Pages

Thursday, February 9, 2012

On the Various Failures and Illogicalities of the English Language;Or, Logic Applied at last to the Mother-Tongue!

 Irrationalities exposed.--Root words Examined.--The Differences between Albion and Columbia.--The New Small-talk.

English can be annoying. Lack of words when you need them, an overabundance of words when you don't, random spelling and grammatical quirks, differences of spelling, pronunciation, and terminology between the American and British dialects...the list goes on. (On, and just in case you missed the sign coming in: Alex Adrian. Diary of an Atomic Man.) So, this week--and incidentally, in the first Wednesday post in awhile--we'll take a look at the improbabilities and illogicalities of English, differences between American and British English, and spell-check.

First, some history of the language. English in the modern form is one of the younger and possibly the most heavily-borrowing of the major languages. This may have something to do with the origins of the tongue; as the joke goes, it was the result of, quote "Norman armsmen fucking Anglo-Saxon barmaids", close quote. In all seriousness, though, English is a hybrid, motley tongue, comprised at base of Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, French(mostly loanwords), Latin (ditto), Dutch (you're starting to see my point about loanwords, right...?), Welsh (according to John McWhorter's terrific Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue, and mostly grammatical), and various others. As you probably noticed from the parenthetical notes, one thing English does ridiculously well is pick up loanwords; the languages cited above are but a fraction, a mere fraction, of the languages English has begged, borrowed, or stole words from. (perennial exception: Finnish, which is a pity because it looks and sounds awesome.) This is all well and good, but a in-depth examination will have to come later. One thing that's been annoying me recently is word origins. Take, for example, the word "pretty". By way of analog with witty and gritty, and wit and grit there must have  been--perhaps in Englisc, or Old English--a noun form "pret"; would those Anglo-Saxons have referred to a now-extinct quality we Men of later days call prettiness? And, moreover, will the same fate happen to the other two words? We speak of being overwhelmed and underwhelmed; presumably there's some way of being "whelmed",  the exact right amount of emotional impact. The English "Hell" seems obviously derived from the Norse "Hel", the Viking death-goddess--but where in the Nine Worlds is "heck" derived from? I learned fairly recently that "darn" is an extreme modification of "eternal damnation", and is thus related to damn etymologically, but still: enough to keep a guy up at night thinking. Now, so far in this post, Jarte's spell-check hasn't recognized, in order, armsmen, fucking, McWhorter's, Englisc, pret, underwhelmed,(though 'whelmed' itself raised no flags, which gives me hope) Hel, and "Jarte's" itself. I've added all of these in due time, but it draws this to my next point: the eventual conquest and replacement of all life on Earth by our benevolent robot overl--er, I mean spell-check.
Spell-check is useful but annoying, like a grandmother who considers you her pride and joy but insists on babying you even though you're twenty-one and moved out of your parents' house, semi-gainfully employed, and generally no longer three and making a mess in your diapers. While it may prove useful if, for instance, you're one prone to misspelling words, and I've actually had some moments--a few on this very post--wherein it saved my bacon, but all in all it just sticks in my craw: I can spell well enough and generally catch my mistakes, it gives homophones a free pass--not a problem for me, but common enough that my English teachers go over it repeatedly at the beginning of the term--and as for new words...hooo-boy. One of the unsung joys of being a science-fiction/fantasy writer is making up new words to describe concepts that you invented by the time-honored method of ramming two or three words together to creating a new one, or making up words for your new alien species' language; generally, SF/F writers get to play with the language a bit--or a lot--more than "literary", thriller, or romance authors, one of the pleasures of the genres. Spell-check pointedly refuses to acknowledge 'em, natch, even though some, like "Terran" have been in use for decades. By the way, natch apparently isn't a word, although I use it a lot. Similarly certain words of relatively recent vintage, such as "webcomic/webcomics" and "polyamory" and its conjugations--"polyamorous" ,"polyamorist"--are obviously not real words and must be treated accordingly. (While the MS Word spell-check is relatively limited insofar as polyamory is concerned, offering up only "polyandry"--which I guess might be considered a form of polyamory, though most poly advocates seek to distance themselves from Mormon polygamists...different post, Alex; different post--and "polymer"--which is something rather different-- the Jarte checker is more...diversified, bringing Polymorph--yes, as in the D&D spell--into the equation.) It also considers "non-standard" contractions, which I use a lot of, most names, their various plurals and possessives, and British spellings of words to be anathema, which  I find annoying. On that note, let's press on to our next--and, I swear to God, Zeus, Odin, Thor, Shiva, and Queztalcoatl, last--topic tonight.

American versus British (and Canadian!)

...English, that is. (Which reminds me of this idea for a T-shirt I've got: You know those t-shirts that say, "This is America, now speak English or get out of the country"? The ones that make sure to tell people that you're a douche and/or redneck? Like that, only instead of "English", it's "Esperanto". Two versions of that one:one in English, and another in Esperanto. And I've other ideas along that line: Lojban, Ido, Sindarin[okay, probably--no, definitely--"Middle-Earth" for that one], Klingon, German, French Canadian... and a whole lot of others. Anyway...) The sheer number of differences between BrE and AmE, as those froods hoopy enough to study these kinds of things say and write, boggles the mind; it truly does. Let's start with terminology, since that's the most obvious one. While both an American and a Brit enjoy a game of football, what they're referring to in either case can differ quite shockingly, for what is called "football" in the UK is what an American would call "soccer".(For the record, soccer is a corruption of a contraction: originally the full term was--and still is, technically--association football, a reference to the early governing body; being played primarily by upper-class Britons originally lead to it being called "socca", and I like to think that the present-day American name comes from some overzealous, hypercorrecting American journalist exactly phonetically transcribing the popular name. Anyway...) What would be a "truck" to an American is a "lorry" to  an Englishman, and while in the States you fill that truck's tank up with gasoline or gas, the same thing across the Atlantic is accomplished with petrol. If you're tabling something, God help if you've just switched continents: in Britain to table (or "boulder" should no tables be available due to your sleeper ship, containing all the middle managers, hairdressers, and telephone sanitizers of the planet Gogalfrincham, has just crashed on prehistoric Earth, in which case you've more problems then just the lack of tables.) is to open a subject to discussion; the American meaning is to close the topic:i.e."So I guess we'll table this for now/we'll put this thing to bed/WHEN I BASH YOUR HEAD OPEN" in the Jonathon Coulton song "re:Your Brains". Something's wrong under the bonnet of your Ford Prefect, versus problems under the hood of your new Taurus. When parking cars, is one doing it in a car park or a parking lot? Is something to be spun anti- or counter-clockwise so as to loosen it? I could go on, but there's just so much. There is, of course, the slang meaning of rubber--a condom in America, an eraser in England. And spelling...! Spelling is where the three dialects diverge into severe linguistic shift-things. Okay...keep your head about you, cos this gets really messy really fast. Firstly, -or/-our. Is it honor or honour? Color or colour? Favor or favour? And on and on. How to spell certain words that end with the er sound? Theater/theatre, somber/sombre (I prefer the latter), specter/spectre (ditto), etc. If it's emphasize versus emphasise (for instance)...well, the US is unique here too: Canada is solidly Commonwealth on the question. (or is that query? Ah, never mind.) The periodic table can get confusing: is element number 137 (Cs) cesium or caesium? My family inadvertently convinced me to start spelling aluminum aluminium several months ago; I kept with it on a "fun-to-say" basis. Gray/grey is another matter entirely; the lines between the two usages are much blurrier there and Grey is an entirely acceptable surname Stateside. How do I swing, you ask? Answer: it varies. As noted above, I go with the British spellings on words that, in AmE, are spelt -er, and use aluminium rather than aluminum. Grammatically, I prefer to excise got in sentences where they make just as much sense without it: "I've a lovely bunch of coconuts", f'rex, or "I've the blasted documents. Where d'you want me to put them?"; I also move the contraction point in negative sentences further up than most Americans:i.e."We've not yet breached the damned perimeter!" or "He's not yet fought the hardest battle." I also spell grey with an e, as gray is an American perversion that has no place in proper spelling. And--on a topic I missed in this post--I err the side of two L's; regardless of dialect, one L alone looks lonely and cold to me, desperately in need of a hug, some kind of hot drink--coffee or tea, perhaps, or hot coca--and a friend. I use "arse" over "ass" when discussing the buttocks, although I use "ass" in the context of donkeys, someone making an ass out of themselves, and as in badass.
Those of you interested in further exploring this topic I refer to the relevant Wikipedia pages. It's really a fascinating topic, and I want to explore it further.

This post written partially whilst in the nude
--Alex Adrian, twilight hours of 2/8/12 and 2/9/12

Saturday, January 21, 2012

The Future ... Now !


It struck me again recently. The occurrence was my chancing across a reference in The Atlantic to a laser welder. And the thought--this is a true fact, and one that keeps cropping up to me as time wears on--is that we are living in the future. (Oh. And I'm Alex Adrian--as always--and this is the Diary of an Atomic Man, again as always.)

Now, don't hold your breath waiting for it, folks--'cause it's already here. One'd be hard-pressed to ignore the facts; yes indeedy, one would. (Wouldn't one? Anyway...) Technology is charging forward at a rapid pace and has built itself into the fabric of modern society. Everyone and their grandma is online (and on Facebook!); phones the size--well, height and width, not thickness-- of a cigarette packet (playing card may be a better analogy, given the relative thickness; incidentally, I want to go down in history as the first man to compare an iPhone to a supermodel: both are beautifully designed, thinner than air, everywhere, and seem created only to flaunt their beauty and slimness to the world. I'd like to see a supermodel play Angry Birds though, or an iPhone model Versace's latest collection...or a supermodel incorporate 4G wireless connectivity. At the piano, we have Hugh Farman. Anyway...), e-readers that can--hypothetically--store all of written history on something the size of a slim paperback, laptops--forgive me, "netbooks"--that can fit under a doorjamb and outperform a supercomputer, MMOCGs (anyone know what to call Minecraft? I'm having trouble coming up with a term) that allow the player to do anything, social networks of thousands, perhaps millions of people, talking, sharing, linking, playing, doing...the list goes on.
And that's just consumer electronics! (Okay, video games aren't really "consumer electronics", especially not browser-based or downloadable ones, but bear with me here.) The military is developing weapons that seemed science-fictional mere decades ago: the idea of the Future Force Warrior is to create the ultimate soldier...by giving 'em a suit of powered armor. That's right, powered armor. Meanwhile, the Navy has turned to the crazy awesome side of the Force : besides the plan to develop a carrier-based UAV (more succinctly, a carrier plane that, rather than being controlled by a human being from afar or in the cockpit, the idea behind the X-47B is that it'd work virtually completely autonomously--or at least that's how Popular Mechanics describes it. [Joe Pappalardo,"X-Plane Rising", Popular Mechanics, December 2011, pp. 66-74.]), the new Zumwalt-class destroyers would be 3000--three thousand--tonnes heavier than the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, and indeed the heaviest destroyer ever built, outweighing even World War II heavy cruisers.  According to the Wikipedia article, the Zumwalts may eventually mount free-electron lasers and railguns, the latter of which the Navy's been researching for several years, now. The project's been cancelled, it seems, but still...

The motto, for those of you who don't speak Latin: "Speed destroys".

This is why Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space! (Or to sail the seven seas...)

Actually, you know what'd be awesome? Pirate Newton. Anyway...
Even the traditional marker of tech-that-ain't-never-gonna-happen, the jetpack,  is slowly, slowly, coming to fruition. If you've about two hundred grand, you can buy a (pretty cool-looking) "wing pack".

Dah dahdahdah dahdah dahdah...dah dah dah d-dahdah dahdah dahdahDUN!

The Diary of an Atomic Man would like to salute Yves Rossy, for advancing human achievement some fifty years with his invention. Meanwhile, space...

"Space? SPACE?! SPAAAACE!!!!"
Well, space exploration is progressing rather well, in fact! The Obama administration may've been the one to scrap the Space Shuttle, but the thing had it in the cards for a few years, now, and according to Wikipedia the current plan's to send humans to the asteroids in 2025, followed by a 2030 Mars-shot. There will be an increased reliance on private contractors--SpaceX, Scaled Composites, and the like--for getting people and cargo to NEO and LEO, while Uncle Sam, Ivan, Raj, and Liu look outwards. Within a few years, private spaceflight will be available for (relatively) cheap. And as for the old idea of a space elevator? Who knows! Maybe...just maybe...I'll keep an eye out, just in case. I can't think of any better way to end this, so I'll send you out with these words from Randall Munroe, the creator of xkcd:
"People aren't going to get better or worse. Technology will be pretty cool. All in all, the future's going to be awesome! Except climate; we fucked that one up."
Damned right

--Alex Adrian, 1/21/12

Monday, January 16, 2012

Viva Las Vegas... ?

Hey, everybody. I'm Alex Adrian and this is the Diary of an Atomic Man. And this week...Las Vegas. Not just anything about Vegas (Baby) but specifically the sheer absurdity of it. I've always regarded Las Vegas as a strange experiment: less the logical, natural output of people wanting or needing to live somewhere than a massive experiment--the first in human history--in terraforming. In that prior statement lies the thrust of (this part of) tonight's post. Who in blue thunder thought that putting a city in Middle of Nowhere, Nevada, was a good idea? There's no mining, or a river, or an ocean/lake/large water feature, or a forest, or...ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS USEFUL IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER! Most cities spring up around something useful, such as the aforementioned features: Denver, Colorado, for instance, has mining. Copenhagen, capital of Denmark, is located on a bay. (Nice place.) London--River Thames right through th' middle. New York, of course, is more or less a freakin' island, or at least spread across two or three; I'm not counting in the Bronx for argument's sake.  Tokyo was once a fishing village (and called Edo), before becoming the Japanese capital. BUT...nothing at all like that can be found in Vegas (Baby). (I suppose that you could count the A-bomb tests that ranged throughout the Mountain West in the Fifties, but...) Same goes for Phoenix, Arizona. Phoenix has it worse, as (so my sources tell me) it is a trap for smog from Los Angeles due to the mountains and dippy geographical thingy. In both cases they're "service-industry meccas" distinguished and built around one thing: in the case of Vegas (Baby) gambling, in the case of Phoenix having the climate of a Middle Eastern city. On that note, let's move on to the next topic of tonight's post: those little towns whose economies revolve around one single tourist activity. Leavenworth, Washington, where my family spent a weekend around last Christmas, is a good example. In that specific case,  the town was intentionally...retrofitted...into a Bavarian Christmas village so as to promote tourism to that part of Central Washington. Another example--examples, plural--would be the various towns that spring up near mountain ski resorts, existing solely to serve them. Or, for that matter, Atlantic City, New Jersey, until a few years ago. Or Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, birthplace of Dolly Parton and location of her theme park, Dollywood.

Yes, Dollywood. According to the official website :"The Great Smokey Mountains' family fun vacation adventure with great shows, thrilling roller coasters [my italics], festivals [what in...], and kiddie rides.[Kiddie rides. KIIIDDIE RIDES!!!!]"

Or (I could do this all night) Branson, Missouri. This' probably a better example than Atlantic City or Pigeon Forge, as various musicians and performers have set up shop along the "Strip", Highway 76. (Oh, and according to Wikipedia, Dolly Parton also has a theme park there, Dolly Parton's Dixie Stampede. What in hell...?)  In all these cases (Well, maybe not A.C's...or that of the ski villages) their success isn't so much the result of some logical, natural, phenomenon, but rather a calculated attempt on the part of someone (probably the Chamber of Commerce or a related entity) to boost tourism to the town/area. All of this is nice; however, it's nothing like our next topic: college towns! (Cuz there's not a law against having three topics...or sexual partners, for that matter. Anyway...) Okay...slight generalization time, here. College towns are typically small to medium-sized, population wise. They contain colleges (duh), and most of the adult population are in some way connected with the college, as professors or other capacities. The schools are good--after all, parents who work as professors want only the best for their kids--the politics liberal, everyone--just about, so long as you ignore the bulk of the science (hard and soft) and liberal-arts students and faculty--is devoted to the sports teams, and the culture and overall vibe...well, let's just say that reality and college towns can be of out of sync at times. This is pronounced in major, multi-discipline universities (when you bring physicists, engineers, biologists, sociologists, and liberal-arts majors together in one place, weird things are bound to happen )and for some reason small liberal-arts colleges. As noted above, size matters; although Seattle, Washington, and New York have several universities and colleges, they're not college towns, since they're fairly large cities. In general--I say in general--they're more liberal and relaxed in attitudes towards "alternative lifestyles" compared to their neighbors, especially in more "red-state-y" regions of the country. Not sure why this is. I'll look into it in a future post, perhaps.

Hey, first post of the year!

--Alex Adrian, 1/16/12

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Some Thoughts on the Razor-Blade Arms Race







Hey, everybody. I'm Alex Adrian and this is The Diary of an Atomic Man. This week we're going to talk about something that, while it may seem random during this holiday season, is one I've been thinking about for a while now: Razor blades. Yes, razor blades--or more specifically, the arms race that has developed between Schick and Gillette in recent years over how many razor blades each can fit onto their razor-blade-holding bits. A digression: like most men, I shave, and I prefer shaving soap to shaving cream. The reason is simply one of control. To explain, the following image is offered. Okay, so you've got your shaving brush, your shaving soap, and your unshaven face. You need to get the soap to your face. With the brush-and-soap method one can easily control the lather. No such luck with shaving cream; while many do indeed use shaving cream for convenience's sake, I find it hard to control the amount, dispersal and thickness.

Ahem.



Anyway...Back on topic.
Some History

The safety razor as we know it today was invented in 1901 by K.C. Gillette and patented in 1904; while a similar device dates back to the 1880s, it is immaterial to our purposes. Gillette's razor was unique in that it allowed the shaver to throw out the blade after it got too blunt. With the exception of the invention in the 1950s or '60s--I'm not entirely sure on the date--of stainless-steel razor blades, the industry, consisting by now of Gillette's namesake company, Schick, and the British firm Wilkinson Sword, was mostly dormant until circa 1971, with the introduction of the Gillette Trac II, the first multi-blade razor--in this case a two-bladed one. Slightly later, Gillette brought out the Atra and Atra Plus, which introduced the--at the time revolutionary--technologies of the mobile blade head and the"Lubrastrip" respectively, which massaged and lubricated the male face; the latter could be related to the dawn of "sensitive guys" in the Seventies. (NOTE: I'm serious about this. Might be worth looking into.) In 1974 Bic introduced a disposable razor, which could simply be thrown out entirely (entirely logical; Bic is in disposables: disposable lighters, disposable pens, and so...disposable razors!) Gillette, however, scooped the Franco-Belgian thrower-awayers for the US release of disposable razors with the '76 roll-out of the Gillette Good News, then stuck with its naming patterns for the Lubrastrip (in this case aloe vera rather than polyglcyol chloride)-equipped Good News Plus.
Then, everybody forgot about the arms race for a few decades.

Fast-forward to 1998. Gillette decided that the status quo was boring and introduced the Mach3, a...(Drumroll, please)...GASP...three-bladed razor! At this point the arms race not only kicked back up, it went into high gear. Slightly later, not sure of the date, Schick rolled out the four-bladed (shocking, I know) Quattro. Gillette, shocked at having its place as the elder states-razor company and innovator upbraided (say what you will about corporate personhood as a legal doctrine, it makes for some pretty entertaining prose) released the Fusion, which had, not one, not two, not three, not even four, but five--count 'em, five--blades




Seriously, this is madness on a scale heretofore unknown to mankind

The current tops of the US market are both five-bladers: as well as the Fusion, there's the Schick Hydro 5(pictured below).


You hear me? Madness.

Who knows where this will lead next? Apparently, someone called Pace Shave is making a six-bladed razor; will we soon see the Schick Hydro 6 on drugstore shelves? Surely, it can't get as ridiculous as this:


...but God alone knows. Americans have a weakness for bizarre and seemingly needless gadgets; for corroborating evidence one need only look at the success of the Snuggie (a blanket with sleeves. Jeez, I never knew I needed one!...But that's another rant) and the careers of Vince Offer, Ron Popiel, and the late, lamented Billy Mays, or simply watch late-night basic cable...or Cartoon Network on weekday mornings between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. (I'm serious; there're all sorts of weird infomercials on at that hour. Of course, who except stoners, twenty-somethings with no lives, and families in hotels on vacation--I speak from personal experience--watches Cartoon Network weekday mornings?).

However, remember this: one era's lunacy is another's total normality, and without constant vigilance, this madness (I say it three times) can creep up. It will not end. It will not ever end. Not without--I say again--constant vigilance; to paraphrase a Russian joke: "One hundred fifty-fourth polishes the jawbone". American men will do anything for a close shave...even at their own peril.

--Alex Adrian, 12/14/11

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

In Reaction to the Recent Death of Bil Keane

Some Thoughts on the Legacy of the Creator of The Family Circus and the State of American Comic Strips in General

First of all, sorry about the erratic-to-nonexistent update schedule. As you probably gathered from the title, I’m writing this post in response to the recent death of Bil Keane, creator of The Family Circus. Keane died on the eighth of congestive heart failure; he was 89. Keane is survived by his son Jeff and the strip itself, which is now being written and drawn by Jeff, so it’ll continue unabated for the foreseeable future. The Internet’s mockery will, too. And now…on to tonight’s main topic: The sad and sorry state of the modern American comics page. I personally agree with PvP creator Scott Kurtz on this one: American strip comics are a moribund business, drained of creativity and with their golden years long behind them. The closest they ever came to a “renaissance” was during the 1980’s and ‘90s, when the industry was renewed, filled with a sense of purpose that made it grow and swell with pride and optimism. From this time spring some of the greatest works of comic-strip storytelling and art: Calvin and Hobbes, The Far Side, This Modern World, and FoxTrot's "golden age" all date back to these years. Sadly, these years of greatness and the earlier blossomings of the 1900's through the 1970's are long behind it, and the average comics reader is left to scavenge through the blasted wreckage. Doonesbury. Stone Soup. Peanuts. Mother Goose and Grimm--on a good day, which are few and far between. Non-Sequitor--although the above caveat also applies. These, my friends, are all that remain of the regularly syndicated quality strips. The rest--the word dreck springs to mind all too readily. Calvin and Hobbes and The Far Side both stopped publication about a decade and a half ago, and, it seems, so too went all but a few small vestiges of comic strips’ creativity. Now? Maybe a swift death would be less painful than watching this titan grown sterile slowly fall to pieces. In no particular order, here is a sampling of the comics I would most like see vanish from the comics page forever:
  • Beetle Bailey: I know that Beetle Bailey is a beloved American classic—but so is gender-based discrimination, and I for one would like to see that gone forever. It’s just not funny anymore—and that is the kiss of death for a comic strip.
  • Garfield: the humor ran dry on this ‘un a long time ago, and Jim Davis has just been recycling the same seven or eight jokes ever since.
  • Cathy: DO. NOT. GET. ME. STARTED. ON. THIS. ONE.
  • Dennis the Menace: another strip where the humor ran dry years back. Moreover, Dennis hasn’t been actually, y'know, menacing in decades, having long since decayed into harmless sap. End it now, man! END IT NOW!
  • The Born Loser: this is the poster-child for cliched, formulaic storytelling. Once you have read one The Born Loser strip you have, in effect, read them all.
  • Blondie: for whatever reason, this is both immortal and obscenely formulaic. It's just not that good
  • For Better or For Worse: once, this stood as one of the titans of comics. Now...it's just reprinting old strips, definitely for worse.
See ya in the funny papers!--

Alex Adrian
11/16/11

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Friday, August 27, 2010

The Commitment

Hello there. Me again.Sorry 'bout the schedule slippage. I'm committing to publishing The Diary of An Atomic Man once a week-- at least.