Develarization of Final Nasals: Going, Goin', Gonna

(For those of you who do not speak phonetics, velar nasals are the /ng/ sound, IPA [ŋ])

The English language has a strange relationship with velar nasals. Like most languages, we have them, and like most western IE languages, they do not generally appear at the beginnings of words. But we have assigned them a weird social significance. Lower prestige forms of English often change final velar nasals to alveolar nasals (and in writing change the velar nasal digraph /ng/ to /n'/). In addition, if one wanted to sound especially (even pretentiously) correct, one might separately pronounce the terminal /g/. For example, the word "going" could be pronounced three ways: standard [ɡowɪŋ], colloquial/low prestige [ɡowɪn], pretentious/high prestige [ɡoiŋɡ].

What this suggests is a correlation between the rendering of the velar nasal as a digraph and an interpretation of the two graphemes as different parts of the single phoneme. Thus, there appears to be a presumed positive correlation between number of sounds and amount of prestige.

Additionally of note is the specificity of this rule. It is only applied to the ends of present tense verbs and gerunds. So, while a phone might be ringin', in standard colloquial American English it will never rin'.

Feeling A Bit Abessive

I can't help but feel like today's Achewood was specifically made to make me sad.

That said, to celebrate this making me sad, I (with the help of Wikipedia and an online Finnish dictionary) wrote two lines from a Finnish-language emo song. It's pretty great.

"Sinutta kuollisin,
Minutta juhliisit."

("Without you I would die; without me you would celebrate")

Quite!

There are some words that have definitions so disparate as to render either definition essentially useless. One classic example is bimonthly, which means either "twice a month" or "once every two months." This example is particularly frustrating because context doesn't usually give much clue. It is most commonly given as an alternative to something occurring monthly, and as such either definition would make sense usually. Additionally, if it is used to mean twice a month, it is almost synonymous with one of the two definitions of biweekly!

But that's not the example I'd like to discuss today. I would like to discuss "quite." Now, in American English usage, quite is generally only used to mean "very" or "particularly" or "a great example of" (as in, "quite a pickle"). But if you are speaking with an British English speaker, the word is used just as often to mean "to some extent," or even "just barely" (the closest example in the common American lexicon to this is "not quite," meaning "barely not," or in this sense of the word, "quite not"). The first problem here is that this causes some amount of confusion for Americans listening to or reading British English*. But the second is that, really, "quite" signifies an entire range of degrees, from "barely" to "fairly" to "rather" to "completely." Inflection and context are your only friends here.

Also, it's worth noting that Americans generally seem to envision Britons as saying "quite" constantly, which isn't entirely inaccurate. I guess this wide range of uses sort of explains that.

*First example I noticed: Monty Python's Chemist Sketch, Eric Idle smells an aftershave and disappointedly remarks, "I quite like it."

Alphabetti Spaghetti!?

As many of you have noticed, I am a geek for all things linguistic. As few of you know, some of my big interests in linguistics are phonology and orthography. As you all know, English orthography is a disaster. As such, I have begun devising (generally for my own amusement more than anything) alternate systems or English orthography that remove a lot of the silliness of modern English. Here are a couple that are in the works.

SIMPLIFIED PHONEMIC ENGLISH

The first alternate system attempts to maintain a lot of modern English conventions, for the purpose of being more easily picked up by the average English speaker.

Consonants are changed fairly little, but some clutter is removed. One oft cited problem with English is that we have three different letters for the K sound, C, K, and Q. C is reduced in its use to just being a CH sound (so it never makes an S sound either). All other -H combinations are kept, and a couple more are added: DH (a voiced TH, as in "the" or "this" as opposed to "thick" or thin,") and ZH (an idea borrowed from dictionaries; rarely used; think "measure"). since ZH covers the "soft" J sound, which is of course rarely used in English anyway, J is only ever the "hard" sound ("jacket," "Japan"). G is only ever the hard G sound. Any loan words from Gaelic, German, or Hebrew that use the "CH" sound (Bach, Loch, Chutzpah) will use KH. Greater distinctions in general would be given between voiced and unvoiced consonants, so that S is never pronounced as Z, D is never pronounced as T, etc. Silent GHs are dropped completely. Silent Bs and Ls are dropped, assuming they are completely silent (for example, "balm" does not become "bom," but "should" becomes "shoud"). Silent Hs at the beginnings of words are dropped, but an apostraphe is used where they would be, just in the name of differentiating similar words (hour vs. our). The same is done with silent Ks and Gs in front of Ns. Q and X are kept for loanwords from, for example, Arabic and Chinese. X is also kept on for mathematical purposes (as it is such a commonly used variable symbol) and some scientific purposes (as in X-ray).

For vowels, most English combinations are kept. The rule that vowel+single consonant+vowel brings a long vowel is kept, and indeed kept more strictly, BUT a silent vowel that exists only to lengthen a vowel never comes after an intervening consonant (eg, lute would become luet). Whenever two vowels would be touching, but are pronounced distinctly, a hyphen is inserted (eg, "kre-aet" rather than "create"). O never represents a U sound. Yods are assumed to be dropped, so that words were U is used to denote [yu] will require a Y (eg, "used" would become "yuezd"). Y and W are used only as consonants. If a Y vowel would have been used, it is replaced by an E when it follows a consonant ("study" becomes "studde"), and an I when it follows a vowel ("today" becomes "tudai"), or when it follows a consonant but makes a long I sound. A W vowel becomes a U if it would change the sound of another vowel and is dropped if it has no sound change (as in "blow"). The same thing happens to terminal Hs in words like "Oh". Hs are kept, however, after Ws, as they are often pronounced slightly, but WH is never pronounced as H. Vowel pronunciation rules are not generally changed, as wide variation by dialect of vowel pronunciation across English makes this incredibly difficult and basically pointless. Some vowel combinations are eliminated and changed to things that are more consistent with English pronunciation rules (for example, the "eo" in "people" becomes "ee").

All standard contractions are kept.

The basis of much of this is dictionary phonetics, but some things come from other sources. The hyphens to separate syllables where there would otherwise be confusion, for example, comes from Korean Romanization. The apostraphes for letters that "used to" be there are used in some languages, and are also similar to the role of the circumflex in French, which often signals that there "used to" be an S after this vowel (Eg, "fête," feast).

The Alphabet would look like this:
A B C D DH E F G H I J K L M N O P R S SH T TH U V W Y Z ZH

Sample text*:
Jenerals Gadherd in dheir massez,
Just liek wiccez at blak massez
Evil miendz dhat plot destrukshun,
Sorserrors uv death's construkshun
In dhe fieldz, dhe boddiez burning,
Az dhe war mashien keeps turning
Death and haetred to man kind,
Poizunning dheir brainwashd miendz,
O Lord Ye-a.

Pollittishanz hied dhemselvs awai,
Dhei oenle started dhe war
Whi shoud dhei go out tu fiet?
Dhei leav dhat up tu dhe poor
Ye-a

Tiem will tell on dheir power miendz,
Making war just for fun
Treating peepl just liek paunz at cess,
Wait til dheir judjment dai kumz
Ye-a

Nou in darkness world stops turning
Ashez wher dhe boddiez burning
No mor war pigs hav dhe power
Hand uv God haz struk dhe 'our.
Dai uv judjment, God iz kalling
On dheir 'neez dhe war pigz kraulling
Begging mersiez for dheir sinz
Satan laffing spreadz hiz wingz.

DIACRITIC RELIANT ENGLISH

The second new system is a much bigger overhaul, and a bit less intuitive. It is much more phonetic, introduces several new characters, but eliminates many more. It is also a lot harder to type this one.

The DRE alphabet would be:
A Á C C E É F F H I Í K K L M N Q O Ó P P R S S T T U Ú W Y ∫ ∫ ∂ ∂

Underlines here are used because they are the only mark I could use that would actually show up typed. A written alternative might be a circumflex (which is used to change consonant sounds in many Slavic languages that use the Roman alphabet), but frankly I'm pretty fond of using the underlines. They look really cool. In any case, they are used to denote voicing. So K would be an English K sound (voiceless velar plosive) and K would be an English G sound (voiced velar plosive). And so on: voiced F is V, voiced P is B, voiced S is Z, voiced T is D. C is, as above, a CH sound, so C is J. ∫ is an SH sound, so ∫ is a ZH sound. ∂ is somewhat of a problem for me, since other languages that use it make it a voiced TH sound, but I do not have access here to a theta or thorn symbol, so I use this and it is backwards. ∂ is TH, and ∂ is DH. Q is given a new purpose: it makes an NG sound.

Vowels are not phonetic, as they are still based somewhat in standard English orthography. Accented vowels are long, unaccented vowels are short. So: A as in cat, Á as in cape; E as in bet, É as in beet; I as in bit, Í as in bite; O as in got, Ó as in tome; U as in cut, Ú as in flute. Again, yods are dropped, so Y is necessary for the beginning of the word "used". All other vowel sounds are made by diphthongs. Hyphens are again used to separate vowel sounds. English rules of vowel+single consonant+vowel making a long vowel are not used. There are no silent letters. Other vowel sounds are made by the logical combinations.

The word "the" is a trick since it is pronounced two completely different ways. The spelling will be with a short E, which is a compromise and technically not equivalent to either pronunciation, but what are you going to do? Similarly, the indefinite article "a" will be spelled "a". It wouldn't make sense to have "the" be spelled "∂é" and "∂u" alternatly and "a" be spelled "á" and "u" alternately.

Sample*:

Ceneruls ka∂urt in ∂er mases
Cust lík wices at plak mases
Efil mínts ∂at plot téstruk∫un
Sórsurórs uf te∂'s kunstruk∫un
In ∂e félts ∂e potés purniq
As ∂e wór mu∫én képs turniq
Te∂ ant hátred tu mankínt
Póésuniq ∂er pránwa∫d mínts
Ó Lort Ya!

Politi∫ans hít ∂emselfs awá
∂á ónlé stortet ∂e wór
Wí ∫út ∂á kó oút tu fít?
∂á léf ∂at up tu ∂e púr
Ya!

Tím wil tel on ∂er power mínts
Mákiq wór cust fór fun
Trétiq pépul cust lík pons in ces
Wát til ∂er cutcment tá kums
Ya!

Noú in torknes wurlt stops turniq
A∫es wer ∂e potés purniq
Nó mór wór piks haf ∂u power
Hant uf Kot has struk ∂e oúr
Tá of cutcment, Kot is coliq
On ∂er nés ∂e wór piks croliq
Pekiq mursé fór ∂er sins
Sátan, lafinq, sprets his wiqs
Ó Lórt Ya!

*A common linguistic example for general purposes is the Lord's Prayer. I have gone a different direction.

Harmonious Days

On happier topics, I've learned a bit lately about vowel harmony. It's something that exists primarily in Altaic (Turkish, Mongolian, theoretically Korean) and Uralic (Finnish, Hungarian, Samoyedic) languages. It's fun, and part of what makes Finnish in particular such a sonorous, melodious language. Only a small part, mind you; if that's all it took, clearly Turkish and Hungarian would sound a lot better.

The idea is that in any given word (in the case of Finnish and similarly agglutinative languages, this counts words as portions of compounds, Kahvi and Kuppi, as opposed to entire compounds, Kahvikuppi), all the vowels must be in harmony with each other. That is, front vowels and back vowels cannot be in the same word.* Since base words already fit these rules in (keeping the previous example) Finnish, this primarily is an effect on suffixes. Take, for example, the ending -lainen (in English phonetics, lie-nen), meaning "from." For words like Suomi (Swo-me) or Turku (Tour-ku), where the initial syllables have back vowels, the back voweled ending is left unchanged, so we get Suomalainen, "from Finland," and Turkulainen, "from Turku." On the other hand, we have Jyväskylä (Yü**-va***-skü-la***). All front vowels. So, we get Jyväskyläläinen, "from Jyväskylä." Further, for words that have back vowels, but none in the initial syllables, when endings are added back vowels in the ending AND in the non-initial syllables mutate to front vowels. For example, Espoo (es-po); Espööläinen (Es-per-la***ee-nen).

Speaking of Uralic and Altaic languages, two musical things I've been all about lately: Tuvan throat singing (I REALLY want to make some metal with a throat singer) and the new Korpiklaani album Tervaskanto. The first album they've done where most of it is in Finnish. I'm in love.



*In Finnish, there eight vowels. Ä, Ö, and Y are front, A, O, and U are back, and I and E are neutral.
**Ü has no real English equivalent. It's sort of like an "oo" sound if you purse your lips.
***These a's are short, as in "hat".

Wales, Pt. 2

And we are back.

I had intended here a section about all the great things that increased my love of Wales, and a few things that are cool anyway. But rather than do all that, I will just talk in general about being a Walesophile (or whatever you want to call it).

I have a tattoo on my right arm of Y Draig Goch, the Red Dragon, which is the Welsh emblem, found on their flag, some local beer labels, and assorted other Walesful things. The most common first question regarding this is something along the lines of "What's the deal with the dragon?" The second is usually "So, are you Welsh." It's a natural question, to which my answer is usually "No, I'm just a fan."


Fig. 2a. A dragon on my arm, or an army of my dragon?

No one overtly seems to judge me for this, but then actively criticizing someone's tattoo is rather a faux pas, so they could just be polite. But, reactions in general are usually at least "oh cool," and at most "that's awesome!" The only situation related to the tattoo that has had me at a loss for proper reaction is when I met someone else who wasn't from Wales who had the same tattoo. It was the foreignese/Eurotrash employee of a local cafe; he pointed out my tattoo, said he had the same one, showed me (it was slightly further up his arm than mine, and it also had more friends), and we talked about how Wales is great and we both have visited and loved it. At first I was a little put off just by having the same tattoo as someone else, but once that had sunk in, I enjoyed the encounter quite a bit. Someone else understanding on that level really helped me feel less awkward about my generally Wales-influenced mental state.

I have been trying to teach myself the Welsh language for a couple years now, but it is very slow going. This is not because it is exceptionally hard to learn (the pronunciation is by far the hardest aspect and I've had that down for a while), but because it is hard to learn a language independently and completely removed from other speakers. If anyone wants to learn Welsh with me and speak it to the end of confusing others around us, and essentially having our own secret language in almost any situation, feel free to let me know.


Fig. 2b. Curiously, this is a google image search result for "Welsh language"

I have taken something of a liking as well to Welsh music. Wales' folk music is actually surprisingly different from Irish or Scottish music, bearing some resemblence to mainland northern European folk music in its tonality and flow. The most widely known form of indigenous Welsh music is male vocal choirs. Also popular among people who are me are the Super Furry Animals (who often sing in Welsh) and Tom Jones (who sadly does not). There are two annual festivals in Wales that I positively ache to attend. One is the National Eisteddfod (ay-steth-vod), the largest Welsh cultural event there is. This year it was in Mold; next year it will be in Cardiff. The other is the Fishguard Folk Festival. Fishguard is on the southwest coast of Wales, in Pembrokeshire, and the festival looks to be a sort of Welsh Folklife. Count me in, sirs.

I take interest in Welsh or Wales-themed literature and film. I cheer for Welsh teams when they pop up in sporting events (which is generally just in international rugby, unless I am paying attention to second-tier British football leagues). Sometimes, I bake Welsh cookies and cakes. Basically, two roads diverged in a forest, and I take the one that is Welsh. And that has made all the difference.

Wales, Pt. 1

As many of you are aware, there's one thing I'm into in an almost over-the-top and generally unexplained fashion. That thing is Wales. After having been questioned so much on my fascination, I've done some thinking about it, and shall herein attempt to illuminate for you all a bit of the history and reasoning behind me and my Wales fixation.

Background and Initial Curiosity


Fig. 1a. Wales is well known for being full of Sheep. This is not an inaccurate characterization.

Of course always aware of a place called Wales, and that it was part of the United Kingdom, I was all the same unfazed more or less by the existence of the tiny country. The first two things I can remember being accutely aware of as particularly Welsh are Tolkien's inspiration by the Welsh language as a base from which to build Sindarin Elvish and an obscure bowed lyre instrument called a crwth. I saw one on display at a stringed instrument store and was told a bit of its history -- there were traditionally 24 songs written for it that all crwth players knew, and it was popular before the much more versatile fiddle was introduced Britain -- and its function -- it had two bowed-and-fingered courses and two plucked drone strings. I loved obscure things, I loved interesting instrument designs, and I certainly loved words where "W" was a vowel. But, for some time, I learned nothing else new that was Welsh.


Fig. 1b. The crwth: funny looking and hard to pronounce

The next step came when I decided to plan a brief tour of mainland Britain, and wondered what parts I should visit. I consulted assorted travel guides and general facts about the island, and decided that this trip would primarily to Wales and Western England. While I learned a good bit about England in these studies, the facts that caught my eyes most were those about Wales. The literature focused more on North Wales than South, so I didn't learn especially a lot in advance about the latter. But I did learn a few phrases in the language ("Bore da" means hello, "diolch" means thanks, so forth), a brief history of King Edward I's conquest of the Welsh and subsequent building of many castles, a few facts about the region and national park of Snowdonia, and the general demeanor of the rural, sheep-filled north versus the largely urban and suburban south.

Plans for the trip solidified, and I decided to spend two days in the south and two days in the north, selecting a town from each with a castle in it and about which I had at least some information to go on. Cardiff, the capital and first city, was chosen for the south, and Conwy, a tiny and somewhat touristy village, for the north.

The Trip

Cardiff was the second city I visited in the UK, after Bath, and not counting Gatwick airport as visiting London (it's just an airport, you see). I got off the train in the central city and hopped a Welsh cab for the hostel at which I had booked a bed, and was immediately struck by a gorgeous city that reminded me instantly of my own beloved Seattle, especially the green and greatly walkable neighborhood in which I was staying. Unfortunately, while I was in Cardiff I was still figuring out just how to travel, and wasn't quite good at it yet, so I didn't enjoy it as much as I might have, or meet as many great locals as I might have (one part of the problem is, having been a 20-year-old American at the time, I was not used to being in public houses, and thus was not good at striking up conversations there). But my impressions of Cardiff were this: scenic, friendly, and easily maneuvered around. I also remember there being a lot of very, very attractive women in Cardiff.


Fig. 1c. The buses even look kind of like Metro

Having seen all I could schedule myself to see of Cardiff, I took a train (via a brief stop to visit a friend in Birmingham) to the North. The train went to Llandudno, from which I caught a cab to a bed and breakfast just outside the old castle town of Conwy. The cab ride, by the way, was two or three miles and cost all of 2 pounds. So there.

I remember several things about Conwy that made me truly happy. The first is how nice the Bed and Breakfast I stayed at was. There I got the two best nights' sleep I had gotten sleep I had gotten thus far on my entire trip, the lady who ran it was very nice, and both mornings I got delicious British breakfasts with vegetarian sausage and incredible grilled mushrooms. The other things had much more to do with the general character of the town. Everyone was incredibly friendly. The lady at the post office saw my last name on the traveller's checks I was cashing, and talked quite a bit about how she might have known someone with the last name Clauss to have been around Conwy at some point. The guy who ran the shop by the castle that sold replica medieval weaponry and armor was enthusiastic and helpful. The two middle eastern dudes who ran the fish and chips shop on by the quay were extremely friendly, if impleaceably shady. Most memorable of all, though were the people at the George and Dragon pub.

My second evening in Conwy, I decided to go pub-hopping. The first I don't recall the name of, but I went early enough that it was empty save a gossip of French teenagers with whom I had a long and broken conversation in English and French (and something in between). The second, I believe it was called something like the Post Master or Postman, was nice and would have been enjoyable had I been better about socializing myself. But after a couple drinks, I left in favor of a third pub, the George and Dragon. The folks there were of a much older set than the other two, and also of a much friendlier manner. They introduced themselves (though I'll be damned if I can remember any names; I was pretty tipsy at this point), asked about my national origin, and we discussed our common dislike of George Bush and Tony Blair. Eventually, I left the pub happy, and stumbled back out of the castle walls to my comfortable bed.


Fig. 1d. It is important to emphasize that I think North Wales is fucking gorgeous

The next morning, I left Conwy and Wales in favor of the disappointing English town of Chester, taking with me memories, pictures, a miniature replica claymore, and accidentally my room key. I haven't been back to Wales since but I hope to return as soon as possible at this point.

Next time: Learning more and yearning more.

Hapex'd

The word of the day is "hapex legomenon." It means a word that is found only once in the written record of a language, the writings of an author, or a single work. It's a great word for use by linguists and philologists. A fantastic example of a hapex legomenon is "honorificabilitudinatibus," a Latin word used once in the works of Shakespeare. It is also considered one of the longest words in the English language, considered such because it was used in a Shakespearean work (see here).

Now, I can't imagine this standard would be applied to any other author there would be a lot more words in the English language. It really shows how silly is the amount of reverence given to the works of Shakespeare. However, as long as the standard is just shown to works of Shakespeare, I believe that any word connected to Shakespearean works should be given the status of a word in the English language. For example, "Liikemaailmassa" is half of the title of a Finnish adaptation of Hamlet (Hamlet Liikemaailmassa, or "Hamlet Goes Business"), and as such is a word in English as well.

Project for the Day:

Regardless of how well you know them, call every man/boy you interact with today "Charles," and every woman/girl "Linda." Stick to this. Apologize each time you are corrected, state that you don't know what you were thinking, then procede to keep calling them these names.

Just a little bit of hat and that

Hello all! I'm back from many travels, which I shall surely write on in the coming days. In the meantime, though, here is a post that is not about travel.

An interesting pattern is seen in the English language in the pattern of "here"/"there"/"where," "hither"/"thither"/"whither," and "hence"/"thence"/"whence", wherein h- indicates presence, th- indicates distance, and wh- indicates inquisition (the wh- prefix is of course seen in myriad other examples). As is common with English, one of the more interesting things about this pattern is the exception to the rule. "That" and "what" both fit into the same pattern (that is over there, but who knows whither is what?), but in there is no matching third part. The present partner of "that" is "this," rather than "hat." English is not a language with any fear of homonyms, so I can't imagine that the sole factor in this is the existence of "hat" as in headwear.

The plural forms of the "that" set fall even further from the pattern, being "these"/"those"/"which."* It all leaves one to ponder, whence came these pronouns, and what shall we do about them? Whither is our language going, and how will we get there? And of course, why? Well, I can be sure that the answer isn't "thy."

*It could also be argued that "which" fits in better with "this"/"that" than does "what," but only if you're a real spoil-sport.

The Dirtiest Thing Is Your Soul

Florida theater advertises "The Hoohaa Monologues"

Where do these people come from? How do they survive and reproduce? Why do people pay attention to them?

QUIPs

There is a lot about the way people talk today that pisses me off, as most of you are probably aware. Today we discuss gripes that go beyond issues of propriety of usage and semantic contradiction (as in misuses of "literally" and the phrases "very" or "sort of unique"). Today's QUIPs, or Questionably Used or Irritating Phrases deal instead with socio-cultural or political issues.

The first of these QUIPs is "World Music."

The most popular music in the world is not actually pop music. It is, in fact, world music.
--Sifl and Olly

This generally refers to any music that is non-western, or any contemporary music whose style did not originate in the English-speaking west. This is either arrogant or maliciously lazy. The assumption here is that, for all the subdivisions that can be made of American popular music, all the hundreds of subgenres of metal and punk and jazz and electronic music, all those things that end with -core, there are two words that encompass all the other music from every other society. Are you from Lapland? Perhaps Siberia? Perhaps you hail from Jakarta, or Sao Paolo, or Lagos. It doesn't matter, though, because you are just the rest of the world, so you just play "World Music." All this being said, some bands are in fact eclectic in their style, having elements of music from many different parts of the world, and thus could arguably be described as "World Music," as it is music that attempts to be simply of the world rather than its particular culture of origin.

The second QUIP: "Anti-Semitic." This, in common usage (actually, in just about all usage) means "in opposition to the Jewish people, nation, and/or society." However, it literally means a more general opposition to all Semites. Most people see the word in context and thus would assume that a Semite is a Jew. And ethnically Jewish people are indeed Semitic. However, they are scarcely the only Semites in the world. In fact, with this popular definition of Anti-Semitic, the most prominent Anti-Semites in the world are, in fact, Semitic. Care to guess who? Perhaps you have guessed it: The Palestinians. Along with Egyptians, Assyrians, Iraqis, Saudis, etc. Arabs are Semitic. A good portion of the "Anti-Semitic" statements made in the modern world are made in Arabic, a Semitic language.

Now, some racially motivated people probably are Anti-Semitic, but even these people probably seperate in their minds the cultures of the Jews and their Semitic neighbors. Preferably, if you want to describe a sentiment or person that is in opposition to the Jewish people, nation, or society, say "Anti-Hebrew," "Anti-Jewish," "Anti-Israeli," something along those lines that clarifies which Semites are being opposed.

In Soviet Russia, Ham Burgles You!

So, hamburgers. The quintessential American food, with a German name. Oft served with cheese. But of course, the variations are countless, not just bye changing/adding toppings, but by changing the variety of patty. Of course, as "hamburger" also refers to ground beef, a sandwich with a fish-, soy-, or even grain-based patty might not necessarily be a hamburger, technically speaking. Thus, other names are given, but almost always are variations on this name, using -burger as a suffix to mean "sandwich with patty of or with aformentioned material." the "with" portion is mostly for the classic cheeseburger, which is not a sandwich with a cheese patty, but rather a hamburger with cheese melted onto the patty.

This switch in the meaning of the -burger suffix from "person who lives in a city" to this sandwich-related meaning has become completely absorbed by our culture, so that the idea of a burger not being a sandwich throws us for a loop, and indeed causes some to question why a hamburger is not generally made with ham. These people, of course, are the same types who question why "bacon" is not baked, and should be put away in a small prison camp and forced to read the etymology segment of every word in the English dictionary.

Howdy, "Partner"

I don't seem to be in a lot of company with this, but I'm not very happy with the general use of the term "life partners" or just "partners" when referring to members of same-sex couples. I find it condescending and uncomfortable, and I think it unnecessarily separates straight and gay couples into two different sorts. To more thoroughly explain my feelings on this, let's look at some of the common other terms.

An unmarried couple with some amount of commitment to the relationship is some combination of boyfriend and girlfriend (one of each or two of one). Once married, they are spouses, or husband and wife, or wife and wife, or husband and husband. Of course, each of these three terms is a little bit problematic, as spouse sounds almost as cold and legalistic as partner, and husband and wife carry a lot of cultural baggage from older days and gender constructions. But these older ideas can be passed out of current mentalities, and there is no inherent problem with calling someone a husband or a wife -- or a partner for that matter. The issue I have with this term is its use solely in same sex couples. It seems to be saying that this relationship is somehow different on a fundamental level from that between a committed man and woman. Obviously, there will be some practical differences between how the two couples interact, but that can be said of any pair of couples, regardless of the gender makeup of either.

The term partner wouldn't bother me at all if every straight person who ever used it would use it just as readily for their own significant other.

On Blog Comments

Often times, on online forums such as blogs and livejournals and message boards, comments are made that offer nothing real, and often are better off left unmade. This comes in a variety of forms. One I've seen is a simple:

.

This one seems to denote "I've read this post and have nothing more to offer about it." In this case, why the hell have you bothered to comment? Imagine you are a leader of some group or body: would you, in such a case, throw an entire press conference to point out that you are aware of something and have nothing to say about it? I should think not!

Of course, much more common, grievous, and insipid is a response of "LOL!!!" or "HAHA THATS FUNNY!" or perhaps "Oh man, that's funny because of [restatement of punch line and/or key element of set up]!" We're all proud that you get the joke, and I'm sure the author is satisfied with himself or herself that they have amused you, but these serve almost as little purpose as the voiceless recognition of point comments mentioned above, and are many times more annoying.

Another common comment message that I have yet to form a solid opinion on is often expressed via the web shorthand "iawtc" (which I like to think of as being pronounced "yowtch"), or "I agree with this comment." This has more substance than the above items, because it at least offers an opinion, if not an original one. On the other hand, it carries little more purpose than saying "I have nothing to say." If you do agree, maybe you have something more to offer on the point, or perhaps there is something in particular that you found agreeable about the original post or thread?

Of course, for all its wordiness, this post has little more purpose than all that I've mentioned. I will write something a lot better later, though.