Quotulatiousness

January 24, 2012

Robert Fulford: Nietzsche’s inescapable shadow

Filed under: History, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:07

Writing in the National Post, Robert Fulford traces all the ways we still live with a long-dead madman:

Friedrich Nietzsche is one of those philosophers you just can’t kill.

He’s been in his grave since 1900, having been silenced by insanity many years before. In 1898, The New York Times ran an article headed, “Interesting Revolutionary Theories from a Writer Now in the Madhouse.” He’s read, as he was then, only by a small minority, many of whom it would be flattering to call eccentric.

Nevertheless, he runs through our social bloodstream. Francis Fukuyama’s remark has the sound of truth: Whether we like it or not, “We continue to live within the intellectual shadow cast by Nietzsche.”

[. . .]

We don’t know it but Nietzsche scripted many of our conversations, putting words in our mouths. When we talk about culture (the culture of this, the culture of that) we echo him. Anyone who discusses “values” (instead of, say, ethics) is talking Nietzsche-talk.

People who claim to be in a state of “becoming” are Nietzscheans, knowingly or otherwise. He believed (now everyone believes) that we are all constantly reconstructing ourselves. In Nietzsche there’s no such thing as a permanently stable personality.

He was the original culture warrior. He laid the foundation for the struggle between traditionalism and modernism, an enduring battle. The more important a tradition, the more he wanted to see it challenged.

January 7, 2012

QotD: Is Disappearing

Filed under: Humour, Media, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:33

To be or not to be? That remaining the question, the answer increasingly clear. The verb “to be” dying out, and the culprit? None other than TV news channels. Taking the place of such cherished words as “is,” “are,” “am,” even “were” and “was”: a new verb form that you might call the one-size-fits-all past, present, and future participle. Or you might call it the one-size-fits-all past, present, and future gerund. One of these right and one of them wrong, but which which? Nobody really knowing the difference between a participle and a gerund. Anyone claiming to understand the distinction probably bluffing. So calling it what you wish: Either label doing.

Michael Kinsley, “Is Disappearing: What TV news doing to our precious verbs”, Slate, 2001-11-01

January 2, 2012

The least welcome additions to “managementspeak” in 2011

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Humour, Randomness — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 10:48

Macro Man runs down a selection of words and phrases which became common last year:

We are nearly at the end of 2011 and another year of mayhem behind. We will be judging our 2011 Non-Predictions and trying to dream up some new ones for 2012 in the next fortnight or so but this week we have been able to get some long needed admin done. With it came a realisation that even if the financial industry is suffering the creative management community has been in full swing dreaming up new terms and phrases to camouflage the blindingly obvious. The evolution of ‘management speak’ means some phrases die and some survive and flourish. TMM really don’t know what determines the success of one term or phrase over another other than, as with the arts, adoption and patronage by the most respected in the field. TMM hope that this year’s rash of newcomers all die off naturally but we would like to help with a shove into their deserved obscurity.

TMM have noticed that every cause nowadays needs an “Awareness” campaign and though we feel that “doing” is of much greater importance than “awaring”, we will go along with the fashion and launch a Management Talk Awareness Week with the list of phrases and terms we have found most irksome this year.

So here are TMM’s top ten annoying phrases of 2011 (even if some are older) that we would like to see the back of.

Hi, I hope all is well. We have identified a need to internalise our ideation of the requirements of the Stakeholder Community before we reach out to them.”

December 1, 2011

Economists no longer bring out the “big guns”: now they reach for the “bazooka”

Filed under: Economics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:58

Terence Corcoran has lots of examples in his latest Financial Post column:

For months now Europe has been searching for the big bazooka of economic policy to get it out of its fiscal mess. Exactly when bazookas became a core principle of economic policy isn’t clear, but it is today everywhere in use. Google “euro and bazooka” and you’ll see what I mean.

In the high precincts of economic analysis, there is general agreement that Wednesday’s move by central banks, including the Bank of Canada, the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, to make cheap dollar loans available to European banks, while a major bailout event, falls short of reaching the level of intervention required by the high priests of bazookanomics. “It’s not the bazooka the market was seeking,” said a Wall Street Journal report.

One of the early users of the word was Hank Paulson. As U.S. treasury secretary in 2008, he famously said, “If you have a bazooka in your pocket and people know it, you probably won’t have to use it.” At the time, his theory was that the U.S. government would not have to take over control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because just having the power to take them over was good enough stop a bond market run on the two bankrupt mortgage backers at the heart of the U.S. housing crash.

September 29, 2011

“The euro isn’t just a failed currency, but a language unto itself”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Europe, Humour — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:01

Jonathan Weil provides a sampling of Euro terms and their real-world meanings:

It’s bad enough for average Americans that most European leaders speak English with heavy accents. What’s worse, even when we can make out the words they utter, it’s almost always impossible to figure out what these officials are really saying. That’s because they’re speaking in Euro-ese.

Fortunately, there is an answer to their endless riddles: a Euro-to-English dictionary, excerpts of which I have included below. To truly see the meaning of the seismic events rapidly reshaping Europe, you must know what the following 10 Euro terms of art mean in plain American English:

1. Finance ministry: A house of worship where government leaders go to pray for bailouts, economic miracles, panaceas and other forms of divine intervention.

How to use in a sentence: Officials at the Greek Finance Ministry said they remain hopeful the country will receive its next batch of rescue loans in time to avoid a cataclysmic default.

2. Coordinated: Chaotic, unfocused, brain-dead, paralyzed to the point of nonexistence; even in its best moments resembling a hopeless klutz.

Example: Finance ministers from the Group of 20 nations last week said they were “committed to a strong and coordinated international response to address the renewed challenges facing the global economy.”

September 23, 2011

The cliché-meister strikes again

Filed under: Economics, Environment, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:04

Andrew Ferguson reviews the book That Used To Be Us by Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum. He didn’t find it a pleasant read:

Mr. Friedman can turn a phrase into cliché faster than any Madison Avenue jingle writer. He announces that “America declared war on math and physics.” Three paragraphs later, we learn that we’re “waging war on math and physics.” Three sentences later: “We went to war against math and physics.” And onto the next page: “We need a systemic response to both our math and physics challenges, not a war on both.” Three sentences later: We must “reverse the damage we have done by making war on both math and physics,” because, we learn two sentences later, soon the war on terror “won’t seem nearly as important as the wars we waged against physics and math.” He must think we’re idiots.

The slovenliness of our language, George Orwell wrote, makes it easier to have foolish thoughts, and while Mr. Friedman’s language has been tidied up a bit, the thinking remains what it has always been. The authors call themselves “frustrated optimists.” Their frustration is owing to the depredations of the last decade, which they call (Mr. Mandelbaum nods) the Terrible Twos. But self-contradiction is also part of the Friedman brand. In many other passages, the authors specifically trace the American slide to the end of the Cold War — though still elsewhere they remark that the 1990s were “positive for America.” It doesn’t help their argument, such as it is, that the evidence of decline they cite — crumbling infrastructure, a failing public-education system — predates both 2001 and 1989 by a long stretch. Our potholes and schools have been favorites of declinists for generations.

If the authors’ frustration is unoriginal and ill-defined, their optimism is terrifying. America will rebound — we will become the us that we used to be again, you might say and Mr. Friedman does — when we regain our ability to do “big things” through “collective action.” Collective action is a phrase that means “the federal government.” Among the big things that we will do are rework American industry, through regulation and taxation, to drastically cut carbon emissions. Another one of our big things is a big increase in the gasoline tax. We will also impose on us a new big carbon tax. We will use revenues to create a “clean energy” industry with millions of “green jobs” like the ones that were eliminated earlier this month at Solyndra. Readers will wonder, like the early environmentalist Tonto, “What do you mean ‘we,’ kemo sabe?”

H/T to Jon, my former virtual landlord, for the link.

September 22, 2011

We need to borrow another word from German

Filed under: Randomness — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:29

The English language is adept at picking up bits of vocabulary from other languages — it’s one of the greatest strengths of English. I’ve just read of a word in German that I have needed for decades:

Schadenfreude captures a much more complex psychological concept, and therefore lacks a single-word counterpart in the English dictionary (Schadenfreude itself is a combination of the German words Schaden and Freude; meaning damage and joy respectively).

Nonetheless, Schadenfreude is such a basic human experience, that it is only natural that — if you don’t develop your own word for it — you would certainly want to adopt somebody else’s word for it into your vocabulary.

Another word that seems similarly essential to describing a particular feeling that most humans experience at some time or another, but which — unlike Schadenfreude — has somehow evaded incorporation into the English language, appears in the verb “Fremdschämen“:

Fremdschämen describes embarrassment which is experienced in response to someone else’s actions, but it is markedly different from simply being embarrassed for someone else. In particular it is different from being embarrassed because of how another person’s actions reflect on us or because of how another person’s actions make us look in the eyes of others.

Instead, Fremdscham (the noun) describes the almost-horror you feel when you notice that somebody is oblivious to how embarrassing they truly are. Fremdscham occurs when someone who should feel embarrassed for themselves simply is not, and you start feeling embarrassment in their place. It is at the heart of beloved “mockumentaries” such as The Office, Modern Family, or Ricky Gervais’ Extras. It is also what makes the auditions for American Idol, Britain’s got Talent and Deutschland Sucht den Superstar so discomfortingly entertaining…

I can now use the correct word to express how almost-physically-painful I feel when I see someone else get embarrassed or humiliated. Fremdschämen. I must remember that.

September 19, 2011

Why are kids using the word “gay” to mean “lame”?

Filed under: Britain, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:23

Brendan O’Neill isn’t going to get letters of love and support for his current column in the Telegraph:

One thing that causes great consternation amongst schoolteachers, commentators and gay-rights activists is that young people use the word gay to mean “rubbish”. Last week it was reported that thousands of schoolchildren, some as young as four, have been reported to their local authorities for using racist or homophobic language, including using “gay” as a stand-in for “naff”. One boy was reprimanded for saying in class: “This work’s gay.” This follows other gay-as-rubbish controversies, including a tsunami of newspaper outrage when, in 2006, BBC Radio 1 presenter Chris Moyles described a mobile phone ringtone as “gay”, and even more outrage when the BBC inquiry into his remark ruled that the word gay is “often now used to mean ‘lame’ or ‘rubbish’. This is widespread current usage… among young people.”

But is it really such a mystery as to why the word gay has come to mean rubbish? It seems obvious to me. It is because gay culture is quite knowingly and resolutely lame. I don’t mean culture that happens to be produced by homosexuals, which includes some of the greatest art in history. No, I mean the stuff that passes for mainstream “gay culture”, foisted upon us by gay TV producers, filmmakers and magazine publishers, which is almost always shallow and camp and kitsch. That is, crap. If young people associate “gay” with “rubbish”, then they’re more perceptive than we give them credit for — they have twigged that, sadly, what is these days packaged up us as “gay culture” is almost always patronising pap.

September 17, 2011

Decoding book review language

Filed under: Humour, Media — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:17

Have you ever bought a book on the recommendation of a book review, then found it didn’t match up to your expectations? Here is a useful guide to what the reviewer is actually saying:

“absorbing”: “makes a great coaster” @DonLinn Don Linn, publishing consultant

“accessible”: “not too many big words” @MarkKohut Mark Kohut, writer and consultant

“acclaimed”: “poorly selling” @BloomsburyPress Peter Ginna, publisher, Bloomsbury Press

“breakout book”: “Hail Mary pass” @BookFlack Larry Hughes, associate director of publicity, the Free Press at Simon & Schuster

“brilliantly defies categorization”: “even the author has no clue what he’s turned in” @james_meader James Meader, publicity director of Picador USA

“captures the times we live in”: “captures the times we were living in two years ago” @mathitak Mark Athitakis, critic

“classroom-friendly”: “kids won’t read it unless they have to” @LindaWonder, Linda White, book promoter at Wonder Communications

August 31, 2011

Despite media reports, Australia didn’t “screw up” torpedo purchase

Filed under: Media, Military — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:58

Strategy Page expresses a bit of contempt for the Fairfax media reporters who mangled a story to get a juicy headline or six:

Another good example of mass media screwing up a story on the military recently appeared in Australia. Fairfax, the largest media group in Australia ran a late August story asserting that the Australian Navy had mishandled the acquisition of new anti-submarine torpedo from France, and had to hire translators to turn the French and Italian user and technical manuals into English. The Defense Ministry quickly responded and pointed out that the Fairfax reporters had misunderstood the situation. The contract to purchase the torpedoes stipulated that all documents be in English. This is standard for such purchases, and has been for a long time. The Fairfax reporters should have known that. The Defense Ministry was hiring translators to handle additional data, not covered by the MU90 purchase, on some of the 200 test launches of the torpedo. This would save the Australian Navy a lot of money as some of their own test launches could be skipped, if the French and Italian tests covered the same situations. But the documents on most of those tests were in the language of the navy conducting them (French or Italian.) The reports were classified, but the two navies were willing to share them, although it was understood that Australia would have to handle translations. This has been standard practice for decades, but the Fairfax reporters didn’t dig that deep. This sort of facile military reporting has become increasingly common. It goes beyond calling all warships (except carriers and subs) “battleships” (a class of ship that went out of wide use half a century ago) or calling self-propelled artillery (or even infantry fighting vehicles) “tanks” simply because they all have turrets (but very different uses). The bad reporting extends to many other basic items of equipment, training, leadership, tactics and casualties.

The argument from the press is probably that the public doesn’t know — and doesn’t care about — the differences between warship classes or armoured vehicles anyway, so they don’t “waste their time” by being accurate.

August 10, 2011

English in India

Filed under: History, India — Tags: — Nicholas @ 08:55

An interesting post at The Economist‘s Johnson blog looks at the evolution of “Hinglish”:

Once the British left India, Anglo-Indian died a natural death. In its place came a chutnified Indian English that mixes American and British versions of the language with vernacular words and syntax and direct translations of phrases.

A glimpse of the breadth of influences in contemporary Indian English can be found at the delightfully-named Samosapedia. A cross between Hobson-Jobson and Urban Dictionary, the website modestly describes itself as “the definitive guide to South Asian lingo” and invites users to “catalog and celebrate the rich, diverse and ever-evolving landscape of this region’s shared vernacular”. Over 2,500 words and phrases have been added since Samosapedia was launched at the end of June.

Samosapedia is a lot of fun. It is also fascinating. Many phrases it lists are common across India: A “chaddi buddy” (lit: underwear friend) is someone you’ve known since childhood; “kabab mein haddi” (lit: a bone in the kebab) is a third wheel with better imagery; an “enthu cutlet” (lit: an enthusiastic mincemeat croquette) is an overly earnest soul. But then there are those that come from regions, sub-cultures and even neighbourhoods. “Talking-shalking” highlights the Punjabi fondness for rhyme. “Sandra from Bandra” is a stereotype from a predominantly Catholic suburb of Mumbai. “Send it” refers to smoking pot.

The entries at Samosapedia also offer an insight into how Indian culture is changing. “Traditional with modern outlook”, often found in matrimonial ads, encapsulates the evolving nature of arrange marriage—or “love-cum-arranged marriage”—where the prospective bride and groom have far greater say in their partners than earlier generations did. “Behenji-turned-mod” is a condescending term for a traditional woman transitioning from fusty and oily-haired to a more urban, socially acceptable version of herself. It is telling that these undoubtedly modern but widely-used phrases exist in Hinglish, a portmanteau of Hindi and English.

Lots of links in the original post to various entries in Samosapedia.

August 1, 2011

Vocabulary test

Filed under: Randomness — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:22

Another one of those “test yourself” websites: Test Your Vocabulary. I did fine on most of the test, but a few of the words in the right column are ones I’ve never encountered:

H/T to James M. Bryant for the link.

Update: On the same list, John Lennard points out this possibly cautionary note: “It is interesting, but without knowing how they’re performing their calculations I’m kinda suspicious. [. . .] Shakespeare’s total recorded active vocabulary (all words used in all his printed works) is 29,066.”

June 2, 2011

When menu translators go feral: “Timid and rapidly grown prostitutes”

Filed under: Humour — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:16

Victor Mair finds the menu items lost something, but gained humour, in the translation:

The basic Bèn School Method seems to be to look each content word up in a bilingual dictionary, and to pick the most amusing and least grammatical option among the alternatives on offer. The word order of the translation seems to be a semi-random compromise among the various languages involved.

H/T to Tom Vinson for the link.

Pity the poor, over-used em-dash

Filed under: Media, Randomness — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:39

Noreen Malone — who admits to being an em-dash abuser herself — makes an appeal for everyone to just leave the em-dash alone!

According to the Associated Press StylebookSlate‘s bible for all things punctuation- and grammar-related — there are two main prose uses— the abrupt change and the series within a phrase — for the em dash. The guide does not explicitly say that writers can use the dash in lieu of properly crafting sentences, or instead of a comma or a parenthetical or a colon — and yet in practical usage, we do. A lot — or so I have observed lately. America’s finest prose — in blogs, magazines, newspapers, or novels — is littered with so many dashes among the dots it’s as if the language is signaling distress in Morse code.

What’s the matter with an em dash or two, you ask? — or so I like to imagine. What’s not to like about a sentence that explores in full all the punctuational options — sometimes a dash, sometimes an ellipsis, sometimes a nice semicolon at just the right moment — in order to seem more complex and syntactically interesting, to reach its full potential? Doesn’t a dash — if done right — let the writer maintain an elegant, sinewy flow to her sentences?

Nope — or that’s my take, anyway. Now, I’m the first to admit — before you Google and shame me with a thousand examples in the comments — that I’m no saint when it comes to the em dash. I never met a sentence I didn’t want to make just a bit longer — and so the dash is my embarrassing best friend. When the New York Times‘ associate managing editor for standards — Philip B. Corbett, for the record — wrote a blog post scolding Times writers for overusing the dash (as many as five dashes snuck their way into a single 3.5-paragraph story on A1, to his horror), an old friend from my college newspaper emailed it to me. “Reminded me of our battles over long dashes,” he wrote — and, to tell the truth, I wasn’t on the anti-dash side back then. But as I’ve read and written more in the ensuing years, my reliance on the dash has come to feel like a pack-a-day cigarette habit — I know it makes me look and sound and feel terrible — and so I’m trying to quit.

Bloggers (some of us, anyway) tend to use the em-dash a bit too frequently, and that’s one of the downsides to being one-person shows — there’s no kindly editor to strike through the excess punctuation with a red pen.

May 28, 2011

Etymology of the word “buxom”

Filed under: History, Law, Randomness — Tags: — Nicholas @ 12:22

In a report on a lawyer’s attempt to become an internet laughing stock, there’s a brief digression into the word “buxom”:

To get back to “buxom” — I was surprised to learn that, according to the OED, this word originally had nothing specifically to do with women. It meant something like “obedient,” “pliant,” or “submissive,” but in reference to God, the Pope, or legal authority — e.g., c.1175 “Beo buhsome toward gode”; c.1523 “I shall be buxome and obeydient to iustice”; c. 1581 “The Consuls should sweare faythfully to become … buxome to the Pope.” (That last one especially I think is good evidence that the word didn’t mean what it means now.) The word also had the sense of “gracious,” “courteous,” or “kindly,” again without regard to gender.

By the 16th century, though, it was evolving into something like “lively” or “full of health,” still not exclusively as to women, but by the 19th century it looks like the dominant meaning had become “plump and comely … chiefly [to describe] women.” Given the word’s history of meaning “submissive” or “compliant,” though, this transition seems to make the word a lot more creepy and sexist than I had thought. I sweare faythfully not to use it anymore.

Older Posts »
« « Feeling optimistic about peoples’ common sense?| Jack Layton: “I’m proud to call myself a socialist … But I don’t go around shouting it out.” » »

Powered by WordPress