You might want to pick up a copy of today's Wall Street Journal, which has three very interesting articles. Quick extracts:

• In Siberia, a Race to Write a Dictionary Before the Subject Dies: As Khanty Dialects Fade, Ms. Parnyuk Scribbles
  Linguists estimate that two-thirds of the world's 6,500 languages will disappear this century as the increasingly global economy and culture promote a few dominant languages. – p.A1
• Jawboning in the Lab: A mutation involving jaw [muscle] size may help explain why humans (usually beat chimps in brainpower
  The jaw-muscle mutation likely helped unleash the brain growth that makes humans human. "Something going on outside the brain turns out to have a very important impact on what's going on inside it," says Dr. Stedman. – p.B1
• Copyright: "Until 1774 a copyright monopoly allowed English booksellers to lock up the works of Shakespeare (and a host of other authors) for nearly two centuries. [Today, says Mr. Lessig, a century of increasingly tight copyright laws create] unprecedented restriction on creativity [that] effectively bars artists from adapting a shared cultural vocabulary into new stories. ... artistic innovation is being corporatized and drained of life. – p.W6

PS: Yes, jheem; typo fixed. Thanks!

Linguists estimate that two-thirds of the world's 62500 languages will disappear this century.

A typo? Should be 6500 or 6250. 6K is the usual number given for languages in the world (nd different lexical items denoting snow in Inuit)

Regarding the copyright issue, the Disney Corporation played a major role in the most recent copyright law revision (the one Sonny Bono attached his name to and then pushed through Congress before skiing into a tree and dying, the knucklehead!) and, by all estimations, will continue to do so into perpetuity.

The problem, as they saw it back then, was that the copyright to the Mickey Mouse character was about to go into the public domain which would mean that anyone could use it. As it stands now, nothing written after 1923 will enter the public domain until the year 2013 and even that is not likely to occur unless the Disney legal goons allow it.


Makes one want to write a novel portraying Mickey as a chronic masturbator or whatever. (And when I say "Makes one" I mean "Makes one, other than me!" I'm afraid of these people!!)

Whereas it is only fair that those who create should have their rights to their intellectual property protected, some large organisations are far more zealous than is necessary, or even reasonable.

Whereas Disney is maybe the most well-known, there are many others who wield their massive corporate clubs against far smaller, and often defenceless, targets.

The makers of the world's most widely drunk alcoholic beverage (I would not grace it with the noble name, beer) Anheuser Busch, have been battling for nearly a century with Budvar, the Czech brewers of genuine Budweiser, over the use of the name. In the USA they have been successful and real Budweiser is sold there under the Czechvar brandname.

Fortunately, in much of the rest of the world, A-B have been sharply told to "get lost" and, indeed, their bullying has resulted in loss to them. In most of Europe they are not allowed to use the Budweiser name and have to use such alternatives as "Bud Beer".

In the UK, with our facility for compromise, both A-B and Budvar can sell beers called Budweiser and they can ofen be seen, side by side, on the same shelf.

A-B didn't like this at all, of course, and tried to see off Budvar and the case went right to the Law Lords. Fortunately their Lordships told A-B in no uncertain terms that they were wasting the court's time and that, if Budvar wanted to sell Real Budweiser under that name, then they could. A-B were told never to darken the doors of the court again.

Sadly, because A-B (like Disney, I suspect) spend more money on lawsuits than they do on product development, I imagine that their legal team is, even now, trying to find some other way of driving Budvar out of business.

It is A-B's desire to have the whole world drinking a cold, fizzy, tasteless and vomit-inducing liquid, believing it to be beer!

The jaw-muscle mutation likely helped unleash the brain growth that makes humans human.
Would that be due to the evolution of speech?

Some authorities suggest that it was the evolution of speech and the consequent massive increase in the ability to communicate that led to the growth in human intelligence.

Having heard the level of conversation in some circles I wonder whether this process is now at an end - or even in reverse!

The whole Budvar / Budweiser thing would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that the original owner of the name and brewer of a superb beer is the one getting shafted by the so-called intellectual property laws (of the US in this case). I was really amazed when I saw Czechvar beer for sale in the states, and after some research that even this was contested by the A-B Co. Goes ditto for bad sparkling wine being sold under the appellation of champagne here in the States.

Likewise with Disney. They made a mint off of recycling public domain (i.e., copyright expired) classics like Pinocchio and Bambi for years, but seem loath to let Mickey fall into the public domain. The irony of course is that Mickey's first hit cartoon, Steamboat Willy, was a blatant ripoff of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill Jr. Also, some contest that Ub Iwerk created the Mickey character, and not Uncle Walt. It was also closely modeled on another cartoon character at the time, whose name I've forgotten.

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

Quote, ...Goes ditto for bad sparkling wine being sold under the appellation of champage here in the States...

An international agreement was reached some years ago that only sparkling wine made in the Champagne region of France would be sold as Champagne. Even sparkling wines made using the Champagne method could not be thus entitled (although the expression Methode Champagnoise to describe such wines was permitted for a while) Now, even that is banned and the expression "methode traditionale" is used.

As is so often the case with such international agreements, one major, and very powerful, country (guess which!) decided it would not bother to abide by it, even though it was party to the it (no doubt the US domestic wine lobby paid good money to those in power to ensure that the agreement was effectively binned!)

So US consumers are ripped of by being sold bottles of chemical fizz that they fondly believe to be Champagne - simply to protect the US domestic wine industry.

An international agreement was reached some years ago that only sparkling wine made in the Champagne region of France would be sold as Champagne. Even sparkling wines made using the Champagne method could not be thus entitled (although the expression Methode Champagnoise to describe such wines was permitted for a while) Now, even that is banned and the expression "methode traditionale" is used.
I sympathize with the Disney and Budweiser issues, but I am not losing sleep over France's "insisting" on keeping the name of champagne.

Although I have noted just how popular the French presently are in the USA (about the same as here in the UK, I suspect) the agreement about names of origin isn't just a French affectation. There are many such now extant, including that of Stilton (the world's finest cheese - bar none).

It is rather ironic that it seems to be the USA (where, as we have already discussed) the likes of Disney and A-B are doing their level best to protect brand names that they don't even have title to (Budwesier is a beer from Budweis - not St Louis). Yet it is the USA manufacturers who gaily take over other countries' original brands without, apparently, any compunction whatsoever!

Incidentally, although it's not something we British really want to argue over, sparkling wine was actually invented in England, not France, and was in large scale production here long before Dom Perignon claimed to have invented the process.

Champagne, like Stilton, is a placename, and the product (in this case sparkling wine) came to be associated with that placename. It's not a matter of who created the product first. Blue cheeses and sparkling wines being pretty easy to duplicate in places not contained within France or the UK. Towns, cities, and regions have always been picky (even before copyright laws) about the use of their name to dilute their product, so to speak.

An interesting sidelight on the Budvar / Budweiser name is that it is not the Czech version (Budvar) that was so well known or copied, but the German (Budweiser). Budweiser is the adjectival form meaning 'of or from Budweis'; Budweis is the German name of the city called Ceske Budojevice today north of Linz, Austria, in the Czech Republic. It's as though a product from Ljubljana, Slovenia, today were known as Laibacher.

Full disclosure: I have always disliked A-B / American Budweiser, loved real French champagne (ah, Veuve Cliquot) and Stilton cheese, and hated Disney the company, as an adult, while liking their cartoons as a kid.

PS, I shudder to think what Richard would have to say about Zima a US malt beverage (which at least is not marketed as beer and which I've never tasted).

quote:

---

Originally posted by jheem:
PS, I shudder to think what Richard would have to say about Zima a US malt beverage.

---

Just for the sake of general information, not that anyone asked, but people who think A-B Budweiser is a great beer look down their noses at Zima.

Which inspires the "Welcome to Hell" thread in the Wordplay section.

When I come to Chicago next month I will be drinking good beer (arrangements have been made).

Similarly, when I come to Orlando in November, I will be visiting the Orlando Brewery in order to ensure that I can get something drinkable.

sparkling wine was actually invented in England, not France
Well, then, England should either stick up for themselves, or not complain. And, now, surely France has no right to claim sole ownership of "champagne."

When I come to Chicago next month I will be drinking good beer (arrangements have been made).

A few more anti-American jokes, and you just might find those arrangements in an Anheuser-Busch brewery!

[You know I'm kidding!]

An American tourist in London decides to skip his tour group and explore the city on his own.
He wanders around, seeing the sights, and occasionally stopping at a pub to soak up the local culture, chat with the lads, and have a pint or three of Guinness.

After a while, he finds himself in a very high class neighbourhood... big, stately residences... no pubs, no stores, no restaurants, and worst of all... NO PUBLIC RESTROOMS.

He really, really has to go, after all those Guinnesses. He finds a narrow side street, with high walls surrounding the adjacent buildings and decides to use the wall to solve his problem.

As he is unzipping, he is tapped on the shoulder by a London copper, who says, "I say, sir, you simply cannot do that here, you know."

"I'm very sorry, officer," replies the American, "but I really , really HAVE TO GO, and I just can't find a public restroom."

"Ah, yes," says the bobby, "Just follow me". He leads him to a back alley, then alongside a wall to a gate, which he opens.

"In there," points the bobby. "Whizz away... anywhere you want."

The fellow enters and finds himself in the most beautiful garden he has ever seen. Manicured grass lawns, statuary, fountains, sculptured hedges, and huge beds of gorgeous flowers. Since he has the cop's blessing, he unzips and unburdens himself and is greatly relieved.

As he goes back through the gate, he says to the copper, "That was really decent of you... is that "British Hospitality ?"

"No" replies the constable, with a satisfied smile on his face, "that is the French Embassy."

Oh, arnie, that was great!

Just reported yesterday:
The California Superior Court dismissed Michael Eisner's suit against Disney, with prejudice. That means it will be very difficult for Eisner to appeal, though they are likely to try.

The judge cited Eisner's altering of documents and using private investigators to pilfer confidential Disney documents from Dumpsters.

Now, I think the latter sounds a bit creative. Eisner countered with, "But, Dumpsters are public property." (For some reason the newspaper capitalized "Dumpster", so I followed suit.

Here in Oregon a cheese making company in Tillamook recently bought out a smaller cheese making company in Bandon. Now Tillamook Cheese Company wants the name, "Bandon" as a copyrighted trademark. Never mind that the town where Bandon cheese (cheddar, by the way) is made is named Bandon, and that there are many businesses called "Bandon (fill in the blanks)," the big cheeses at the big cheese company want the whole thing. Sooooo, much as it will hurt our economy, DON'T BUY TILLAMOOK CHEESE!

Another funny thing regarding Disney: The symbol of the University of Oregon is a duck. Not just ANY duck, but Donald Duck. Walt Disney himself gave U of O permission to use Donald as their mascot back in the 1940s, free of charge. Michael Eisner tried to prohibit U of O's using it about ten years ago, but the school lawyers trotted out the contract with Uncle Walt's signature and told Eisner to (fill in the blank).

From a British newspaper today:
"A beer taster at the Brahma Brewery near Rio de Janeiro who, instead of taking small taster's sips, drank more than two gallons of beer a day for 20 years, sued the brewery, saying he was not sufficiently advised that he might become an alcoholic if he drank more than two gallons of beer a day for 20 years."

Now, from my observations, there will be a lot of Brits standing in line for that lawsuit!

Drinking that quantity of fizzy Brazilian beer, I would suggest that carbonic acid poisoning would be a more probable disease!

And what's this about we Brits? Just because we enjoy a pint or two...!

I have found that when I travel, reading the newspaper can be very elucidating about the culture. I read this in the Guardian:

The following writers responded to an article in the Guardian, which unfortunately I missed:
"Your Entente Cordiale issue (G2, April 5) was entertaining, but the terms English and British were used interchangeably. On behalf of your Celtic readership, I would like to disassociate ourselves from the tedious anti-French tabloid attitudes paraded by unenlightened English folk and which we, of course, do not share; our more reasonable, irrational prejudices are naturally directed to our nearest neighbours." Sheesh!

"One hundred years of alliance with France? In this corner of Britain, we have been allied to France for over 700 years. Guess who the common enemy was?" Hmmm, I wonder!