Bad analogies....

Saying idioms are a needless obstacle to communication is like saying synonyms have no purpose in language.

Don't you hate analogies that don't work? Let's examine this one.

Idioms are a needless obstacle to communication: This seems like a straightforward complaint against non-literal language. I disagree with the statement, because I think that which is needless is not likely to survive long in a language, but I understand the sentiment. And idioms ARE an obstacle to communication.

Synonyms have no purpose in language: Well, again, I disagree because if they had no purpose they wouldn't exist, but there's a problem. Saying that synonyms have no purpose in language is complaining about having more words than are strictly needed. That isn't the same about complaining that idioms are harder to understand.

Besides, people use idioms and synonyms for different reasons. Both are used for reasons of variety, but synonyms, to my mind, are also used for greater precision and accuracy: a mansion is a big house, a cottage is much smaller. Idioms don't clarify the language at all. What does "it's raining cats and dogs" mean that can't be more simply put "it's raining a lot" or "it's raining too hard to see" or "it's a deluge"? In fact, I'd say the idiom doesn't really express any of that clearly, that the supposed range of "cats and dogs" goes too wide to be accurate or precise at all.

And, small note, bitching that you don't understand how idioms can be called "hard to understand" is a good way to get me mocking you. Do you really want me telling you all the ways you're wrong?

Okay, I'm going to do well in Latin or... well, not

But that's not an option.

So, now it's time to get ready.

1. MUST STUDY
   a. Vocabulary, essential
   b. Grammar, pretty important (not critical)
   c. The Bucolics
      i. Retranslate all eclogues (excepting 3 and 8)
      ii. Find a decent, LITERAL translation to check the work off of

2. REPEAT AS NECESSARY


*sighs*

*gigglesnorts*

Funny metaquoted quote.. Bit political, I guess.

And another amazon review... review.

This time, it was purely accidental. I was strolling through the amazon picture book section to find new names to add to the book_icons interests (focusing on popular authors/illustrators) and noticed the book King and King. Well, I can't resist a silly attack, so I switched from authors and illustrators to gay picture books and decided to cull the silliest of the silly quotes for easy reference. I won't list what book they're reviewing, but at least one person took the book "King and King" home knowing that it's a fairy tale, and then was stunned at the ending (when our prince falls in love with another prince). I tell you, stupidity is all over the place.

( Read more... )

That's all. Bored now. *wanders off to look at other reviews*

The folks at language log are having a little fun

They're going out of their way to write without various parts of speech, such as nouns, verbs, and prepositions. They're out of their friggin' minds, but it's kinda cool, in that "I'm so scared right now" sort of way. Go click.

Y'know, I've been thinking...

On the Amazon.com children's book reviews, a common theme is "I brought this home for my kid, and I was shocked at the content!!!!" Now, I can see this... kinda... when you're dealing with an older kid. Just because *my* memories are of having to steal my books back from my parents after they'd gotten engrossed in their reading doesn't mean that everyone else has parents who love to read, especially kid's books. What can I say, some people have no taste. *shrugs*

But picture books? How can you bring home a picture book without at least flipping through it to make sure it's something that will hold your kid's attention? How on earth is it that you can get all the way through a book with your kid before finding out that you don't agree with what it says? Especially if you have strong views on something. I don't get it.

I mean, honestly. If you're adamantly opposed to gay people, then read the friggin' book before you buy it! It's nobody's fault but your own if you end up with a kid who is a little less naive than before. Same thing if you're against halloween or monsters under the bed or non-christians or black people... READ THE DAMN BOOK FIRST. Don't go whining to the people at amazon.com that you disagree with whatever the book says when whatever the book says is blatantly obvious on the cover of said book.

My sister Jenn? She doesn't want any book for Ana that "promotes bottlefeeding". Which means no bottles in the book. So, when buying books for Ana, I try this novel concept... *gasp* I... read the book first! It works! No surprises!

I don't think that everyone has time to read every book their kid will get. I do, however, think that if you intend to censor your child's reading material, you should make an effort to find out what's in the books you bring home before they read them. Or, I guess you could try talking to your children, but that might be even more difficult.

Who and whom (and a review of I and me)

Review: When talking about somebody else and yourself, say the sentence without the somebody else first. So it's etcetera and I did something but they went away without soandso and me. Because I did something and they went away without me. It's amazing how convoluted one can make a simple sentence, isn't it?

Anyway, now that's over with, on to who and whom.

Some people never say whom. That's not quite right, and it's irritating to those of us who do, but at least it's acceptable. Other people say whom, but they put it in the wrong place. They shall burn for this. Just like with I and me, there's a handy way to remember who and whom.

If it's a question:

Answer the question using I or me. Or he or him. Or they or them. Or... no, wait, that's all of them. I, he, they, me, him, them.

Who went to the store? I went to the store.
To whom am I speaking? You are speaking to me.
Who's the fairest of them all? He's the fairest of them all.
With whom does Snow White dwell? Snow White lives with them.

See the ms? They go together.

If it's not a question:

Pretend it is.

No, seriously. Just break off the part of the sentence with the who/whom and answer it. Um. That makes sense. Really.

*sighs* I'm hopeless today.

Y'know what's scary...?

I could see Landover Baptist endorsing this guy. But I'm told he's serious. *shudders*

In other news, read today's sinfest. I seriously identify with Pooch. I just wanna play with the pigeons!

Oh, I don't give a damn 'bout my bad reputation!

Because apparently I don't have one. :( But I have a reputation, period. Yay! *twirls and hands out cookies* I'm cool. You're cool. We're all cool. And the heat broke (again) so I really *am* cool.

Anyway, this post has prompted two questions.

1. Can you guys see my titles on your friends pages? Because I sometimes use my title as my first sentence, but if you can't see it that doesn't work out too well.

2. Is ending a sentence with the word period and then following with the appropriate punctuation (a period) redundant?