In case you were wondering, warehouse can be used as a verb…
…if you’ve had enough Smirnoff. Rimshot!
Just kidding, folks, warehouse as a verb has been around since at least 1799.
Bar Talk
Author: Joe McVeigh
And Read All Over Wuz Here
Recently, an Estonian friend sent me a link to The Chaos, an interesting poem which points out the irregularities of spelling in English. I’ve been seeing it pop up on Facebook for a little while now and although it is an impressive piece of poetry (for its content, not its meter), I don’t think many people think about why exactly it’s interesting. If you haven’t read it, go here and check it out. No need to read the whole thing, the first couple of lines will tell you what you need to know.
First, the poem was written by a Dutchman, Dr. Gerard Nolst Trenité, as an introduction to spelling irregularities for learners of English. In that, it’s quite amazing as the full version of the poem lists about 800 irregularities. But the real question is, why would English learners need to be told about the irregularities of English spelling? Presumably they would come across it in every class. Also, English certainly isn’t the only language with irregular spelling. What is amazing about The Chaos then is that it is a poem about a language with irregular spelling (English) by a native speaker of a language with irregular spelling (Dutch) and dedicated to a native speaker of a language with irregular spelling (French – do I really need a link here?).
Second, the poem is bound to trip up native English speakers in some places. Consider:
And I bet you, dear, a penny,
You say mani-(fold) like many,
Which is wrong. Say rapier, pier,
Tier (one who ties), but tier.
That tier/tier tripped you up at first, didn’t it? It’s because the context which the pronunciation is based on comes after the first instance of two homonyms – tier and tier. There are other examples presented without any context (does – third-person singular of do or plural of female deer?), but they really just point out what speakers of languages with irregular spelling already know – context is key.
Third (and somewhat related to the point directly above), mispronunciations are rarely examples of a non-native English speaker rhyming a word with another of similar spelling. Consider this line from the poem:
Hint, pint, senate, but sedate.
Have you ever heard a non-native speaker rhyme these words? I didn’t think so. If I was more of a dialect expert, I could speak better about this, but learners of English (whether as a first language or not) very clearly learn to do away with the notion that words with similar spellings always rhyme (or to base their pronunciations of unknown words on the pronunciation of words with similar spellings). This is very easy for humans to do.
Fourth, The Chaos is bound to not rhyme in some places for some native speakers. There’s a classic example of the difference in pronunciation between, for example, Brits and Americans in the last stanza:
Don’t you think so, reader, rather,
Saying lather, bather, father?
The different pronunciations of rather nicely encapsulate the problem with this poem, i.e. that English orthography is causing a problem with learning. This idea is not as spelled out in the poem as it is by (Dum Dum Dummmm) The English Spelling Society. According to their “Axioms,” the spelling irregularities of English make “literacy unnecessarily difficult in English throughout the world, and learning, education and communication all suffer.” Hmmm… sounds tempting, but at the risk of sounding like a crotchety old man (“no good rotten kids can’t bother to learn the language like I had to”), there are also some major problems with spelling reform.
I’m willing to kind of sort of suppose that English orthography could be easier on the eyes, but in light of the problems associated with spelling reform and a lacking body of research on dyslexia (both in and across languages with different orthographies), I’m left to wonder which is the bigger problem – irregular spelling or spelling reform? I also don’t think the spelling reformists take psycholinguistics and the capabilities of the human brain seriously enough.
Finally, and completely unrelated, is the English Spelling Society’s take on why English spelling should be more like Finnish spelling. It’s not that such a thing wouldn’t help, it’s just that they clearly don’t know much about the Finnish language. It’s hard to take a group seriously when they publish nonsense like this. I recommend those with knowledge of Finnish to head on over here for a few chuckles. Here are a couple of highlights with my comments:
NK and NG [in Finnish] are sounded as in English sinking. [Not by native Finnish speakers, that is.]
The lack of a B means that most Finnish ears cannot distinguish, eg, Big Ben from pig pen. Nor can they distinguish between shoes, choose and juice, and as they always stress the first syllable, they tend to pronounce interpret as interbreed. [Seriously, the Finns this guy was hanging out with either had a twisted sense of humor or they were retarded. Interbreed? WTF?]
Mr. and Mr. President
Finland’s presidential election is on January 22 and one of the candidates is homosexual. But here’s the kicker: sexual orientation has not been an issue. The other candidates haven’t brought it up, the media hasn’t brought it up, and the people haven’t been clamoring to bring it up. But why?
Is it because Finland is an amoral socialist wasteland that obviously doesn’t care what it’s teaching its children? Or is it because the media, the presidential candidates, and the people of Finland have decided that mentioning a candidate’s sexual orientation is at best pointless and at worse detrimental to society? If you answered “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second, you’re living in the past. If you answered “no” then “yes,” welcome to the future.
There’s no need to tell which one of the candidates is homosexual, but you can be pretty sure it’s not the guy from this party.
Stardust by Neil Gaiman
This is the easiest book review I’ve ever written. It goes like this: If you like Neil Gaiman, you will like Stardust.
There’s not much more to say about it than that. In typical Gaiman style, Stardust is an entertaining story, with equal parts fantasy and reality, that could be a whole lot more drawn out than it is. Whenever I read Gaiman, I wonder if I like his way of presenting the bare necessities of worlds and stories which could fill page after page. If Gaiman were to go into more detail (not uncommon for fantasy writers, we’ve all seen the 1,000-page paperback bricks in the stores that are one of a nine part series), would I like the story as much as I do?
 |
| Picture courtesy of neilgaiman.com |
I don’t know and Stardust didn’t answer that question. But that’s OK because it was an enjoyable read nonetheless. The first Gaiman I read was Fragile Things, a collection of short stories which I liked. Then I read The Last Temptation, a graphic novel which I really liked. I place Stardust in between these. It would be hard to beat The Last Temptation. It’s a graphic novel with Alice Cooper as the antagonist. NeedIsaymore?
Don’t sweat it if you’ve seen the movie. I saw Stardust in the theaters and watched it again after I read the book. They are two different beasts and I’m not sure which is better. The book of course has more context and detail, but the movie has longer roles for Robet DeNiro and Ricky Gervais’s characters. So it’s a toss up. I recommend both.
One final note: Stardust was originally released in comic form with illustrations by Charles Vess. I wish I had read this instead of the pictureless paperback novel. If you’re going to get Stardust, get your hands on one of the comic editions.
Up next: The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives by Leonard Mlodinow
Art Class 101
On a recent Joe Rogan podcast, guest and film director Kevin Smith said that only good can come from encouraging artists, while discouraging an artist can only be a bad thing. This seems like a simple statement, but it raises a few interesting points. I’ll address them in order of abstractness, from least to most. (To hear it in action, go here and scroll to 1:12:20)
First, as Joe Rogan countered right away, sometimes discouragement can be its own motivator for the aspiring artist. It’s the “I’ll show them” idea. While Rogan said he doesn’t use that ideology, he also said he knows many professional fighters who do (Rogan is a martial artist and an MMA commentator). Smith agreed that professional fighting might be an area where feeding on that negative motivation is necessary, just because of the severe physical and mental strain that fighters must place on themselves. But this question of encouragement and motivation goes deeper.
Tim Burton raised a very similar point when he was a guest on Charlie Rose . Burton was interviewed around the time he had an exhibition at MOMA and was asked about his art, which is both very good and very Tim Burton. Burton responded that he can never understand when adults tell children (or when children tell themselves) that they can’t draw. It’s a profound insight. Burton himself “can’t draw” in the classical sense and he himself recognizes this. But as he said, that never stopped him from drawing. And now the man has had an exhibit at MOMA. (Again, go here but this time scroll to 14:20)
Third, and most abstractly, is the question of who decides what art is – the artist or the audience? The most obvious and honest answer here is the artist, although it usually doesn’t usually seem like their on the jury. Smith, Rogan, and Burton are three artists who could be very easily mocked by traditional critics (I suppose they would call it “critiquing”). But they are also three very successful artists with very loyal fans. Smith was able to circumvent the entire Hollywood industry in producing and releasing his latest full-length film, mainly because of how he can connect to his fan base through podcasts and Twitter.
So I suppose a better question would be, who decides what art is good art? The most obvious and honest answer is each audience member because each piece of art affects each of us differently (let’s not forget that critics are just professional audience members). We have all experienced a piece of art that we were told was great, only to find out it was shit*. So rather than see pieces of art as lying on a spectrum of good and bad, we should see everyone as having a personal spectrum of good art and bad art. We should also see these spectrums as independent of each other, even though they may overlap when comparing two or more people.
Finally, I want to make a point about the fashion industry because I was talking with my wife tonight about how I don’t think I will ever understand it. We agreed that people in fashion (the ones on the television at least) take themselves so seriously and yet what they do looks so frivolous. On the other hand, it’s an art form. As my wife said, it’s creative people doing creative things. And she’s right. I don’t have to understand it. My belief that it’s a bunch of phonies keeping up a charade isn’t going to change it. It’s art that doesn’t have a place on my spectrum.
*For me it’s Kafka. Seriously, I want my time spent reading that back. OK, for me it’s also T.S. Eliot.
Into the Idiocy
Into the Wild came on TV the other night. If you haven’t seen it, or read the book, it’s about Christopher McCandless, a twenty-four-year-old college graduate who gives up his $24,000 savings fund, his car, and pretty much everything else to go live alone in the woods of Alaska. So this is what he did and after just over 100 days, he died.
If that’s not one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, I don’t know what is.
I’m fine with giving away the money (he donated it to charity) and I’m fine with abandoning the car. I’m even fine with the desire to live alone*. But what the hell did he think was going to happen? The first thing that concerns me is that humans are social creatures. We weren’t meant to live alone (“Don’t eat that berry, Thag. Remember, Grok ate that berry and he dead.”). But more importantly, McCandless had a degree in History and Anthropology. Why the hell did he think he was capable of living in the Alaskan wilderness?
I can understand the love of Thoreau, but even ol’ Henry D. Thizzle had the common sense to go rough it less than two miles from town.
I suppose it doesn’t help to talk bad about McCandless now. And I suppose it makes me look like a dick (Surprise!). But people like McCandless shouldn’t be praised or revered. The movie alluded to how McCandless may have had emotional problems because of a bad childhood. If that’s the case, get some help. Don’t commit suicide by nature. If you want to get away from it all, if modern society makes you sick, go live in Africa. Or South America. Or rural China or Detroit. Or, chances are, down the street from wherever you are right now. Go help some people who have it worse than you do.**
Or at least bring a fucking compass.
*I fantasize about moving to Greenland and living alone in a shack with some yaks, which I can slaughter in the wintertime. Don’t ask me why I picked Greenland or a shack or yaks. My fantasy stretches only to the idea of living alone.
**If you’re a writer or movie maker, go write or make a movie about some of the people who have better reasons to hate society. (Warning: the stuff you will read in that link is really messed up. I’m just warning you. It’s not backed up with references, but this is. And so is this. And this. Don’t go looking for reasons to hate society. They will find you all on their own. But that ain’t what living is about.)
Twumping Bachmann
Michele, we need to talk. I’ve been hearing these crazy things about you. I mean really crazy things. At first, I said to myself everything’s cool because these crazy things match your crazy eyes. It’s what makes them sparkle.
But there’s something bigger at stake here.
The fact is, Michele, you’ve been ignoring me. How many times does a normal Joe like me need to tell a Member of Congress to tweet their Congress member? I thought that’s what Congress members Members of Congress were good for. I also thought we were off to a good start. I followed you, you followed me, things were looking up. But where have we followed each other to?
It’s the 11th hour now and you still haven’t thrown the Hail Mary. I’m afraid I’ve lost faith in you. I’m going to have to Twump™ you. It sounds cute, but in this day and age, being Twitter dumped is like being really dumped. Like for real for real.
I wish you the best of luck in your craziness and your gay conversions. Here’s hoping your program will work on your husband. I know there are lots of gay men out there just waiting to embrace Marcus Bachmann.
[Update – Jan. 4, 2011] See what happens when you don’t tweet your Congress member, Michele?
Canadian Snowclones, eh?
Speaking of snowclones, I’m surprised that none of the linguistic sites I read have made a note of The Onion‘s take on them. It’s OK. I’ll do it, you guys.
On the map of Canada in their book, Our Dumb World: Atlas of the Planet Earth, they make fun of the original snowclone by marking a spot on the map with, “Inuit community that has 20 words for having 50 words for snow.”
As with most things Onion, I like it. How many words do we have for having words for things? If anyone knows of any or of any sites that have already wrote about this Onion joke, please let me know in the comments.
Application for Writer Position at the Center for Marriage Policy [Updated]
Dear Mr. Usher,
I really like what you’ve done with your article (Why Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, 11/2011). In my mind, it’s perfect satire. I mean feminist lesbian conspiracies – where did you come up with that? It’s marvelous. And that’s not to mention the Constitutional Amendments that you threw in there (Seriously, I bet nobody checked if they were relevant).
But I must say that I feel like people still aren’t getting the point. Consider this article, in which the writer took you very seriously. It’s preposterous, I know, but there it is.
And that brings me to what I feel I can add. The Center for Marriage Policy is on the brink of being the best farce in the land – it just needs that extra push over the edge and into the abyss of reality. I am that extra push.
Allow me to demonstrate. I believe that all kids should play with legos, since legos teach them that homosexuality is wrong. Think about it. You build a lego home by placing the nub of one lego into the hole of another. You can’t build a sturdy lego home by poking two nubs together. It’s the same way with homosexuality. You can’t build a sturdy home without putting a man’s nub into a woman’s hole. That’s the way God intended it.
Or, have you ever rubbed the hole sides of two lego pieces together? That’s basically just like lesbianism. And it’s subverting America. Whenever I see my kids do that, I smack them. Also the way God intended it.
See? I just made that up right here on the spot! You see what I mean? I can be the force that ensures no one takes you seriously anymore. I mean heterosexual legos? It’s like feminist lesbian conspiracies but better. Also, since legos come in different colors, it could serve as a great example against interracial marriages if you wanted to go there.
The lego idea is a freebie – just know that there is plenty more where that came from. If you’re looking to really hit it big, get in touch. I think you and I would be great together (no homo). All I need is the opportunity to prove it to you.
Keep fighting the straight fight.
Regards,
[UPDATE – Dec. 31, 2011] Here’s what Mr. Usher had to say to my application (via email; click to embiggen):
“Sorry but I’m not impressed by critical theory ridicule methods. It is you that is out of touch with facts and reality.
This is your last email to me. I have a filter on you now.”
Oh no! There’s a filter on me now! Get it off, get it off! David, I was just trying to help.
Wait a minute. If I’m out of touch with facts and reality, that means David’s article was serious. But… that means he believes… but how could anyone… *head explodes*
The South Philly Snowclone
I’d like to suggest an addition to the snowclone definition: X once did Y to Z. I call it the South Philly Snowclone.
A snowclone is a rhetorical trope, often used by journalists, which “conveys information by using a familiar verbal formula and the cultural knowledge of the audience.” The South Philly Snowclone’s template is:
X once did Y to Z
What the phrase has to do with South Philly is how often lazy sports journalists refer to the time Philly fans once threw snowballs at Santa Claus.
On the surface, it’s a phrase that’s technically true. Just like the Eskimos have more than one word for snow, Philly sports fans once threw snowballs at Santa Claus. But the devil is in the details.
Ray Didinger and John Pierron* explain the whole story better than I can, but here’s what you (linguists) need to know. On December 15, 1968, after a long and disappointing season, some Philadelphia Eagles fans threw snowballs at a guy in a Santa Claus costume who was not supposed to be on the field. Ever since then, sports journalists have been using this as proof of why Philly is home to sports fans from hell. They don’t use the more recent riots started by Canucks fans or Lakers fans or any of the incidents listed here (OK, except for two out of three here). They more often than not use the South Philly Snowclone.
What all this has to do with linguistics is that you have certainly heard or read the X once did Y to Z snowclone before. It’s usually followed with an implied “therefore” and “X can’t possibly be A.” Like other snowclones, it’s used across genres. Look out for it. The next time you see it, you’ll know that the writer is only as good as a run-of-the-mill lazy sports journalist.
In conclusion, Go Flyers!
*Hat tip Enrico Campitelli Jr. at The700Level.com.
