Language

You are currently browsing the archive for the Language category.

On 4 August 2007, I set a challenge. Could people decipher a passage of English text written in an unknown script? Well yesterday, 66 months later, dario finally posted a solution. Congratulations, Sir!

As I mentioned in my follow-up comment, it turns out that the text wasn’t the work of Ursula K Le Guin as I’d originally thought. Oops. It’s actually a document related to the fantasy universe of Danny, the guy who developed the script. I hope to have more details about that soon.

dario says he’ll eventually post “an analysis of this fascinating script and a report of how I arrived at the solution”. Meanwhile, I’ll be organising a suitable prize for him. Stay tuned.

I’ll close comments on this post. Please feel free to continue the conversation over at the original post.

The following important and highly-educational video was shot on Saturday 26 November 2011 on King Street, Newtown, in Sydney.

If the video isn’t working here for you, click through to YouTube.

May I also recommend Excellence in European Linguistics, Kingsgrove and Multiply Function Pot?

Image of Script Challenge text: click for full story

After another gap of more that six month, my Script Challenge is being tackled by a couple more people.

Can you figure out what’s said by this unknown piece of writing?

It’s a quote from a novel by Ursula LeGuin.

Feeling clever? After all, it’s been four years and now at least eight people have tried — but none have succeeded, despite the many clues. I’ve added three more clues just now.

[I'll close off comments on this post so that all the discussion stays with the original article.]

If there’s one thing funnier than a prescriptivist, it’s a prescriptivist who’s clearly wrong yet doesn’t know it. I was therefore giggling as soon as I saw Neil tweet about my spelling of “jail”.

Either @stilgherrian has been transported to America, or I really am the only person who spells gaol correctly here (along with @jbugs14)

“Correctly”, eh? Hilarious, Neil.

Dictionaries record language as it is actually used, not as those with a dangerous little knowledge imagine it is used. Both the Macquarie Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary list “jail” as the primary spelling. And as Google’s Ngram shows, “jail” started to be used more often than “gaol” some time in the 1830s, at least in the totality of English.

The OED does record “gaol” as a second spelling in the entry’s head, but the Macquarie does not. Instead, it adds this note:

Usage: In general the spelling of this word has shifted in Australian English from gaol to jail. However, gaol remains fossilised in the names of jails, as Parramatta Gaol, and in some government usage.

Fossilised. See that?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, consulted online just now:

In British official use the forms with G are still current; in literary and journalistic use both the G and the J forms are now admitted as correct; in the U.S. the J forms are standard.

Looking through the OED’s citations, we see “Iaiole” dated to ca1300, “Iayle” to ca1440, “Iaile” to ca1660 and some bloke called Shakespeare, “jayl” to 1743–5 and good ol’ “jail” to 1860. Of course that last citation is R W Emerson, an American, so presumably Neil thinks that doesn’t count. But even if we imagine Australian English is derived only from British English — something that’s patently untrue — we still have precursors of the J form going back a mere 700 years.

“When spelling, I prefer The Queen’s English,” tweets Neil. Yeah? Which Queen? Elizabeth I?

I’ve nothing against people choosing to use different forms of language. Far from it. It adds colour, spice, variety. But that’s not the same as imagining that an older form is somehow “right” and newer forms “wrong”. Especially when your views are at odds with the vast majority of the language’s native speakers.

Just how far do you want to go back and freeze our language — or should I say “fossizlise” it — before it’s acceptable, Neil? A hint: When you’re “the only person” who thinks something is right, you’re probably not.

[Update 4.15pm: Google Ngram image added, with explanatory sentence. The graph showing all English usage is slightly misleading. Restricted to British English only, the "jail" form has been the more popular "only" since the 1940s. I'll post a further update in due course.]

I’ve just read an article which used “problematised” as a verb. Apart from causing me to stumble and have to re-read the whole sentence, this uncommon word illustrates perfectly the problem with so much “educated” writing. And with journalism.

Discussing this on Twitter earlier this afternoon, I said I’d save the writer from further embarrassment. And the editor. But I’ve changed my mind, because I’m going to pull them into this conversation.

The author is Jeff Sparrow. The editing is by newmatilda.com. And the article is certainly something I’m interested in understanding: The Golden Age Of Publishing is an essay on the challenges facing publishers as we move into the digital era.

Here’s the whole paragraph:

That’s why the glory days of the press coincided with the long boom after the Second World War, a time of relative economic and social stability, in which Keynesianism explicitly validated public works and the public sphere. Since then, however, the turn back to marketisation that reached its zenith with neo-liberalism has problematised, more and more explicitly, the very notion of a public. In the idealised free market, there is, as Margaret Thatcher famously explained, no such thing as society — there’s simply an aggregation of competing individuals. In the midst of that fragmentation, the old newspaper model no longer makes sense.

“Problematised”? I’d never seen the word before! I thought it might mean “position as a problem” or something like “assert it’s a problem rather than a benefit”. But no.

So what the hell is this about?

Read the rest of this entry »

I was particularly pleased to see fellow misanthropist Jason Langenauer (pictured) produce a nastily whimsical alphabet on Twitter last night. I thought it deserved to be recorded for posterity. And here it is.

A is for Arsehat.
B is for Bastard.
C is for Coprophile.
E is for Eris.
F is for Filth.
G is for Gauleiter.
H is for Herpes.
I is for Ignominy.
Oh yes, one can’t start a tweet with a capital D. D is for Degenerate.
Now, where was I?
J is for Jesus.
K is for Kristallnacht.
L is for Lubricant.
N is for Nudism.
O is for Orifice.
P is for Pistol.
Q is irrelevant, and I shan’t have anything to do with it.
R is for Rotten.
S is for Sodomy.
T is for Tammany Hall.
U is for Uvula.
(No, that’s not what a uvula is. You people are sick. Go look it up on Wikipedia.)
V is for Vulgar.
W is for Wastrel.

And that’s as far as he got. However for the sake of completeness he has this afternoon added the following:

X is for Xenophilia.
Y is for Yes-man.
Z is for Zarathustra.

I can’t help but think this should be illustrated by Edward Gorey, in the style of The Gashlycrumb Tinies.

[Update 4pm: Jason writes: I have just noticed I've left out M from my alphabet. Oh well. I never liked it much anyway.]

I’m very pleased to see that someone else is attempting to solve my Script Challenge. Check the most recent comments. I’m still surprised that it remains unsolved after three years.

06 August 2010 by Stilgherrian | Permalink

While reading about an unusual new embuggerance over at the always-excellent Language Log, I’ve been introduced to a curious theory about naming practices.

Has anyone ever explored the apparent lack of overlap between short story titles and rock band names? I mean, is there any doubt which category e.g. “The pit and the pendulum”, “A perfect day for bananafish”, “REO Speedwagon”, and “Neutral Milk Hotel” belong to?

I think Mark Liberman may be on to something here. Perhaps we need to test this theory, using something similar to Steak House or Gay Bar? or a gamed-up version of the rather awesome Lesbians Who Look Like Justin Bieber.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be thinking so early in the morning…

[Oops. Not only was the Patch Monday podcast filed late, so it kinda became Patch Tuesday, I forgot to post it here. Well, that's fixed now.]

ZDNet Australia logo: click for Patch Monday episode 32

The key IT buzzwords for 2010 seem to be “cloud computing” and “virtualisation”, but is cloud really right for your business?

Will it provide a cheaper, more flexible option? Or can companies not afford to store data and run applications outside their business?

In a program recorded at the annual Kickstart Forum on IT trends, I spoke with Rosemary Stark, Microsoft Australia product manager for Windows Server and infrastructure solutions and Craig Deveson, CEO of Devnet, one of Google’s enterprise and web development partners.

Meanwhile, Michael Rich, managing director of Attaché Software, explains why he thinks IT vendors have got it wrong by attempting to sell products instead of providing business value.

You can listen below. But it’s probably better for my stats if you listen at ZDNet Australia or subscribe to the RSS feed or subscribe in iTunes.

Please let me know what you think. We accept audio comments too. Either Skype to stilgherrian or phone Sydney +61 2 8011 3733.

“There needs to be a special word for the combination of a cheap fake tan and fat thighs.”

I expressed that view on Twitter early this evening. Thanks to @SophieAG I now know there’s already such a word: Snooki.

This class act’s name is Nicole Polizzi (pictured), though she goes by the nickname “Snooki” and “stars” in an MTV reality TV program called Jersey Shore.

Watching the trailer tells you everything you need to know.

According to The Hollywood Gossip:

She fake-tans and acts like a bit of a skank. Then again that sums up the whole cast, so what are you really gonna do. That’s just what she does…

Nicole has made headlines already … for having brown skin. Like for real brown. Not tanned, like she’s been rolling in the mud or something. Yech.

Apparently Snooki is such a shank that advertisers have pulled out of the series.

Snooki’s response?

“I just have one thing to say to Domino’s, Dell, UNICO and all the other haters out there: Fuck you! If you don’t want to watch, then don’t watch.”

Snooki added: “Just shut the hell up! I’m serious… Fuck you!”

UNICO, the Italian-American organisation that claims the show perpetuates negative stereotypes, plans to keep pressuring sponsors to boycott the show.

“She is not an embarrassment to Italian Americans. She is actually an embarrassment to the entire human race!!!!” UNICO said of Snooki in a statement.

Apparently Snooki’s idea of the ideal man is the Guido stereotype.

Given the monumental appropriateness of naming an entire sub-class of humanity after this woman — and I do mean sub-class — other suggestion faded in comparison.

Read the rest of this entry »

« Older entries

Rss Feed Tweeter button Technorati button Reddit button Myspace button Linkedin button Webonews button Delicious button Digg button Stumbleupon button Newsvine button