Well, wasn’t this a kick in the ol’ vocabulary to start the morning.

Apparently, starfish aren’t really “fish” — so marine biologists would prefer if we called them “sea stars” instead.

Setting aside the pedantic facts that “sea stars” also aren’t great burning orbs of gas light-years away, or twinkly in the night firmament, or that many of them don’t live in the sea, but rather in the ocean, I think this raises an interesting question:

What are we going to call seahorses?

No, but seriously, why do we have to change the name? I know that starfish isn’t precisely accurate, but if some laypeople happen to miscategorize a marine invertebrate as a fish, then what’s the harm?

The Wikipedia page for Starfish now redirects to Sea Star, but the “talk” page discussion is enlightening. As many people point out, if we’re going to start changing common but misleading names, then we’re going to have to include killer whales (actually dolphins), koala bears (not bears), jellyfish (probably more closely related to starfish than to actual fish), banana trees (not trees), and sand dollars (which I’ve never been able to spend, not once).

I’ve Googled this a bit, and “starfish” is by far the most common name. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that popularity doesn’t make it right — if that were true, a “drive thru” would be the correct spelling. But everywhere that mentions “sea stars” also tends to mention that marine biologists are making a concerted effort to push this name. And yet I can’t find a genesis for this idea — no marine biologist mailing list that says “hey folks, let’s change the name” or a press release that lays out the new terminology or anything.

Since they have five arms, and they are vaguely tentacle like, I’d hereby like to propose that we all switch to the name “pentatent” instead. Clear?

 

Full_face_diving_mask_-_ocean_reef

I’ve long been annoyed when people use phrases like “PIN number” or “ATM machine.” Of course, PIN stands for “personal identification number” and ATM stands for “automated teller machine” so “PIN number” is the same as saying “personal identification number number” and “ATM machine” works out to be “automated teller machine machine.” It’s grating.

But I just realized that no one should be saying “scuba gear” either. Scuba, in case you didn’t know, is an acronym that means “self-contained underwater breathing apparatus” so “scuba gear” is redundant. It’d be like saying “… breathing apparatus gear.”

Now I want to compile a bigger list of acronym redundancies. What else is out there that can really grind my gears?

 

I’ve long been fascinated by language, and I think one of the real benefits of the English language is its ability to (fairly seamlessly) absorb new concepts and make them its own. No real word invented for the concept of searching on the Internet? Suddenly, we’re all Googling — and we know what it means, despite is having just been coined.

But it goes much further than that. I was enthralled by this essay, which I read recently, exploring how your language can shape your thoughts in ways I never thought possible. Imagine a language that doesn’t have a concept of “right” or “left” for example — everything is absolute, and nothing is relative — so that you end up saying things like “you have an ant on your southwest leg.”

It turns out that people who use language like that are, understandably, better at staying oriented, even when they’re in unfamiliar places. But they also do some other things differently:

We gave people sets of pictures that showed some kind of temporal progression (e.g., pictures of a man aging, or a crocodile growing, or a banana being eaten). Their job was to arrange the shuffled photos on the ground to show the correct temporal order. We tested each person in two separate sittings, each time facing in a different cardinal direction. If you ask English speakers to do this, they’ll arrange the cards so that time proceeds from left to right. Hebrew speakers will tend to lay out the cards from right to left, showing that writing direction in a language plays a role. …

The Kuuk Thaayorre did not arrange the cards more often from left to right than from right to left, nor more toward or away from the body. But their arrangements were not random: there was a pattern, just a different one from that of English speakers. Instead of arranging time from left to right, they arranged it from east to west. That is, when they were seated facing south, the cards went left to right. When they faced north, the cards went from right to left. When they faced east, the cards came toward the body and so on. This was true even though we never told any of our subjects which direction they faced.

But it’s more than that. Even subtler difference can change how you think:

When asked to describe a “key” — a word that is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish — the German speakers were more likely to use words like “hard,” “heavy,” “jagged,” “metal,” “serrated,” and “useful,” whereas Spanish speakers were more likely to say “golden,” “intricate,” “little,” “lovely,” “shiny,” and “tiny.” To describe a “bridge,” which is feminine in German and masculine in Spanish, the German speakers said “beautiful,” “elegant,” “fragile,” “peaceful,” “pretty,” and “slender,” and the Spanish speakers said “big,” “dangerous,” “long,” “strong,” “sturdy,” and “towering.” This was true even though all testing was done in English, a language without grammatical gender.

It really makes you wonder what other unspoken assumptions there are lurking on our psyches, just waiting to be explored.

Jun 282009
 

fuck

A great column in the Guardian asks why it is that people are so offended by a simple word, like “Fuck”:

“If you overuse them, they’ll lose their effect.” Well, so what, if you hate them so much? Or is the prospect of a rude word losing its offensive power too unsettling for the offendees, as it would reveal that it was only ever a word and the power was an illusion of their own making? It would emasculate their attempts to censor with their censure.

They needn’t worry. People will always find new words to offend with or be offended by – it’s a limitless resource, so why don’t we enjoy it? Let’s say “fuck” as often and conversationally as we can and we’ll be on to “cunt” before you know it. Bookmakers could take bets on what the word after that will be. As surely as we move on from MySpace to Facebook to Twitter, so shall we pass seamlessly from the f-word to the c-word to, let’s say, the d-word. “Drung” – meaning a combination of Jesus’s snot and a paedophile’s desire. Obviously its sense would soon be lost, but it would be a satisfying thing to yell if you’d just hit your thumb with a hammer.

I wonder if our language would be richer or poorer if we didn’t have so-called “forbidden” words.

(Image from Bob the Angry Flower)

 

Bewilder, according to Mirriam-Webster:

1 : to cause to lose one’s bearings

2 : to perplex or confuse especially by a complexity, variety, or multitude of objects or considerations

But, a news story I came across in the Sydney Morning Herald points to a new definition, something more in line with my seed-bombing post:

Where most people see nature strips that need mowing, scrappy grass verges and useless “waste” land, Bob Crombie sees only endless opportunities for more planting.

Mr Crombie is a retired National Parks and Wildlife Service senior ranger and TAFE teacher but prefers these days to describe himself as a “bewilderer”.

“‘Bewilder’ is an old term meaning ‘to become connected to life, the source, the spirit, God’,” he says. All of which sounds pretty high-falutin’ until you realise how startlingly practical Mr Crombie’s “bewildering” is.

With a couple of mates, he spends his spare time clearing weeds and planting out any public green space that catches his eye. “Once you start thinking, you see opportunities everywhere you look,” he says.

Hmmm. When you look at the root of the word, which is wild, you can see the connection to both irrationality, or confusion, as well as to nature.

I love looking at obscure, archaic meanings to words, and seeing new connections in vocabulary that I hadn’t seen before. I love this new/old sense of “bewilder” — to intentionally make more wild.

When I read the story of Crombie, by the way, this vignette really stood out:

One project he is particularly fond of is the regeneration of an unloved corner next to a railway bridge.

“The local drug users had made a little place to sit there,” he says. “It was a horrible weed-infested hole. My contention is always that if you make things beautiful, people will look after it. The druggies came along when I was planting and asked what I was doing. I told them and they said, ‘OK, we’ll help you’.”

After Mr Crombie and his helpers had planted a miniature rainforest, the former occupants found another spot for their fix, “but they still used to come over and say, ‘That’s looking terrific’.” Since then, the railway bridge garden has been destroyed by the Cronulla line rail duplication project, but that doesn’t faze Mr Crombie in the least.

Apr 272009
 

I stumbled across an interesting website yesterday. Have you ever seen this quote?

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

It’s semi-famous in some circles, and every now and then people email it around. Snippets of it get quoted hither and thither, and it’s often attributed to “an obscure Scotsman” by the name of Tytler.

The truth, as it always is, is more complicated — and more interesting.

Check out “The Truth About Tytler” for some great scholarship tracing the evolution of the quote.

 

tenzin_gyatzo_foto_1A post on Slashdot caught my eye:

I have been asked by the Office of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile to offer some policy recommendations in light of the ongoing targeted malware attacks directed at the Tibetan community worldwide. … One of the more controversial moves being actively debated by Tibetans … is a mass migration of the exile community (including the government) to Linux, particularly since all of the samples of targeted malware collected exploit vulnerabilities in Windows.

The discussion — although with some predictable Windoze-bashing — has been really interesting. This is a case where “security through obscurity” might not be a good thing. The argument is that Linux is (at least partially) more secure because fewer hackers target it. However, with the full resources of the Chinese government (allegedly) behind the Ghostnet hacking, writing a Linux exploit might be just as easy as writing one for Windows — and fewer people would be affected to notice it.

The counter-arguments are just as interesting.

Another interesting issue they have to wrestle with is the lack of good-quality fonts for Tibetan. Posters have offered up a couple of good unicode Tibetan fonts, but I found it near to learn that the Tibetan language doesn’t work well with discrete letters, like we use. They stack consonants into wild ligatures. I don’t really understand it.

But, as one commenter pointed out:

Combining letters aren’t an intrinsic necessity in any language, they are an affectation and a mechanism for keeping people illiterate. European languages used to have them and got rid of them because the only purpose they serve is to restrict access to reading and writing.

Tibetan can be written just fine in an alphabetic style. It would be prudent for the Dalai Lama to make that the standard for the Tibetan community.

Now that could be interesting! Overhauling a whole writing system and not just a computer system.

Apr 192009
 

banknotes

Wikipedia, from where I pulled that image above, has a medium-length article devoted to the concept of money. But a new blog at the New York Times is looking for a slightly snappier definition.

The blog is called “Vocab,” and I’ve been following it irreguarly since it started up just about a month ago. I recommend it, if you like words, as I do.

The latest entry asks readers to submit new definitions of the word “money”. As inspiration, the blog cites:

The 19th-century penny weekly “Tit-Bits” ran irregular competitions asking its readers to define various words. (The winning definition of a kiss, for example, was “An insipid and tasteless morsel, which becomes delicious and delectable in proportion as it is flavored with love.”)

How cute! I’ve been rabidly following the entrants for “money,” but many people seem to be ignoring the one stipulation: that the pithier, the better. Many of the definitions are over-involved. I’ve seen two, so far, that I really love, though:

  • Money — Faith-based publishing.
  • Money — Metadata about value.

Love it!

How racist are you?

 Posted by Grant Hamilton on 19 January 2009  Modern Life
Jan 192009
 

Probably more racist than you think. Every now and then, Cracked.com serves up a great article (they’re big on lists). Not sure how much you can trust the accuracy of their reporting, but they seem to link to verifiable sources in this one.

Anyway, you’re racist, and you didn’t even know it. That’s because you use words that have an awful backstory that you didn’t even know. Words like “barbarian”:

How it’s Used: “In World of WarCraft, I play a level 60 barbarian.”

What You’re Actually Saying: “In World of WarCraft, I play a stupid jabbering foreigner.”

barbarian2

Yup, you’re a racist! At least you didn’t cheer about it.

Wait, you did? You said, “Hip hip hooray!”? You’re evil.

Read the whole list here.