Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Blantantly cribbed from RO'D's KMB (hmm, maybe frantically trying to shortened names isn't the best idea in every case): Call Centre Confidential. Maybe I haven't actually read the blog yet, but judging by the cast list, and by the number of referrers to it, it might be worth your time (in an internet sangfroid stylee [or do I mean schadenfreude? Possibly having just checked. Though the French one might apply as well]).
Oh, I've just noticed the Guardian is included in the referrers. So everyone one else was there before me then? Oh well.
And while I'm getting confused about languages - Blogger's FP plugs this article, which links to this New Yorker [1] piece - a critical review of Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Which mentions: ...some conventions of British usage employed in “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” are taboo in the United States—for example, the placement of commas and periods outside quotation marks, “like this”. Ha, I knew I was right. Sorry, but a while ago I had a lengthy row with an Australian about it. Ok, so ...xxx?". still looks a little odd, but according to my logic it has to be right (it's the quoted person asking the question, not the writer).
[1] Why is there no London equivalent? Is it simply that "The Londoner" doesn't sound as good?
Ok so the rest of the article isn't too kind to the book, although some of it is probably excessive pedantry (like picking up on "printers' marks", without mentioning the context, so one has no idea if they meant the marks of many printers). And given the article degenerates into making blanket statements about nationalities, it possibly is not on the higher ground it claims.
Also on the language front is this Fistful of Euros piece on changing German [yes it's from a while ago, but I was on holiday]. As an English English-speaker, I find the notion of languages being controllable [especially by committee] rather amusing. The comments section has some interesting thoughts - including people who moot changing English spelling to reflect the phonetics or phonemics.
Is anyone else laughing? Given I'm working with a set of people freshly imported from somewhere up north, this idea seems ludicrous. They don't even use language in the same way, let alone pronounce it in the same way. It is slightly bewildering when, in the midst of the hideously mangled vowels [would you prefer I called them "comically mangled"?], they consistently contract "to" and "the" beyond the traditional Yorkshire "t'" (as in "t'mill"), to not bothering with them at all. For example "He's took box London".
They seem to have retained an Anglo-Saxon notion of plurals, in that all words function like fish and sheep, to mean either one or many. The "s" is non-existent. And I've yet to figure out how until, till, or to can become "while", as in "from 2 while 4".
And at the moment it's Boscastling outside. Hurrah. Obviously it knew I'd decided to try watering stuff earlier.
Boo-hiss BBC. Trying to find out when the sailing's on, and I find it's on from 4:30 til 6:30, on "Stream 4". Freeview only goes up to 3. So what do I have to do if I want to watch Olympic sailing on the BBC? Get Sky.
Or try to watch one of their live stream repeats, which don't do sailing, or try getting their on-demand stuff to work - when all it gives me is a message asking me to check the address for spelling errors.
The power of modern technology – it lets you know what you're missing.
Anyhoo,
Oh, I've just noticed the Guardian is included in the referrers. So everyone one else was there before me then? Oh well.
And while I'm getting confused about languages - Blogger's FP plugs this article, which links to this New Yorker [1] piece - a critical review of Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Which mentions: ...some conventions of British usage employed in “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” are taboo in the United States—for example, the placement of commas and periods outside quotation marks, “like this”. Ha, I knew I was right. Sorry, but a while ago I had a lengthy row with an Australian about it. Ok, so ...xxx?". still looks a little odd, but according to my logic it has to be right (it's the quoted person asking the question, not the writer).
[1] Why is there no London equivalent? Is it simply that "The Londoner" doesn't sound as good?
Ok so the rest of the article isn't too kind to the book, although some of it is probably excessive pedantry (like picking up on "printers' marks", without mentioning the context, so one has no idea if they meant the marks of many printers). And given the article degenerates into making blanket statements about nationalities, it possibly is not on the higher ground it claims.
Also on the language front is this Fistful of Euros piece on changing German [yes it's from a while ago, but I was on holiday]. As an English English-speaker, I find the notion of languages being controllable [especially by committee] rather amusing. The comments section has some interesting thoughts - including people who moot changing English spelling to reflect the phonetics or phonemics.
Is anyone else laughing? Given I'm working with a set of people freshly imported from somewhere up north, this idea seems ludicrous. They don't even use language in the same way, let alone pronounce it in the same way. It is slightly bewildering when, in the midst of the hideously mangled vowels [would you prefer I called them "comically mangled"?], they consistently contract "to" and "the" beyond the traditional Yorkshire "t'" (as in "t'mill"), to not bothering with them at all. For example "He's took box London".
They seem to have retained an Anglo-Saxon notion of plurals, in that all words function like fish and sheep, to mean either one or many. The "s" is non-existent. And I've yet to figure out how until, till, or to can become "while", as in "from 2 while 4".
And at the moment it's Boscastling outside. Hurrah. Obviously it knew I'd decided to try watering stuff earlier.
Boo-hiss BBC. Trying to find out when the sailing's on, and I find it's on from 4:30 til 6:30, on "Stream 4". Freeview only goes up to 3. So what do I have to do if I want to watch Olympic sailing on the BBC? Get Sky.
Or try to watch one of their live stream repeats, which don't do sailing, or try getting their on-demand stuff to work - when all it gives me is a message asking me to check the address for spelling errors.
The power of modern technology – it lets you know what you're missing.
Anyhoo,
