Today in an email message, someone wrote "the guy next to me's cell phone..." I think this is completely clear - unless you thought that "me's cell phone" meant "my cell phone," I suppose. This is another reason why we need to expand the use of parentheses.* Email and IM-ing and texting and all is conflating our written and spoken languages, but I wish I knew how to systematically study the question of under which conditions (emailing, talking, writing in a more formal setting) which constructions show up. A more liberal use of parentheses would save people the trouble of taking more care in composing their sentences, which may not happen anyway, which will lead to unclear communications and confusion. I should look up the etymology of "confusion."
*Oh, God, I'm going to be one of those nut jobs that get written up in language books for trying to promulgate weird shit.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
#$&@)(*@&Q(# @@@!
I despise the fact that @ does not mean "about." It should for so many reasons.
1. "About" is a fuller, rounder word that "at," visually and conceptually. It goes better with the curvilinear @.
2. (well, they each have ZERO HITS on Googlefight.)
3. I always think it does.
"At" doesn't need such an exciting symbol. There are plenty of things that make more sense. What about a little arrow pointing to the right? I contend that no other keyboard symbol represents "about" as well as @.
1. "About" is a fuller, rounder word that "at," visually and conceptually. It goes better with the curvilinear @.
2. (well, they each have ZERO HITS on Googlefight.)
3. I always think it does.
"At" doesn't need such an exciting symbol. There are plenty of things that make more sense. What about a little arrow pointing to the right? I contend that no other keyboard symbol represents "about" as well as @.
the Leafy Sea Dragon (for Amanda and Shannon)
If you ask me, there's some kind of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds thing happening here. Tuesday, May 6, 2008
LIRIMA
Today I was writing a caption for a photo of a herd of oryx, and I started to write something like "these majestic creatures," and then I wondered if they could be called majestic. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for majesty? One coworker said she thought a dog could be majestic, like an old, wise Golden Retriever, which is just false. Other coworkers looked at me as though I were a TV show they didn't recognize. But I was not to be dissuaded, and I now present to you the Lore & Ipsum Rubric for Identifying Majesty in Animals (LIRIMA).
Does it have horns? 2 pts.
Do it have horns that appear disproportionate to its body? 5 pts.
Is it in a herd? 5 pts.
Is it significantly larger than a prototypical member of their species? (boas, pythons)? 4 pts.
Does it look tired all the time? 2 pts.
Is it a solid color? 1 pt.
Does its name seem neither Latinate nor Anglo-Saxon? 1 pt.
Is it cliche-edly majestic? -6 pts.
Would someone in kindergarten know what sound it makes? -2 pts.
Your thoughts welcomed. This is clearly a timely and important topic, and I expect to see it on the Huffington Post and spread round the blogosphere shortly.
Does it have horns? 2 pts.
Do it have horns that appear disproportionate to its body? 5 pts.
Is it in a herd? 5 pts.
Is it significantly larger than a prototypical member of their species? (boas, pythons)? 4 pts.
Does it look tired all the time? 2 pts.
Is it a solid color? 1 pt.
Does its name seem neither Latinate nor Anglo-Saxon? 1 pt.
Is it cliche-edly majestic? -6 pts.
Would someone in kindergarten know what sound it makes? -2 pts.
Your thoughts welcomed. This is clearly a timely and important topic, and I expect to see it on the Huffington Post and spread round the blogosphere shortly.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Dear Board,
Today I sat down and made a list of things that I want from a job.
Tier 1:
> to have it be in my field at a university so I can take classes for free
Tier 2:
> to be interested in its theoretical underpinnings
> to have it involve both halves of my brain
> (that is, involve problem-solving and creativity. But I'd settle for just creativity.)
> to be close to the decision-makers/decision-making process
> to be considered a professional
> to like the people
> a minimum of HR bullshit
> to get to work on different projects
> flexible work hours
etc. etc. Any thoughts?
Tier 1:
> to have it be in my field at a university so I can take classes for free
Tier 2:
> to be interested in its theoretical underpinnings
> to have it involve both halves of my brain
> (that is, involve problem-solving and creativity. But I'd settle for just creativity.)
> to be close to the decision-makers/decision-making process
> to be considered a professional
> to like the people
> a minimum of HR bullshit
> to get to work on different projects
> flexible work hours
etc. etc. Any thoughts?
new rule:
if you read my blog, you're on my board of directors. Unless you read it because you hate me.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
help a joke out?
Apparently, because I scolded my brother for writing "heheh" instead of "heh heh" - and I'm not being ridiculous! Maybe if the middle h had a diacritical mark for the consonant version of this? - he felt I needed to hear the following joke (over g-chat).
Knock knock
(that's be kind of funny if I left it at that and waited for a commenter to write "who's there?")
Oblique case.
Oblique case who?
No, you illiterate - it's oblique case whom
So, I'm convinced that this joke could be funnier with a first response that necessarily calls for a "whom" - but I'm having a hard time coming up with one given that the rest of the sentence could be anything.
so, like: knock knock. who's there?
oh wait!
I've got it!
OK.
Knock knock.
Knock knock
(that's be kind of funny if I left it at that and waited for a commenter to write "who's there?")
Oblique case.
Oblique case who?
No, you illiterate - it's oblique case whom
So, I'm convinced that this joke could be funnier with a first response that necessarily calls for a "whom" - but I'm having a hard time coming up with one given that the rest of the sentence could be anything.
so, like: knock knock. who's there?
oh wait!
I've got it!
OK.
Knock knock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
