RSSCategory: Language

3 Idiots: “Aal Izz Well”

January 26, 2012 | By | Reply More

This may not be the perfect forum for a review, but the film “3 Idiots” is about education versus training, science versus engineering, fear versus hubris (and the happy medium), life and death, love and despair, laughter and tears. And it has colorful Bollywood dance numbers, too!

I rented it on a whim, as it was billed as a movie about too-smart engineering students versus the educational system. I was puzzled when it began with English subtitles during the (Indian accented) English dialog. I remembered a 1990’s PBS/BBC series on the English language, when some of the impenetrable-to-me accents of the U.K. had no subtitles, but the perfectly intelligible-to-me Cajun and Ebonic dialects did. But as the blend of Hindi and English became apparent, I saw the need.

I loved this movie. Once one gets into the esthetic swing of Bollywood productions, it makes perfect sense when serious issues become silly dance numbers, and all characters are played as borderline caricatures. One can observe the essential cultural differences between our familiar American dilute-Christian one-life-to-live and anyone-can-become-president attitude and the Indian institutionalized attitude that reincarnation is the only way to improve your lot except through extraordinary means.

Why I think this is appropriate to this forum is the take on education. The protagonist has a scientific mindset that is often at odds with engineering philosophy and even more with institutionalized education. The system of teaching to the test is questioned, as is the principle of square pegs hammered into round holes. Vocation versus avocation is central to this, and expounded toward the end.

The 3 Idiots – Official Trailer has embedding disabled, but preview is fun even without subtitles. You get the idea of how English and Hindi have merged in their culture.

I defy you to watch it and not have the songs “All izz well” and/or “Zoobi Doobi” stuck in your heads.

Share

Read More

No rhyme

January 22, 2012 | By | 3 Replies More
No rhyme

I had long assumed that there was no rhyme for the word “orange.” One of my daughters told me that there was no rhyme for “silver” either. That inspired us to turn to Wikipedia for a detailed list of words for which there are no rhymes. I had assumed that there were only a smattering of short English words that had no rhyme, but I was seriously wrong.

Share

Read More

Abolish apostrophes?

January 13, 2012 | By | 2 Replies More
Abolish apostrophes?

As I worked to write a long email on my iPhone, I found myself skipping some apostrophes because the reader certainly would understand what I was trying to communicate. This made me wonder why we users of English don’t organize and officially eliminate apostrophes in many contractions. How about writing “dont” instead of “don’t”? How about “cant” instead of “can’t” (no one will confuse it with the obscure noun or little-used noun, verb and adjective versions of “cant.” Even without an apostrophe, we would instantly know what “doesnt” and “wasnt” mean. Arguments can even be made to eliminate apostrophes in possessives (we’ve actually done that in pronoun possessives (his, her, their, its).  The apostrophe, as used in contractions, was originally implemented to warn us that something is missing.  If it’s already apparent what’s missing, though, the apostrophe (at least in many cases) seems redundant.

I checked to see whether anyone else has proposed to do away with many of our apostrophes and I found this article by Richard Nordquist, who offers many resources, including a link to the aptly named Apostrophe Protection Society.

I know that what I propose will never happen.  That is the power of path dependency.  But perhaps it is already happening unofficially, due to the way many of us are taking shortcuts on our smartphones. I know that Im not the only one who doesnt like digging out those little apostrophes and I wont be inclined to change my ways.

Share

Read More

I’d’ve never believed it if I hadn’t’ve seen them: double contractions

January 5, 2012 | By | 1 Reply More
I’d’ve never believed it if I hadn’t’ve seen them: double contractions

I never gave it much thought, but there is such a thing as a double-contraction in English. There are many of them.

Share

Read More

No such people

December 11, 2011 | By | 3 Replies More
No such people

Newt Gingrich recently asserted that the Palestinians are “an invented people,” and that they are also “terrorists.” Gingrich then offered this alleged history:

“Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire,” Gingrich told The Jewish Channel in an interview released on Friday.

. . .

[The] American Task Force on Palestine spokesman Hussein Ibish was quick to point out that “there was no Israel and no such thing as an ‘Israeli people’ before 1948,” when the Jewish state was established.

Glenn Greenwald has pointed out that the most damaging words tend to be those words like “terrorism,” which have no clear meaning.

Share

Read More

On defining “terrorism”

December 11, 2011 | By | 4 Replies More
On defining “terrorism”

Glenn Greenwald once again finds that the United States defines its terms, in this case, “terrorism,” in strangely specialized ways:

Few things better illustrate the utter meaninglessness of the word Terrorism than applying it to a citizen of an invaded country for fighting back against the invading army and aiming at purely military targets (this is far from the first time that Iraqis and others who were accused of fighting back against the invading U.S. military have been formally deemed to be Terrorists for having done so). To the extent the word means anything operationally, it is: he who effectively opposes the will of the U.S. and its allies.

This topic is so vital because this meaningless, definition-free word — Terrorism — drives so many of our political debates and policies. Virtually every debate in which I ever participate quickly and prominently includes defenders of government policy invoking the word as some sort of debate-ending, magical elixir: of course President Obama has to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process: they’re Terrorists; of course we have to stay in Afghanistan: we have to stop The Terrorists; President Obama is not only right to kill people (including civilians) using drones, but is justified in boasting and even joking about it, because they’re Terrorists; of course some people should be held in prison without charges: they’re Terrorists, etc. etc. It’s a word that simultaneously means nothing and justifies everything.

Share

Read More

What Most Sets of Commandments Get Wrong

December 11, 2011 | By | Reply More
What Most Sets of Commandments Get Wrong

I recently read Penn Jillette’s 10 Commandments for atheists, written as a response to a challenge by Glenn Beck. Most of Penn’s rules made good sense. But one went off the rails, I opine.

He included one found in most mistranslations of the Christian Ten: “Don’t Lie.” Penn explicitly adds the caveat: “(You know, unless you’re doing magic tricks and it’s part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)”

But the premise is basically flawed. The original line in Exodus 20:16 (KJV) is Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. This is a very specific form of lie. Even too specific. Not only is it an injunction against perjury, but only against perjury against your landholding neighbor, as opposed to people from other places, or to property such as women and slaves.

Of course we all must lie on occasion. How else can we answer, “Isn’t she the most beautiful baby ever?” or “Honey, do I look puffy?” Would it be false testimony to confirm a harmless bias one on one?

Yet I suggest that the proper commandment should be, “Don’t bear false witness.” Period. Don’t testify to things of which you are not absolutely sure; that you have not personally experienced. Not in a public forum. Don’t repeat “what everybody knows” unless you preface it with an appropriate waffle, such as “I heard that someone else heard that…”

But this might make it difficult to testify to the all-embracing love of a demonstrably genocidal God. A Google image search of “Testify” gives mostly Christian imagery.

Share

Read More

The inherent danger of complex laws and regulations

November 11, 2011 | By | 6 Replies More
The inherent danger of complex laws and regulations

We often hear big businesses complaining about regulations, but if those regulations are complex enough, they turn into giant opportunities for big business. All you need is a smart team of lawyers in order to drive a big truck through a tiny loophole or exemption, as explained by Kevin Drum of Mother Jones:

[N]o one should take too seriously Republican complaints about burdensome regulations strangling the economy. The truth is that most reformers prefer fairly simple rules. In the tax world, they’d prefer to simply tax all income. In the environmental world, they’d prefer to set firm limits for pollutants. In the financial world, they’d prefer blunt rules that cut off risky activity at its knees.

But businesses don’t like simple rules, because simple rules are hard to evade. So they lobby endlessly for exemptions both big and small. This is why we end up with tax subsidies for bow-and-arrow makers. It’s why we end up with environmental rules that treat a hundred different industries a hundred different ways. It’s why financial regulators don’t enact simple leverage rules or place firm asset caps on firm size. Those would be hard to get around and might genuinely eat into bank profits. Complex rules, conversely, are the meat and drink of $500-per-hour lawyers and whiz kid engineers. If the rules are complicated enough, smart lawyers can always find ways around them. And American corporations employ lots of smart lawyers.

In an earlier post, I had cited this quote: “One can make money only if there is real risk based on actual uncertainty, and without uncertainty there is no risk.’ To the extent that we have simple and understandable rules, it is harder to hide unfair business practices.

There is great value to uncertainty–to unwieldy and vague legislation–to those who have teams of savvy lawyers and accountants whose job it is to navigate and circumvent the purported intent of the legislation. That’s because most of us don’t have the time, attention, energy or political clout to rein in those who create these legislative monstrosities. We’re too busy working 8 or more hours per day at the office, then trying to be good parents, trying to fix the house or car, and maybe relaxing for an hour or two per night. How many of us are interested or able of plowing through 2,000 page legislative packages or regulations in our “free time,” or trying to make sense of complex court decisions that also struggle with these legislative morasses?

As Kevin Drum writes:

We could probably cut the size of agency regulations by 10 times if we wanted to. But business don’t want to. Sure, they’d prefer no regulation at all, but they know that’s not in the cards. So in public they bemoan complexity, but in private they fight endlessly for more of it. To their lawyers, every single extra page is an extra opportunity to make more money.

It makes one think that we need a law to outlaw complex laws.  We need a law that all laws should be written in plain English and that they must be understandable by high school graduates.  Those who insist that they need something that is not reasonably understandable should be presumed to benefit a special interest and presumed to be opposed to the public good.  Complex laws are huge red flags, regardless of the title of the law or the way politicians assure us that these laws will benefit the public.

Indigestibly complex laws almost always signal that ordinary Americans are getting screwed.

Share

Read More

George Lakoff frames American conservatism versus OWS

October 19, 2011 | By | 1 Reply More
George Lakoff frames American conservatism versus OWS

Linguist George Lakoff has set forth frames for American conservatism:

Conservatives have figured out their moral basis and you see it on Wall Street: It includes: The primacy of self-interest. Individual responsibility, but not social responsibility. Hierarchical authority based on wealth or other forms of power. A moral hierarchy of who is “deserving,” defined by success. And the highest principle is the primacy of this moral system itself, which goes beyond Wall Street and the economy to other arenas: family life, social life, religion, foreign policy, and especially government. Conservative “democracy” is seen as a system of governance and elections that fits this model.

Versus that which appears to be the frame of the Occupy Wall Street movement:

Democracy starts with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that sense of care, taking responsibility both for oneself and for one’s family, community, country, people in general, and the planet. The role of government is to protect and empower all citizens equally via The Public: public infrastructure, laws and enforcement, health, education, scientific research, protection, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, and on and on. Nobody makes it one their own. If you got wealthy, you depended on The Public, and you have a responsibility to contribute significantly to The Public so that others can benefit in the future. Moreover, the wealthy depend on those who work, and who deserve a fair return for their contribution to our national life. Corporations exist to make life better for most people. Their reason for existing is as public as it is private.

Share

Read More