, somehow, left to children's literature to address questions of real importance: morality, goodness, evil, hope, right, wrong. What are adults so frightened of? Being thought sappy for caring? Being judged? Finding that they will choose wrong over right because it's expedient or beneficial for them? Or maybe they're scared of these questions because they don't want any messy moral truths screwing up their acceptance of a dominant paradigm that claims right and wrong don't exist.

This paradigm likes to complicate questions of morality, couching them in the languages of economics and balances and religions and "greater good." But these questions are never complicated: there is a right and there is a wrong, and your intuition, if you block out the surrounding social-political noise and listen to it, will always tell you which choice to make.

It is the focus on personal choice that makes the Harry Potter books so powerful. Harry, and his friends and cohorts, always have the choice to turn back or turn away. They have to face these decisions, large and small, all the time. What JK Rowling has given us is a way back to our internal guides, the realization that, every day at every moment, we too have choices to make, whether we will serve good or evil and how. It's not an easy choice, not a smooth path. Harry's story--a metaphor for finding and defining your character through childhood and adolescence--is littered with life-threatening obstacles. Our paths aren't easy, either, but, as there is no all-powerful Dark Lord waiting to murder us if our courage falters, we have less of an excuse for failing to face that question: when given the choice between what is right and what is easy, do we look it in the face, or do we run away?

Passion at the End of the Age of Reason

2007-07-19T18:56:00.001-07:00

It all started here
http://tinyurl.com/3apohb
in a corner of Salon during a discussion of sycophancy and selling in the kaliyuge of the days of Bush the Younger. Frustration turned to dreams of the coming of the meteor by Svensker, and I replied by giving a brief overview of Medieval history as it is learned by high school students. At issue is whether the Age is going Dark. In the course of history, a spouse and four bloggers was related to a possibly previous spouse and four drunken philosophers. Wonderful what an inflamed mind can do if it studied too much of Li Po embracing the moon, and never really understood the Fall of Rome.

Svensker felt that the problem was reading -- how ironic in the days of the internet, when people do so much communication by reading, ironic in the days of the cell phone, when text messaging is the lingua franca of the technological beast, ironic in the days when there are more pages of journal publication and book print than ever before in the History of Man -- that Man's eyes should grow dim not from reading to much, but from reading too little: that words of ancient texts, the New Testament in Greek, grow lost, that science numbs itself and cowers before the passion of a new theory, unable to make business sense out of taking the chance of ridicule, unable to spread its wings lest they turn out to be made of wax.

William wonders if the language can change the feel once the culture in which the language grew has been lost -- does the language need its Age and its Place to hold the meanings, and do those meanings grow approximate with time? What is it that the language imparts, what the culture? Is it so very bad to have approximations define the past? Approximations are the staple of the healthy mind, embellished with details or not, but King James seems authoritative after so much time has passed.

For that matter, Karen muses, what of the Visigoths, those latter day nomads from the land of the big bad guys in the East? Lingua franca indeed, they settled in the lands of Languedoc, the cradle of the Great Heresy come west. Ambassadors of destruction bringing with them the end of the Golden Age when Caligula partied and Nero practiced his études. Vandals and Huns, Goths and Visgoths, Bulgars and Bogomils lampshades on the light of the Classical world.

Svensker sees the New Testament drifting as it is cut from its roots, and holds out hope that China and the Mystic Subcontinent will keep the light burning a little further, keep us seeing in the night of perusing without reading of slipping into the existence that isn't quite life. I don't know my scriptural religions, a Puritan turned to the bosom of the Heart Sutra, but culture is important, and text perhaps drifts as much as language does when cut off from its written roots?

Cycles, endless cycles, a thought gets dislodged from its moorings low down on the tree and pushed like a kite to where it can mingle with other branches -- it is in our blood this drift, it takes all memory and finds new patterns, new ways to express. It hates to be tied down, and flares with haunting images of a nightmarish past. Could our fixation with destruction and empire that pulls us closer into the maelstrom that neoconservatism brings be the social cyst of fixation, the post-traumatic stress of failure to allow a culture to evolve? I go off topic even for chocobang.

How does the Age grow dark just as authorship reaches the masses?
How does the loss of language become the loss of meaning?
How do social pressures lead us downward when so many can see so clearly?
How do you spend your time, as you see a world go gray but do not act?
Where has all the passion gone? (gone to young girls, every one...)

Note: Due to a privacy problem with blogspot, I had to delete and repost this entry. When I did that the comments disappeared.
Note Update: Karen M was able to resurrect the comments to the original post and append them as one comment. Thanks!

The State of English in Africa

2007-07-10T12:30:00.000-07:00

Despite my utter delight in the absurdity of the weekly offers I get to be paid a stocky percentage for rescuing millions of dollars from the bank accounts of people who've died in plane crashes over the last five years (and my tiny, plaintive wish that I really could walk away with five million or so clear, because I could really use it), the most recent plea brought to my attention the fact that these scammers could really use some help.

"I have an obscured business suggestion for you," says Mr. Johnson Mutambara. Oh, how true. The copy editor in me itches to correct every little spelling and grammatical mistake, tighten up the logical flow of his argument, and tidy up his lines, paragraphs, and fonts as if tapping stacks of paper together.

"Also
Information from the National Immigration stated that he was also
single on entry into South Africa.

I have secretly discussed this
matter with some of the bank officials and we agreed to find a reliable
foreign partner to deal with."

Tidiness! my mind cries. I assume you mean this German citizen who died in the Concorde crash wasn't married. Clarity! Do you mean you would like me to marry him? Does that mean I have to join that obscure branch of Mormonism that practices posthumous marriage?

But maybe there's something further to be read in the avowed obscurity of these letters. Something deep and existential, something James Joyce-ian about the way they redefine our understanding of mundane words, something ...

Nah. What you really need, Mr. Mutambara (or is it Rahim Attah, the name on the return email address?), is to sack your editor and get a new one. I'll do it for one percent of the loot, a bargain compared to the forty percent you were going to pay just for my bank account details. If you can diagram the first sentence of this post, I'll do it for half that.

Apparently, a love of language can be a barrier

2007-07-09T16:33:00.001-07:00

...to finding true love in one's daily life.

Jaimie Epstein, writing for the Sentence Sensibility blog at the New York Times, reveals her dilemma: whether to ignore the egregious errors that make a person who loves working with words inwardly cringe... or to stiffen her upper lip, and, stoicly, go forward.

An especially sticky dilemma... if one considers that either of those choices could mean losing a significant portion of what a language lover might consider to be foreplay.

[...sigh...]

No easy answers for this one... but if anyone has any survival tactics (or better) to suggest, please consider adding them to the comments.

Perhaps Jaimie will visit, but if not, I'll send her this link.

The bottom line: can't she at least expect potential partners to spell her name correctly? Or is that being unreasonable?

Open Thread - Happy Fourth!!!!

2007-07-03T12:00:00.001-07:00

Things proceed in the world and in my brain, and they seem slow enough over here at the choco' bang. Day off on Wednesday? I will help wash the baby - she cracked her little ankle last week, pointing at something outside with the hand that should have been helping hold up that leg. Whole-leg cast for little ones who can't stay still, and she can't go in the tub . . . . I will also play computer games - the barbarians had better be looking out - I have trebuchets now. My mental boat drifts farther from planned projects as I read Guy Davenport, Italo Calvino, and Montaigne, and think to myself what a good job these folks have done who thought about these things way before I did.

I will also check back here. How are you all? What is going on? And, if you ask why I selected a picture of dinosaur skeletons for a Fourth of July post, I will answer that my enthusiasm is something that the USA and dinosaurs have in common.

Poetry as a national security risk

2007-06-27T16:15:00.000-07:00

Yes, you read that correctly...

It really says something about the quality of our detainees in Guantanamo, that they have written poems in Arabic on fragments of styrofoam cups.

But, apparently, too much poetry has been written at Guantanamo-- compromising our national security-- and much of it has been censored or destroyed. However, a collection of the remnants of these cup poems is to be published by the University of Iowa...

An excerpt from Leonard Doyle's piece in Common Dreams, originally published in The Independent/UK, and which also includes several of the poems:

The words of the celebrated Pakistani poet were scratched on the sides of a Styrofoam cup with a pebble. Then, under the eyes of Guantanamo Bay’s prison guards, they were secretly passed from cell to cell. When the guards discovered what was going on, they smashed the containers and threw them away, fearing that it was a way of passing coded messages.
[snip]
There are other tragic tales behind the verses. The “cup poems” of Guantanamo speak of the strange absence of flowers in spring, the bangles worn by young women and handcuffs on the militants.

Fragments survived in the memory of the poet Shaikh Abdurraheem Muslim Dost after his eventual release, but thousands of lines of poetry he wrote in prison have disappeared.

Dost, a respected religious scholar, poet, and journalist - and author of nearly 20 books - until his arrest in 2001, spent nearly three years in Guantanamo with his brother. Sent home two years ago, the brothers were picked up by Pakistani intelligence and they too disappeared. Nothing has been heard of them since.

Perhaps the real security issue is the safety of those who have been or are currently in Guantanamo.

* * *

William Carlos Williams wrote... words that are apropos of almost any moment in these times:

“It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably
every day
for lack of what is found there.”

A h/t to Dave Pollard at How to Save the World, for his post with the link to this story...

The role of culture, however, must go beyond economics. It is not focused on the price of things, but on their value.

2007-06-26T09:53:00.000-07:00

"Fifty years ago, I suspect that along with Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, and Sandy Koufax, most Americans could have named, at the very least, Robert Frost, Carl Sandburg, Arthur Miller, Thornton Wilder, Georgia O'Keeffe, Leonard Bernstein, Leontyne Price, and Frank Lloyd Wright. Not to mention scientists and thinkers like Linus Pauling, Jonas Salk, Rachel Carson, Margaret Mead, and especially Dr. Alfred Kinsey.

"I don't think that Americans were smarter then, but American culture was. Even the mass media placed a greater emphasis on presenting a broad range of human achievement. "

from National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Dana Gioia's
commencement speech to the Class of 2007
at Stanford University, his alma mater

Were it not for Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory...

2007-06-25T17:14:00.001-07:00

...there would probably be no Chocolate Interrobang. [Our very first few posts explain the beginnings of this blog, and how we met in the comment threads at UT, and decided to take a tangential discussion of grammar and usage elsewhere, so as not to hijack the thread any further, and really annoy everyone else.]

Perhaps our existence might seem frivolous to you, but just consider how many other serendipitous meetings and occurrences have probably happened because of Glenn's blog. Not to mention the epiphanies...

You will be doing more than merely rewarding Glenn for creating such an interesting and intellectually stimulating community, if you buy his book. You will also be rewarding everyone else who has invested their own time & intellectual capital (a considerable amount, all told), and built his comment threads into a sight to behold.

More importantly-- for the sake of all of us, no matter our political stripe-- you will help to elevate the debate about the very life of our Constitution by making it impossible for the BigMediaGuys in the M$M to avoid paying proper attention to this book.

Ordinarily, I would suggest that you head off to your favorite independent book store to make your purchase, but in this case, I encourage you to buy from Amazon. It will save you money, and you can use the savings toward the purchase of a second copy... from your favorite independent book store. A loaner, a gift, or a donation... use it however you wish. Ordering from Amazon, though, does make the book more competitive in the quantitative environment where books like Glenn's must compete. And, if you are one of those who never buys anything online, then just buy it. Where ever you buy your books.

BUY THIS BOOK! Please...

a short note on process...

2007-06-24T12:30:00.000-07:00

I once had a boss who later fired/laid me off immediately after the beginning of the "First" Gulf War. He said to me one day-- long before the war-- "You really take an idea and run with it, don't you?" Unfortunately... he didn't really mean it as a compliment. Nor did he consider the "running-with" trait as desirable. And yet, he wanted me to do more. Oh, well...

Then, not so long ago, maybe a year or two, I happened to be on a city bus (because that was the easiest way to get to and from a doctor's appointment, since it did not involve parking) and I found myself in a conversation with the middle-aged, African-American man holding onto the strap next door. Seats were dear. I had a book with me, but could not read, given that I was holding a strap above my head and whatever else I was carrying at the time with my other hand.

So, I was eyeing enviously all of the seated passengers who could. And I remarked to my fellow traveler that there was an untapped, in fact, unrecognized, need for "book-holders." That is, for seated passengers who might care slightly less about reading than the passengers who were standing. For a token sum, they could offer to hold the standing passenger's book and turn the pages as needed, so that said passenger could still ride and read. He looked at me quizzically, but not unkindly, and said something very similar to "you really take an idea and run with it" don't you.

I had to laugh out loud. It's true. I have maybe one friend who really appreciates this about me; everyone else just tolerates it. It's not as if I actually "do" anything, since most of the time these are "ideas" that I'm running with, not things. But it is still amazing to consider some of the things you can accomplish, just by running with ideas, which of course everyone here understands at a pretty deep level. Or we wouldn't have connected at GG's blog.

This was just a roundabout way to say to the other contributors here that if an idea grabs you, it's probably okay to run with it. If you are hesitant to do that in a group blog, then go ahead and ask first. But know that you don't have to. This is "true" because of the self-selection process that brings us all here.

I believe there is a Muse watching over us.

2007-06-23T01:45:00.000-07:00

I posted this distillation of a BBC lexicon of zeitgeist speech on the Patteran Pages a year or so ago. By now it's probably as cutting edge as Virgil's famous account of hip speak along the Via Appia.

What’s book, what’s buzzing, what’s boom-boom..?

When I was at school around about the time they drew up Magna Carta, we wore shirts in blue & black stripes with upturned collars under black v-neck sweaters over black trousers with 15” bottoms & chisel- or pointed-toe shoes. Under the dripping trees, fags on & transistor radio playing, we called each other ‘dad’ or ‘man’. Good stuff was ‘cool’ or ‘guvnor’; bad stuff was ‘square’.

And that was about it. Illicit cider in thermos flasks or cooking sherry in shampoo bottles, Players No. 6 tucked into a t-shirt sleeve, nodding moodily along with Gene Vincent or Eddie Cochran & cheeking the teacher constituted the apogee of anti-social behaviour. Youth subculture was as deep as a coat of paint. Scratch it & the butcher, baker or barrister beneath would shine through.

Here, within the largely uncharted waters of the 21st century, there flourishes an archipelago of subcultural groupings, each animated by their own modi vivendi, each as fiercely exclusive as Balkan nation states.

Hoody culture – that which glossy new Tory leader David Cameron is so anxious to enfold in his pragmatic embrace – has managed, thus far, to resist corporate takeover. However, The Guardian – whose radar is ever sensitive to the slightest bleep of zeitgeist – has compiled a glossary of contemporary youth-speak. Now that the camera has flashed & the souls of the natives have been captured forever, street culture will duck the scrutiny of the media, the hoods will disappear & the language will remake & remodel. So get it here & now while it’s still fresh…

A

ah nam - tell on, rat on.

B

bait - obvious, as in "that's so bait".
(Nimesh Bhudia, Wembley, London)

bare - a lot of, very. In the case of a man or woman described as bare butters, see below.

beast - an adjective to describe something that's really cool.
(Suggested by reader Richard Beadnall, North Yorkshire) Beasting = bullying] [

book - cool. The first option given in predictive text when trying to type ‘c-o-o-l’.

boom boom - a slogan of approval in inner-city London. There was much debate during the election campaign about whether Tony Blair was booed or boomed at the Lilian Bayliss Technology School in London. [Surely a term of African American origin from jazz]

buff - sexy, fit. [It has been suggested to me that this term is used more frequently by the female to express approval of the male, where ‘fit’ might be used more frequently by the male commenting on the female]

bum - to enjoy something: "he bums that game so much". And there are levels of bummage - to really like something is to "bum it blue", but "he bummed it black" means he used to like it but has since gone off it.

butters - ugly (pronounced without sounding the t's).

buzzing - cool.

C

chirps - chat up: "We chirps some buff gals last night."

chung - extremely sexy. If someone is described as "chung", that's a serious step up from ‘buff’.

clappin' - out of date or worn out, usually to describe attire or accessories, as in "Man, my tracksuit is clappin'. Gotta get down JJB Sport and buy a new one." Also means tired out.
(Suggested by reader Denney, Reading) [‘Clapped out’ is a respectable term describing something functional that has broken down. The term originates from the 18th century in description of prostitutes consumed by venereal disease]

cotch down - to hang out, relax, chill out or sleep. Possibly derived, via patois, from the French "se coucher", meaning to lie down. See also kotch. [I have come across what I believe is an American verb to ‘skootch’, which means to wriggle or shuffle into a comfortable position]

crump - a multi-purpose term which can be an insult, an exclamation and a rather explicit sex act. It generally means bad, but can also mean good, depending on the context: "That ain't good, man, it's crump", or "That's one crump message you left there".

D

dash - to dash is to pass something to somebody - but it can be "pass" in the broadest possible sense, including to throw violently with the intention of causing hurt or damage.

dred - dreadful, terrible, bad, cruel. [Surely a well-known Jamaican adjective from Rastafarian culture]

dry - dull, boring, stupid, unfunny. A bad joke might be described as "dry".

F

feds - police. Taken from the US word for the FBI.

flat roofin' - to be overworked and stressed, as in, "I was flat roofin for my GCSEs". Probably comes from flat out.
(Suggested by reader Michael, London)

fo sho - "urban" version of yes, for sure, certainly. Clearly a steal from Afro-American vocabulary, with a strong suggestion of Southern inflection]

from ends - one who is "from the streets" and so knows what's going on.

fudge - a very, very stupid person indeed, presumably from the common slang verb ‘to fudge’, or mess up.

G

grimy - good, or may describe a practical joke or amusing - and probably unsavoury - act. [The term is used as a noun to define a version of urban dance music]

H

hangin - ugly, most likely with an unattractive body and bad dress sense to boot.

heavy - cool, interesting.
(Suggested by reader Yahya Raje) [Surely merely a version of the original meaning of the old hippy adjective]

howling - ugly.

J

jack - to steal or take, as in "car-jacking".

jokes - funny or enjoyable, as in, "That party was jokes".
(Suggested by reader Anishka Wil, Edgware)

jook - to stab or to steal.
(Suggested by reader Caroline Jones, Godalming) [In early jazz terminology to ‘jook’ meant to fuck. Is this in some way an extension, retaining the penetrative sense?]

K

kotch - sit and chill out. See also cotch.

L

laoy dat - forget that.
(Suggested by reader Masum Ullah, Birmingham)

long - someone who won't put out, also meaning a lot of effort: "He wanted to have sex with me, but I told him I'm long."

lush - good-looking, sexy. [This sense – an abbreviation of ‘luscious’ - has been around for many years]

M

mint - cool. Self-explanatory, surely.

munter - ugly. An alternate to minger, which has passed into the mainstream since its first recorded use in 1995.

N

nang - London term for cool, excellent, brilliant. When something is very good, it's "proper nang".

nim nim nim - blah blah blah; yadda yadda yadda. What's said when someone is talking rubbish.
(Suggested by reader Ian, Bristol) [An interesting example of contemporary onomatopoeia]

O

off the hook - cool, appealing, fresh, exceeding one's expectations. A phrase much over-used by Maxwell in Big Brother to express appreciation for his surroundings, for an attractive member of the opposite sex...

owned - to be made a fool of, to be beaten by. Can also be spelled "pwned", to denote a common spelling error in online gaming slang.
(Suggested by reader Jason Truman, Leamington Spa)

R

rago - whatever, OK.

random - odd, irregular, crazy, out there. Not used when something is genuinely random, but as an adjective by those who like to think they live a life less ordinary and have a wacky sense of humour. An example from Urban Dictionary reads thus:
Teen 1: "Cheese! hahahaha"
Teen 2: "Wow! That's sooooo random!"
Also used by players of the online game Counter-Strike to describe someone whose performance is inconsistent.

rents - parents.
(Suggested by reader Eric, London)

rinsed - overused, used up, all gone. "That song was rinsed, I don't like it anymore."
(Suggested by reader Angharad, Brixton)

roll with - hang out with.

S

safa - coolest of the cool, superlative version of safe (see below).

safe - cool, good, sweet. [Now outside the ‘underground’ & into common usage]

shabby - cool, smart, "da bomb". As in, "That's a well shabby suit."

sick - interesting, cool, never seen before. The more sick something is, the better. This usage originated with skaters and snowboarders.

sik - see sick.

skeen - I see. Also seen.
(Suggested by reader Alex Harris, Nottingham)

slap up - to beat up. Hence the happy slapping craze in which feral youths attack passers-by and film it on their mobiles.

standard - goes without saying.

swag - extreme, scary. A word which once denoted ill-gotten gains and then freebies - particularly branded merchandise - it can also be used as an adjective for something frightening.

switch - to turn on someone.

T

tell over/told over - to rat on someone.

U

unass - to relinquish or surrender control of an object or person; to leave.
(Suggested by reader Spoon, Leamington Spa)

V

vexed - irritated, angry. An old word, it has gained new currency, as demonstrated by Science in Big Brother to express his annoyance with some triviality or other.

W

wagwaan - what's up? what's going on? Originates from Jamaican patois.
(Suggested by reader Abtin, Berkhamsted)

wicked - cool. Yes, 30-somethings who remember it from their own school days, it has made a comeback. Can also mean very, thus something can be described as "wicked cool". [Long outside the ‘underground’ & in common usage]

Y

yard - house, garden, where one lives and hangs out. Once again, a steal from early jazz slang]

your mum - a comeback to a question or insult. An implied affront to one's mother, which may be taken as an ineffectual insult or may result in grievous bodily harm.

open thread - welcome friends!

2007-06-22T06:39:00.000-07:00

There has been some talk back and forth over the in the GG comment section - "I shall check out the Chocolate Interrobang!" There hasn't been a new post in a little bit. My home is more full of relatives than usual (a layered thought, there) and one of them is very small. My oft contemplated recap of the thinking-in-metaphors discussion and my conclusions thereto (ants, mandelbrot, and free-climbing) remains un-compiled.

Unproductive this week, new books, too many people, and the attraction/repulsion of provoking posters at the comment section. But I keep checking here, and want to say "hey!" and see what comments and remarks people who drop by may have. Usually, the idea is you write a post to post, and therefore people comment. This time, I write a post in hopes, waiting for it to be time just to comment.

The picture comes from takeourword.com

An Open Thread...

2007-06-20T17:00:00.000-07:00

...for

other

topics...

that

don't

quite

belong

anywhere

else.

Thanks to the commenter (?) at GG's blog who posted the link to this image.

Valerie's turn... The following has been pasted in from the comments for suggestions on how best to respond to a news story; feel free to add comments, suggestions, etc., directly to this post, if you are able, or else in the comments...

and now a rewrite from Valerie (see both her note and mine in the comment box) which I have also moved up the page a bit:

Valerie said...

Good morning, good folks!

I have decided to focus my ire directly on CNN for several reasons. One, they did it! Two, it's already old news :( I'm just not quick enough to be on-spot with commentary like Glenn or others. So, I narrowed my "audience" which helped me structure my rant. Here is my rewrite, which obviously still needs work. I'll do more fact checking later this morning to substantiate my argument. Here goes:

Dear CNN American Morning,

On Wednesday, June 20, 2007, I viewed your show during the period that Christianne Amanpour reported on Iraqi refugees which was followed by the interview with Mrs. Laura Bush. I believe the stated facts in these two segments conflicted, which disturbs me for two reasons, which are of great import to your viewers whether they realize it or not. The importance to me has prompted this correspondence.

The first reason is the apparent conflict in the facts. Amanpour's discussion regarding Iraqi refugees in various countries was informative and presented factually. She stated that the USA had the fewest refugees from Iraq and only in the 10s this year -- not tens of hundreds or tens of thousands, but 10s.

Then Mrs. Bush's interview followed Amanpour immediately, with Mrs. Bush quoting entirely different Iraqi refugee statistics, saying that (paraphrase): "the USA was helping out with the refugee crisis in a big way, and was leading the world in refugee assistance."

To alleviate my disturbance, I did some research and found that an article in the Boston Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.refugee20jun20,0,946531.story) supports Amanpour. QUOTE SOME FACTS.

Another article, from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/19/refugees.resettle/index.html), could support Mrs. Bush in a flawed sort of way. Your article states "The U.S. State Department says it expects at least 70 Iraqi refugees to come to the United States in the next 10 days, part of the 7,000 who will be allowed to resettle in America under an emergency measure approved in February." Thus it appears that your article supports Amanpour, but Mrs. Bush used the 7,000 number as if it had already happened. FIND SWEDEN NUMBERS (12,000, I believe)

PROBABLY NEED A STATEMENT HERE THAT MY RESEARCH DID *NOT* ALLEVIATE MY DISTURBANCE AS TO THE FACTS.

My second reason for disturbance concerns CNN's decision to air these two segments back-to-back as coverage of World Refugee Day. Did not anyone at CNN notice the conflict in facts? Did not anyone at CNN expect their viewers to notice the conflict in facts? Or was this segment placement intentional in an effort to be "balanced"? And if it was meant to show viewers "both sides of the story," then where is your analysis of the factual conflict?

NEED HELP IN CLOSING.

June 22, 2007 4:30 AM

Lost in Translation or I'll Take an "M," Pat

2007-06-19T10:27:00.000-07:00

Now, right now, as you're reading this, thousands of people halfway around the planet are trying to translate the word "rat-arsed" into perfectly idiomatic Chinese.

The Fourth Casio Cup Translation Contest is in full swing. Organized by the Shanghai Translation Publishing House, the goal of the contest is to translate a given English source text into Chinese.The text this time is "Reservoir Frogs (Or Places Called Mama’s)," a 1996 New Yorker piece by Salman Rushdie, on what Rushdie calls "the fine art of meaningless naming." Here's a sample (you can see the full text here [scroll down]):

As Luis Bunuel knew, obscurity is a characteristic of objects of desire. Accordingly, there is no trainspotting in Trainspotting; just a predictable, even sentimental movie that thinks it's hip. (Compared to the work of, say, William S. Burroughs, it’s positively cutesy.) It has many admirers, perhaps because they are unable even to understand its title, let alone the fashionably indecipherable argot of the dialogue. The fact remains: Trainspotting contains no mention of persons keeping obsessive notes on the arrival and departure of trains…Irvine Welsh’s original novel does offer some help. The section titled ‘Trainspotting at Leith Central Station’ takes the characters to a derelict, train-less station, where one of them attacks a derelict human being who is, in fact, his father, doling out a goodly quantity of what Anthony Burgess’s hoodlum Alex, in A Clockwork Orange, would call ‘the old ultraviolence’. Clearly, something metaphorical is being reached for here, though it's not clear exactly what. In addition, Welsh thoughtfully provides a glossary for American readers: ‘Rat-arsed--drunk; wanker - masturbator; thrush - minor sexually transmitted disease’. At least an effort at translation is being made. Out-and-out incomprehensibilists disdain such cosiness.
…
In 1928, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali co-directed the Surrealist classic Un Chien Andalou, a film about many things, but not Andalusian dogs. So it is with Quentin Tarantino’s first film, Reservoir Dogs. No reservoir, no dogs, no use of the words ‘reservoir’, ‘dogs’ or ‘reservoir dogs’ at any point in the movie. No imagery derived from dogs or reservoirs or dogs in reservoirs or reservoirs of dogs. Nada, or, as Mr Pink and Co. would say, ‘Fuckin’ nada.’ The story goes that when the young Tarantino was working in a Los Angeles video store his distate [sic] for fancy-pants European auteurs like, for example, Louis Malle manifested itself in an inability to pronounce the titles of their films. Malle’s Au Revoir les Enfants defeated him completely (oh reservoir les oh fuck) until he began to refer to it contemptuously as - you guessed it – ‘those, oh, reservoir dogs’. Subsequently he made this the title of his own movie, no doubt as a further gesture of anti-European defiance. Alas, the obliqueness of the gibe meant that the Europeans simply did not comprenday.
…
To forestall any attempts at exegesis (‘Author, Citing Dadaism’s Erstwhile Esotericism, Opposes Present-Day “Mamaist” Obfuscations’), I confess that as a title it means nothing at all; but then the very concept of meaning is now outdated, nerdy, pre-ironic. Welcome to the New Incomprehensibility: gibberish with attitude.

A friend in China asked me some questions about the text—not about the translation (which would be against the rules and, besides, I don't know Chinese)—and, in the process of helping her, I began to think about how hard the art of translation really is. Like everyone, I've read bad translations but I hadn't really thought about translation from the translating end.

My friend was thinking "hip" means "fashionable" but, used here, it's more like a self-conscious knowingness of being fashionable—and the word itself is self-cancelling, its very use a comment on unhipness. "With attitude" is a confrontational, "tell-it-like-it-is" stance—it's a positive inversion of "having an attitude" which I always thought of as a sort of sullen hostility—it's hard to imagine that a similar word exists in Chinese.

And then there's the transmutation from "Au Revoir Les Enfants" to "Reservoir Dogs." How do you manage that in Chinese while retaining the essential meaninglessness of it all? The Chinese releases of those films must have titles—do you go with those or with some specially transliterated versions to show just how Tarantino's mangled French and strange disdain led to a meaningless yet slightly similar title?

A site devoted entirely to the Harry Potter books in Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese translation provides some fascinating clues as to how translators deal with thorny translation problems. (Disclaimer: I have never touched a Harry Potter book.)

In Book One, Chapter 5, Harry asks Hagrid the eternal question: "What's the difference between a stalagmite and a stalactite?" Hagrid, not feeling up to geological exegesis (as Sir Salman might say), replies: "Stalagmite's got an "m" in it. An' don' ask me questions just now, I think I'm gonna be sick."

In Chinese, stalactite is zhōng-rǔ-shí ("hanging-bell milk rock") and stalagmite is shí-sǔn (''rock bamboo-shoot''). No "M" in sight. What do you do?

If you're the Mainland Chinese translator, well, there's no problem: Hagrid says: "There's an "M" in the middle of zhōng-rǔ-shí." Well, true enough as a translation but that answer must leave Chinese readers scratching their heads.

If you're the Taiwanese Chinese translator, Hagrid says "zhōng-rǔ-shí is made up of three characters" (the word shí-sǔn , after all, has two), effectively getting at the irritated non-answer of Hagrid's reply.

Another example: one character, Fleur Delacour, is referred to by the contemptuous nickname, "Phlegm." So how do you come up with a nickname that sounds like "Fleur" but with the disgusting properties of "phlegm"?

This time the Taiwanese Chinese translator comes up with a true masterpiece: Fleur in the Taiwanese version is named Huār meaning 'flower'; the contemptuous nickname for her is Wār meaning "frog" which might be considered a suitably slimy substitute for "phlegm" and, as a bonus, mocks the French accent of the character (who drops her "h's").

So, a particularly gifted translator can convey the essence of the original in another language. (And, in a few rare cases, the translation surpasses the source. Gabriel Garcia Márquez said that Gregory Rabassa's English translation of Márquez's Cien anos de soledad "improved the original.")

Still, contemplating the flawless translation of Rushdie's piece—or any translation of a difficult literary piece—now fills me with new-found awe and trepidation—awe at the idea that a translator could overcome the seemingly insurmountable obstacles and craft a fully Chinese version, and trepidation at the actual odds stacked against doing so, both illustrated by the judges' choices in the previous Casio translation competition.

Awe? One of the judges described the translation of the second prize winner as "the one that you could barely recognize as a translation. In other words, [John] Updike's story ["The Delicate Wives"] read as though it were written in Chinese originally."

And trepidation? Well, what about the first prize winner? There wasn't any—the judging panel said that none of the entries submitted was worthy of the honor of winning the top prize.

Even so, I'm hoping one of those people now puzzling over the Mandarin version of the word "rat-arsed" nails it this time.

Today's Good Grammar and Good Taste Award goes to ...

2007-06-19T08:07:00.000-07:00

... smartalec on Glenn's blog for the following:

It's very disappointing to me -- who have had to watch both my favorite local bookstore and one of the best NY landmarks both ...

Good taste, of course, for supporting the small, independent merchant over the megacorporate giant.

But good grammar for both knowing that a relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in person and number and for acting on that knowledge in the face of the knowledge that 99.9% of English speakers would have said and would have expected *"who has" instead of the grammatically correct "who have".

It's time to remember that castigating those who use poor grammar is not enough. It's not even enough to point out that many pedagogical grammatical "rules" are nonsense from a language-historical point of view. It is also necessary to reward those with the courage to practice good grammar in public.

So kudos to smartalec for winning the first (and possibly last) ever "Good Grammar and Good Taste Award". The prize includes (consists entirely of, in fact) a year's free subscription to The Chocolate Interrobang.

"That Long Grey Corridor" and "Clear Blue Sky" ...both by Dick Jones

2007-06-18T15:20:00.000-07:00

Serendipitously, Dick Jones, whom I mentioned in the previous post and then dropped a note in the comments, now has a an essay in the latest issue of qarrtsiluni, an online literary magazine. Accompanying it, is a poem, written to honor his father who died six years ago.

Both the essay and the poem deal with the ineffability of death.

You really want to click over and read them, especially the poem.

It is a marvel, and-- just to be clear, completely on-topic for this blog.

Bloggers' Love of Language + Generosity = Something Ineffable

2007-06-14T20:38:00.000-07:00

2004 really wasn't all that long ago, but it seems like ages. I first started blogging that summer, partly to deal with my anxiety about the upcoming election, and partly because I had been sick and couldn't do much else. It seems appropriate at this particular moment-- a transitional one for me-- to mention a few bloggers that I met when I first started at Salon. Not only because of the theme of community-- first there, and now here, although that is true-- but even more because each of them has an immense love of language and storytelling.

Although there were a lot of bloggers who were generous with their time and encouragement to other newbies, these four stand out for me: Birdie, who began her first blog, Beauty Dish, in order to track her experiences as a single mother selling Avon; Sam, whose blog, feral, underwent many transformations before it's ultimate end; and Dick Jones, whose Patteran Pages includes poems, reminiscences, stories about his days in rock and roll (which didn't really end all that long ago), and photos of both his older and youngest children, all glorious examples of offspring; and perhaps the most unusual of all, Mark Hoback, of Fried Green al-Qaedas, and once of The Virtual Occoquan (now on hiatus), and more recently of The Aristocrats.

Birdie tells the very best stories of anyone I know. She would consistently have her readers refreshing their screens all day long-- sometimes for days at a time-- waiting for the next unbelievable episode in her life. What made her stories so wonderful was partly her sense of adventure and her ability to turn anything into a story worth telling, but also her openness to life itself and her ability to say yes. It also didn't hurt that stories worth telling kept happening to her... like the night when an unknown person rang her doorbell in the middle of the night to alert her that they were leaving a potbellied pig (named Frank E. Bacon) with her because they knew she loved animals. (All of this information was conveyed in the note attached to Frankie.) Or the curious customers she met while hawking Avon: the naked lady, the lady with the monkey who needed conditioning lotion, the very content married lady who had discovered an unusually satisfying use for the firming cream, and on and on. Some rainy day, or any day when you could use a laugh, try and read through her archives. You'll probably find something that will make you laugh and cry. Especially, if you come across the story about her younger Trekkie son and the Pledge of Allegiance. We also had virtual parties in Birdie's comment pages, complete with graphics of food, beverages, and sometimes costumes. That's one advantage of Salon's strange comment editing boxes... if you know how, you can post a picture of something yummy. In the comment box. Something we can't do here. Or in most other comment boxes, for that matter. And the after-party clean-up only looked bad; it really took no time at all when everyone pitched in.

Sam's blog was one of the most linguistically stylish I've ever had the pleasure to read, her use of language the most impeccable and free of cliches. She had a successful career as an editor, but at heart may be more of an artist. Sam has lots of stories and adventures, too, though not usually as light-hearted as Birdie's, due to her different circumstances. In Sam's daily posts, you might find a poem, fresh that morning from a dream or her psyche, or oftentimes a description of the natural sounds, along with the sights and scents, on her walkabouts in rural Northern California. I haven't found any other blogs with such soundtracks, or more properly... sensetracks. Of course, there would be the requisite posting of animal pictures, but on a grander scale, with sequential photos of both Sam and her brother, Brian, accompanying those of their amazing menagerie of animals: numerous dogs and cats, itinerant boarding visitors (e.g., a large turtle with a dour personality), and two llamas. Sam has since been busy trying to make a go of a bookstore, and has created a much-needed and beloved center for booklovers in her small town, but its success has been complicated beause she has had to move the business-- while caring for her autistic brother and an extended family of friends, both two-legged and four-legged-- sometimes just within blocks, 3 or 4 or 5 times. Maybe 6. I've lost count. Ai yai yaiii... only a true-blooded Capricorn like Sam could have accomplished as much heartbreaking work as she has in the few years I've known her, while fulfilling all of those other obligations.

Dick Jones was one of the first two people to leave a comment on my Salon blog, Bread Crumbs-- on my second post-- the one with an illustration for R.L. Stevenson's "When I was sick and lay abed," and the accompanying poem, posted because I felt that was how GWB thought of our military, like some toy soldiers he could play with whenever he felt like it. Getting to know Dick was a refreshing respite (redundancy needed for emphasis) because he lives in the UK, and was perfectly willing to read or listen to political diatribes against the current occupant and his administration, even when he didn't know all of the parties involved. And you could always count on him for a pithy one- or two-word epithet to fit the occasion. Dick's blog posts are varied. He is an accomplished poet who writes from the intersecting axes of his memory and dreams and history, both his family's and his country's, especially WWII. A few years older than I am, he has far more courage, given that he is the doting father of not one, nor two, but of three toddlers, the youngest of whom has just had her first birthday. You'll have to look at his blog yourself, or you won't believe me when I say how gorgeous they are. And their older siblings look pretty great, too. Dick's blog is also a good place to look for a good joke (especially for comparisons of US and UK humor) or a fitting quote.

Mark Hoback's blog scared me a little at first, and I wasn't sure I wanted to add a name like Fried Green al-Qaedas to my blogroll, since we still didn't know at that time what the Patriot Act really meant, or what the DHS would be looking for. Nevertheless, I girded my loins and added the link. Mark posts some of the most pointed and biting satire anywhere, good enough that his work, especially his graphics, have sometimes been used by other bloggers without citation. [A big no-no in my book.] And yet, he was unfailingly generous in collaborating with me, photoshopping images when needed, most notably for an online "dialogue" between Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ, with a very familiar-looking alien calling them to account. Occasionally he would use something I had written for the Virtual Occoquan, his online literary review of some of the original writing on Salon blogs. If I had to name only one piece of Mark's that was my favorite, it would actually have to be a series of posts he did with tiny photo images of some very famous people speaking the words he dared to put in their mouths. The cast included Peewee Herman and his genie, Jambi, as well as Reese Witherspoon, George Bush and Laura, most of GWB's administration, and the current North Korean dictator, who had a nefarious plot that involved kidnapping you-know-whom. The photos he used were so perfectly dead-on that I would have to laugh out loud while reading each new episode. I asked Mark to extend the story line to get us through the worst of the administration. I don't recall the last date, but it may actually have been last fall.

Certainly there are many other bloggers whose work I like and admire. You have only to glance at the Bread Crumbs' blogroll... but these four people fed my spirit in a special way during a time when I was recovering from a chronic condition, and couldn't do much else but surf, blog, and post political rants and diatribes. Except for Mark, they mostly posted other things, which may be why they were so important to me then, as I look back on it. Every diet needs a bit of variety, especially a political one.

Most importantly, each one of them consistently exercised the highest respect for language and for saying what they wanted to say with integrity. Because of them and the others I met there, Salon was, and still is, in a way, a kind of "wetlands" for blogging. But, except for a handful, most of those original bloggers have left Salon for other environs.

Sure, he did - but it hardly made up for such a crappy Summer

2007-06-13T17:50:00.000-07:00

One of the famous quotes from Alice in Wonderland is "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'" The whole passage is interesting, but I want to focus on just this bit.

Second things first, the second most notable thing in this quote is the placement of the word "rather" - so precise, suggesting (1) a tone that was more "scornful" than any other adjective, and (2) that the scornfulness was not excessive.

The first most notable thing in this quote, as applied to how people use words, is how it is both (1) generally untrue and (2) generally true.

(1) It is generally untrue:

This line can be taken to mean that, with Humpty Dumpty as our example, we each privately decide words mean whatever we want, regardless of what other people think those words mean. I find that hackle-raising. It could mean

(a) we make sounds that sound like words while expecting people to read from our minds thoughts bearing little external relation to the sounds we make; or
(b) we are cunningly sloppy, accomplishing naughty ends through (technically) virtuous means, stretching facets of meanings into loopholes in truth, and lazily tending toward presidential signing statements and viral marketing campaigns and worse.

(a) and (b) are common enough in this bad old world, and put a fair reading on that quote, but that reading is generally untrue because we humans usually do purposefully use words that mean to others what they mean to us.

In other words, as a practical matter, words work. People buy and sell, travel to new places, do their work, meet and fall in love, all using words to communicate - much gets accomplished, and so it is clear that this hackle raising reading of Humpty Dumpty's statement is untrue for most of us most of the time.

And yet! Even beyond items (1)(a) and (1)(b) above,

(2) It is generally true:

Surprisingly often, we use words without thinking about what other people think they mean. The problem with that is, if a word is to have meaning at all, multiple people must ascribe a given meaning to that word. We say or write things without considering them, assuming our natural usage will carry our thoughts smoothly to others. Note the key verb in the quote - "choose" - and reflect for a moment. We use the words that mean what we say, but often

(a) we fail to think through all the possible things a given word can mean, or
(b) fail to narrow down a word's general region of meaning to the relevant specific meaning.

Do you think about what a word means before you use it? 50% of the time? 85% of the time? 99% of the time?

If I take into account both speaking and writing, I have about a B average. An average average, even. I do try, though, and I urge others to try. And, through this blog, I hope to lend my strength to more general resistance against sloppy usage. If I felt more comfortable flinging alarmist statements without preambles, I would simply say "We are letting each other get away with critical meaning failure!"

One of my pet peeves is contemporary usage of the word "unique" - what does it mean? If widget A is unique, there is not one other widget like it anywhere in the world. If there is a remarkably similar widget somewhere, one could then say that widget A is "practically unique" or "almost unique" - that is fine. However, even if there were never another such widget as widget A anywhere ever, and it is totally blowing everyone's minds, one could NOT then say that widget A is "very unique" - it is as unique as ever, neither more nor less. There is no such thing as more or less unique. That is, potentially, the whole power of the word, a power we waste through improper usage. [There is a bible verse about saltiness that could go here.]

When you said something was "very unique", did you mean to say "very rare" or "very cool" or "I feel like talking all fancy, so I say 'simplistic' instead of simple, and I might as well say 'very unique' because I am not really thinking this through, nor am I referring to a dictionary, ever"?

Language is one of those aspects of human society about which it may be said that the individual's best interest is also the group's best interest - more words, more meaning, more knowledge, and more understanding. What this adds up to is more power. Power in the "sword and shield" sense. A shield - to avoid misunderstanding in yourself and others. A sword to make your arguments clear and persuasive, and to eviscerate the false arguments of others.

There is a lot of work to be done, cleaning up all this mess of propaganda, politicking, and marketing, and we will never win any war against them, only certain battles. So let's be a little cheesy about it and say "People of good will and great vocabularies! Gird your loins and grab your dictionaries! The fight is all!"

Q & (non-)A: a notable quote

2007-06-13T15:58:00.001-07:00

At today's press briefing, Bush White House spokesman, Tony Snow, eschewed using a standard part of speech, as he danced around the finer points of a question he would prefer to completely avoid:

Reporter: Can you attach an adjective here?

Snow: No, I try to stay out of the adjectival business.

For the rest of the exchange, you'll have to check out this link from Salon's War Room. The above Q & (non-)A are the 5th between AP reporter Holland and Snow.

* * *

Later on in the same interview, Snow attempted to distinguish between backpedaling and minimizing a vast, metaphysical question.

Reporter: That sounds like backpedaling.

Snow: No, it's not backpedaling. It's just it seems to me to be such a vast, metaphysical question.

* * *

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find small comfort in knowing that the Bush White House's spokesman can even use the word metaphysical in a relevant context... whether hyperbole or not.

Escaping Flatland...

2007-06-13T15:25:00.000-07:00

I almost posted something about Edward Tufte a day or two ago, when Arts & Letters Daily posted a link to the first of two pieces about him. Instead, I hesitated... and I'm glad I did, since the second link is even more Tufte-like. I also figured that the select group that gathers here would already be familiar with Tufte and his revolutionary notions about combining qualitative and quantitative data in ways that allow telling a story.

But then I thought, why not discuss him anyway?

Two short excerpts from the second link:

“We had numbers and words in the same house,’’ Tufte says, as if that explains how he got to where he is. [His father was an engineer, and his mother began a career as a journalist, but later became an English professor.]

In an interview in the mid-’90s with the Computer Literacy Bookshops in San Jose, Tufte explained that to do statistical design, one has to be able to see and to count. He claimed he didn’t see as well as many graphic artists and didn’t count as well as the best statisticians, but he did the combo better than just about anyone. His great insight was to think about graphics not as art or statistical constructs but as stories. He challenged chart-makers to ask the question: what is the story we’re trying to tell?

Both pieces are worth reading... just as Tufte's own site is well worth exploring.

To blithely split infinitives: a group collaboration in Draft form...

2007-06-11T18:44:00.001-07:00

from Karen M.

Does anyone else want to compile a list of examples of famously split infinitives?

Of course, there is "to boldly go."

* * *

and from Frankly, my dear...

Since I don't seem to be able to make additions to your post, I've started a parallel one from which you can copy and paste.

Points to make: First, in principle an infinitive can't be split in English since it is the simplest form of the verb (walk, stand, run, etc.). Technically speaking, the form 'to' + infinitive in English is known as the supine. On the other hand, about 1 person in 100,000 knows this and if you talk about split supines no one will have a clue what you are talking about. In common usage, 'infinitive' usually encompasses both the simple verb (nomen actionis) and the form with 'to' (the supine).

Then, like 'she turned him on' there should probably be a nod to "Obligatorily Split Infinitives."

George Bernard Shaw, the brilliant Irish playwright, once sent this letter to the Times of London: “There is a busybody on your staff who devotes a lot of time to chasing split infinitives: I call for the immediate dismissal of this pedant. It is of no consequence whether he decides to go quickly or to quickly go or quickly to go. The important thing is that he should go at once.”

The twentieth-century writer and cartoonist James Thurber had this to say to the editor who rearranged his infinitive: “When I split an infinitive, it is going to damn well stay split!”

Both of the above quotations can be found at this site.

* * *

from Karen M.

I loved those examples, Frankly... !

Any of the current contributors are free to blithely make edits directly on this post. [Permissions were updated to make this possible.]

Anyone else is free to make suggestions in the comments and we will, if we like them, add them to the post for you.

"...phrase-parsed text displays that more naturally match the way our eyes perceive and capture...?"

2007-06-11T18:44:00.000-07:00

I found this link to Live Ink via Dave Pollard's blog, How to Save the World. At first glance, the technique seems to turn prose into a form of prose-poetry via subtle bullet points (tho' without the actual bullet points).

Read the Moby Dick example, and see if you agree. I tried to paste a small sample here for you, but the very clever programming would not allow me to. You'll have to take a look at it yourself in order to see what I mean.

I have often wondered whether books could ever be satisfactorily read-- with ease and in comfort-- on some kind of hand-held computer. Having learned to read across the pages, from left to right, a small screen just seemed so inadequate for accommodating even a modest page of text.

However, the Live Ink format leads the eyes to read... using narrow columns of curving text... down the page. This is the first time I've felt tempted to wonder about having an iPod or other MP3 device for reading.

Divided by a Common Language? Are We Sure about That?

2007-06-08T15:51:00.000-07:00

Having read all sorts of English fiction, poetry and essays over the years, without ever having actually set foot in the British Isles, I've never thought much about the differences in usage between the U.S. and the U.K. In fact, except for noting obvious variations in spelling and vocabulary -- honor vs. honour, sedan vs. saloon, etc. -- I'm not sure I've ever been all that conscious of specific stylistic differences. The differences between Kingsley Amis and John Updike weren't any more notable in context than those between Updike and Norman Mailer. One language, different voices was as much distinction as I ever admitted to.

Only recently have I encountered new reasons to pay closer attention. The first arrived -- courtesy of the Fox soccer channel -- with the advent on American television of games from the English Premier Football League. (Make that the obligatory Barclays Premier Football League. The British may laugh at Pizza Hut Park, but they have their own problems with commercialism in sport.)

In listening over time to the match commentators, I gradually became aware of all sorts of hitherto unsuspected divergences in usage. Here are some examples:

British: On the floor.
American: On the ground. (Only indoors is it the floor.)

British: He's got pace.
American: He's fast.

British: Into touch.
American: Out of bounds.

British: Fixture, match
American: Game

British: tie (a competition for one of the many football cups)
American: tie (a game in which both teams have or end up with with the same score.)

British: Kit, strip
American: Uniform

British: A foul on so-and-so (So-and-so has been fouled.)
American: A foul on so-and-so (So-and-so has committed a foul.)

Add all of this up, and it's hard to avoid noticing that you're not in Kansas any more -- or in New York or Alabama either, for that matter. I might have dismissed this as simply a difference in sports dialects, but for the fact that at the same time I found myself reading more in the way of news and political commentary from British sources on the Internet: The Guardian and Independent, as well as the Economist, Prospect, the BBC, the Times, etc. Differences I hadn't noticed before began to jump out at me. For example:

British: It wasn't the best thing anyone has ever said about him, but nor was it the worst.
American: It wasn't the best thing anyone has ever said about him, nor was it the worst.

British: Did I do it? Well no, but I might've done, if....
American: Did I do it? Well no, but I might have, if....

British: The engineering team have decided to pursue the recommended design changes.
American: The engineering team has decided to pursue the recommended design changes.

(American translations are my own.)

Not all of this was new, of course, but I was seeing it in a new light, possibly because there was suddenly so much of it around me. I also realized that the loo, or the telly, knickers, or napkins weren't the interesting parts. What was far more interesting were the grammatical, or if you like, syntactical differences -- the way different choices of word or phrase were both derived from, and in turn led again to different rhythms of speech and writing. It was those rhythms which had been steadily diverging over the last two hundred plus years, a divergence which had only been partly attenuated by the fact that, increasingly, we share a single literature.

At that point, I realized that being a voracious reader as a kid hadn't been entirely without its disadvantages. Whenever I'd encountered something new and tasty then, I'd simply incorporated it, as kids do, into my own linguistic toolkit. Unfortunately, once I had it firmly in my possession, all hope of provenance was lost. It took me years to grasp that I couldn't just insert what some Oxford wag had said a century before -- or rather his manner of saying it -- into my own speech or writing, not without seeming either a pedant or a mutant.

Mmm...so far so good. Then I realized something that led all the way around the circle to my starting point again. Look at the following two examples of regional American usage:

Manhattan:

I gave them bupkis. BUPKIS, I'm telling you. (Yiddish)

We spent hours on line, just waiting for the place to open. (on, not in)

Rural Alabama:

It was laying over yonder, behind the barn. (lay/lie, archaic yonder instead of there)

Y'all going over to the store later? Carry me with you, I need a few things myself. (entirely regional use of carry, and then, of course, y'all itself.)

Would the idioms of residents of Manhattan necessarily be more familiar to a rural Alabaman, or vice versa, than any of the Britishisms listed above? I suspect not, which leads me to conclude that the British/American versions of our common language aren't as different as we might be tempted to think, and thanks to things like the Internet, probably won't diverge significantly more in the future than they have already.

The leftover Latin curse

2007-06-08T12:13:00.001-07:00

I'm inspired by a comment thread on the post below to attack that most contemptuous of grammar rules: the ridiculous notion that you can't end sentences with a preposition. This rule aggravates me in particular because it is simple enough for every fool to understand and remember, so it is the one hammered hardest into the heads of poor, innocent schoolchildren. We now have generations of people who cannot quip, as Winston Churchill did when criticized for ending a sentence with a preposition, "That is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put."

Plus, it's an excuse to quote here, at length, an enticing passage in Garner's Modern American Usage on the subject (the argument is pulled largely from Fowler's classic Modern English Usage):

"The spurious rule about not ending sentences with prepositions is a remnant of Latin grammar, in which a preposition was the one word that a writer could not end a sentence with. But Latin grammar should never straitjacket English grammar. If the superstition is a 'rule' at all, it is a rule of rhetoric and not of grammar, the idea being to end sentences with strong words that drive a point home. ...

"The idea that a preposition is ungrammatical at the end of a sentence is often attributed to 18th-century grammarians. But that idea is greatly overstated. ... The furthest [Bishop] Lowth [the most prominent grammarian of that period] went was to urge that 'the placing of the preposition before the relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style.' That idea is an archaic view that makes modern writing stuffy. ... Lowth's statement about prepositions was hardly intended as a 'rule.' ...

"In 1947, a scholar summed up the point: 'Those who insist that final prepositions are inelegant are taking from teh English language one of its greatest assets -- its flexibility -- an advantage realized and practiced by all our greatest writers except a few who, like Dryden and Gibbon, tried to fashion the English language after the Latin.

"Good writers don't hesitate to end their sentences with prepositions if doing so results in phrasing that seems natural."

Despite grammarians' agreement on this issue, it's still pushed in the language education in our schools, and I wish it wouldn't be. Doing so creates squadrons of mean-spirited adults who try to make others feel small for saying, "What are you thinking about?" And to whom I would like to say, "Bugger off."

Our First Open Thread

2007-06-08T12:10:00.000-07:00

While we await further postings... I thought it might be a good idea to open up a thread for topics that are unrelated to the current posts, and also to allow readers/commenters to suggest topics for future discussion.

Collaboration is everything. People used to say that about timing... I know, I was one of them, but now... I think it's all about collaboration.

And it's all because of the Internets and the Google.

Why does it matter?

2007-06-07T18:01:00.000-07:00

Who cares, right? What's it any good for? is what the high school student always asks of grammar and mathematics lessons alike. It is a question that has long kept me from accepting acquaintances' casual requests that "maybe you can help me edit this brochure/paper/website/letter to the editor." Inevitably, at some stage in the process, the acquaintance will become in the first place frustrated that I haven't changed their plain prose into words that sparkle or burn, and in the second place that I have proposed changing too much. They will take a comma correction as personal criticism. Then they will look at me sideways, suspiciously, and say, "It doesn't really matter, anyway." And then they'll ask, even more suspiciously, whether I really get paid to do this.

Which is why I stick with copy editing for textbook companies, who (or which?) know exactly how much they want me to do -- or, usually, not to do.

As with many seemingly simple questions, this one's answer is unhelpfully complicated. Simply put, though, language matters because it is how we communicate. Even that statement seems to garner plenty of criticism, met as it often is with the grumbled, "I can understand you just fine." Yeah? Have you ever tried to decipher London cockney?

Bryan Garner wrote an excessively long essay in Harper's several years ago (partly to introduce his new Modern American Usage) in which he printed the entire lecture he gave to every university student who complained to him about his grammar and language corrections on their essays. His short answer? If you want to be taken seriously, if you ever want to go anywhere, you've got to speak the language well enough to know how the game is played.

This love for language is often misinterpreted as wanting to make everyone speak and write absolutely the same. Quite false. It's about understanding one another. The rest is just the toothsome gooey fudge left in the bottom of the pot. Any true philologist gets their true pleasure in exploring the potentials of words and dialects and the infinite iterations of meanings. Heck, I get a kick out of looking up the names from J.K. Rowling's books in my Oxford English Dictionary because I know she draws heavily from Old English and Celtic mythology when coming up with them.

Personally, I have a love for learning other languages in general, and not just the ones with different alphabets. When my English husband and I first met, he told me one evening as I was going to bed, that "I'll knock you up at about 8." You think you understand English? I stood open-mouthed and red-faced for a good few seconds before I remembered that my study-abroad survival dictionary (kindly provided by my home college) defined the Britishism "knock [someone] up" as "to wake [someone] up." Nine years into marriage now and we're still working out the niceties of being, as my mother-in-law puts it, "divided by a common language."

As certifiedprepwn3d said in her post below, our ways of communicating are changing at eyeblink paces. Online conversation has (partly due to its replacement of the spoken word, I'd argue) made written communication more demanding than it was before. How often did people feel the need to put winking smiley faces in their handwritten letters to make sure the recipient knew they were "just joking!"

None of this means that language matters to you. We're not here to proselytize --I swear! -- but to revel in a common love for the ways in which we can use and abuse and mold language. We read grammar books for fun. We delight in finding new words, or new meanings for old ones. We're just kids playing in word-mud. Get your mucky clothes on and come on in.

What are we here for?

2007-06-07T10:44:00.001-07:00

As described in the first post, this Chocolate Interrobang was born out of a discussion at Glenn Greenwald's blog on Salon. So - a group blog (being done by people who have only met online), arising from a comment page (inhabited by people who have only met online, some of whom are there only to disagree), hosted at a blog (itself hosted at a magazine that exists only in digital form, expressly non-print) . . .. That we are here is one example of the evolving iterations of connection and communication that exist only online.

I had a professor in college who was fond of saying, among other things, that you can't have two things without having three things -- this wasn't what he was getting at but the situation we are in with all of these online forums is that there is written English, there is spoken English, and now there is online typing.

Online typing. Is it talking? Is it letter- writing? Assuming you are at a comment board to have a real conversation: how much will you rely on tone and context, and how much work will you do to get your point across? How much work will you expect the other participants to do in attempting to understand you?

As to the origins of this blog, I was glad to see comments from people who care about clear communication achieved through careful and disciplined writing.

Comment boards are fun and interesting - informal, lively and immediate, much like speech. On the good side, we ditch the preoccupation with physical presentation and the need to leave the house or actually talk to people. On the bad side, we lose all the non-verbal clues and other meta-data that is inherent in speech. The passionate comments about language and usage in the middle of a non-language-oriented blog suggested to me that there are plenty of people who want to retain (at least when helpful) the rules and conventions of written English even in this digital context.

So, a few tentative conclusions about the goals here:

This is not about bossing people around and feeling like awesome smarty-pantses.
This is not about asking each other whether we have any Grey Poupon.
This is about enjoying our language in written form, online or offline, and deepening our own understanding of it.
This is about continuing discussions and gathering information that will help people of good will communicate more effectively.

How does that sound?

This is how we began...

2007-06-06T15:10:00.000-07:00

First, with an innocent comment by IntrovertGirl...

Grammar Police: not addressed to anyone in particular

I'll probably get drowned for this, but I can't help it. It's been bugging me the last couple days. Its vs. it's: Its is possessive. It's is a contraction. Look! There's a dragon under the tree! Its scales are purple. It's going to eat some ball point pens. - IntrovertGirl

Then, I chimed in with...

Grammar police, Part II

I might as well pile on, too, IntrovertGirl, and keep you company in the water...

They're = they are
Their = possessive
There = not here

You're = you are
Your = possessive
Yore = not now, but before (that one is just for fun & symmetry)

Can't help it... they just jump out at me. ;~) Really. You can blame my (late) grandmother. - Karen M

There was some back and forth...

@ Karen M
Oh, no, don't get me started. I'll happily hijack any thread to babble about grammar and language. I like "yore." We could start on ... nauseous v. nauseated disinterested v. uninterested which v. that socialism v. communism conservative v. liberal ... or, maybe not! - IntrovertGirl

We learned we had supporters...

Introvert Girl & Karen M - grammar police right on.
"disinterested v. uninterested" is one of my pet peeves. Rampant use of "dis" for "un" is only getting rampant-ier as days go by. Current obsessions also include "different FROM" vs. "other THAN". ps - regards to sysprog on the auto-antonyms earlier, another one is "cleave" - certifiedprepwn3d

And other commenters began to offer us sites for jumping off purposes:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/affect.html - Paul Dirks

My starting point for grammar discussions is language log dot com, which has covered many of the points you talked about upthread. - Fraud Guy

@ Karen M "I object when nouns become verbs merely to serve jargon"
Oh, c'mon, Karen, surrender to the pleasures of anthimeria! What's wrong with verbing a few nouns? Or anthimeriazing them…or…something…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthimeria http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2004/10/01/236740.aspx - Jeff W

And a little later, in response to criticism that anyone could/would want to wallow in grammar, IntrovertGirl offered some personal, deep-seated reasons that could only inspire a blog like this one:

@Djinn, genie-ghost of 7th-grade Mrs. Sullivan ;)
This is absolutely my last word on the subject, promise.
My 7th-grade English teacher? She was a nice lady, but I don't think she knew that much about grammar. No, I wrote the original post in my professional capacity. I get paid to be nitpicky about grammar and language. And it's a job I couldn't do if I didn't absolutely love it.
That's the definition of a grammar geek. We love language. You don't read books like "The Deluxe Transitive Vampire" for kicks if you don't love grammar. And it's my endless enjoyment of the art that makes me push for precision. Half the reason I read this forum is because I enjoy the many ways the participants argue their points eloquently and often poetically.
As for English being a living language, that's absolutely true. My favorite poet is Gerard Manley Hopkins, a nonsensical user of words if there ever was one. What I object to is muddiness and ugliness. When someone says, "I feel nauseous" when they mean "I feel nauseated," it expasperates not because it's incorrect, but because we're losing one perfectly good word and forcing another to perform two functions. As for the -izing, I just find most of them aesthetically unpleasing. There's objectivity for you!

Finally, certifiedprepwn3d validated my original point about words used merely as jargon...

jeff w and karen m

Karen - I see what you are saying -- I play with language the way my little niece plays with her cheerios (not exactly the way, sure), and feel joy in understanding how not following "the rules" adds meaning rather than taking it away. Holograph - i.e., multi-layered information, is the goal.

The bland, intentional spin, wonk-speak (including "we are tasked with") filters information out of the statement. It is like those drugs that mimic other substances and block receptors in your body -- so many speakers from power want to make noise that has the same effect as communication (the listeners shutting up and behaving) without actually communicating anything. [And, they certainly don't accept any attempts to communicate back at them, particularly not truth to power.] Their use of language is not fun. It does not add to the shared human knowledge and experience of the world. - certifiedprepwn3d

And now we have a blog... if we can keep it (w/ apologies to B. Franklin).