For threnody.

The Original English Movement. It never fails to amuse me.

For a serious look at this, see the AEP.

Oh, and hey, don't let me forget about that IPA. I'll put it up soon.

I promised those charts!

And here they are!

If this isn't just the coolest thing, I don't know what is.

On opinions...

A lot of people, in arguments and whatnot, try to say that something or other is "just their opinion" or that "you're entitled to your opinion". And then they get upset when people try to argue with their "opinions" because, of course, an opinion is a statement which can't be right or wrong.

Okay, let's clear this up. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, when your opinion is based on ignorance, it's not valid. For most people, it's easy to have an opinion on the prettiest color. If you're completely colorblind, or have been blind since birth, you *can't* have an opinion on the prettiest color. You don't know the difference betweeen red and green and yellow and purple. Two doctors may have different opinions on how to treat a certain disease. Hopefully, they know what they're talking about. However, if my cousin Buck comes up, and he doesn't know anything about medicine, and he tries to give me advice... sure, he's entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't mean he knows what the fuck he's talking about. You may be of the opinion that the earth is flat, but that doesn't give you the right to yell "it's my opinion" at everybody who points out the evidence that suggests otherwise. In fact, doing so is obnoxious, and makes you look stupid.

So, to sum up: not all opinions are created equal. And, I'm sorry, but I'm always going to accept opinions based on *fact* and *knowledge* and *research* over those based on "well, this is my opinion, I'm entitled to my opinion, you're not the only one who can have an opinion". I'm silly that way.

And yes, I'm still cold. There's no heat in my room. It's 19 F outside, which means it's only slighty warmer than that in here. I can see my breath.

Ooh, an Old English grammar and history!

This day's efforts are turning out better than expected. *is all happy and cheery and huggy and all*

Anyway, must go clean. Djusk' a!

Question, question or two...

Okay, because I'm a broken record. Two things seem to be a common (and pollable) theme in the recent angsty discussion.

1. "If language changes, eventually we'll have lots of incomprehensible languages instead of just one"
2. "Double negatives are confusing, because two negatives can make a positive".

Now, the first one is pretty much true. Look what happened to Latin, or to Chinese (now Mandarin, Cantonese, etc.) However, the question isn't "is this true" but "do we care?". After all, in other places people *expect* to be multi-lingual, to know five or six languages. And we could always go the IAL route, have one auxlang that's not anybody's native language and let the rest of it all go its way.

The second one, I just don't believe. I don't think *anybody* has ever actually gotten confused when hearing a double negative. I know for a fact that it used to be an accepted part of the English language (which, yes, means that the educated classes said it) and that it's a required part of many other languages now. Edit: That's not true. I can certainly believe that *some* people have. However, I don't believe that any native speaker with normal language development has, and I'm fairly certain that most non-native speakers haven't, unless they had a well-meaning (but ill-informed) language instructer tell them that "In English two negatives are a positive", when the reality is "In English, two negatives are a negative, but this usage is considered to be uneducated".

So, poll!

[Poll #409457]

You all know my view by now, so it was hard for me to keep my bias out of this poll. My apologies.

Edit: Wow. I'm honestly surprised. I didn't expect *anybody* would pick "yes, recently, native speaker". Okay, I'm not too surprised with Moggy, because she's not typical I think, but the other (can't spell name gah)? I wasn't expecting that. I still think that my case still stands, most people are never gonna get confused by this usage after childhood. Keep voting, of course. I'm just chattering.

Today is just my day for losing friends...

1. I'm not a nice person. Nice seems to mean something like not saying what's true just because others disagree, or lying because other people have sensitive feelings and don't want the truth when they ask questions. I don't do that. I don't *like* doing that, I don't *want* to do that, and I'm not *going* to do that. So don't call me nice.
2. ( Cutted because language is apparently a very emotional issue )

And then she said she's sure I'm very nice (gah!) and unfriended me. You'd think I'd insulted her religion! Well, in a way, maybe I did. But this is *important*.

Edit: And I'm still not nice. I answer questions truthfully, or not at all. You have been warned.

*stretch* Personal policy here...

If you want to say that you think I'm wrong, it'd be nice if you could explain why. Let me clarify:

1. I think you're wrong about *issue* because you're an idiot.

This isn't cool. Don't do that, it really makes you look stupid.

2. I think you're wrong about *issue*. *wanders off*

This *may* be not-cool. Don't do this either, because you'll be met with me going WTF? at you.

3. I think you're wrong about *issue* because *completely irrelevant/untrustworthy source disagrees*.

This is just sad. Don't do that either.

4. I think you're wrong about *issue* because I've done research/a relevant source disagrees/I think you misunderstood this relevant source and it really means that/something else that makes sense.

This is good. This is useful. This is *interesting*. Go ahead, do this.

5. I think you're wrong, and I'm going to insult you now.

Don't do that either, 'k? Nobody listens to you when you do that.

So. Look at the list. Make sure you're in group four instead of one of the other groups. We'll all thank you for it.

On sources...

Some people (many people) complain that you can never trust an online source.

Well, that's not true.

First, of course, we do have to define "online source". Is an online source something that is online? Or is it something that's online with no print companion (therefore the NYTimes online wouldn't count as an online source)? Already we run into troubles. If it's got a print companion, is that print source trustworthy? How do we know?

Gah. Wait. Why do we trust print sources?

No, really, why do we trust print sources? I'm not just talking about actual papers and such with citations, I'm talking about people who inherantly believe the printed word. Why? I've seen blatantly wrong things in sources that *should* have been trustworthy. God only knows how many math homeworks I did, only to find out that the answer given in the back of the book was wrong, or how many science textbooks I was assigned where the teacher spent time telling us that the book's formula or reasoning was incorrect. These are textbooks, and they were wrong. And books (non-textbooks) with citations are often wrong too - you see one book that says "this word really comes from this other word" and another book has a completely different history for that same word. The dictionary lists neither. Newspapers? Can you trust them? Maybe a trusted newspaper - but which newspaper would that be? The NYTimes had the Jason Blair scandal, the... okay, I can't think of another big scandal from a trusted news source (fox doesn't count), but you get the point. You *can't* trust printed sources.

This is a problem. A big one.

Well, there's a solution, though it's not a pleasant one. Don't spurn information from one source or another, just because you don't like the medium. The reality is that there are several sites that I trust infinitely more than certain printed media, such as the Enquirer. Instead, take the information, from whatever source, and (this is important) do your own research. This can mean checking the source's sources. This can mean doing a study of some sort. This can mean looking to see what other sources say, though majority opinion isn't really the most reliable type of verification you can run.

This is a pain in the ass, really.

Of course, there's another option, which is to ignore it. You don't *actually* have to know if George Washington chopped down that cherry tree. Does it really matter to you if the information on Klingon that you got from this site is a little inaccurate? Are you really planning on learning Klingon anyway? If you're talking about something for fun, I guarantee you most people know you don't know what you're talking about and don't really care. And if they do, they'll correct you.

And yes, this means me. If you really care about anything I say (I'm sorry to remind you of this), please, go out and learn something. On your own. Do your own research. That's... well, it's about the only option in the world.

And yes, I am *still* cold. House down the block burned down or something.

Rumsfeld said something stupid...

Yup. This is, of course, propelling those conspiracy theorists again.

I hate that phrase. Conspiracy theory. You notice that nobody says that when they actually think there's a conspiracy. I don't think there was a conspiracy, I really think that this is overestimating the brains of the Powers that Be, but I still hate that phrase. Conspiracy theory. Not sure what else I'd call it, but... *sighs*

Unbelievable.

Even *I* don't believe this, and I have no faith in people at all.

*stretches*

Yeah, it's still cold here. I'm going to think about maybe getting up to wash some dishes. Maybe. Ignore typos, hands are frozen.

Edit: All right, all right, I'm gone. Play nice now, and don't eat all the cookies. And would *somebody* vote for DOG in that poll? *feels bad for the doggies*