Hale and Hearty

Enjoying a visit to Paris, I like to spot words in French that have obviously migrated into English.

Eiffel Tower - just before it was evacuated on August 9th, 2013

This week's word is 'hâlé' (pronounced ah-lay in French), meaning bronzed or sunburnt.  I have no idea how to say the word in such a way as to distinguish it from the more common verb 'aller' meaning 'to go'.  I assume that context is king.

Surely is is the origin of the English word 'hale'.

Turning in their graves

This week on BBC Radio 4 a reporter was interviewing some of the people of Woolwich where there was a high profile murder of a serving soldier - allegedly by two young Muslim men.

The news story is far from funny, but one of the interviewees said something that made me hoot with laughter.

They claimed that our grandfathers fought for this country, and if they were alive now they would be turning in their graves.

Humour gets everywhere!

Entertaining anagrams

Once in a while you come across a really entertaining anagram.  20 years ago I found myself amused by the irony of the anagram of government minister Virginia Bottomley's name.  It seemed humorously plausible as it seemed believable that she might claim "I'm an evil tory bigot"!

Having survived the Conservative government of that time, (which led quite directly to 10 years of Labour government), there was a period when 'Apple Macintosh' developed 'laptop machines'.  There is a surprising synergy between those two sides of an anagram.

On the other hand sometimes you hear one that is appears humorously antithetic.  It would be very surprising to find that "Brittney Spears"
is on of those "Presbyterians".

Over-rated champagne?

Do you like champagne?  It is not fashionable to criticise it, but it seems to be used a little bit too frequently at celebrations, major or minor.  I'm not (necessarily) suggesting that it is too frequently from the point of view of the taste but too frequently because it is sold at a premium price.

There is a Yorkshire word that is rarely used outside the county - and I don't really know how to spell it . . .

Thoyle

. . . or something like that (as I have never seen it written down) has a specific and distinct meaning.  It means that its not that I can't afford something, but I just don't think it is worth that much money.  If it was in more common usage I would be very pleased, and it would have application in many situations.

Madame Bollinger apparently disagreed - but then again it must have been more cheaply available to her.  Anecdotally she said

"I drink champagne when I'm happy and when I'm sad.  Sometimes I drink it when I'm alone.  When I have company I consider it obligatory.  I trifle with it if I'm not hungry and drink it when I am.  

"Otherwise, I never touch it - unless I'm thirsty."

Full stops are rude?

I have been hearing some surprising small hints about the teen culture in text messaging.

Did you know that it is rude to finish your message with a full stop?  Apparently this is an indication that the conclusion is a somewhat  pointed remark.

And who would have guessed that a smiley face in the wrong context can be taken as a hint of sarcasm? :)

On asking how we are supposed to know these things, it was not very reassuring to be told "it doesn't matter for you because you are old".  Hmm . . . not all that old!  I don't yet know what I want to do when I grow up!

But apparently I am safe, so if you find me committing either of those offences please forgive my age!  I'll continue with my opinion that it is rude not to punctuate your sentences properly.

Words people get wrong

Isn't it annoying when educated people get simple things wrong?  I'm talking mainly about those egregious errors that creep into conversations or into announcements of events.

Your nuts or you're nuts?

I often find myself invited to 'a colloquia' when there is only one of them.  I find that pacifically irritating (when it should have been specifically) .

People always mix up infer and imply.  There was a great scene in the movie 'Wilt' where Griff Rhys-Jones is playing the part of a college lecturer who is being interviewed by Mel Smith who plays a policeman.  Mel says "Are you inferring that we're all thick?" and the reply is "No, no, no, I'm implying that you are all thick and you are inferring . . . "

Affect and effect constantly get confused too.  Can't people work out that one is a verb and the other a noun?  (OK . . . if you are a philosopher, then effect actually is a noun, but most people don't know that.)  They can't even 'hone in' on a solution, when homing in on it might be easier.

All the time people mix up their, there and they're.  They can't spot the difference between you're and your, or where and were.

And when they agree with you they write 'here here' when they really mean 'hear hear'.

Please concentrate folks!

What else is in an Arabic name?

Following on from Saturday's post, Abu and Hamza - What's in a name, here is another interesting translation problem.

In Arabic names, both ibn and bin can be translated as "son of".

Osama bin Laden means "Osama, son of Laden." It's not uncommon for names to include references to three or four generations of ancestors, each offset with bin or ibn.

So, why do some names use bin while others use ibn?  The spelling of the word in Arabic changes depending on where it is in the sentence.  If it is at the beginning, it is written as alef-ba-nun, which we transliterate as 'ibn'. If the word appears in the middle of a name, the alef gets left off.  We write that as 'bin'.

Given this system, it's not entirely accurate to use "Bin Laden" when we refer to the man in shorthand. The Guardian's sentence "Bin Laden effusively praised the Jordanian-born militant." would more accurately be "Ibn Laden effusively praised the Jordanian-born militant" since in this case the "son of" is at the beginning of the name.

Bin and ibn are more likely to show up in places with strong connections to tribal culture, like Saudi Arabia. People who live in big cities tend to drop the connecting terms from their names—someone named Osama Bin Laden might end up just "Osama Laden." In North Africa, the bin tends to be spelt with an "e", as in the name of former Algerian president Ahmed Ben Bella.

Don't be so negative!

As a fellow skeptic, (are you?), have you ever been irritated by some supercilious twit telling you

Don't be so negative!

Usually in my experience they are saying this because

• they have failed to understand the situation properly
• they are trying to be motivational to other people (or sheeple) who are listening,
• they think it makes them sound positive
• and they think that is always a good thing.

In almost every case they do not have the wit to realise that there is a difference between skepticism and cynicism, and won't listen when you try to explain.  The negative/positive terminology fulfills the fallacy of the missing middle too.  That missing middle might include the word "realistic" in some cases.  (In a few other cases they might be right and I actually might be being negative!)

Each and every time I hear 'Don't be so negative' I wonder whether the speaker has realised the irony of their outburst.

After all - just tell me how can you tell someone not to be negative without being negative yourself?

Small note:  Speaking as a (sometimes negative) skeptical pedant (the last two of which I admit and celebrate) I feel uncomfortable with the lack of a question mark in that first paragraph.  Even so - I can't decide where to put it.  So here it is . . . ?  I feel a need for the Spanish technique of using an upside down question mark symbol to start a question, rather like quotation marks.

Up with which I will not put!

First reported in Plain Words (1948) by Sir Ernest Gowers, it is said that Winston Churchill once made this marginal comment against a sentence that clumsily avoided a prepositional ending.

"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put".

What a good job he never read the following sentence as it ends with a surprising FIVE prepositions!

"What did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"

It takes a bit of practise to say that!  There is your challenge for the day.

Twenty Twelve

At last the new millennium is establish in speech!  Ever since the beginning of the century people in England have been divided.

Initially there was a great debate about the true date of the beginning of the 21st century, with one side claiming January 1st 2000, and the opposition claiming 2001.  Well obviously the latter is strictly correct, and as a permanent pedant I could hardly be expected to take the opposite view.  After all, there was no year zero, so the last year of the first century (strictly speaking) was 100, and the first year of the second century was 101.  Logically 2001 got my vote.

Pedant or not, I am also a pragmatist.  When failure is inevitable I can be swayed to accept it, and after all, some battles are worth fighting and some are not.  In the minds of most of the public the number 2000 is much more important than 2001.  This is just numerology.  It doesn't actually matter at all does it.  The first day in the new millennium was simply the next day in our lives.

But this year it is different.  Until 2012 we have struggled with the question of how to say the year out loud.  It was impossible to contemplate saying 'Twenty One' because that is not written as 20-01 but 21.

'Twenty Oh One' just sound silly although shorter than 'Two thousand and One' it is not a saving that our aesthetics consider worthwhile.

Finally Twenty Twelve sounds right.  A few still say Two Thousand and Twelve, but let's face it, we will all be converted to the sensible shorter version soon.

Twenty Twelve marks the point when we are finally happy with our century.

Agile and empowered

Anyone working in a large organisation for a couple of  decades will see patterns of recurrent nonsense.  This decade is no different from any other, and we see many of the old traits re-emerging for another airing.

As a naive young engineer I always assumed that the senior management of every organisation had risen to its position of power through some sort of meritocracy.  These must be the people who we should look up to.  They must be the most able managers, the best communicators, and they must surely have the wisdom and technical knowledge to judge better from worse in the industry that they lead.

Sadly - whatever anyone will tell you - this rarely seems to be the case.  Without wishing to question their 'integrity' in any way it seems that the main requirement of the (increasingly overpaid**) directors in UK is to be able to recognise their own limitations.  Yes - they actually get paid for doing this!

And they actually get bonuses for failing too.  Having recognised their weaknesses they have to be able to choose the appropriate management consultants and bring them in to 'look at the big picture' for the company and in a 'cost neutral' way make a 'business case' for change, by 'evolution not revolution'.

These (even more highly paid) consultants brandish expressions such as 'agility', 'synergy' and 'empowerment'. They encourage you to generate a 'mission statement', and to 'cascade' their learning through the organisation, seeking 'enablers' to motivate and 'engage' the staff.  'Thinking outside the box' they identify the 'fast track' to 'diversification' but still make sure not to expand the 'core business'.  'Revisiting' the old accusations of 'silo mentality',  'facilitating change' and implementing 'knowledge management' they seek a 'strategic fit' with 'partner organisations',  'ring-fencing' areas of work and 'outsourcing' according to the 'game plan'.

The strangest thing is that the experts genuinely do not know how risible their teachings are.  If you use the word 'agile' in front of the board of directors it gains you 'traction'.  They all nod their heads sagely and agree that their organisation should have that characteristic.

But use the word 'agile' in front of the ordinary employees and and you will find that (generally) they have the wisdom not to laugh at you - but they will do it behind your back.  They have seen this sort of thing happen before and they know to keep quiet (and then ignore it).

Most of them also knew that agility and empowerment would indeed be good things for the company.  Oddly enough, they knew this before they were taught by the consultants, (even if the directors did not).  They also know that it is very rare to find a workplace where the 'change management' actions are properly implemented, however often they have been promised.  Even if they 'go the extra mile'  the management will 'move the goal posts'.

Consultants come and consultants go.  They usually use the same concepts even if they use different name.  Rarely do they deliver what they promised, and when they fail they are never 'attributable'.

Plus ca change!

** Small note: Directors pay continues to advance rapidly while everyone else experiences a pay freeze because after all, these are times of austerity!

Poe's Law, and lying for Jesus!

'Poe's Law' is one of those expressions that seem to have arrived in vernacular English from nowhere.  There are several variations on a theme and another altogether independent option here.  One possible application is:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, because they have seen similar real ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

Pretty image 'ethically sourced' from here, (thank you).  Isn't it better than those horrible smileys that you try to get by struggling to find the right combination of keystrokes?  :)

A more general case of Poe's Law is

"It is impossible to tell for certain the difference between genuine stupidity and a parody of stupidity."
[You should know that intuitively from reading this blog!]

It seems that this version of 'Poe's law' was created by Nathan Poe in August 2005 at the website christianforums.com (deliberately not linked from here because I doubt that you will want to go there).  Apparently it was in the the section of their forum which focuses on creation vs. evolution debating.

Another version - independent from the others - is a Christian theological principle that states:

"Elements of the Gospel speak to different levels of spiritual concern in different cultures at different times."

This one was named after theologian Dr. Harry Lee Poe, a cousin of Edgar Allan Poe.  It is taught to modern evangelists as a way to better target the message of 'The Gospel' to different audiences for 'maximum salvific efficacy'.

In other words - feel free to indulge in cherry picking of verses that seem to prove what you want to prove here and now, and ignore the possibility that they really mean something else - or indeed nothing at all.  Elsewhere it is known by the expression 'lying for Jesus'.

So next time you hear someone quoting Poe's Law, ask them which version they mean.

Do they suggest a lack of sense of humour or lack of total open honesty?

Small note: And remember that expression 'maximum salvific efficacy'.  Mind you it is quite hard to forget it as it is so utterly awful!