Wholly crap, or you can make this shit up yourself

Recent headlines (copied verbatim) lead to imaginary news stories. If you are into political correctness, read no further.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2525253/Model-Sally-Gifford-Piper-star-hit-Photoshop-video-gets-fat-Santa-makeover.html

Holiday shoppers love the gift that's never returned

A new trend is worrying business owners. This year store-bought gifts are not being returned to shops or gift-givers. Consequently, people's homes are filling up with an alarmingly large number of white elephants waiting anxiously for re-gifting. Marketing gurus and psychologists have united in trying to discover why this hoarding craze is filling up garages, attics and basements. One observer notes that re-gifting of white elephants is passe. Americans used to have a love affair with false sentiment, especially among their closest friends who got the unwanted crap. Giving the gift that keeps on getting given seems to have lost its luster.

Confidence Rises to Five-Month High as Americans Cheer Discounts

Shoppers entered stores congratulating one another with high-fives and loud cheers and whistles as they bought up all the crap they could find to fill their closets, garages and rented storage units. "Sales are the reason to buy," one shopper said. "It inspires me and gives me the inner strength to meet my obligations and excel in everything I do." Skeptics questioned the strategy, wondering what would happen if prices went back to their normally inflated levels.

Brazil Grapples With Mosquito-borne Virus

Exciting matches between a behemoth state and a microscopic one unfortunately weighed in favor of the viruses because Brazil, the fourth largest country in the world, had no hands small enough to grab hold of the little buggers. One disgruntled fan at an internationally televised match complained about the inability to see what was really going on and how his favorite virus fared against a goliath. The promotion for this event, he said, "was just crap."

Wild crows use tiny cameras to film themselves using tools

There was loud kawing and crowing as the birds took pictures of their fellow workers manipulating their new tools. But it all went south when the birds protested that they couldn't upload their photos to Instagram and Facebook. They complained they had no way to pay with a credit card for their internet service.

The black (and decker) crows: They use tools

But the white ones (crows) haven't learned how yet, because they say they need electricity to power their tools. The black crows figured out a way to sit on power lines and plug their tools into the grid. Unfortunately, they haven't found a extension cords long enough to do anything useful.

Brain dead" man wakes after father's threat to shoot medics

"I was just having this dream of world peace when dad, as usual, woke me up with his NRA rant," said the gun-toter's son, an advocate for banning all firearms. He told Fox News that he was going back into a coma as a  protest until enough people got shot that people like his father went back on their meds, or attended civilizing classes at the Leave-Others-the-Fuck-Alone school for big boys with crap for brains.

Police say they seek 400-pound bearded woman in stabbing

A case of hide-and-seek gone wrong--police claim assailant is not playing fair by hiding where they can't see or recognize her. "It is as if she disappeared into thin air," said one policeman who asked to remain anonymous. He said she failed to reveal herself even after he repeatedly called "Olly olly oxen free." He threw up his hands in frustration saying, "This crappy game sucks."

Man donates $15G Rolex to Newburyport Salvation Army

"Wonder of wonders," said the Army volunteer who stood outside Walmart collecting donations for the poor and needy. However, the Army Commander is now at a loss as to what to do with the expensive donation. He said no one on the street needed such an expensive watch and no one in any Salvation Army store could afford to buy one. He said, as a contribution to the cause of giving, he would wear the watch for the upcoming spring golf tournament to show how successful past charitable campaigns had fared.

Queen Gives Traditional Christmas Day Message

(If you heard it last year and the year before, you can probably skip it. Same old. . . .)

Treat 'normal' blood pressure to save lives: study urges

A new life-saving advisory for healthy people has been touted by American doctors--take meds before your non-existent symptoms and conditions appear. The wellness strategy apparently grows out of foreign policy think tanks, institutions currently having exhausted anything really important to think about. They seem to be extending the logic of their most successful policy advice ever, "preemptive strikes to eliminate unwanted civilians in undeclared wars."

Why The Christmas Full Moon Is Even More Important Than You Thought

The puzzling appearance of the full moon on Christmas signals that earthly phenomena such as tides and increased incidence of menstrual cramps will make hell for seamen who wish to dock for the holidays and enjoy quality family time with long suffering wives such as have been portrayed in sentimental nineteenth century novels of adventure and once-a-decade marital unions . . .

Ran out of steam but feel free to continue by gathering the headlines and letting the silliness flow, An antidote to all the weird and unsettling news, and non-news.

Shalott/Shalot*

A woman stands full frontal naked with a tropea onion in one hand, extended with straight arm at eye level as if offering it to taste or to take. In the other hand hanging by her side, she holds a red scarf as if in reserve for her courtly lover. She has natural red hair--luscious long or punk short--and a plaintive look without deep sorrow, more like yearning for love to be returned. She wears a round, polished silver pendant on a long silver chain. Add a medieval tapestry draped over a row boat in the background. On the boat are the words "Lady of", but the phrase's completion is blocked by the woman's body. No gossamer or other tricks. Minimalist, no makeup, no distractions. Possibly somewhere inconspicuous, a seeming misplaced CD jewel case. The woman is looking directly into the camera's eye. The focal point is the face and the expression. The rest is context.

___

* A proposed art photo along the lines of a friend's fine work.

3 X 51 symmetry

Youth dismisses obtuse others--uninformed at best; stupid are the worst. They don't understand and can't. We are special; we know it. Self-assured, cock-sure. But no one will have us and appreciate our depth of knowledge and self-evident insights. We are old souls if we had heard of such a thing.

Mid-age brings true know-how and smarts. We exercise our special talents with acts of excellence. We would spread our wings, venture  into unknown lands and occupations. But most often we do what we know and have become so proficient at. Dreams live still of making that difference, helping, or something more.

Old age brings the same in accumulation. We have all of youth, a career or two to reap the best from. Perhaps personal successes and love--to share for some new young venture or need, or just tell someone? There's no audience. We are no longer needed, if we ever were.

. . . I still would live to 153 just to see what happens.

Invite

each and every One not the same
with separate dreams separate stories
gracefully told old and young . . .
if only asked.

Before the lights go out and we to bed
let us hear record these retell
ourselves and those to take our places
this and each in every place.

Each at the center the world we matter
our dreams our stories preserving preserve
and honor our being here and having been.
Listen and repeat we never die.

Start a point and all directions
let the magic reach round the world
to show this whole and one and center
reaching full circle in dignity's fullness.

We are each One and not the same
not the dreams not the stories when
we listen each round the world . . .
round our lives.

Invite.

to be these ways

I am subject, me,
for my object, you.
Fortunately.
I am pretty.
you are too.
Then you are subject
and I your object.
Nothing wrong.
It's just like that.
And deep in sex
we back and forth,
me the one,
you the other,
you the one,
me like you.
Forth and back
till we be come
the one in love,
knowing its ok
to be these ways.
Yes, we the selfish,
we come back
to where we start
again, again and 'gain.

Instructable

How does she look like? (incorrect--in my opinion)
What she looks like is a dream. (correction in the answer)

I hear this a lot: "That (something/-one) is how (it or s/he) looks like." This construction is substituted for or confused with "what it looks like."

To remember the two expressions--"how does she look" or "what does she look like," but not a mixture of the two: Never "how does [something or someone] look like."

Now, just to be fair, the questions of how and what are not necessarily the same. How does she look might have the answer given above. It could also mean the same as the what-question which asks for a description in order to recognize someone as opposed to another person.

Let's take a thing instead of a person to illustrate.

"How does it (the situation) look?"
"Fine. You can proceed safely."
"But what does the road look like up ahead?" (Or, how does the road look ahead?)
"All clear."

Who is making this mistake? In my casual observation, it is speakers of other languages who are using the English they have learned or heard somewhere. Or am I mistaken? Perhaps I am. I heard this on the (vererable) BBC TV last evening.

. . . how it (the busy train station) looks like . . .

Followed by showing the busy train station. So what is going on? The BBC, known for its presentation of an English everyone can understand, and I, a native American English speaker not unfamiliar with BBC and British English, arrested every time I hear what I believe to be an error?

The train station, what it looks like--description or comparison with something else. How the train station looks like--for in this case, what it looks like--description.

If you run ngrams on the two phrases, "how it looks" and "how it looks like," you get the following.

how it looks

how it looks like

And if you run a frequency count on an American English corpus, you get the following.

how it looks

The number of instances is huge.

how it looks like

This is it, the total number of instances, four.

What to make of these? My reading is that the frequency over time favors "how it looks," without like. There have been periods that have come and gone where the addition of like has taken place, but only to be "corrected" somehow through editing, highs and lows in literacy rates . . . you guess. As for such a dramatic difference in the corpora counts, the difference might be sample sizes and/or characteristics of populations? Clearly, something is or is not going on. Regional differences? generational? types of English (native vs. other) used? As more and more people learn English from non-native speakers not well versed in how the language sounds (not "sounds like"), or is used, we get this, what I call, an  error.

I confess, a small bit of a bite of difference when in most instances we think we know what the user means regardless.

Rant, recant, resolve

RANT

From AD 623 to 632, we have

This list of [100] Battles by Muhammad, [which] also includes a list of battles by Muhammad's order and comprises information about casualties, objectives, and nature of the military expeditions ordered by Muhammad, as well as the primary sources which mention the Battles. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad)

1. If fifty percent of this information is correct, Muhammad authorized or took part in "battles" at a rate of two plus per month.  (Although the word battles does not strictly apply to all offensive/defensive acts listed. Consult the source above for a fine-grained analysis.)

What then does the "injunction" mean to do as the prophet did? which derives from the following:

YUSUFALI: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
PICKTHAL: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
SHAKIR: Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.
(Source: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php#033.021)

2. I say unto thee, take serious note of any movement claiming such categorical (divine) correctness about inflicting pain, suffering, death on others. Was there no such thing . . . is there no such thing as diplomacy and peacemaking? Or something better, such as live and let live and let God sort us all out.

YUSUFALI: And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character.
PICKTHAL: And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.
SHAKIR: And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.

YUSUFALI: Soon wilt thou see, and they will see,
PICKTHAL: And thou wilt see and they will see
SHAKIR: So you shall see, and they (too) shall see,

YUSUFALI: Which of you is afflicted with madness.
PICKTHAL: Which of you is the demented.
SHAKIR: Which of you is afflicted with madness.
Source: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/068-qmt.php#068.004)

Nice irony. Whose madness?

3. Increased numbers will also become deluded and miss the messages of what Islam says and does and stands for. For example, the soon to be released film, "Muhammad: The Messenger of God," will beget converts, as well as controversy. According to "Sami Yusuf, who is one of the Islamic world's biggest musical stars and who sang the soundtrack for the film. . . ."

You cannot study Mohammad's life and not fall in love with him and his character. If this film makes people of the world know our prophet better and see how kind he was, we have done our job.
(Source: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Sunni-Muslim-clerics-furious-over-anticipated-Iranian-film-about-Muhammad-413587)

Kind? Kind of an antithesis as seen by other than the chosen. No war is without human suffering. No human is immune to suffering if a loved one is taken for words not uttered under duress. Convert or die? (This from other parts of the holy book. Have a look if interested.)

RECANT

I have been a pacifist all my life. Cooperation and mutual understanding have been my lived principles.

Given the clear and present danger in the face of Islam and its origins in and adherence to the words of Allah, I reject the choice to convert or die. He, and I do mean _he_, has a gun as should I. My choice is for me and my family and my friends and my acquaintances and my fellow nationals and my fellow world citizens. I will shoot.*

RESOLVE

It is not difficult to look into the matters of Islam, from its founder to its teachings and scriptures. Without deep scholarship and based on cursory examination, anyone can learn enough to dismiss the religion, especially its political and missionary intentions. To volunteer to become a missionary or more for the cause, read and learn if ever so lightly as is here demonstrated. To board boat, train, or plane and head for the battlefront before doing so, well, consider yourself lost.

While living in or visiting a more secular state, to protest in public and demand the heads of unbelievers or to claim that the western nation-states are violating the word of Allah, these are life-and-death threats and therefore can be strongly censured--deportation will be among the next responses from  awakening democracies and other civilized corners. Back to wherever you who so speak can consort with other like minded delusionals.**

--
* Containment-isolation is a humane (evolved?) alternative, if you have the opportunity and luxury for implementing same.
**For more on the battles of Islam, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0IisZ77QI. IMPORTANT STUDY, NOT TO MISS.

(Im)precisely

He added, "Brothers and sisters don't be fooled by your desires, this life is short and bitter and the opportunity to submit to allah may pass you by."

A Washington Post article online concerning one of the latest shootings in the US outlined the different lives the shooter, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, led. As with many articles online, advertisements were sprinkled throughout, among them this one concerning wine. What is interesting is that the advertisement comments nicely on what the article at that point was highlighting in the writings of Mr. Abdulazeez. 

I question the mechanical insertion of advertisements into "content," always, but that is perhaps a minority view. As this one, however, makes clear, Mr. Abdulazeez's interests are eerily underlined and give pause to the wisdom of scrambling content with Mammon's messages. 

Isn't that what these intrusions and diversions are? Down with the silly and time-wasting insertions . . . they even lead to posts like this one, where the diversion is the subject, not what the article says, much less what the article might mean.

Oh, the title and authors in case someone might want to delve. Chattanooga shooter's real, online lives seem to take divergent paths, by Greg Jaffe, Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Adam Goldman, July 17, 2015.

What we know

https://twitter.com/hashtag/distractinglysexy?src=hash

From NPR

If you're catching up, British scientist Tim Hunt, 72, made the remarks at an international conference in South Korea, where he reportedly said, "You fall in love with them [women], they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry." On Wednesday, Hunt apologized--to an extent--and resigned his honorary professorship at University College London.

A different report

In 2001, Tim Hunt won a share of a Nobel Prize. In 2006, he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. But in 2015, he's being widely criticized for his recent remarks about women in science, including: "when you criticize them, they cry."

Hunt, a biochemist, made that and other comments during a speech this week at the World Conference of Science Journalists that's being held in South Korea this week. He was quoted in a tweet that's since been shared hundreds of times, asking the audience to "let me tell you about my trouble with girls."

"Three things happen when they are in the lab," Hunt said, according to conference attendee Connie St. Louis, who is both a scientist and journalist. "You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

Hunt, 72, went on to say that he doesn't want to get in the way of women in science — but that he favors the idea of single-sex labs. The scientist confirmed today that his words had been accurately reported, and he apologized for offending people, even as he insisted that the presence of women in labs is "disruptive."

A "scientist" mayor speaks

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, weighed in on Hunt's remark and the now mounting alluvion, or is it more accurately a conflagration? He "applied science" to what Hunt had said and showed(?) that women do cry more often than men. Johnson also said that Hunt "was giving a light-hearted, off-the-cuff speech to some scientific journalists." Was Hunt making known a scientific finding for the science journalists? (Stretch.)

What we don't know

Take one reporter's version and lightly compare with another's (to wit, the quotations and summary above). The context for the remark or remarks is unclear. We thus know nothing. We weren't there, and it appears neither were a lot of "politically-correct-speech police" who have stirred the pot--there is no end to the metaphors we can command to describe this. . . .

What we do

Finally, we know something and it's all we need to know. A person has claimed, in jest or seriously, he has trouble with girls/women. No fuss there. His was an I-statement. And so what?

One fuss should be about getting the story straight. What was the context? What did he say? How did he say it? The next fuss should be that if the perpetrator actually harms others by his words or deeds, most assuredly contain him. But if he merely alarms and not harms, there need be no fuss at all.

Is alarm necessary in this case? Oh, the sins we commit by saying something about ourselves and what we think and feel. God forgive us for even having human traits.

Thank god, oops, God, for humor (see #distractinglysexy). Humor is the best fuss in this and other things or people we can make fun of.

Pleased to meet you

And now, may I call you by your first name?

This is how I think it should go in all circles where we are quoting or referring to what someone has said. For indeed, once we have heard or read what has come into our sensory space, we are--thus--intended audience. The spoken or written once released into the wild solicits attending, and once delighted or slogged by reaching the end of the communiqué, we are friends or enemies or bored neighbors, but more known than known about, intimates, definitely not strangers.

I was reminded of this insight recently, or it was made clearer to me when a reader castigated me for something I had written, his message proffered without so much as a salutation. I noted that and had some feelings about him and what he had written because of the omission. Did he know me so well that he could launch his salvo skipping more conventional correspondence conventions? I guess he felt he did, or he was so upset he couldn't bother, so carried away was he with writing his own message that I should "get" and proceed to my just reward.

And then this came into my inbox. An article in the _New York Review of Books_ seemed to support the notion of knowing, in the sense of being more familiar with the person as writer once we had read his or her words.

It seems impossible, at least for me, to read almost anything without being aware of the person behind it and without putting that person in relation to what he or she has written and indeed to readers of the book, to the point that I sometimes wonder, in the teeth of a literary critical tradition that has always told us the writer's personality is irrelevant to any appraisal of the work, whether one of the pleasures of literature isn't precisely this contemplation of the enigma of the person creating it.*

I find the way we usually refer to the writer or speaker, including the conspicuous absence of any reference whatsoever, disturbing and contrary to the relationship we always have now that we have read or heard another's words. We have been in the other's presence and thus now effectively introduced as two together traveling along Discourse Road at least as far as the subject matter or the relationship drives us.

My grievance is this. When academics, although not exclusive to this subculture, want to quote or comment on what another has contributed to the knowledge base or a discussion, we say, "__________ [enter person's last name] has said . . . " or contends or questions, etc. "Shakespeare [not Mr. Shakespeare or Will or William or Bill] treated such-and-such theme in _Hamlet_."  Everyone knows this William Shakespeare, or The Bard, but he is and has long been his LastName, and we keep on speaking of him and his works by using just LastName. Darby is someone we think we don't know, and we say, "Darby concludes that her experiment in social constructionism demonstrates" that such-and-such-and-so-on.

Now, William Shakespeare or Willa Darby are people we do now know intimately having read their each of their words or heard them performed. (Don't get confused. Willa Darby doesn't exist even though you think she does because you were googling around just now. I am imagining her here as some kind of scientist who said/wrote something, just to make a point.) We effectively become intimates with these people, connected through the highly personal and sincere efforts of theirs to communicate something and our personal and sincere efforts in listening to a first person relate what is important to him or her. Shouldn't that count for a more personal reference if we want to tell our stories about ourselves quoting or referencing our intimates?

Mr. Shakespeare conveys a closer feeling-tone, does it not? I know he is dead, but he lives in our consciousness in the present through his great works, that is words. And Willa, she for her part is not only a respected professional but now among those I would call upon to support me and lend credibility to my thoughts or feelings on subjects of our mutual concern. I show my interest and concern for her by attending to what she has done her best to express. She likewise demonstrates her interest and concern for me by carefully devoting focused energy on a matter she thinks I and others need to know about, understand, feel.

What is the order of intimacy or familiarity you ask, because some writers and speakers command different respect. Different forms of address signal different register. There is a difference between Willa and Dr. Darby. Well, this is all fodder for another treatise which probably has already been chewed and spit out by someone. Other than the LastName convention, these denotations and nuances can be set aside, or google 'em if you like.

My point comes down to the fact that I don't like, and never have, referring to others we bring into our lives and conversations by using just a surname. Cold, impersonal, rude? Perhaps that is going a bit far. But if I felt that someone is person enough to have become one of those I would quote or reference in what I want to say, doesn't s/he deserve more than LastName? Mr. Shakespeare is respectful and suitable as a handle for polite academic discussions. Dr. Darby sounds both respectful and personal if I am referring to her and her professional work. Smith next door is really closer than my use of this his LastName. He is really Bob, and he drives me crazy. (No. Just kidding.)

You have surmised, have you not, that I have never liked it when I have heard someone refer to me by this LastName business. Perhaps more importantly, how does it sound to you? you as your last name only?

Assume you have said something and others have heard or read you and are making reference to you or what you have said in sanity or its opposite. Say this out loud inserting your last name where indicated.

    _LastName_ yesterday said that the number of migrants entering Europe from Africa with the "help" of traffickers was appalling. "Something should be done by individual governments, yes, but the EU has some role to play. They had better start talking now to resolve this situation," _LastName_  said.

Alternatively, have someone read the above out loud to you. Think about it for a moment. How's that feel?

Call me the crazy and overly-sensitive one, but I hear my own last name when someone refers to me as strange, oddly distant, imperfect, something I can't quite label. As if I am not here, or there. It is a kind of out of body experience for me, although I have never had one of those. Am I dead or what? I am right here, buddy. But I am sure I was not far away when I heard or read reference to me other than by my given name. Definitely jarring, not agreeable.

Thus a proposal, which I know will be impossible to see taken up in any foreseeable future and certainly not in my lifetime: Do away with the shorthand LastName utterance when referring to someone who has spoken personally to you. Find a more friendly and persuasive and engaging way to talk about our fellow travelers.

We know so little about Shakespeare's life, and yet as we read his sonnets, or watch his plays, we develop an idea of Shakespeare, and we are aware of a continuity of "personality" behind the writing. We have the impression that if someone ever did find the full story of his life, we would immediately recognize the person we had in mind.*

Please not Shakespeare. Let that be William Shakespeare.
__________
* from _The Writer's Shadow_ by Tim Parks,  http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jun/08/writers-shadow-antonio-tabucchi/

Addendum, about games and language

[This post an addendum to one of the recent observations about reading/communicating not leading to mutual understanding. More on noematics 101.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ33gAyhg2c

The second half of the above video addresses games in communicating effectively.

Troll dens*

We can't or don't read because we are not allowed to. We have limited information or are fed distracting noise.

Over the past year, Russia has seen an unprecedented rise in the activity of "Kremlin trolls" - bloggers allegedly paid by the state to criticise Ukraine and the West on social media and post favourable comments about the leadership in Moscow.

But prominent journalist and Russia expert Peter Pomerantsev, however, believes Russia's efforts are aimed at confusing the audience, rather than convincing it.

'What Russians are trying to go for is kind of a reverse censorship', he told Ukrainian internet-based Hromadske TV ('Public TV'). They cannot censor the information space, but can 'trash it with conspiracy theories and rumours', he argues.

Posting messages on publicly accessible internet sites have had the effect of shutting off dialogue on events of the day.

Reading and writing under such a regime . . . communicating meaningfully in any way . . . dead.
_____
* Ukraine conflict: Inside Russia's 'Kremlin troll army' - BBC News

BBC News, (2015). Ukraine conflict: Inside Russia's 'Kremlin troll army' - BBC News. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31962644 [Accessed 19 May 2015].

Third observation

Gosh, realize where you are, or activate the literacy required to be in another place other than "where you think you are."

An immigrant from Africa arrives on Lampedusa. He has no papers. He gives you his name, and you don't know if it is really his or not. He doesn't tell you where he is from. He doesn't speak your language, but he has escaped from some hell or misfortune; and for all purposes practical he says he is your responsibility. You must treat him like a human being. You give him pasta with tomato sauce because he is hungry. He says this food is not fit for humans to eat.

He has only part of the context, his own, which he has attempted to force upon his interlocutor. He commits the sin of not understanding the relatio-spatio-temporal context. He is no longer living in his context; he is now in one made by and for Italians and Europeans. Thus, pasta with tomato sauce.

Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky got into it recently, and part of their now published discussion had to do with whether or not to publish an email interchange. Although not an easy read and embedded within are words as keys to who has said something of substance or not, my take is that here at the other end of the literate spectrum--"sophisticated" and nuanced writing and reading--context is (was) (also) all important.

My paraphrase of this aspect of their so-called "non-interchange" is this: At Sam's urging, Noam consented to publishing their emails even though he, Noam, found the idea weird and self-aggrandizing. As a result of the non-interchange, Sam felt he could claim the higher ground by showing that they(?) had reached The Limits of Discourse, which was not what their conversation was about to begin with.

What? The publication of a private conversation demonstrated the limits of discourse? What happened to the issues they were discussing? Weren't they the compelling reason for publishing? Apparently not, because Sam ignored or tanked 'em, that is created/framed another context.

But you decide.* This is just my reading . . . which is again, I contend, confusion about context, or the game, the two created as they jousted.

_____
* The Limits of Discourse : As Demonstrated by Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky : Sam Harris

Samharris.org, (2015). The Limits of Discourse : As Demonstrated by Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky : Sam Harris. [online] Available at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse [Accessed 19 May 2015].

Second observation

Words as the building blocks can lead us in right and wrong directions. Get a word wrong and off you go onto the shoulder and out into the wastelands bordering more direct routes to our destinations and fates.

James Krupa tackles a currently misshapen word as used in the context of science. He asserts that "To truly understand evolution, you must first understand science." He goes on to help develop this thesis about getting words wrong.*

Unfortunately, one of the most misused words today is also one of the most important to science: theory. Many incorrectly see theory as the opposite of fact. The National Academy of Sciences provides concise definitions of these critical words: A fact is a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it; a theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence generating testable and falsifiable predictions.

In science, something can be both theory and fact. We know the existence of pathogens is a fact; germ theory provides testable explanations concerning the nature of disease. We know the existence of cells is a fact, and that cell theory provides testable explanations of how cells function. Similarly, we know evolution is a fact, and that evolutionary theories explain biological patterns and mechanisms. The late Stephen Jay Gould said it best: 'Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.'

Theory is the most powerful and important tool science has, but nonscientists have perverted and diluted the word to mean a hunch, notion, or idea. Thus, all too many people interpret the phrase 'evolutionary theory' to mean 'evolutionary hunch.'

Ya gotta get the words right first, and by extension, the context in which they are used.

_____
* Orion Magazine | Defending Darwin

Orion Magazine, (2015). Orion Magazine | Defending Darwin. [online] Available at: https://orionmagazine.org/article/defending-darwin/ [Accessed 19 May 2015].

First observation

Dorothea Lange. On the Road to Los Angeles, California, 1937

I gave my students this instruction: Describe what you see in this picture.

One student answered in five hundred words beginning with this sentence. "I see the beginning or end of a story that has two characters who have decided they will not or cannot board a train for a distant destination."

Did he pass this part of the exit exam for English as a foreign language? Why, or why not?

Pleasure of hating*

What have the different religions been
but pretexts to wrangle, quarrel and to sin,
and set as target a mark to shoot at?
Does love of country make for friendly fiat,
or serve another bearing the same bend?
Does virtue make us see and our faults thus mend?

"No."

Hate makes adherence to our own vices,
and most intolerant of others' frailties.
Love of hate--a most universal fact.
It as well extends to good as evil:
makes us snipe folly and to shun merit;
inclines to resent the wrongs of others--
impels impatience their prosperity.
"Revenge injuries! Repay the ingrate."
Even partialities and likings
take this turn: What was luscious we now expel.
Love and friendship melt in their own fires.
We hate old friends, old books, old opinions.
And at last we are right here hating ourselves.

"Hatred devours from the inside, but Defiance
defeats and kindles truth-seeking's flames--Thus,
Resolution sufficient to move on and beyond.
__________
* Adapted from but closely adheres to Walter Hazlett's "Pleasure of Hating" (
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Pleasure_of_Hating). Interlocutor is another's voice.

You are welcome

Retirement or part-time status was immanent a few years ago, and so after a lifetime of writing and otherwise fiddling with words for others (students, customers, etc.), I began writing for me. I have placed the words I have wanted to preserve on five blogs and in a couple of e-books. The variety of interests and explorations seems to have dictated the different places to put stuff. Have I had many readers? The logs and occasional comments and email messages show that I have had less than ten people who have bothered. Which is quite all right. As Paul Auster has said, no one owes you anything if you choose to write. It is a thankless and sometimes lonely and dark undertaking. But if you must, that is if you have some passion about writing or a subject, go ahead.

I write to observe what I find interesting and to explore things so that I can be clearer about them. And I have made a lifetime study of writers and writing and close reading--interpretation of the valid variety. Not everyone knows about these activities and motives of mine except as they too might have thought about this way of embracing and trying to evolve the world, or they have surmised as such from others who evidence similar motives. Perhaps it is time to be more transparent, though, especially in light of current events in almost every country where speech is not free and agents work to end dialogue, example Russia. Also, in light of the great variety of experiences life offers up for us to deal with, these too deserve some space in consciousness, if only to come up for a breath of fresh air.

Here and elsewhere it is pretty clear that I write for no audience. It is about my education and evolution. If one wants to catch a short ride or contribute, they have that opportunity. If not, I don't much care. I write to identify and fix a thing as it appears in consciousness (noematics). I guess that means that writing is the writer's consciousness (noematics101), and I am still in the middle of investigating that. Local cultural color and amusement also have a space in my efforts (benanoblog). From time to time, I get bitten by something, often about language (see earlier posts), or I try to synthesize the disparate parts of my researches, and I post here using different ways to present or discuss. In every case, experimentation in the interest of matching the medium with the message is a criterion: How best to put the message. Of course, there are many failed attempts and dead ends, but that is as life is. I address no one in particular (see also About to the right).

However, there are almost insurmountable challenges with my project. I am sure with recent evidence added to the pile I already have from other sources, the following--always tentative, as in a quasi-scientific approach--cautions, or caveats, can be put forth after what amounts to an eight-year experiment.

1. People do not read what the writer intended and often what s/he wrote. There is no match of experience-to-be-had and what the writer crafts. People can't or don't read to understand. Words do not confine the fantasies they lay claim to.

Two people re-create an experience in mind from the same set of words, each from his own perspective. The resulting perceptions differ: Two spirals of interpretation drilling down and sedimenting into separate conclusions, that is as it is to understanding. Woe to the world.

2. People respond with their heart or emotion or self-interest first, and then--if convenient, needed, or appropriate--they might respond with their head, but only if it serves their heart or emotion or self interest. "It's about me."

3. Holding a subject at a distance and turning it round on the phenomenological axis to understand it better and then put it back down to earth, without feelings about who said what, is a myth. It is not possible. Never seen it happen. Ad hominem. "Kill the messenger."

4. On the other hand, it is very easy to present one's view or idea or whatever such that it affects the other's heart more than his or her head. Words can get you off the couch, or get you killed by one or a mob, but more to the point here: to kill or maim--revenge for perceived affront is said to be sublime.

Buncombe to all these things. But people do or show their limitations--they seem unable to restrain themselves (look at the comments written anywhere on the web where the comment entry box appears at the bottom of the web page).

5. Any statement is more about the speaker than the spoken to. Put another way, when one asks a question or makes a statement, that is about them and not the one they are talking to. Mostly and invariably. (Yes, it is a paradox.)

Enough apologetics. Read or not. You are welcome.

Language in culture

[Précis. Language is embedded in culture also. Serious students of a language need to dig deeper to get it, or have the benefit of some help.]

I have taught English as a foreign language for over twenty years. This has been both a secondary occupation and sometimes a first. In any event there are two teaching/learning opportunities I do not practice, which in fact weakens my effectiveness. I don't play games and I don't (often) listen to music. Thus, my efforts to help students learn are reduced, for both of these ways of learning a language are proven techniques.

Recently I asked a student who is passionate about music about the song "Knockin' on Heaven's Door." He said, "Oh, we all know that. It is the first song I learned to play on the guitar." I then asked him what the song was about. He said he didn't know, but that it was something about being dead. I asked dead or dying. He didn't know. I repeated this exercise with other Italian students of English and then a few Czech students. (I travel in these two cultures.) The results were the same.

I puzzled over this situation and immediately saw the problem. Well, I say the problem; whereas, I should say one problem. The one problem is that the key words of badge and momma eluded immediate recognition. For the native speaker, I mean specifically the American English speaker or one who is familiar with the cultural contexts for some of that language. Here is the email conversation around this matter. It begins with my correspondent's question (>>) and my reply.

>>Badge – I wonder what it feels like for you as a native speaker when listening to this song. Do you get the connection between the badge and Slim's [Slim Pickins] job immediately?
Connection was immediate. The only people who wear badges in the public consciousness in the US are officials of the law. Of course, other people wear badges (e.g., military, scouts, etc.). But what the song-speaker's job is is obvious. The immediate association is marshal or sheriff in the Olde West. For fun look up the expression, "We don't need no stinkin' badges." Place this word with guns that are no longer needed--to bury them in the ground--well, that seals the deal. Context is the frontier and the law and outlaws and gun fights . . . and he is dying. He has been shot, probably.
>>Momma – how come it is used even for a wife? Sounds like mommy or red-hot momma or lady of the night to me.
I can't say exactly, but this native speaker immediately associates this expression with rural folks, maybe farmers or at least ordinary and traditional American family people, perhaps central and southern US. The father of the family and kids call the mother of the children momma (or moma, mama, etc.). Then there is also black English, Ebonics, where young dudes call their girlfriends momma. But this doesn't work with the Olde West context.
Now if you try to look this one up, you will have difficulty finding this usage. But if you go to say, Hays, Kansas and have "supper" (evening meal) with a family that has lived there for several generations, you might encounter this expression--used by the father to address his wife. I suspect this is regional American English, although this comes close (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mama).
Someone needs to write an article about this usage . . . long story short, you just have to know the language very, very well, or have met lots of different American English speakers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjR7_U2u3sM

So, the first lesson is that a song such as "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" needs to be seen in context, its cultural context. Second and most important lesson, the student of language needs to dig deeper and not just accept melody over sense.

The final illustration of these points came up in an email to the same correspondent.

Language and culture. Yes, we need to have cultural knowledge and locational usage conventions in order to understand something like this,
We got some John getting off a limo.
Dumped her in the Alphabets.
Why did he have to cut me so bad? - They get him? - No.
Be on the lookout for Vincent Van Gogh in a Zegna fuckin' suit.
But in terms of what a Central European needs who uses English as a second language for travel and just getting along in the world, the cultural baggage is generally not necessary. Thus, my argument again for not teaching idioms and the uses of the definite article (in hospital (B-EN) vs. in the hospital (A-EN)).
Now if one really wants to dive into sitcoms or read literature or talk with a people from a specific native speaking place, then there is an argument for learning more and more cultural stuff, as well as looking stuff up almost constantly.

Now, what was all that about John? You know your homework.

A more detailed lesson

[Précis. Knowing how to use the verbs borrow and lend is sometimes difficult. Here are some reasons and examples for advanced students to consider and practice.]

"Ah," you say. "I understand. But I still can't use these words correctly when I want to say something."

"What seems to be the problem?"

What seems to be the problem? The second speaker must mean what are some of the problems. So your difficulty is not your fault. The explanation in the image above is good as far as it goes; however, it does not go far enough.

First things first, here are the principal parts of the verbs most often used plus a few other key words that may confuse you when you are speaking with a more proficient user of the language of requests-to-have and promises-to-return.

Verbs (infinitive, past, past participle, 3rd person singular present, present participle/gerund)

to lend, lent, lent, lends, lending

to loan, loaned, loaned, loans, loaning

to borrow, borrowed, borrowed, borrows, borrowing

Nouns (a partial list)

loan, noun, what is given to be returned

loaner, noun, informal, same as the noun loan, the thing loaned

borrower, noun, recipient of loan

lender, noun, giver of loan

Now do two things. First compare the verbs with the image above. Yes, loan is also a word used in the borrow-lend situation. Two, memorize the above nouns and verb forms.

Here is your short study guide.

borrow = take

lend or loan = give

These verbs can be used in the active and passive voices as well as in their participial forms.

The car was borrowed by his daughter.
The money, loaned by my father, he gave reluctantly.

Don't let word order confuse you, or a change in verbs, or the use of words meaning the same thing.

You might have done your own web search and found the standard definitions, explanations and examples given for the uses of these important words. They go something like this.

We use borrow to say that we take something temporarily with the intention of returning it.
Can I borrow your car? She borrowed $100 from her father.
We use lend to say that we give something temporarily with the intention of having it returned.
Can you lend me your car? Her father lent her $100. Her father lent $100 to his daughter.

Or

borrow: to take and use sth. that belongs to sb. else I'd like to borrow your umbrella.
lend: to give sth. to sb. that belongs to you I can lend you my umbrella.

Now here is where using these words correctly gets confusing. Imagine I am the one you are talking with, and I am asking if I understand you correctly by asking a question or by re-stating what you have said.

YOU: Can I borrow your car?
ME: You're asking me if I will lend you my car? 

YOU: She borrowed 100 euros from her father.
ME: Her father gave his daughter a 100 euro loan.

YOU: Can you loan me your car?
ME: Could you borrow my car?

YOU: Her father lent her 100 euros.
ME: Her father let her borrow 100 euros.

Sometimes the listener will avoid the anticipated verbs of lend or loan and borrow.

YOU: Her father lent 100 euros to his daughter.
ME: Her father gave his daughter 100 euros as a loan.

Sometimes the listener will change verbs.

YOU: He lent her the car.
ME: He loaned her his car?

Sometimes the listener will use a common expression to convey the idea.

YOU: Can I have your umbrella.
ME: Here you go. Don't get wet.

Or

Here take my umbrella. It's a loaner.

And don't forget the imperative.

YOU: Borrow my umbrella.
ME: Great. That's nice of you. I'll return it tomorrow.

These do not exhaust the possibilities, but the above is a larger sample of language than the usual textbook or dictionary discussions.

 It is no wonder people get twiddled up with borrow and lend and loan. Any variations from what is expected in a speaking situation is a challenge for the second language speaker to manage. Why is all this not simpler? Easy answer. The language and users and words are flexible and varied.

Here is a short video which can get you started if all this reading isn't your style. You can start with this and then come back here to review and expand your knowledge of

http://youtu.be/uTSmX6YI1FU

Once you have all the above in your head and you have practiced the variations, test yourself by decoding this and giving me your answer.

ME: Can you spot me a fiver? 

Will you spot me? I warn you. I'm a notorious deadbeat.

Taboo mistake no. 1

[Précis. The word _informations_ does not exist in English. This is a rule you can count on unless you are facing criminal proceedings.]

I apologize to all those students I defenestrated because they made one of two taboo mistakes when speaking English in my presence. A quick tour today through Czech web sites shows that this error is finally being made at low and remote levels. That is banks, government offices, large businesses--they have all rooted out and destroyed the blight. Only a site from Humpolec, or the Czech American Akita (dog breed) Club, or an obscure pension somewhere near the Polish border keep the virus alive. I hope the illness won't rise again and infect the admirable Czech accomplishments in multilingualism. So the medicine I and others have tried to apply to the infection seems to have worked, mostly.

What is that mistake? that blight, virus, illness, infection? Why, I am surprised you are asking. One word: _informations_. Yes, it drove me to distraction, and for some students they suffered a fall from my grace, if not the second floor window. _Information_ is non-count. You can't have an information and you can't have informations. Not even the Brits with their collective nouns with plural form verbs make this mistake.

"The team play well" does not mean you can say "The information are enlightening" and be counted correct. (In British and American English "The team play well" is correct. In the case of American English, you must mean by saying this that the team is a number of individuals considered as such, not a singular group. In American English the almost universal form is, "The team plays well.")

The clever and ever-skeptical Czech will object with the touchstone sentence in answer to a direct or authoritative statement: "It depends." Okay, _informations_ does exist. I confess it does. But no one except lawyers and judges might use this form of the word "for issuing indictments for certain types of crimes or for certain types of anti-corruption investigations". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_%28formal_criminal_charge.) By no means is _informations_ in common use. I dare say you should and I will never use this form.

All clear? We are still on the correct path? No more use of the word _information_ in the (almost) non-existent plural. I still threaten defenestration if I hear it.

Oh, am I not going to tell you the second taboo to avoid my wrath? No, I have done with preaching and teaching . . . unless, of course, I hear you say . . .

Have a nice time.

[Précis. "Mijte se hezky!" does not translate into English as "Have a nice/good time," but you can use this sentence in your leave-taking if you know what the other person will be doing. "Have a nice time" always has a reference to something specific you know about the other person's plans because s/he told you. The English equivalent of "Mijte se hezky!" is probably something like "Enjoy life."]

Two people meet on the street. They know each other. They chat about nothing for a few minutes--small talk, you know. They part and one says to the other, "Have a nice time." What does the person who says this know about the other person?

A. Something specific about what the other person will do next or sometime later.
B. Nothing, just saying goodbye and wishing the other person well.

The correct answer is A, Something. The one who says "Have a nice time" knows what the other person will do next, or where s/he is going, or what his or her plans are. In other words, "Have a nice time" has a reference to something known by both people. Always.

So when you want to say goodbye to someone, do not say "Have a nice time" unless you know something specific about what will happen with the other person. "Have a nice time" is not a substitute for "Have a nice day" or "See you later," etc. It is a substitute for goodbye only if you both know something about what's next for one person.

Can one say "You too!" in reply? Sure, if the other person knows something specific about your near-future activity.

The misuse of this farewell is so common in the Czech Republic that foreigners who have lived here for some time probably just ignore its misuse, which doesn't make it correct.

How can one learn this fine point of English usage? First, the Internet will not help you except that you will not find "Have a nice day" as a farewell or leave-taking expression. Examples of different expressions of this type appear here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parting_phrase#Generic_ways_to_say_goodbye

And here.

http://www.fluentu.com/english/blog/say-goodbye-english/

If you do find "Have a nice day" as a recommended way of saying goodbye, you are probably looking at a web site or forum where non-native speakers are giving other non-native speakers advice, or their guesses as to what is proper English usage and what is not. (Example, https://dewisudjia.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/expressions-of-leave-taking/.)

But, you object, even Radio Prague (http://old.radio.cz/en/html/living_pozdravy.html), a trusted source for cultural and linguistic bits, says "many Czechs say 'Mijte se!', or its informal equivalent 'Mij se!', which means 'take care'. An nicer way of saying this is 'Mijte se hezky!', which means 'have a good time!'" And the resident interpreter in my house says there is no referent, just a general "enjoy whatever."

So here is the answer for the prevalence of the misuse of "Have a nice time." It is likely a matter of translating a language and culture directly into English without knowing how English speakers would say the same thing Czechs want to when using Czech.

Now you know your homework: Find a way in English to say the same thing you do in Czech. Have a nice time (doing that!).

Postscript. Here is a two-word scramble answer, one of many possible answers.

Eefijlnoy