The Beastie Boys and the OED

The OED is the Oxford English Dictionary, a dictionary unlike any other in any language. Most dictionaries catalog the most common words and their most common uses, spellings and pronunciations. As languages change, new words arise, old words fall out of common use and the dictionary updates to reflect these changes.

The OED is different in that once a word goes into the OED, it never comes out. The OED (attempts to) chronicles the entire history of every word in the language, including words that haven't really been used for decades, maybe centuries. It also provides quotations for every word, illustrating the various meanings and showing the earliest date that the word has been recorded. The authors and people cited in these quotations include the most revered, influential, foundational and august authors our language has ever known. Shakespeare, Sir Walter Scott, Samuel Beckett and Virginia Woolf, George Eliot, and many, many, many more are quoted, either as the first person to record a particular word, or has having written something that illustrates one of a words meanings.

It also quotes the Beastie Boys. Six times. The B-Boys are credited with contributing to the meaning of 'back' as an adverb (as in "back in the day / there was this girl around the way" (actual quote)), 'drop:' to impart knowledge or wisdom, freq. about social issues, esp. through the medium of rap or hip-hop music ("now here we go dropping science"), 'ill:' as an intransitive verb meaning to behave badly ("License to Ill"), 'mellow' (a noun meaning a close friend), 'peace' as in "peace out," and 'mullet,' referring to the infamous hair style.

The most interesting thing is that they are cited as the first people to use the word 'mullet' in reference to hair. They probably didn't coin it, and with some digging, you could probably find an earlier citation, but for now they are the oldest.

If you don't believe me, here's a link, but you have to subscribe to the OED to get in, or access it from an institution (library, university) that subscribes.

An Observation On Comment Spam

Check this out. This is what happens when you don't have some kind of filter on your comments. I counted more than 375 spam comments to about 15 legit ones, and most of those legit comments were comments on the spam itself.

Linguistic Reinterpretation

There are lots of words that we say and hear everyday, but don't necessarily find an opportunity to write down or see in print. With words and phrases like this, people apply what they know about the patterns and structures of their language to come to an interpretation of the word to be able to continue to use it. Occasionally, this kind of interpretation is very different from what could be called a standard interpretation and linguists refer to this as 'reinterpretation.' An example that was given in class was people mistaking 'notary public' for 'noter republic.' They sound pretty much the same, and if you're not familiar with the word and concept of a notary, a noter republic makes about as much sense as a notary public for talking about someone you pay $15.00 to put an official stamp on a document.

(As an aside, the phrase notary public sort of implies that it's a specific kind of notary, and that others are out there. Just plain notary? Notary private?)

This is an interesting to talk about in class, but it's always exciting (for me, anyway) to see the things talked about in class actually happen in the wild, so to speak. In my other life I work for a computer help desk where our customers have the option of typing up and submitting a trouble ticket online, and in the subject line of one of these tickets, a coworker of mine came across a really interesting (again, for me, they didn't seem to care about it all that much) reinterpretation: "The peddle stool is broken."

We weren't sure what a peddle stool was, or if it was even out responsibility to fix until he opened the ticket and read the first line of the body: "The peddle stool that holds up the keyboard is broken." What the customer was looking for was pedestal, and I think I can see how they got there. First of all, they sound very nearly or maybe even completely identical. Second, a stool, or footstool, is something you stand on that supports you and the keyboard was 'standing' or at least being supported by this thing that is now broken. The 'peddle' part might have looked a little odd once it was all typed out, but really no more opaque than many other aspects of English.

Juveniles tried as adults

Some weeks ago I read a headline in the local paper that read something along the lines of "Local Teen to be Tried as Adult." I didn't read the article so I have no idea what this particular case was about, but the headline and the notion of trying children as adults stuck with me.

I've given it some thought, and I am categorically against trying children as adults, at least the way we go about it currently.

Basically, trying children as adults gives them all the responsibility of being an adult, without any of the benefits. We're telling kids as young as 13 or 14, "We consider you to be mentally mature enough to fully appreciate the gravity of what you've done and are going to hold you accountable as such. However, we do not consider you mentally mature enough to vote, make the decision to smoke, consume pornography, live on your own, manage your financial affairs, purchase lottery tickets, drive a car and all the other rights and privileges of being a full member of society."

It's absurd. Surely if a child was cognizant enough to understand the full ramifications of committing assault, robbery, murder (intentional or otherwise) and all the other big ticket crimes that land juveniles in adult court, they can understand the ramifications of a cigarette? Or a ballot box. Or a credit card. But, if they can't be trusted with all those other things that full members of society are trusted with, under what logic can they stand trial as an adult?

I propose that, for a prosecutor to even bring charges against a minor as an adult, that child must first be fully and permanently emancipated by the state. For all legal intents and purposes, they will be 18, regardless of what their chronological age might be. If it seems silly, dangerous or outrageous to give a child all the power and freedom of adulthood, then it must be equally silly and dangerous to make them shoulder all the responsibility of one as well.

Why aren't more people

capitalizing on the endless mirth that can be had by referring to General Petraeus as "The Surge Protector?"

Behold the Burqini (tm)!

This is pretty cool. While marketed towards conservative Muslim women, it has growing appeal with other groups, such as conservative Christians, people with various ailments that make them sensitive to sunlight, as well as women who are just plain uncomfortable in a more modern 1 or 2 piece swimsuit.

Some of the reactions have been interesting as well. One in particular that caught my eye was this comment from Taina Bien-Aimé, executive director of Equality Now, the international women's-rights watchdog:

"Clearly you're not considered a full human being if you're mandated to cover yourself head to toe in this tent"

That got me thinking, and I came to two conclusions: First, I think it's pretty clear that you're not considered a full human being if you're mandated to expose as much flesh as possible without actually violating obscenity laws. Now, it's true that women's dress isn't mandated in our secular Western society in the same manner certain Muslim countries , but I'm sure that all women will agree with me that the societal pressure to be a size 00 (yes, size 4 or even size 2 is too big these days) is inescapable. Just look through.... well look through just about anything: magazines, billboards, network TV ads, cable ads, banners on the internet. Everywhere you turn it is made abundantly clear that the standard of beauty in America is a slim woman with perky boobs, small waist and a tight butt. Fat people who get skinny are applauded, skinny people who get fat are ridiculed. So, while I would not say it's mandated, everyone, Taina Bien-Aimé included, would say there is unbelievable social pressure to bare it all on the beach.

Second, why do we choose to cover those small parts of the female form? I mean, very, very little is left to the imagination on certain beaches in this country; some bikini designs have less fabric than bras and panties, so why bother? Why not just let people go to the beach nude?

It must be because there's something different, something special about these areas. These body parts, the breasts, the butt and pelvic area must be more private, more intimate then the rest of the body put together. These most sensual things must never be seen in public; they are only to be shared within the confines of loving relationship. I know that that is not remotely the case in reality; (you can see enough nipples to last a lifetime, for free, in five minutes, on the net) what I'm trying to get at here is the Cultural Ideal. If that's the reason we keep certain areas of the body sacred, might not Muslim standards of decency be for the same reason? To keep certain sensuous, intimate, even erotic parts of the body out of the public arena? If that's so, then a Burqini is a significant upgrade to the worth and value of the feminine form, far above and beyond the value we generally place on it.

Chinglish Sighting

(Chinglish?)

We got Chinese take-out on Sunday, and the following was printed on my chopsticks.

On the front:

Welcome to Chinese Restaurant.
Please try your Nice Chinese Food With Chopsticks
the traditional and typical glonous history
and cultual.

And the back

Learn how to use your chopsticks

Tuk under thurnb
and held firmly

Add second chopstick
hold it as you hold
a pencil

Hold first chopstick
in originai position
move the second'
one up and down
Now you can pick
up anything: