Pedantics Anonymous

Interesting Etymology

2009-08-04T07:32:00.001-07:00

Rants on Language Usage

2009-07-23T22:43:00.000-07:00

Those of you who know me know that I am a word nerd. I love looking up obscure etymologies and tracing the evolution of words and languages. I could go on and on about how this or that word is derived from French or German and trace it all the way back to Proto-Indo-European. Looking at language and languages from a historical (not "an", the h is aspirated, so it gets treated like a consonant!!!) perspective, there is only one true rule of language: They change over time. The syntax and grammar of yesterday are gone. But, to be fair, they never truly existed. They were "rules" arrived at by convention [con lat. "together"; venire lat. come]

To all you language mavens out there, admit it. You have words and/or phrases that feel like fingernails on a chalkboard. I do too. I'm trying climb down from my ivory tower, but it's so hard. It's so comfy and cushy up here. Plus, I get to look down my nose at whomever I choose. (I am sad to see the word, "whom", falling away...one of the last vestiges of the Old English case system like the word "him".) I do, however, draw the line of people using "irrgardless". This word violates both rules of syntax and morphology. In English, one wouldn't use both a negating prefix and suffix. (These rules are okay to keep; they are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

English, as beautiful and inclusive language that it is, has a few peculiar features that have never made sense to me. Take the construction, "Aren't I". It sounds right to me because it said to often. But is it correct to say, "I are"? Granted, the aforementioned construction is only really used for emphasis: "I'm supposed to go to the store, aren’t I?" Also, there never seemed to evolve a negative contraction for "I am". We have "don't", "aren't" and "isn't". (This follows a phonological rule of English, though. "I am't" doesn't work because, generally, English words don't like to end with an m t sound...at least words that are commonly used. The t would eventually elide away.)

I'm also sick of the i before e except after c rule and its exceptions. Time for it to go. The only reason this rule crept up was that English inherited most of its vocabulary from French and German. The letter c in French words usually needs an e after it, where the ei and ie spellings in German indicate a long-I and long-E pronunciations respectively. Pick one or the other. Etymology be damned! (a use of the subjunctive mood here...I still wish people would be conscious of it; especially in conditional clauses. It sounds so much cooler.)

Oh, how I love the subjunctive mood. Spanish speakers, you know what I mean. English used to have separate form for subjunctive verbs; it survives mainly in our modal (helping) verbs: can-could, will-would, shall-should. But, alas, it too is falling by the wayside. Granted, we don't really need it. Our contrary-to-fact statements are still intelligible. But to maintain them would be a lot of work. English verbs don't fall into neat little categories like French or Spanish. (Actually they do; there's just too many of them to keep track of.)

Which reminds me of another thing...

I never quite understood why one shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition? This rule harkens back to Latin grammar rules in which prepositions governed certain cases. The last time I checked, English was, structurally, a Germanic language. German sentences routinely end with prepositions. Many of their verbs are prefixed with prepositions, many of which are separable and fall to the end of a sentence or clause. Trying to put a preposition with a relative pronoun doesn't work well in English. We have no genitive or dative case.

I do like the Germanic family of languages: English, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, (but oddly not Finnish) Icelandic...and, oh yeah, German. I like the fact that almost one fourth of their words cannot be traced back beyond proto-Germanic. The word god, for instance, comes from the German Gott. That's about as far back as we can go. Romance variations on the word can obviously be traced back to deus, itself etymologically related to Zeus. Make a z and then a d sound. You should notice why these sounds are related. Deus itself can be traced back to proto-Indo-European and is related to words for the same concept that span most of Europe and northern Asia. Plus, Germanic languages have had an odd vowel shift that its sister families didn't undergo. It's nice being the odd one out.

My final rant for tonight will be about pronouns. First, I wish English had a neutral, neither masculine nor feminine, pronoun like Mann (Ger.) or on (Fre.). English uses "you" in this sense, but I've never liked it. Finally, but number one in my heart, I wish English made use of a formal form for "you". Consider: du/Sie, tu/vous tu/vosotros/Usted. "You" used to be the plural/formal "you". Thee and thou were the informal...even though it sounds formal (i.e. archaic) to modern ears. In many European cultures, there is a wall of formality between people who don't know each other very well. I don't like strangers addressing me by my first name. That's a privilege, not a right. I like keeping certain people at a polite distance until I've decided whether or not to invite them into my little world. I despise name tags that state: "Hello. My name is..." If I don't know you're name, I'll address you as "sir" or "ma'am" or "mister" or "Ms. (okay, I have no idea how to spell it, but it does seem more polite that "miss" or "misses". I'm all for gender equality and neutrality.)

Lesson learned here: There are some linguistic/grammatical rules I deplore, while others I love. There really is no rhyme or reason to why I like one rule and despise another. I'm not consistent. So just DEAL with it!

(By the way, my favorite bumper sticker: "Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're an asshole.")

The Most Important Lesson

2009-07-22T06:14:00.000-07:00

“Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.” -Oscar Wilde

It seems a bit odd that people look down on mistakes. With the exception of mistakes one makes over and over again, mistakes are the best teachers in the world. When some early caveman approached the first hot, glowing flames, and stuck is hand in it, he learned not to stick his hand in fire. I’m sure that when he returned to his cave and grunted his narrative to his brethren, some of them had to try it out for themselves. Convinced that this burning sensation must be wrong, I’m sure one or two of them kept touching it. (Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.)

Each little life lesson one acquires molds them into a different and—one would hope—better person. Unfortunately and paradoxically, some of the most important lessons are learned only after it’s too late: The lost love, the missed opportunity, ordering the chicken instead of the fish. Every so often some of these people are given a second chance to show what they’ve learned the first time around. They’re given the chance to put right what once went wrong…and hope each time that the next leap will be the leap home. (Oh boy!)

Having gone through a lifetime of important lessons, some are lucky to get to pass them onto the next generation. It’s an odd transition from student to teacher. (Ah, very wise, Grasshopper…) When a father sees himself in the eyes of his son, he can see all the missteps he’s made He wants to guide his son to avoid the pitfalls and perils he’s seen. Ultimately, though, he has to helplessly sit back and watch his son follow similar paths. His only hope is that his son his wise enough to learn the lessons he couldn’t before it’s too late.

The most important lesson(s):
Don’t tug on Superman’s cape.
Don’t spit into the wind.
Don’t pull off the mask of that old lone ranger.
And don’t mess around with Jim.

I hope this doesn't sound like a cop out. . . .

2009-07-15T05:51:00.000-07:00

Bringing a current form of technology to help someone or a family in the past leaves one with a terribly difficult decision to make. Whom to help? How? What affects might this bring about. It would also be a big responsibility. Too big for any one person. I don't think that that responsibility is a fair weight to put on someone's shoulders. Plus, I don't think it'd be fair to help someone with my advanced knowledge of technology or the future without helping anyone else. Why should this particular person or family receive advanced help as opposed to the one down the street.
Also,what results would take place? One could assume that there would be no lasting repurcussions, but I don't work with assumptions. How could I know if the help I'd brought didn't end up hurting them. How would I know if they wouldn't use my assistence to hurt someone else? Besides, how much help could I bring? I could help someone ease their workload or live a little longer, but in the long run, how much good does that actually do?
If I were sent into the past--regardless of the time--the only thing I'd like to bring with me is hope. Hope that the future is something worth living for. Hope that although things aren't bright now, things will get better. Hope that I could be their example of making the world a better place. Hope that this sense of hope is passed on...Or maybe a laser pointer.

You gotta know when to hold 'em...

2009-07-12T03:35:00.000-07:00

Note: Though this entry is written for the first round blog-off category, it is not to be voted for as it is past the deadline. It is for entertainment purposes and external use only. Please consult your physician should a rash occur. (These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA.) Further, this was written rather quickly so spelling, grammar and organization may be lacking. Reader discretion is advised.

I don’t know how one would exactly define a “best life”. I don’t know if such a concept exists. I would say that one can build toward a “better life”. The “best life” may be an ideal to aim for, though one will probably never quite achieve it. Paradoxically, the ideal is not the true goal in life, nor can it be. The true goal should be the journey itself. The “goal” or “aim” of a best life will change from time to time. If one is set in a definite direction, and the end result changes midstream, what is one to do?

I am not a fan of what I like to call “Bumper Sticker Philosophy”. (This may be a future post in itself.) People like to quote aphorisms that sound lovey-dovey and oh-so-enlightened. (I would love to have a bumper sticker that reads “My views are too complex to fit on a bumper sticker.”) Quotations, proverbs, sayings and the like are often cited out of context and misapplied when taken from their original settings. When it comes to my outlook on Life, the Universe and Everything, I am influenced by a number of different cultures and traditions (as most cultures and traditions are; no one lives in a vacuum), most heavily by ancient Greek. There are a few, though, that I think can serve as guideposts on the journey towards a better life.

There are two phrases supposedly carved into the temple of Apollo at Delphi with which we can start our examination.

Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (gnōthi seauton) “Know yourself.”
Knowing—truly knowing oneself—is a very difficult thing to do. Many people live under an illusion of who they think they are or want to be. These views often originate and are fostered by one’s parents, culture, religion or other external forces that want one to conform to their ideas regarding what is important. You may fundamentally disagree with a belief or a practice but carry on with it because you’re ignorant or lazy to think for yourself. People may think they’re wrong or sick for wishing to live or think a certain way. Imagine how many people are in loveless marriages or unfulfilled lives because they’re living according to someone else’s standards.

Taking a hard, critical look at yourself can be difficult because it is easy to see something that you don’t like. Seeing something you don’t like (e.g. cruelty to others, bigotry, egotism), is a hard pill to swallow. People tend to have a high opinion of themselves. It’s hard when you realize that you’re not living up to your own expectations. If you do fall short of what you want, there’s a choice that must be made. Are your goals or expectations realistic? Or are your methods of achieving said goals or expectations realistic?

Those who don’t know themselves have no way of directing their life. They rely on rules and enforcers thereof. What do they do when there’s no one to tell them what to do? Not knowing yourself or what you want or believe is no way to achieve a better life. (What was it Socrates said? “An unexamined life is not worth something something…”)

Μηδὲν άγαν (māden agan) “Nothing in excess. (lit: Nothing too much).
I would venture a guess that almost everyone knows that too much of anything isn’t good for you. Too many sweets can rot you teeth. Too much TV will give you a fat ass. Too much D&D can impose involuntary celibacy. Too much love can be smothering. Too much masturbation can lead to chafing. Too much education can make you an asshole. Conversely, too little of things can also be detrimental. Too few healthful foods can contribute to the large ass. Too little D&D (or whatever hobby or escapism you prefer) can make you a dullard. Too little masturbation (unless you get enough of the good stuff) can…well, you get the picture.

The most ironic thing about moderation is that moderation should be done in moderation. There are times when one needs to give in to excess. Every once and a while, have an extra desert. Watch a movie marathon. Pull up your favorite website and unzip your fly. It’s called having fun and enjoying life.

Straddling the thin line between extremes can really only be done successfully if you know what you need and what your limitations are. I know that after two beers I’m on the verge of tipsy. After four or five, I’m dead on drunk. I also know that from time to time, I need a little Dionysian release. Sometimes I go for the release more than I should; sometimes not enough.

Πάντα ‘ρεϊ (panta rhei) “Everything changes.” (lit: Everything flows.)
This quote isn’t related to the temple of Apollo. It comes from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (Ἐρακλιτος). Like the Golden Rule, almost every philosophical tradition has a version of this. The only constant in the universe is change. People change, rules change, and diapers are changed. In most aspects of my life, as soon as I learn the rules for something, they change. It took me two or three weeks to get used to having a newborn baby in the house. When I got used to it, he was then three weeks old. He was awake more. He ate and pooped more. When I got used to a baby who mostly slept, he started opening his eyes and being more alert. The noises I had become accustomed to being cries of hunger or discomfort became coos and giggles. I no longer needed to rush to him whenever he made a sound.
Likewise I have changed over time. My roles in life have evolved. I’m no longer a child or carefree and single—no matter what my wife says. As things change in my life, I must change with them. As my son gets older, I will have to teach him to use the toilet. (I could probably use a refresher.) I’ll need to teach him responsibilities and consequences. Finally, I’ll have to refrain from indoctrinating him to my views.

And finally…

“Man is condemned to be free…” –Jean-Paul Sartre
(No, I didn’t bother to write the quote in French. I only did it above because I found a website that lets me type in Greek letters and diacritical marks.)

I, as everyone, have the unfortunate fate of making my own decisions and dealing with the results or consequences. (Yes, some options are limited; I won’t go into soft determinism here.) Because we are free to follow our own paths, we are forced to create our own purpose in life…to determine what the “best life” is for us. Carving out our own purpose infers that there might not be a grand overarching, intrinsic purpose to life itself. No intrinsic purpose might infer that everything is random and nothing means anything. If nothing means anything, why go on? The only answer I have for that is “Why not?” At the age of 31, statistically speaking that is, I’m in the middle of Act II. I’m curious how the play will progress. Will it turn out to be a comedy or a tragedy? Will I want my money back at the end? Will the concession stand stay open long enough for me to get my free refill of soda?

There are no guarantees in life (except death, taxes and the occasional foot fetish). The lack of guarantees makes life a game. Some have more skill than others. Some are dealt an easier or harder hand through pure luck. You can sit out a few hands, raise the stakes of the bet, pass or fold. Every hand’s a winner; every hand’s a loser, and the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep.

You're not actually reading this, are you?!!

2009-07-10T05:00:00.000-07:00

Pe-dan-tic (pə-dăn’tĭk) adj. Marked by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules. —pe-dan'-ti-cal-ly adv. —ped'ant-try n.

The American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed.

That's all you really need to know for now. Stay tuned for wry, pithy, sarcastic, egotistical and, of course, pedantic observations on all that is observable. Until next time, farewell true believers.