![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 26th, 2010
Got the nieces new crayons yesterday.
Feb. 26th, 2010 02:33 pm
Monday I'll take all the old ones (except the reds, which I'll get to in a sec) to the library, where they always need new crayons.
I got the 96 box for the nieces, and then, after thinking it over, I got 2 8 boxes and 2 16 boxes as well. Why?
Because there's only one red, no matter what the size of the box.
It's true. If you get the 96 box or the 64 box you'll get lots of oranges. You'll get a few yellows (which is a nice change from my childhood where there were only three, and lemon yellow sucked). You'll get a ton of blues, and greens, and purples. You'll get more browns than anybody can reasonably be said to need. You'll get red-orange, and red-violet, and violet-red. But when it comes time to color a red apple, or a red mouth, or a red strawberry, you'll have to scrounge around and look to find that one broken, nubbed down red crayon.
There's only one red.
And it's always been like this. I lose track of the new crayons they keep adding. Scarlet is a nice addition, and it can do for red in a pinch if you need to, say, color all the math problems that equal "ten" red on the picture for homework. I guess. But it doesn't work for red lollipops, or red rainboots very well, I'll tell you. When I was a kid we had Indian red (which is from India, apparently), but that was sorta brownish. And we had brick red, but that was pinkish. But only one usable, serviceable red.
So now they have 144 new crayons, and 5 of them are red-red, which hopefully will be good enough for anybody.
I got the 96 box for the nieces, and then, after thinking it over, I got 2 8 boxes and 2 16 boxes as well. Why?
Because there's only one red, no matter what the size of the box.
It's true. If you get the 96 box or the 64 box you'll get lots of oranges. You'll get a few yellows (which is a nice change from my childhood where there were only three, and lemon yellow sucked). You'll get a ton of blues, and greens, and purples. You'll get more browns than anybody can reasonably be said to need. You'll get red-orange, and red-violet, and violet-red. But when it comes time to color a red apple, or a red mouth, or a red strawberry, you'll have to scrounge around and look to find that one broken, nubbed down red crayon.
There's only one red.
And it's always been like this. I lose track of the new crayons they keep adding. Scarlet is a nice addition, and it can do for red in a pinch if you need to, say, color all the math problems that equal "ten" red on the picture for homework. I guess. But it doesn't work for red lollipops, or red rainboots very well, I'll tell you. When I was a kid we had Indian red (which is from India, apparently), but that was sorta brownish. And we had brick red, but that was pinkish. But only one usable, serviceable red.
So now they have 144 new crayons, and 5 of them are red-red, which hopefully will be good enough for anybody.
Yanked this from thebabywearer....
Feb. 26th, 2010 06:49 pm
Speaking or signing, it's the same to your brain
It seems obvious to me, but it's still an interesting article.
It seems obvious to me, but it's still an interesting article.
So, etymological fallacy
Feb. 26th, 2010 06:52 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
That's what people are doing when they say things like "Marriage is DEFINED as between a man and a woman so THEREFORE we can't change the law to allow same-sex marriage".
People do something similar when they pass off old lines like "The Chinese word for "crisis" is made of "opportunity" and "danger" so we can do something in a crisis!" like new wisdom.
I have two thoughts about this. First, if people are just doing it to make a rhetorical point ("there's an opportunity in every crisis!") rather than because they actually think their reasoning is valid, I don't see how it makes a difference. Sure, it'd be a lot simpler to just say what they're thinking outright without resorting to dubious etymology to do so, but whatever.
Second, about that crisis/danger/opportunity one: Why don't these people do it regarding the English word "emergency" and "emergence"? What's so appealing about Chinese, a language most of them don't even speak and wouldn't know if they were wrong?
Well, I think I answered my question there, sorry about that!
That's what people are doing when they say things like "Marriage is DEFINED as between a man and a woman so THEREFORE we can't change the law to allow same-sex marriage".
People do something similar when they pass off old lines like "The Chinese word for "crisis" is made of "opportunity" and "danger" so we can do something in a crisis!" like new wisdom.
I have two thoughts about this. First, if people are just doing it to make a rhetorical point ("there's an opportunity in every crisis!") rather than because they actually think their reasoning is valid, I don't see how it makes a difference. Sure, it'd be a lot simpler to just say what they're thinking outright without resorting to dubious etymology to do so, but whatever.
Second, about that crisis/danger/opportunity one: Why don't these people do it regarding the English word "emergency" and "emergence"? What's so appealing about Chinese, a language most of them don't even speak and wouldn't know if they were wrong?
Well, I think I answered my question there, sorry about that!