Home
Lee Davis-Thalbourne's Friends [entries|friends|calendar]
Lee Davis-Thalbourne

[ website | Wikiphilia ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

BoD 2008 [06 Jul 2008|09:53pm]

thorog
[ music | Liberta (Moonman Remix)//Lovechild ]

OKso, let's have a quick run-down of the events. Now with photos!

For length )

post comment

Twittering my life away [06 Jul 2008|05:26pm]

weibchenwolf
  • 20:15 Testing twibble #
  • 22:51 My phone can now make lightsabre sounds when I swing it around... #
  • 11:37 Yay! Coffee with Eddie #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter
3 comments|post comment

Back [06 Jul 2008|04:52pm]

pr0zak
[ mood | calm ]
[ music | The National - Racing Like A Pro ]

Well I'm back.

I'm supposed to be unpacking all my shit but I seem to be procrastinating and eating chocolate. Oh well!

Flight back was fine, movie selection wasn't as good as the way over but that's okay, I watched travel documentaries and Family Guy. I didn't have a spare seat next to me but that was alright, I still got at least 1 hour sleep I think. The food was great, we even got ice cream twice! I didn't really want to go Qantas but they were really great and I'll be flying with them again for sure.

I love the Australian pilots, they always say G'day and then tell you all this random stuff about how fast your flying and where the good views are from the windows and they were really funny when we were at Heathrow and were 28th in line to take off, you could tell they were totally over waiting. There was barely any turbulence either and they never switched the seatbelt sign back on while we were flying. I really love planes and flying, I'm half tempted to become a flight attendant but that would be way less fun than just sitting there having people bring you shit :)

Holiday was great, I've already got a list of places I want to go next, I just have to work out when I'm going to go.

I really don't want to go back to work tomorrow, I just don't care about it at all. Top priority now that I'm back is to find a new job.

Discovered this band while I was away, The National, they sound like The Devastations and kind of like Nick Cave. The songs are really beautiful but probably kind of depressing as well.

I managed not to put on weight while I was away, quite an achievement given I drank lots of beer and ate bad food a lot. I guess I walked most of the time though so that would have helped. Got to get back into the running thing again, might take some time, I only went once while I was away.

I don't really seem to have jet lag but I'm sure it'll kick in when I have to get up early to go to work tomorrow!

Photos later when I can be bothered sorting them out.

3 comments|post comment

Wankerism in The Times [06 Jul 2008|04:46am]
languagelog

When it comes to taboo mystification, sometimes the New York Times is just too damn coy. Last November, the name of the punk band "Fucked Up" ended up rendered in a Times concert review as a string of eight asterisks, with some oblique talk about how the name wasn't fit to print in the Times, "unless an American president, or someone similar, says it by mistake." And here they go again: in a July 3 review of a concert by rapper 50 Cent and his crew G-Unit, critic Jon Caramanica writes:

One of the few bright spots in the later part of the show was the belligerent 2002 single with the unprintable title about fake gangsters that saved 50 Cent from becoming just a mixtape-slinging obscurity.

Where might we find out the mysterious title of 50 Cent's "belligerent 2002 single"? Well, one place to look is the Times' own coverage of the rapper.

Let's turn the clock back to Jan. 29, 2003. When Alessandra Stanley reviewed the then-new talk show "Jimmy Kimmel Live!", she wrote:

When 50 Cent explained that "Wanksta," the title of one of his new songs, is a rap term for a gangsta' poseur, Mr. Kimmel chimed in self-mockingly, "You mean pretending to be something you're not — like a talk-show host."

A week later, on Feb. 6, Lola Ogunnaike profiled 50 Cent and mentioned the song twice:

"Wanksta," 50's hit single from the "8 Mile" soundtrack, is receiving heavy radio play. … "Wanksta," a song ridiculing fake gangsters, is based on Ja Rule, 50 said. "He's never counted to anyone in the hood."

Alessandra Stanley dropped the W-bomb again on Feb. 21, 2003, in a review of "Da Ali G Show," explaining that Sacha Baron Cohen's persona of Ali G was "a white gangsta rapper wannabe (also known as a wanksta)." Elvis Mitchell joined in on March 7, critiquing the movie "Bringing Down the House," wherein Steve Martin's WASPy character goes undercover in hiphop gear: "he slips into his Wanksta stage." Finally, on April 18, 2004, music critic Kelefa Sanneh quoted some rap lyrics from Lil' Flip: "One time for all my gangstas, two bullets for them wankstas…"

So how did the word suddenly become "unprintable"? Perhaps some editor at the Times took a look at the song's Wikipedia page, where it's explained that wanksta is a portmanteau word, blending wanker and gangsta. Then another click over to wanker reveals that it is a "pejorative term of English origin" that "literally means 'one who wanks (masturbates).'"

But wait! In the past, wanker hasn't been deemed unprintable in the Times either, though it might depend on who uses the word (and where it appears in the paper). In his Jan. 12, 1997 "On Language" column, William Safire dissects an outburst from Tony Blair (then Britain's Labor Party leader) in which he said, "Who are these unreconstructed wankers?" After quoting Magnus Linklater of The Times of London as wondering whether his editor would permit the use of the W-word in print, Safire observes:

The editor did, as editors here do on occasion, because the use of a vulgarism by a prominent and respectable political figure — rather than by an entertainer or other celebrity — invites reporting (perhaps with secret glee) on the fact of its use in the most august publications.

(For more on the Times' shifting standards on "prominent" vulgarisms, see my posts "Presidential expletive watch" and "Taking shit from the president," and Arnold Zwicky's "The NYT transgresses.")

In his column, Safire details the history of this "slang noun not widely understood in America," quoting from the OED's definition and citations. (The OED Supplement originally warned, "This word and its derivatives are not in polite use.") After Safire's exegesis, wanker showed up a few more times in the Times Book Review and the Sunday Magazine, though apparently not since 1999.

It's possible that the Times editors have decided that, in the case of wanker and its hiphop variation wanksta, the onanistic origin is now too transparent to dare offending American readers. The word wanker certainly has become more popular in the U.S. in recent years. As evidence, see Lynne Murphy's "Words of the Year 2006" on her always entertaining "Separated by a Common Language" blog. Wanker won in the category "Most Useful Import from British English to American English." Lynne writes that the word "has been sneaking into American popular culture under the radar for some years," but in 2006 wanker "came into its own" in American usage, with political bloggers tossing around variants such as wankiest, wankerism, wank-fest, and wankery.

None of these wank-words would presumably be acceptable to the current Times editors — unless, of course, the speaker is a "prominent and respectable political figure" (and not a best-selling rapper, God forbid).

post comment

Football Follies [06 Jul 2008|03:00pm]
snopes_dot_com
How a soccer team advanced in a cup match by deliberately scoring against itself.
1 comment|post comment

The Coalitions’ Demographic Train Wreck [06 Jul 2008|04:12am]
possumspollytic

Back in March over at Australian Policy Online, Ian Watson published a really interesting paper titled “Is demography moving against the Coalition? ”, which was an update of a larger, earlier paper that added new results for the 2007 election period. What Ian Watson did was use Newspoll figures to look at the way different age groups have been changing their voting intention patterns over the period of 1987 through to the present.

What is really interesting about this paper is the dataset it contains at the end – age profile breakdowns on primary voting intention going all the way back to 1987 when Newspoll first started.

It doesn’t take long playing around with the data to realise that, putting it bluntly, the Coalition is facing a demographic train wreck of catastrophic proportions. It isn’t some short term problem that just appeared at the last election and which could easily be dealt with by a bit of vote targeting. Far from it, the impending train wreck is the result of a long slow demographic assault on the Coalitions’ primary vote that has been happening for at least 21 years.

They are losing ground among all age groups under 60, their only strong voting age demographic, the pre-Boomer over 60’s, are declining in number through attrition and will start being replaced by more Labor oriented Boomers over the next decade. As we will see, this pre-boomer demographic is carrying a large weight of the Coalition’s voter support. When that vote becomes neutralised by boomers moving into the 60+ age group, which is expected to occur sometime around 2018-2020, the Coalition primary vote will have lost around 4 to 5 points, perhaps a little more, should prevailing long term trends continue for the next 10-15 years in the same way they’ve played out for the last 21 years.

First up, we’ll just repeat what Ian Watson did and show how various age group voting intentions have been running for the Coalition at each election period since 1987 to give us a bit of a feel for the data. This data is Newspoll data, so the average Coalition primary vote result will be slightly different from the primary vote result that they achieved at each election, simply because of sampling error and late movement, but not by a great deal – it works out as an average of 1.47% mean absolute error.

As there are quite a few age cohorts here, we’ll split the demographics into two groups; the under 40’s and the over 40’s and we’ll also add the average Coalition primary result as well to show which groups are under and over that average.

Notice here that all groups under 40 have had a voting intention less than the average Coalition voting intention for every election since 1987.

Here it starts to get interesting. Up to and including the 1993 election, all groups over the age of 40 supported the Coalition to levels higher than the Coalition average support. But in 1996, the 40-44s were voting under the average, in 1998 the 40-49s were voting under the average, by 2001 it became the 40-54s all voting under the average and by 2007, the 55-59 group was voting just slightly above average but will probably vote below average next election and beyond.

If we play around with the data a bit and subtract the average Coalition primary vote estimate from each age cohorts’ support level for the Coalition, it shows this in starker terms. So, for instance, if the Coalition average was 40% and a particular demographic had only 36% support for the Coalition, they’d get a score of -4.

Again, we’ll do it for both the under 40’s and over 40’s.

From these two charts we can see that it is the over 60’s that are really carrying the weight of Coalition average support here. As the levels of support for the Coalition decline in younger cohorts, it drags down the average Coalition vote, leaving the Coalition more and more reliant on that over 60’s group to shore up their vote. But the problem here is that the over 60’s group is just about to be flooded with Baby Boomers, which will start reducing the Coalition dominance in their most important age cohort.

We can see how this might play out if we use the Newspoll data to track how people born between certain years have behaved over the last 21 years. The problem we have with the data here is that the age groups we’ll track don’t perfectly fit into the age classifications we have – but we can get pretty close on a number of elections. For instance, if we track the 25-29 age bracket from the 1987 election onwards, in the 1993 election that group would be 31-35, but we don’t have that as an available cohort. Yet we do have the 30-34 which is only out by 1 year. At the 1998 election those people were 36-40 years of age, and we can use the 35-39 age cohort for that and so on an so forth.

In the following chart, each age group is only out by a maximum of a year either side of their actual age, so it’s a fairly decent match to give us an idea of how people born in different years have voted over time.

There’s a couple of things to note here. Firstly, I stopped tracking groups when they got into the 60+ age group because it contains too many different ages all bunched together to be useful, so our last age cohort we can use effectively is the 55-59 age bracket. Secondly, you’ll notice a big drop in Coalition support in 1998 by those born between 1938 and 1942. Most of that lost Coalition vote went to One Nation. In 1987 that group voted 7.3% for minor parties and independents, in 1993 it was 6.5%, but in 1998 it was a big 17.3%. In 2001 that vote would have jumped back up to 50+% for the Coalition.

As you can see, those early Boomers born between 1948 and 1952 vote for the Coalition in substantially less numbers than do the older age groups – yet this group has just started to turn 60 this year. By the next election nearly all of that group will be over 60, by the election after that, the 1953-1957 boomers will be starting to turn 60. As time goes on, the Coalitions hold on that over 60 demographic gets further washed out, especially since many of the pre-boomer Coalition supporters in the 60+ group will be increasingly dying out.

If we take these same age groups and do what we did before and measure the difference between the average Coalition vote and the Coalition vote for each age group we get:

We would expect those born between 1938 and 1947 to have increased their “difference from the mean” over the last few elections if we could actually measure it with the Newspoll data, but unfortunately we can’t. However, since that group is reducing in number every year at a faster rate than their younger cohorts, it is slowly allowing the average Coalition vote to fall, and as a result reducing the “difference from the mean” for the younger cohorts.

Looking back over all of the charts, the voters the Coalition are losing aren’t being replaced by younger voters, to the point where it’s reducing the total Coalition primary vote. If the trends that have been happening for the last 21 years continue for the next decade, by 2018 thereabouts, the ALP will simply become unbeatable with TPP results coming in with a an expected demographic floor of around 55%

So the Coalition has to start appealing to much younger demographics or they will likely find themselves in permanent opposition.

Something for them to keep in mind if they start trying to play political games with the emissions trading system and climate change – issues with large support in the younger demographics.

I’ll do some more with this data later, as well as start applying these results on a seat by seat basis to see which regions face the largest political changes, but I thought you folks might be interested to see how your sub-generation has been voting over the last 21 years or so. I’ll also take a closer look at those born after 1969 in another post.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

add to kwoff

post comment

Festive Banner [06 Jul 2008|12:07am]

efw

[amazingadrian]
[ mood | silly ]
[ music | "Take Me Home Tonight" by Eddie Money ]

Holiday festive videos chronicling the marriage of various household objects with fireworks, and the ensuing "explosive" divorce. 

7 comments|post comment

[05 Jul 2008|09:53pm]

efw

[herekittykitty]
Keyboard smashing, squeeing, several lines of "omg," all referring to a highly anticipated season finale of a famous sci-fi show.

Recap of plot, indication of favorite bisexual character. No spoilers, but statement indicating that OP thought it ended just a little too perfectly.

Promotional picture of season finale.





tiny spoiler
16 comments|post comment

endings [06 Jul 2008|10:19am]

velitu
purged over half my friend's list. i'm just not who i was... and am not interested in the things i used to be interested in.

*shrug* tis just how it goes i guess
19 comments|post comment

supporters of Obama [05 Jul 2008|06:56pm]

partners_of_tg

[venusfire777]
Barak Obama recently made a major statement in support of equal/civil rights for GLBT folks (including a trans person in the example).
This site has that statement and a way to contribute (if desired) to his campaign where it is recorded as trans & ally support. Check it out:

http://temenos.net/2008/07/transgender-advocates-rally-fo.html

Best wishes & pass it on if you desire,
:)
3 comments|post comment

[05 Jul 2008|04:02pm]

efw

[macramedildo]
Long-awaited return of much-adored, recently absent community member. Anticipation of flowers, ticker tape parade.
13 comments|post comment

Sexual Assault, Feminism, and Agency [05 Jul 2008|03:01pm]

trinityva
Total brilliance:
My sexual assaults (yes, it's now happened twice) are not a political peg for other women to hang their hats on, and I should not and will not apologize to anyone for making decisions that were best for me. My body is mine — it doesn't belong to Feminism anymore than it belongs to the men who sexually assaulted me — and what I choose to do with it, or about it, is supposed to be my choice. To be told, subtly or otherwise, that my choices are invalid or anti-feminist is demeaning and condescending and in violation of the whole concept that feminism is about giving women choices and letting them make them.

....See, the thing is, it's great to say that we should do this or we should do that for the sake of women everywhere. But no one — and especially not other women and supposed feminists — has the right to tell me or any other victim of sexual assault that being victimized and being traumatized leaves us responsible for making the world a better place (as though that's what's accomplished by reporting a rape, actually). We all have a responsibility to try to prevent them, to create a world where they are much more of an exception than the rule, where drunk girls or slutty girls or drunken slutty girls don't have to explain their behavior to anyone — regardless of whether they have been assaulted, or after having been assaulted — and where victims don't have to explain to non-victims the choices they made. My pursuing the prosecution of the one made no more difference in the world than not prosecuting the other. But maybe my talking about them both, maybe helping to ease the stigma of it for other people and create a space where I don't have to be ashamed of being a victim (or of how I chose to deal with that) will.
[Though I do have to add that people assuming the commenter "embobly" must never have been raped, despite her(?) saying she has been, because her point of view is creepy is... well... ugh. Just because she's wrong and inconsiderate doesn't mean she's also lying.]
post comment

Ellipses Elided [05 Jul 2008|05:12pm]
languagelog

Errors in punctuation sometimes result in misinterpretation, but they usually don't arouse the moral outrage that plagiarism does. Some should.

On June 24, 1826 Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to Roger C. Weightman:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.


Yesterday, in an Independence Day speech at Monticello, President Bush quoted Jefferson's letter as follows:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be — to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all — the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

A technically correct quotation omitting the words left out by Bush would be:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains …, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

Bush's replacement of the original parentheses with dashes doesn't really change anything, but his removal of the words "under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves" seriously distorts the meaning of the passage. The original text makes clear that the bonds are those of religion and irrationalism, an important theme for Jefferson, a deist if not closet atheist who was very critical of conventional religion, while Bush's version makes it seem that Jefferson is talking about liberty in general.

This is a relatively minor fraud since Jefferson did not believe that religion was the only source of oppression and had he made the effort Bush could easily have found a passage in which Jefferson was talking about liberty in general, but it is nonetheless a fraud.

Had Bush used ellipses, he would have alerted the reader to the fact that the quotation is incomplete. In this case, where the omission of part of the text distorts its meaning, the very omission is improper, but the failure to at least warn about it compounds the offense.

P.S. I'm sure someone is going to comment that Bush probably didn't write his speech himself. I know that. If he gives the speech, he is responsible for its content, and he is responsible for using staff who know and obey the rules. The buck stops with him.

post comment

Tweets for Today [06 Jul 2008|12:11am]

forsakendaemon
  • 13:39 I broke my rule. I watched it. TENNAAAAAAAAANT! *cries a little* #
  • 14:18 Okay, who else reckons that Donna's going to step in and use that 'strength' from the previous episode to save him? #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter
post comment

Eternal Darkness [05 Jul 2008|08:02am]

msree

I recently, abruptly realised that I need to get me a GameCube and my own copy of Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. Someday my brother and I probably won't be sharing living space, and when that happens I will still crave that game. It has a wonderful, evocative title, a female lead voiced by Jennifer Hale (actually all the voicing is absolutely fantastic, but I have a soft spot for Ms. Hale and for female leads), and the ability to enchant a shotgun for faster zombie-killing action - there is nothing here that is not to love. It's basically like if Lovecraft had Poe's writing skills, or if Poe wrote about warring Elder Gods, and it all got turned into the best video game that premise could produce. And then added the Insanity Effects. This game plays you.

I like it. A lot. I hadn't given it much thought until the thought occurred that, someday, I would not have ready access to this game of beauty. That cannot be.

Must try to get a Cube coloured different to the bro's so we can easily tell them apart. Also WaveBirds because I can trip on my own bare feet. (I have actually done this one many occasions.) No huge rush, because neither of us is planning to leave yet, but it's something to keep in mind.

post comment

omg wedding. [05 Jul 2008|09:11pm]

not_in_denial
( You are about to view content that may only be appropriate for adults. )
post comment

Random stuff update... [05 Jul 2008|07:30pm]

damien_wise
Gah, another day of scraping the frost from my keyboard and de-fogging the screen before I can type.
Okay, it's not that awful, but I'm thoroughly sick of Winter.

In a press-release from Magnum Opus Press during the week, it was announced that Dragon Warriors ("The ultimate Roleplaying Game", according to the cover of the first edition) is set for a re-launch later this year. It's been on the cards for a while, so it's wonderful to see a release date, a number of titles official news, etc.
News and blurb

One of the people behind this second edition (besides the original authors) is James Wallis, who, completely by coincidence, popped-up during the week in this amusing RPG related video:
'Brave Noob World'
(No, you don't have to play MMORPGs to find it funny...for that matter, I've never played WoW and I, erm *shuffles feet*, LOLed).

The Book of Accidents is an exquisite look at the types of accidents that befall naughty, young children.
The illustrations and tone of the writing reflect the era many think Edward Gorey came from.
Who can go past the defenestration on page 20?! ;)

'D' is for Damien, 'venged by a teazed [sic] dog.


One of the best films of all time is also one of the oldest. There are two popular versions of Fritz Lang's masterpiece, "Metropolis," floating around (one with a soundtrack by Queen), but both are far from a complete cut. Key scenes have been rediscovered. The original footage requires some restoration and will complete things, returning roughly a quarter of the film.

This video came to me via some fellow Tech Writers:
Stephen Fry, ever the wit and gentleman, gives a grammar lesson to Alan Davies.

Here's Joe Cocker impersonating Alan Davies singing "With a Little Help From My Friends". For your benefit, it's captioned for the clear-headed.

K-mart has a prominent display of Christmas-trees...cos, y'know, there's not many shopping-days left this year.
1 comment|post comment

Don't tell Sister Catherine William [05 Jul 2008|07:36am]
languagelog

Dipping randomly into another one of Roy Peter Clark's Glamour of Grammar essays ("What the Big Bopper Taught Me About Grammar", 5/8/2008), I found this curious piece of revisionist intellectual history:

In our common culture, grammar has taken on at least three sets of meanings and associations. It still refers to the etiquette of writing and reading, the conventions that allow us to create a standard written English, the technical term for which, according to critic John Simon, is "grapholect."

This view of grammar is sometimes called "prescriptive," which is how I came to understand in 1959 (at the age of 11) that, when the Big Bopper sang "… but baby I ain't go no money, honey," he was using language in a way that would have gotten his ass kicked by Sister Catherine William. […]

Then, of course, along came "descriptive grammar," a movement that had the unmitigated gall (why is gall always unmitigated?) to sneak "ain't" in the dictionary, a discipline of language that could take into account the Big Bopper's nonstandard usage, including that surely double negative.

Underpinning this rebellion against Emily Post conformity was something called "transformational" or "generative" grammar, described by scholars such as Noam Chomsky, before he became a political critic and darling of the left.

This explanation evokes another common collocate for unmitigated, namely nonsense.

Neither Noam Chomsky nor generative grammar deserve any credit — or blame — for the concept of descriptive linguistics. In this matter, his generation of linguists simply followed the approach of their teachers, and their teachers' teachers, well back into the century before Noam was born.

The first clue that something has gone badly wrong with Prof. Clark's intellectual history is the business about descriptive grammar having the gall to "sneak ain't in [sic] the dictionary". This is a reference to the controversy over Webster's Third. This work was published in 1961, but the entry for ain't was probably written about a decade earlier, while Noam Chomsky was an unknown graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania. And the editorial policy of Webster's Third was set by Philip Babcock Gove, whose ideas were formed at Columbia, Harvard and Dartmouth in the 1920s and 1930s, following a tradition of English lexicography established more than century earlier:

Critics of the Third Edition believed that it was the responsibility of a dictionary to serve as a standard of correctness, to tell users what was right and what was wrong … Gove said that the job of the dictionary was to describe how people used language, not how they should use it, echoing the views expressed by Dean Richard Chevenix Trench in two famous papers on the deficiencies of English dictionaries. The papers (both read to the Philological Society in November 1857) greatly influenced the planning of the Oxford English Dictionary and English lexicography generally. Trench … called the lexicographer "an historian [of the language], not a critic" and explicitly warned his colleagues against repeating the mistake of the French Academy, which had sought to fix the language and prescribe a standard of correctness for the nation. [Herbert C. Morton, The Story of Webster's Third: Philip Gove's Controversial dictionary and Its Critics, CUP, 1994; p. 7]

One of Prof. Clark's better ideas is to "Look it up in the OED!". If he'd followed his own advice in this case, he'd have discovered that the OED's sense 3.b. for descriptive

Linguistics. Describing the structure of a language at a given time, avoiding comparisons with other languages or other historical phases, and free from social valuations; as in descriptive grammar, linguistics, etc. (Opp. normative, prescriptive, historical; cf. SYNCHRONIC a.)

has citations back to 1888, long before Noam's birth:

1888 H. A. STRONG tr. Paul's Princ. Hist. Lang. i. 2 Descriptive Grammar has to register the grammatical forms and grammatical conditions in use at a given date within a certain community speaking a common language.
1927 Mod. Philol. Nov. 217 (heading) Descriptive linguistics. Ibid. 218 Today descriptive linguistics is thus recognized beside historical, or rather as precedent to it.
1933 JESPERSEN Ess. Eng. Gram. i. 19 Descriptive grammar..aims at finding out what is actually said and written by the speakers of the language investigated.
1947 E. H. STURTEVANT Introd. Ling. Sci. vi. 51 Descriptive linguistics forms the basis for historical linguistics. Ibid. 53 Most of our school grammars must be classed as descriptive.
1953 J. B. CARROLL Study of Lang. ii. 16 Several Greek grammarians, notably Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Herodian, developed descriptive grammars of Greek.
Ibid. 19 The European linguist who best formulated the methodology of descriptive linguistics..was Ferdinand de Saussure.

Beyond the merely terminological issue, Prof. Clark must surely know that the concept of grammar as a description of usage — though perhaps geographically, socially and culturally specific usage — goes back several thousand years; and that Horace in particular famously asserted that usage controls "the law and the standard of language" (et ius et norma loquendi).

And if Prof. Clark had thought for a moment before banging out this essay, I bet he would have remembered that quotation — after all, William Safire wrote a book entitled "In Love with Norma Loquendi". The problem, thoughout these Glamour of Grammar essays, seems to be precisely that Clark writes before he thinks — and doesn't think after he writes, either. He apparently doesn't care whether or not what he writes is true, or even coherent, as long as it sounds good to him.

In that sense, his thoughts on this topic — or at least the samples that I've seen so far — are neither prescriptive grammar nor descriptive grammar, but rather, in the technical sense of the word, bullshit grammar. And while I never met Sister Catherine William, I bet that she was even less tolerant of bullshit than she was of double negatives.

post comment

The Civilian Mentality [05 Jul 2008|05:59pm]

deird1


We're here today to discuss what it means to be a civilian.


A quick quiz for you.

You are out one evening, buying a pizza. As you are walking back home, pizza in hand, you hear screams, and look up to see a car – on fire – hurtling through the air towards you.

What do you do?

a) scream

b) duck

c) stand there in utter shock

d) try not to drop the pizza

 

If you just answered a, c, or d, you might just be a civilian.

2 comments|post comment

Repackagings [05 Jul 2008|05:41pm]

hierodule
[ mood | groggy ]

( You are about to view content that may only be appropriate for adults. )

1 comment|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]