There is no mountain named "Sneak Peak". "Sneak peek" is an opportunity to view something ahead of general availability. #misused #misusedphrases #grammar #sneakpeak #mountains #sneakpeek

via Instagram http://ift.tt/2lY8nPv

"First-come, first-serve" means that the first person to arrive has to serve everyone else. "First-come, first-served" means that people are served in the order in which they arrive.

via Instagram http://ift.tt/2kXi551

Wind what?

What do you call that giant tower with spinning blades that produces electricity from wind?  Windmill?  Well, kinda, but not really.  The word "mill" that forms the latter portion of the word "windmill" is just that, a mill.  In this context, a mill is a machine that grinds and crushes something, such as grain.^MD There isn't a whole lot of grinding and crushing of anything when using a rotor to produce electricity.  It's really the opposite of a mill.

The definition of "turbine" is a bit more broad.  A turbine is a machine that converts the movement of a fluid into rotary motion.^TD  With that definition, a mill is a type of turbine.  However, a turbine is not necessarily a mill.

There is no specific word that provides a special name for an electricity producing turbine, so the word turbine itself is used.  Turbine is also used to name machines that make electricity from flowing water, such as those found at Hoover Dam.^HD   So, that giant tower with spinning blades that produces electricity is more correctly called a wind turbine.  A collection of wind turbines at one location are frequently referred to as "wind farms".

Another wind powered machine is the windpump, which is used to pump water.  Windpumps and windmills have been in use for about 1500 years, being first developed in the Persian region between A.D. 500 and 900.^WP  Wind turbines owe their existence to our long history of windmills and windpumps.  It's somewhat understandable that there is some confusion of terms.

Interesting modern examples of wind power in use

There's even a wind-powered record player!  Well, that's mostly art, but apparently it works well.  Then, there's this guy, William Kamkwamba, who built wind turbines and pumps for his village in Malawi at a time of famine and when such luxaries were only experienced by 2% of their population.

Is it ironic to emphasize the word "emphasize" when you are trying emphasize the emphasis of the word "emphasize"?

via Instagram http://ift.tt/25pS7W9

Deep highschooler discussion

Recently, I attended a software user group meeting, whose meeting was in the machine shop in a local high school.  It was long after school hours, however that didn't mean kids weren't still hanging around.  As I approached the entrance, there was a small group of kids hanging out nearby.  All of a sudden, one of the boys rather loudly blurts out something to the effect, "Wow, it's now been two years since I broke up with [whatever her name was]."  One of the girls immediately corrects him saying, "It's been one year since you guys broke up."  The boy iterated that it was now two years.

This conversation went back and forth like this as I walked past.  Hopefully I was not shaking my head too obviously at the pure pointlessness of this high school discussion.  Not that I care, but I wasn't able to ascertain whether or not the boy was lamenting the two year severance, or happy about it.  If he was happy about it, why was he so focused...oh, dang it.  I'm now thinking about this more than I ever intended.  I'm done with this.

Is it #pedantic to use the word "pedant"? #showerthoughts #word #questions

via Instagram http://ift.tt/1LG0OSe

I know English is evolving when I hear these words in a courtroom

I was recently snared into Jury Duty in Massachusetts.  This isn't so much an article about that.  Instead, this is about something I noticed while listening to the case before me and my 5 other jurors; word choices.

The first interesting word was uttered by the Prosecutor quoting the defendant who was fighting a DUI charge. The Prosecutor stated that the defendant pleaded with the arresting officer to cut him a break because he was not cocked.  This word cocked was used in a mocking manner by the prosecutor several times in his opening and closing arguments.

The second word that stood out was spoken by the Defense attorney.  While questioning the arresting officer, the Defense attorney asked about the likelihood of something-or-another.  What caught my attention is that he used the prolly, instead of prob'ly or probably.  The use of this word in such a formal manner struck me, since the word is still considered by many to be of the mythically inferior not-a-word status.

The last spoken element I picked up on was the Judge's use of the idiom begging-the-question.  I've written about the idiom begging-the-question quite recently.  There are two official definitions for the idiom.  The traditional definition is based on a logical fallacy.  The modern definition is an alternative for raises-the-question; this was Judge's use that day.  It is interesting to note that both definitions appear in dictionaries now.

Begs the question is the idiom that you aren't using wrong, but some think you do

Are you begging the question?  What is begging a question?  Well, it depends.  There are two different terms that are very similar, but have very different uses.  The first is beg the question fallacy.  This is the traditional use of the term. This is a type of fallacy where a premise includes the claim or assumption that its conclusion is true.  (This is covered in some brief detail at Fallacy: Begging the Question (backup link).)

For example, "All cats are evil, otherwise you would not see cats do evil things."

The premise of this statement is that cats are evil, and the justification is that you see cats do evil things.  The statement forms a circular argument.

But, there's another common use of the term that often appears as , "begs the question", as in, "your statement begs the question of who will do this work".  It means that there is an obvious or ignored question that arises from a statement.

There are grammarians and logicians that will argue that this is somehow the wrong use of the term, such as the website begthequestion.info (backup link) (which dedicates itself to this topic).  Ironically, these individuals often employ logical fallacies to disregard the modern usage of the term.  There are people that seem gleefully unaware of how English works.  Common usage is correct usage. Dictionaries now list the modern usage on equal weight as the logical fallacy definition.  See idioms area on freedictionary.com (backup link).

There is often a claim that using the phrase in the modern sense is somehow confusing (see some of these claims on QuickAndDirty.com (backup link) by Grammar Girl). However, common usage is so prevalent, there is no confusion as to when the term is being used one way or another.  If someone wishes to distinguish between the logical fallacy and the assertion of an obvious/ignored question, then they do so with context, just as they would for the use of any other common terms with multiple meanings.  This begs the question, why is denial of the validity of the modern definition so important to some people?

I'm currently at a government conference where death-by-PowerPoint seems to be the main goal. On a side bonus, however, I've seen the word "obsolescence" used twice today.

via Instagram http://ift.tt/1351G0N

Using a thorn to write

I'm not sure why, but I have a growing fascination with the letter thorn.  Maybe it comes from the fact that we have sounds in the English language that have no letter to themselves.  This is particularly strange since we used to have letters for at least some of these sounds.  In the case of sounds for th, those letters are thorn and eth.

Capital thorn: Þ

Lowercase thorn: þ

Capital eth: Ð

Lowercase eth: ð

Thorn represents the unvoiced th sound, as in the words thin, things, wither, and eighth.  Eth represents the voiced th sound, as in the words the, that, those, feather, and clothe.  When these letters were in common use, they were often used interchangeably, regardless to which th sound was actually used.  Additionally, the letter Y was often used in place of thorn since print type fonts of Medieval times didn't have the letter thorn.  This means, "Ye Olde Shoppe" was really pronounced "The Old Shop", no different than today.  In this case, the "Y" was a replacement for the letter thorn, which represented the voiced th sound of the word "the".  (Further discussion on English sounds that are missing letters.)

So, I've decided to play around with the idea of using thorn in its rightful place within the English language.  The following is a republished old article, where the letters th (representing the voiced and unvoiced th sounds) are replaced with the letter thorn.

INFAMOUS MINIATURE GOLF STORY

Ok...here's þe infamous Miniature Golf story..

Þis one time, like two years ago, I took Miriam to play Miniature Golf at a Golfland in San Jose.  She hadn't been to a Miniature Golf place in aeons.  So, we get our clubs, balls, scorecard and pencils, þen head to þe first tee.  Being þe gentleman þat I am, I let her go first.  She bends down by sticking her ass up in þe air as usual (þis being a family type place, mind you) to put þe ball on þe black mat.  It starts rolling around a bit, but finally she makes it stay in place.  While þis was going on, I'm watching her out of þe corner of my eye, just kinda waiting for her to get her ball to stop rolling around. Getting þe ball to stay in place was, of course, a pointless exercise given what she does next.

She swings. I hear a panicked "Oh!".  She's looking back at me, embarrassed, kinda laughing, kinda whimpering.  Þen I notice þe club is no longer in her hands. I briefly look around for it, confused.  Þen I realize, she's þrown þe club up in þe air during her swing!  I ask, "Where did you þrow þe club?"  Þen I realize furþer, þe club went straight up in þe air!  Worse yet, it hasn't come down yet!  Þen, my even more profound realization is þat it has now been 5 seconds, from when I was wondering why Miriam was embarrassed to þis moment (when I realized þe club was still up in þe air), and þe club was still up in þe air!  I shout at Miriam, "Get out of þe way!", while using pure instinct as to where not be when it finally decided to come back down to Earþ.  We boþ duck and run.  I turn around, worried þat þis magic club (which has now been in þe air for over 6 seconds) might land on someone else.  To my relief, it tumbles to þe ground safely, right on þe spot þat Miriam and I had just ran away from.

We laughed it off, and were relieved no one got hurt.  But to þis day, we wonder how þe hell þis club shot straight up out of her hands into þe air far enough to land in þe same spot a whole 7 seconds later!

Orientate your orient

I got a co-worker that's all, "There's no such word as orientate. It's orient." and I'm all, "Orientate is the root word of orientation, so how's it not a word?" Of course, the truth is actually ::HERE:: Of course, everyone has their own opinion. :)

Selfsexual Part II

My definition to selfsexual has officially been added to Urban Dictionary. I've got a few words up on Urban Dictionary now. Check it out.

Selfsexual

Imagine a person who's is turned on by flirting with themself. Yes, there are people out there that are like this. To this point, I think that pop culture and science have both ignored this class of sexual orientation. No longer!
Selfsexual is a term I had to create to describe how a certain friend of mine is, at least at times, attracted to herself. It goes beyond just looking yourself in the mirror to check if everything is in place. It goes to the level of actually turning yourself on by doing nothing more than looking at your own yourself.!
Now, I have to admit that I may be selfsexual curious at times. I mean, even though I'm happily engaged, I do make love with myself quiet a lot. lol That doesn't make me selfsexual, of course. Simply masterbating doesn't make one selfsexual. Masterbating while looking at yourself in the mirror does show some tendencies.

Trouble with English sounds and letters

English is a funny language. According to the American Heritage Book of English Usage,

“English adopted its alphabet, except for the letters j, u, and w, from the one used by the Romans to represent the sounds of Latin, and the fit was not an exact one. English is a Germanic language that has borrowed many words from French, Dutch, and other languages, and the result is a phonological mishmash in which certain letters are pronounced differently depending on the origin of the words they appear in.”

That basically means that our alphabet doesn’t exactly match our spoken sounds. We have 26 letters, but over 40 sounds. Depending on the region, distinctions between vowel sounds may push the number of English sounds over 50. Anyone wanna learn an alphabet with 50 letters? No? Well, it might be easier to spell in English if we did, but then again, it might not.

There’s really no way to fully identify all the vowel sounds and have those recognized worldwide, especially where those sounds are combined with the r. One vowel sound that is completely without a letter though is oo (boot {long sound}, took {short sound}).

The consonant sounds are more predictable. Currently, commonly accepted consonant sounds that do not have their own letters are ch (chat), ng (long), sh (shin), th (thin), th (this), and zh (vision). The hard and soft th sounds can be given to one letter. The ng sound is really two sounds blended closely together, so it doesn’t really need its own letter. Adding these sounds as letters would give the English language a 30 letter alphabet. Adding the oo vowel puts it at 31.

But, there are sounds that aren’t commonly recognized. For example, the sound tt, as in little, is often reduced to a flick of the tongue in a way that sounds just like the Spanish r. Not many people notice they even pronounce the tt in this way. Once recognized, this will add yet another sound to the English language, putting the total alphabet at 32 (so far).

All this put together would produce an alphabet something like this:
Aa Bb Cc CHch Dd Ee Ff Gg Hh Ii Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn Oo Pp Qq Rr Ss SHsh Tt THth TTtt Uu Vv Ww Xx Yy Zz ZHzh OOoo

Of course, for easier identification, it might be a good idea to give the new letters their own forms, such as joining line or even custom new shapes.  We could bring back some older letters that fell into disuse for various reasons about the 14th Century.  The letter thorn  (Þ) would be very useful in modern writing.

Additionally, there are consonant and vowel sounds that this new alphabet does not cover. For example, there is a soft and hard y sound (yes {hard}, you {soft}). But this alphabet would at least represent all of the major sounds. Of course, if this would be ever accepted, a respelling of many English words would follow. Experience with English might suggest this would actually worsen the link between English spoken and English written language. Oh well.

Much ado about English thangs oh, and that Shakespeare guy

So as a random little project, I wondered what Shakespeare might look like if
it was translated into Modern English. I chose the opening soliloquy by Romeo when he enters the Capulet garden for the famous balcony scene. This seemingly easy task took on an added dimension when I found out that this is really a speech criticizing Queen Elizabeth. How does one translate text that metaphor laid upon metaphor? Thinking about how difficult it is to translate from Renaissance English to Modern English, I have got to wonder how anyone can possibly think the Bible is properly translated from ancient Hebrew to ancient Greek to Latin and then to all the different languages around the world. Well, here’s my attempt at translating this one small section of Shakespeare. BTW, I didn’t keep the original meter because that exercise is pointless. If anyone has any comments on this, I’m perfectly willing to adjust it.

What’s that light suddenly appearing in the window over there?
It’s dawn and, and Juliet is the sun.
Rise up, brilliant sun and put down the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief,
Because you, her servant, are way more brilliant than her
Stop being her servant because she’s the one who is envious of you;
Her virginal regal outfit is nothing but sick and green
Only idiots wear it. Get rid of it!
It’s my woman. Yo, it’s my love!
I wish she knew it!
She speaks but says nothing. What’s up with that?
Her eyes glance my way, she wants to talk! Finally, it’s time.
Oops, my bad. She can’t see me. She doesn’t know I’m here.
The two most brilliant stars in all heaven,
Going away on some business, beg her eyes
To shine their twinkle until they come back.
What if her eyes remained on her face?
The brightness of her check would way outshine those stars,
As daylight does to a lamp; her eyes do to the stars in heaven
If the atmosphere was filled with her glow
The birds would sing and think it was not night.
Look how she leans her cheek upon her hand!
Oh, I wish I was a glove on that hand,
So I could touch that cheek!

Leave my jamas alone, you llamas!

So, I’ve learned a tiny tiny bit of Spanish many many years ago. I know enough to at least be able to recognize the sounds that each letter makes, and a few phrases. So today, a Spanish speaking co-worker of mine was asked how to pronounce her name. Her name has the Spanish double-L (LL) in it. But the sound she made for the LL was very confusing to me. She was using a sound similar to an English J. Now, as any student of Spanish as a second language is taught, the LL makes a Y sound, as in the word YOU. Of course, it’s not as simple as that, but generally, it is an equivalent to an English Y sound with some variation in stress, depending on the region.

So, I wasn’t able to let this go. I've been around Spanish speaking individuals my whole life, and never heard the LL pronounced so strongly as J.  I jumped in and asked her to repeat it to make sure I was hearing her right. Again, she pronounced the LL in her name as a J. So, now I’m even more confused. Normally a person knows how to pronounce their own name. After several attempts to get her to say it, I started up with, “Doesn’t the LL make a Y sound?” She agreed, but then said it as a J again, this time only the letter itself. Ok, so now I’m even more confused than before. I asked her to say the common Spanish question “COMO SE LLAMAS?” and it came out of her mouth as “Como say jamas”. I said, “Como say yamas”, and she corrected me, “Como se jamas.”

Needless to say, my main confusion now is how a native Spanish speaker doesn’t know how to say letters in her own language. So, we started into a rather flavorful and light argument about this. It lasted long enough to entertain a few nearby co-workers. She was all, “How are you going to teach a native Spanish speaker my own language. Let me teach you English.” So, I printed a pronunciation chart of Spanish letters with their English equivalents. She was still not convinced. She even mentioned that she spoke Castilian version of Spanish. I wasn’t buying that.

The funny thing is, I know she speaks Spanish as a first language all the time. We live in California, where one can find peoples representative of many Spanish speaking regions. I know she has had to have talked to other Spanish speakers before. But she’s convinced that everyone says the LL as a J. I’m kinda starting to think there are a lot of Latin American’s that say the LL as a J without realizing it, as an accent. I’m not sure that she (or many Latin American people) can even hear the difference between the Y (you) and J (jam) sounds. Very strange. Either way, she still insists on pronouncing as a J. After all, that’s how she’s been saying it all her life. If this is how a lot of people are talking, Latin American television must be impossible for Spaniards to understand.

Ok, so later in the evening, I met up with my friend Dave, who was raised in Spain and has a significant European background. I told him and his Latina girlfriend this story and gave the example of the J sound. He immediate laughed. But his girlfriend said, "Yes, you said it right!" I looked at her oddly. (My co-worker and Dave's girlfriend are from two completely different regions.) Dave looked at his girlfriend funny too and pointed out her error. She wasn't even aware that she was saying the J sound herself. We were both pretty amazed.

Another quicky today...

Check this out...Engrish as it's best, only the other way around. http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreasee/45737673/

Oh, and yes, I am actually doing my laundry, as I threatened to do in the earlier entry. lol

Back for the Post-modern

One thing I find amusing is that there are people so caught up in their limited old definitions of our world, they continue to use ridiculous terms like post-modern.  So, I’m going to pick on people that don’t realize the absolute absurdity of the term post-modern.  These people use the term to talk about the period of time in which we live in relation to events previously associated with the word modern.

This is ignorant on two levels.  First, we already have a word that describes the time in which we live. That word is modern!  There is no way to be in post-modern times unless you time travel.  Even then, that doesn’t make sense because if you travel to the future, you are still going to be in the modern times of that period. Secondly, use of the term post-modern shows a complete lack of knowledge about the Industrial Age and our transition into the Information Age.

Since the 1980’s, people understood we were at or nearing the end of the Industrial Age.  But without an obvious understanding of the catalyst that was already in place to usher in a new age, few knew what to call this new period.  Some people rightfully used the term Post-Industrial for a while. That makes sense. We are living in times after the Industrial Age.  Other people didn’t understand this dynamic, and quickly adopted strange words like post-modern.

Of course, these terms do not define all aspects of society.  In art, the term is postmodern.  It is a response to modernism, which itself was a fad during a particular period of time.  Why art would be labelled in any way "modern" is funny, since the art of any period of time will be modern to that time.   Beyond art, the term modernism describes a period of time long past, during the 19th and early 20th Centuries.  How can it be "modern" if it was over a century ago?  This is all very silly.

I think it was people who are caught up in a limited world view that coined terms like post-modern and modernism, without taking into account more aspects of the times in which they live.  Basically, they got so used to using the word modern to describe certain series of events, they didn’t know what word to use once those series of events came to a close.

The catalyst for the new modern age was the establishment and popularization of the Internet, bringing a new understanding of ownership of information, and the resulting technological, cultural and economical shifts.  Once people started understanding the driving force behind this new age, we knew what to call it.  We are now in the Information Age.

There are other terms, such as waves of the Industrial Revolution.  However, the problem with this term is that we are already on the 'fourth' such waves.  This metric is really just tracking ups and downs in manufacturing rather than identifying a significant period of time.  A revolution is a point in time, not a long period.  Long periods of time tend to be identified by trends.  By definition, a revolution is not a trend, but rather specific events of upheaval, overturning an old system.  Industrial Revolution lead to the Industrial Age.  However, these subsequent supposed revolutions aren't really the start or stops of any particular ages, and they aren't responsible for any specific upheaval.

These little revolutions have been happening as a backdrop to the bigger trend, being the rise of importance of information.  Aspects of the Information Age allow for improvements to manufacturing, but manufacturing itself has taken a backseat to the real revolution that happened with the advent of the Internet and new levels of data collection and usage.

We're returning to where we were.

More than a few years ago, I noticed something weird about how I speak. I realized that I use the word them as a nongender singular objective pronoun instead of him/her (which over specifies gender, when gender either didn't matter or wasn't known to me. Even more weird, I actually often use the contraction 'em to differentiate it from the common plural use of the word them.
At first I thought I was a bit weird. Then I noticed other people use the word them in this way. It's not overly common, but it's out there. Like, "if a stranger comes up next to you in a car, don't get in the car with them no matter what." An english major might tell you that statement is mixing up the subject, but it really is an attempt to apply them in the singular form.
The nice thing about the word 'em is that it is much quicker and easier to say than the artificial sounding P.C. term him/her. I also use themself as the nongender version of him/herself.
Since my realization about this word 'em, I use it intentional instead of him/her except in formal documents. Another thing I've noticed is that I do not use any replacement of he/she. Maybe it's be sounds ignorant to say "They is walking this way." :)
Ok, so is there any takers on helping me start the revolution to get rid of the word him/her? :)

Ok, so thinking about this got me thinking about the complexity of the English language. When I was younger, I used to think that French was strange, with it's unpronounced letters and odd contractions. Of course, English gets many of its habits from French, but it took me a long time to put two and two together. Then one day, I realized that English has just as strange unpronounced letters and even more weird contractions. I'm mean, trying telling a nonenglish speaker that thorough is pronounced "thir-o". Or worse, the same letters that are silence in thorough make the F sound in rough. What the hell? LOL
Along this thought, a phrase popped into my head that I thought would be particularly hard for nonenglish speakers, both in spelling and pronunciation. "We're returning to where we were." We're, where and were. They look pretty much the same, and sound pretty similar, but still distinct. Imagine a french speaker trying to say that three times fast. I think we're, where and were is worse than they're, their and there because at least these have the same pronunciation.

Crenelatory Critique

I’ve noticed that fantasy movies tend to have crenellations with way too many merlons and embrasures. In fact, I’ve seen merlons placed at the tip of a king’s donjon! Now how are a king's men supposed handle that? This display of diminutive crenels has got to stop! If this continues, I just know we’ll soon see exposed penetralias, and draughty keeps in the open streets! And then where will we be?

crenellation, merlon, embrasure, donjon, penetralia, draughty, & keep