Funny, arnie. I loved this:

quote:

Comments are closed because I'm not completely insane: I'd sooner blow up the Robin Hood Airport than moderate an open forum involving racism, anti-Semitism, Israel, Gaza, religion, terrorism, police, sexism, harassment, upside-down fucking, and fellatio. You'd have to be fruitbat-shit crazy. Barmy as an airport Twitter monitor. As mad as a Facebook bishop.

I didn't not know that there was no guarantee of freedom of speech in the U.K.

I came across a Blog entry that I found funny...and so typical:

quote:

"This is just the kind of synergistic, customer-centric, upsell-driven, out-of-the-box, customizable, strategically tactical, best-of-breed thought leadership that will help our clients track to true north.”

Wondermark has an interesting article on a fifteenth-century monk's opposition to the introduction of the printing press.

He (Wondermark) makes the point that we value an item far more if it is felt difficult to produce.

quote:

People make the exact same argument about modern art: “My kid could do that!” If something doesn’t seem difficult, it doesn’t have worth.

No comments on modern art please for obvious reasons, but do you agree with the sentiment in general? Also,

quote:

In other words, the way it has always been done is better, and the harder you have to work to keep doing it the old way, the more it proves you really care.
And I say that sentiment makes him a curmudgeon. Do you agree?

I think its certainly true in publishing. There is so much stuff online now and its so easy to put stuff online that it's perceived, even by me, as having a significantly lower value than a book.

For example there is a lot of my writing online including stuff I'm very proud of but I'd really rather have a book on the shelves of Waterstones, even if it only ever sold twenty copies, than a thousand pages of poems on the internet.

I agree, Bob. To get anything published you have to convince the publishers that it's worth their time and money. Many writers went the self-publishing or "vanity publishing" route, paying (often large) sums so they had the satisfaction of seeing their work in print. Of course, the vast majority of self-published books are dross.

Nowadays of course anyone can publish virtually anything on the Internet, no matter how banal or derivative, for effectively nothing.

quote:

Nowadays of course anyone can publish virtually anything on the Internet, no matter how banal or derivative, for effectively nothing.

Including here?

I am not sure it's because of the Internet, though in writing there is simply more out there because of the Internet.

As for modern art, there are pieces that I just don't understand. Some, to me, look like a child has created them (like a plain black painting). However, I do realize that I am not an expert in art and that others feel differently.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I am not sure it's because of the Internet, though in writing there is simply more out there because of the Internet.

I disagree. I think it's the process that causes the perception, probably justifiably so. I can write a set of poems now - good or bad - and have them on the internet, viewable by the whole world, in exactly as long as it takes me to type them.

To produce a book, even if I had a publisher lined up and waiting, would take months at the very least.

This means that people invest more time and effort in getting things right before rushing to publish in book format. On the internet people can publish quickly and, more importantly, correct later which means they invest less time and effort in getting it right to start with.

I do it myself. Most of my blog posts are typed straight into blogger with a cursory stab at proof reading and if I spot anything later I correct it when I see it. This would plainly be impossible in a book so I'd try harder to get it right first time.

The internet is the ultimate vanity press.

quote:

To produce a book, even if I had a publisher lined up and waiting, would take months at the very least.

Well, in my field, books are not very useful because things change so incredibly fast and it takes so long for a book to actually get published. However, journal articles are published more quickly, though even there the queue can be 2 years. Of course, online journal articles generally get published earlier, though not always. They, too, are rigorously peer reviewed and well edited. You just have to be a critical reader these days, that's all. But then we've discussed this before here, haven't we? Indeed, Tinman will probably find an old post of mine where I have taken the opposite view.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Indeed, Tinman will probably find an old post of mine where I have taken the opposite view.

Not this time.

Anthony Gardner on the verbing of nouns.
(Hat-tip: John McIntyre in You Don't Say.)

Up the Wazoo and Into the Abyss: Words I Love.

Big Burger

I'm interested in this sentence

"That is more than twice a ­woman’s recommended daily intake – more, in fact, than she should eat in two whole days"

Specifically I'm interested in the way that "in fact" has been used to join two phrases which are completely equivalent. There is no difference at all between "twice a ­woman’s recommended daily intake " and "more than she should eat in two whole days".

Is there?

Does this sound odd to anyone else.

I agree. The two phrases say the same thing.

Another eminent Nancy, Nancy Friedman, has blogged about some well-named software in Such a Blessing!

Oh, that is hilarious, arnie. I also liked this: "Can you e-mohel the resulting file?" from the site you linked to.

Bob, I agree that the two phrases are identical, and it was a bit stupid to include both.

quote:

The last ten years have been a decade of prose: the first really prosaic decade since the manufacture of the radio. People spend all day every day sending e-mails and each e-mail has a purpose: deal-clinching, informing, party-organising, raise-demanding, joke-telling, introduction and seduction. People want their e-mails to succeed, so they think on their words.

A refutation of the argument that e-mail and the Internet are killing prose. Inky Fool.

A refutation of the argument that e-mail and the Internet are killing prose.

I really enjoyed the review of the Fish book in The Financial Times that was linked to in the blog entry. It finally explained to me why Elements of Style is so popular with a certain class of writers (those who already have mastered the basics of grammar and composition) and why it is so toxic to those who cannot. We've all read really bad prose, where lots of adjectives and adverbs are misused in such a way as to destroy the intended meaning of the text. But there is also badly written Hemingwayesque prose, too. It is not the abundance or dearth of qualifiers that makes for bad prose, and the EOS admonition to write short, vigorous sentences (by dropping out adjectives and their ilk) is misinterpreted by a certain class of writer (and teacher) to kill all adjectives where they are found. This sentiment, of course, is absurd. Qualifiers exist for a reason. They fine-tune nouns and that is an important thing in writing effective prose. (The same thing can be said for other constructions, such as the passive voice, that are being deprecated in usage and style guides.) I will have to get a copy of Fish's book.

Sounds like a good book (How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One by Stanley Fish, January 25, 2011 - read the reviews). I put a hold on it at the library, but there were several ahead of me, so I may break down and buy it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

Although the blog post is interesting, it's the comments area which is fascinating. Languagehat posted about a 30-year-old mystery from motor racing and in less than a day the commentators had solved it!

Geoff Pullum has posted on Language Log about the censorship of the 1985 Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

I was intrigued to learn that Prof. Pullum had been a professional rock musician in his youth (see his short biography).

Arnie, thanks for that. Very enlightening about Mark Knopfler's work. I thought this said it all:

quote:

It's a gentle, brilliant, unflinching glimpse of real life. There's a wonderful irony in the story: this envious delivery man who will never ever get to play a red Stratocaster in front of a hundred thousand people is (unknown to him) standing right near a young man who does that for a living. The song is a beautiful little work of art, a poetic rock cartoon drawn from life. And without including the phrases that give the delivery man his character, Mark Knopfler cannot properly portray him in poetry.

Frankly, I am surprised Canada would do this; it more like something the U.S. would do.

Some royal wedding schlock:
http://www.galleryofabsurd.com...yal-indigestion.html

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Some royal wedding schlock:
http://www.galleryofabsurd.com...yal-indigestion.html

BrewDog makes some crazy good beer. Paradox is delicious. I am very skeptical that this new one contains Viagra, wouldn't that be illegal or something?

I've no ideas what "herbal viagra" might be; possibly they're using the word just for some sort of herb that is supposed to have similar effects. From their site:

quote:

the Royal Virility Performance contains herbal viagra, chocolate, Goat Weed and ‘a healthy dose of sarcasm’. The beer is a 7.5% ABV India Pale Ale and has been brewed at BrewDog’s brewery in Fraserburgh.

With this beer we want to take the wheels off the royal wedding bandwagon being jumped on by dozens of breweries; The Royal Virility Performance is the perfect antidote to all the hype.

I love how the BrewDog site says "According to the specially commissioned label, the Royal Virility Performance contains herbal viagra." They don't actually say that the beer contains herbal viagra - they just say that the label says it contains herbal viagra.

quote:

Royal Virility Performance

That's a pun, by the way, on "Royal Variety Performance". The RVP happens every year and is effectively a vaudeville show, attended of course by a member of the royal family. The performers are all presented to the VIP (usually the queen) and it's reckoned to be the highlight of their career.

This is self promoting my own blog, but I thought some of you might enjoy the poem I posted about our health care reform debate: Link It was written by a senior nursing student, and I am thinking of sending it to my senator. It is quite moving, though arnie tells me it wouldn't mean much in England. What got me was that every month we have a "9/11" because of people who die without insurance. Disgusting.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
It is quite moving, though arnie tells me it wouldn't mean much in England.

It is quite shocking from the perspective of a country where there's an established political consensus that the provision of a health care system is one of the core responsibilities of the state. I don't want to get into a political debate here, but it's reading that sort of thing that makes me realize what a huge ideological divide there is between our two countries on this issue. I find it hard to believe that a civilized country can take such an attitude towards its own citizens.

While I agree with you, Guy, there are arguments against the Canadian and UK health care systems as well. I have heard, for example, that people die from waiting too long for critical procedures or surgeries. For example, I was on a plane once with a woman from Canada who said her mother died because she had to wait too long for her heart surgery.

Furthermore, if anyone comes to an emergency department in the U.S, by law, they must be attended to. Also there are many free clinics for the poor, as well as Medicaid which is a government program that pays for health care. Many states also have health insurance for children. Theoretically the U.S. system works, but as with most systems, including national health insurance in countries, there are failings.

Clearly I misled you, Guy. Sorry about that.

English for the non-Brit...

"EU", I suspect, doesn't just comprise people in the rest of the European Union, but pretty well everyone other than the British.

quote:

Originally posted by Guy Barry:
I find it hard to believe that a civilized country can take such an attitude towards its own citizens.

It can't. Who said we're civilized? Technologically advanced, but socially 16th Century Calvinist.

We have our ups and downs, that's for sure.

Moderately amusing.

I've seen Fergus perform and he's a very amusing poet. His blog on the other hand is seriously weird.

Very seriously weird. (This particular post is quite sensible. You should check out some of the others.)

Well, considering obvierbs, I've seen plenty of walls without bricks.

I know people here are sick of my obsession with a certain word that starts with "e." Therefore, I'll just post my Blog site here for those who are interested.

Moot.

You must have liked that, arnie.

The results of a competition to compose a limerick about language, two particular interests of this site. Shame we didn't know about it earlier - someone from here might have been able to enter!

http://chronicle.com/blogs/lin...ick-a-labor-of-love/

Some very good submissions there. Had I known about it I might have had a go, using my "Philology Pete" character from OEDILF. Pete is very keen on correct use of language and has written many limericks on various linguistic matters.

I introduced him with this one:

A wordsmith, Philology Pete
Sold articles out on the street.
In poems or prose
A's, an's the's and those -
He's a lexicographical treat.

Apart from some debate as to whether the use of the apostrophes was correct in the plurals in L4, Pete's debut was well received and he has submitted many more definitional limericks, all of which can be found on OEDILF.

I remember that Philology Pete character!

I have a question about your limerick. Shouldn't line three read, "In poems or in prose"? Otherwise it doesn't scan well for me.

Yes, arnie, I wish we'd known about that contest! I do like their submissions.

Well, the extra word would have to be unstressed or the line would certainly not work. But an extra unstressed syllable would fit in - although I don't personally think it makes any difference.

To me yours reads:

in POEMS or PROSE

Mine would be:

in POEMS or in PROSE

I can't see at all how yours works.

It's either: "In POems or PROSE" (mines) or "In POems or in Prose" (yours). Both work since the syllables in question are unstressed.

Okay. That's not the way I'd say it so to me it doesn't work. But I am glad you got it approved.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Why does English have so many terms for being drunk?

This phrase: "...Drinking has long been a habit that invites secrecy and euphemism, often mixed in with a good dose of humour. ..." explains why there are so many words. Once euphemisms begin to be used then there will be euphemisms for the euphemisms.

Substitute the word "sex" for "drinking" and you'll find another habit to which the phrase applies. Euphemism on euphemism to avoid using the correct word to describe anything associated with one of humankind's most popular activities

Very interesting, arnie, and I know we've talked about drinking words, as well as sex words, here before. I really liked the story about the drunken thrush "tottering around." The Latin word for "thrush" is turdus. I assume that's not where the word "turd" comes from?