.jpg)
Dictionary definition of 'siphon' has been wrong for nearly a century (Guardian)Definition of ‘creep,’ however, has been right on the money
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"
This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict... -
The "prayer" suit: ..... AS WE REPORTED two days ago , on Tuesday, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Westphal, et alia ’s motion f... -
[ See 50+ comments below! ] [See follow-up: The pride of Trident U ] Oh my. Word is that Kiana Tabibzadeh , IVC Chemistr...
14 comments:
It has been wrong, or has been used wrong?
My friend and I go back and forth on whether or not one can make mistakes using words. I always point out the glaring obvious: that words DO mean something.
For example, to compliment my friend, "Boy, what a nice fuck you're wearing," is a misuse of the word (even though it is such a versatile word). But he claims that my using it that way is simply a new manner of using it and that some how I am moving the language forward (note, he may not mean that I am actually benefitting the language; i.e. forward does not mean 'make better' in this context) as a result. I grumble.
The fancy thing is, he is a mathematician, definitions are important to him. But, language just isn't bound by that cold hard slab of rock that is Logic. Or so it would seem anyways.
---
After reading the article, I note that my writing is still relevant if you tilt your head a bit and re-read it.
BS
GOSH, BS, good to hear from you. You seem to have disappeared.
Here's some understatement for you: language is used to communicate. But it fails to achieve communication when people suddenly impose novel meanings to their words.
I can imagine someone using "fuck" in that new way--and this spreading as a linguistic phenomenon. It would likely evolve very quickly.
But such "movement forward" cannot be the rule. It must be the exception. In my example, the change is discrete, leaving other words alone.
BS, your writing is always relevant, I think. But we don't seem to see much of it these days.
Nope (you don't see much of my writing), school has latched on to my face and proceeded to suck the life out of me. I'll never completely disappear but I will definitely fail to find free time.
Thanks for some clarity Sir Chunkerton.
Oops, running late for class.
BS
Yes, I figured that "life-sucking" was afoot. Are you over-extended? Probably taking a full load while maintaining a full- or near full-timne job. That would suck the life out of anyone. At least it will soon come to an end. Then maybe you will have some time to let things settle (until it starts all over again in a few months!).
Do hang in there, though. Jump through them hoops.
I do think that one of the many stunning aspects of language is its ability to change, to acquire new words and meanings and to expand our "form of life," to throw in a Wittgensteinianism. And so I can easily see your Mathematical friend--or anyone, really, with imagination or incompetence--initiating some striking new way of saying something (or doing something) with that "f*ck" remark. Perhaps it is the possibility of such prodigies that inspires the guy to suppose that virtually anything is "correct." Still, I say, that is an overstatement at best. --BvT
I agree, it may certainly be an overstatement. One is in need of elaborating on what one means when they say "correct." I think even my friend would agree that there is a distinction between what one means to say and what the meaning is of what one says.
But, dude, why would you censor "fuck?"
- BS
BS!!! I, too, am happy that you are still around in our virtual world. I even confess to having scanned comments, for awhile, just to see if you had weighed in on something.
BvT is good to censor the "f" word, I think. It is part of his policy, as blogster and human being, of always taking the high road. I know that that term doesn't offend some people, but others would be put off or ever so slightly discombobulated by its appearance. It seems best to avoid that kind of interruption to the flow of excellent thought on DtB.
I know about that life-sucking thing, and I sure do sympathize. Hang in there.
MAH
Are you asking why I obscured the word "f*ck" by putting a star where the "u" belongs? Fuck if I know.
Oh, MAN--way to undermine my comment completely, BvT! This isn't my day. To BS and others: never mind.
Oh-oh. I fell short of MAH's standards. I shall do penance. Frick, frick, frick! I shall insert words like "posey" and "delightful" into my verbiage for two days.
While Chunk is looking after his penance, MAH, I'm curious as to why one would limit their own "verbiage" for the sake of other people's feelings. I could start an argument here, but I was hoping maybe you could make a clear defense on the topic. Meanwhile I'll sit here, hands clasped in anxiousness, attempting to suspend my judgement on the topic. I for one have a very strong knee-jerk reaction against the "feelings" of other people.
While I feel heated about it (which might in itself be a bad sign) I am willing to open my mind to your expertise again.
- gearing up for another butt beating - BS
Uh-oh; that was a long hand-clasping session, eh, BS? You are a true gentleman: thank you for "BUTT" beating instead of "ass-whipping," although in fact I have nothing at all against the latter phrase. Nor, it may seem strange to read, do I think that Chunk should obscure "ass" with "a--," although some do so and are not, I think, silly to do so.
The thing I was saying wasn't mainly about the feelings of other people, but about keeping the flow of thoughts and counter-thoughts going without unhelpful distractions. If people reading the blog were offended enough or "thrown" enough by certain terms, they might resort to ad hominems or dismiss the Chunk-inator (well, the Baron) as a wicked force of evil. (Hmm: what other kind of force of evil could there be?) The interchange of ideas might get warped into some other, irrelevant direction.
But, too: there is a part of me that kind of senses that, as Ghandi strikingly said (if I remember aright), even words can be a sort of violence. Even to me--and believe me, I have cursed every curse in the book, and then some, and with FEELING--hearing or reading "fuck" out of the blue can seem like a sort of psychic blow. Just as one probably wouldn't swat a stranger passing by at good ol' UCI, so it seems to me just not right to throw an unneeded "fuck" into a discussion. (But don't get me wrong: in discussing, say, the 8-year reign of George W., I would find it and its cognates such as "un-fucking-believable" utterly appropriate.)
So there you have it: does it constitute a butt-beating?
*Not entirely confident in her reasoning because she couldn't stop watching "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" while composing it....*
MAH
I guess I was looking for something more... normative.
I do understand the restraint of oneself when one is in certain company and in a certain situation (i.e. arguing clear-headedly), but I guess I've always felt that in public forums, especially where one is in control one should do what one feels is best for the community and those who feel discontented with it should then just "get used to it." Especially since Trav and I were simply 'shootin' the shit.' We're not having an argument, and were someone to post a comment seeking to reprimand me, I would, no doubt, scoff.
I think Chunk could simply declare, "This is how it is here."
Though I can't help but think, also, that this really is (or has become) an extension of another community (one in which I am not so engrained, and one where I have very little authority), and so Chunk may not have such declarative super powers.
I feel like I need to keep stating this: This is always a sensitive topic for me, I feel, so very naturally that the words are just words and that the declaring of a handful of words as "bad" is unproductive and pretty much just plain stupid in the sense that it creates a major disadvantage, and elicits strong emotional knee jerks just by simply being stated: "Fuck." There is no context, there is no intent, there is nothing but that word in isolation and, then with it, a moment of blindness. Why? Because we tied something emotional to that word.
MAH, I also feel that to watch your language so that "they" do not get distracted, assuming that what necessarily must follow is "ad hominems" is as insulting as watching your language. Almost as if to say, "careful around the simpletons." I understand that it is necessary in order to be productive, but in a scenario where one is relaxing and talking I really can't help but think that such behavior (sensitivty to "bad" words) should be pandered to.
I also apologize for being all over the place (this post isn't as coherent as I would like it to be) but I have to get to some other things briefly. BS
MAH: just to be clear: I wrote my "low road" (f-word) comment without having read your praise of my high roadery. So I did not intentionally undercut you. Sorry about that. It was unintentional. You are certainly right, however, that I seek to take the "high road."
I don't see using "fuck" as a high or low road sort of thing. I think that people who say or write such words often are communicating badly, inelegantly. There may be exceptions. I seek to write well.
I generally avoid using such words on the blog, though my standards or somewhat looser in the "comments" section. I do think that for some readers the use of such "shock" words is a distraction. It's not that I care about their feelings; I just don't want to be bothered with people getting the wrong idea about me over my use of a word. Keep it simple, I say. Plus "freakin" is funny compared to "fuckin'." It is wonderfully stupid. That's why I more often use "freakin" or "friggin." I am dazzled by the absurdity of such words.
BS and I play a kind of game when we write to each other. Somehow, the game required that I just use the f-word unvarnished. What can I say.
I guess I am motivated mostly by a desire to avoid ugliness when I star out the word "fuck." Use of that word is not always ugly. But it can be. I try to use it sparingly. It's a powerful word, but only when used sparingly.
Also, I have learned from experience that just a few "fucks" in your writing and some people will characterize ALL of your writing as fuck-filled and generally fuckazoidal. I hate when that happens. Been there man. it sucks.
I do try to take the high road--in many other ways. I seldom fight fire with fire on the blog. If somebody says something stupidly critical, I try to respond in a way that indirectly undercuts the critic--without giving him/her some of his/her own medicine. Somehow, that works much better in the long run.
As an old professor of mine would say, "there are feelings and there are feelings." That is, not all "feelings" are the same. I certainly don't want to hurt anybody. Never want that. But if somebody's feelings are just ridiculous, managing to offend them isn't such a big deal, is it? I guess I'm like Kant in this regard: if people are in good faith, then I'll respect their feelings, maybe even when they're a bit ridiculous. But if they're in bad faith, blast away. But I usually don't do that. Not my style.
If we're talking about the feelings of non-neurotics who are in good faith, hey, why not respect 'em? It's just courtesy.
I love people who are in good faith. They can believe just about anything, and as long as they talk with me in good faith--honestly, w/o bullshit and lies--I love 'em. I wanna take 'em home like some lost puppy. Find a nice blanket for 'em. A warm place to snooze. What could be better?
Hell, BS and BvT, I found your comments this a.m. just as I must rush off to a day of hanging out with animals (cleaning rabbit kennels, socializing cats, sitting with painfully shy dogs). It's tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.... I'll be contemplating your thoughtful posts for chunks of the day! I do think that my approach is much like the Baron's, all told. And you did not offend me, BvT! BTW, you both take me too seriously. I am happy to be in a 3-way conversation like this again!
MAH
Post a Comment