Monday, September 13, 2004
I was reminded of City Comforts by this BBC piece on the rebuilding of the World Trade Centre site, which states that the new transit station is set back from the street, for security reasons. I wonder what Mr Sucher makes of the impact of terrorism threat on the urban environment. As one of his central tenets of urbanism seems to be that buildings should meet the street, how does that mesh with pedestrian plazas to fend off vehicular access? And what should one make the of occurrence of concrete blocks to do the same? How long will it be before we see public art flanking the road, which looks an awful lot like those trapezoid world war 2 anti-tank lumps of concrete, that still dot occasional beaches and haphazard bits of countryside?
Or perhaps cities will become adorned with neoclassical colonnades, with 4 foot gaps between the pillars. Actually I started this train of thought off jokingly, but it could so easily happen. Somewhere near here already has a line of metal trees purely for decorative purposes (what was wrong with real trees?). Why not take it a little further and have metal flowerbeds skirting bits of pavement? Make sure it's strategically strengthened, and it'll work quite well at blocking access. Perhaps there might be problems with occasional pedestrian injuries, and people invariably climbing the thing, but that happens with anything left outside [and strangely all the straight lines start to gain anti-grind lumps of metal. I've even seen these applied to a stone wall between two grass terraces. Obviously whoever fixes them on hasn't figured out that soggy grass isn't really an ideal skateboarding surface]. If pointless squiggles of plant-like metal aren't the right thing for your town [though if it's good enough for China...], then obviously substitute random lumps of concrete.
Or simply build some cunningly robust benches. There seems to be a fashion at the moment for solid blocks of stone or metal, both of which I imagine would slow anything trying to ram explosives into a building (and both of which are incredibly uncomfortable to sit on, being resolutely hard, and invariably stone cold, literally. But what does comfort matter when the design is so simple that the architect can render images of them with the oldest computer in the office?).
Whilst milling about the CC site, I found a link to this article, which contains a curious turn of phrase I hadn't come across before. The use of the word "wholecloth" in the following:
Originality is not synonymous with creativity. Both require imagination and resourcefulness, but creativity is less about generating wholecloth or from scratch, and more about working with givens or within a system.
I've never heard of wholecloth as a word [4,320 ghits], and its use appears to be analogous with colloquialism "wholesale", as in: in its entirety.
Oh words and stuff found somewhere round the there:
Eroei - energy return on energy investment. Funky word (well, acronym, but EROEI looks too confrontational for modern tastes), but hands up if you can pronounce it. It sounds like it's either Ireland in Cornish, the name of some Indian tribe (I meant as in "Native American, formerly known as Red..." sense, though the "people from India" sense could equally apply), or some svelte elf from Tolkien.
And one from the comments: chicken little. From the context, and from the similarity of the sounds I'd guess that he meant Chicken Licken, from children's story (basically the sky's going to fall, and er, it doesn't. Sorry for the spoiler).
But consulting Google I am informed that the Disney corporation thinks it's "Chicken Little". However I've seen a 1920s edition of the book (it'll be around somewhere in family), and that definitely used the -licken version. And when did Disney start up? Oh, apparently the Disney version isn't even out yet.
I can't understand how the old version I know of, and know to be pretty old, is currently the minor version. Chicken Licken gets 4,760 ghits, Chicken Little 86,400 ghits. This seems like somewhere along the the name got amended by some publisher somewhere (or possibly a Disney) in order to get round some awkward piece of copyrighting.
It certainly does seem odd that the rest of the cast have names like Goosey Loosey, Gander Lander, Turkey Lurkey and Foxy Loxy[1], and when the main character is Chicken Little.
[1] There appear to be separate forms which either use the ending in an "ee" sound, or don't. I think the version I've been exposed to didn't, as I remember having far too many problems with the apparently simple Hen-len.
Hmm, is that why chick-lit seems such a comfortable phrase for so many people? Because it coincidences with a shortened of something they remember from childhood? Whereas if I apply the same model I get chick-lick, which doesn't seem as convenient, and might carry the risk of salmonella (or, taking the other sense, worse).
This -cken/-ttle dichotomy could just be based on one side of the Atlantic using one version, whilst the other side uses the other. But I suspect that it is the influence of one particular popular edition, maintained by some suitable company.
[Of the top ten Google results for the -licken version: an unattributed.com cites a 1919 edition; another .com cites the same book as 1909; 4 .co.uk's; 2 .co.za's; a UK based .com; and a .com discussion board which suggests that Chicken Licken is the original 1849 English version. The same sampling for the -little version brings up: Disney; a Geocities site narrated by an American voice (and the author's page gives an apparently American phone number); a .com run by a New Jersey woman; a subsection of a Texan .com; a Guam based site; the NYT; Amazon.com; a Canadian .com; a Canadian .com that mentions the Disney film; and a defunct AOL homepage. So that's 6 US sites, 2 Canadian, 1 from Guam, and 1 I can't find out about. So -little is obviously the Americanised version, hence the plethora of webpages].
And while I'm on the us and them angle (well, I can't have the US and us, can I?), Language Log once again weighs in with how they Americans are better. They have stricter publishers enforcing grammatical rules, whereas the British don't care. Um, has it occurred to them that the reason that British publications differ grammatically from American ones, is not through sloppy application of the US rules, but perhaps because they use different grammatical rules? Everyone I know has always been taught that the author's punctuation goes outside speech marks. Hence if I quote the man who said "Quote", then my punctuation goes outside his speech. It's not his comma or question mark. For example: do you agree with "quote"? American usage apparently puts it as: do you agree with "quote?" Which if the quote was a statement, is misquoting the quoted person. And which leaves the sentence unfinished.
Even in the more grammatically correct new paragraph quotes, as in dialogue, receive the same pattern.
"Rhubarb rhubarb", said Jeremy.
Kate replied "Custard".
However for all this "I'm right, you're wrong, sorry, different, and possibly special", I'm still never very sure what one does with quoted punctuation marks, such as exclamation or question marks, or ellipses (that the plural of ellipsis?).
"US model?" Looks lopsided and unfinished.
"UK rules logically applied!". Looks too complicated.
"The probably correct UK version"? Looks a bit tangled too, but theoretically the author can take up the inflection of the quoted person, just not vice versa.
Now I've started thinking about, I'm not even all that sure about the commas by speech marks. Does one need them before and after, or only after?
Why is it that more one thinks about grammar, the worse it gets?
Anyway, I'd better give up this train of thought now, as I'm no longer quite sure of anything, and have already done enough to provoke a widespread "you're wrong and stupid" response. But as the English and Americans can't even agree on what to call the punctuation marks. Period? I mean, seriously? A period's not a full stop, a period is ... something involving Tampax (and they're probably not even called that in America. Even something simple like Sellotape becomes Scotch tape [does it come from Scotland?]. But then not even the Australians get that right [is it made from condoms then?]. But I suppose they are all preferable to that famous Blue Peterism, "sticky tape", which, while it may be descriptive [2], just sounds so foreign - a bit like people calling 0 "zero" not "o", or at the outside "nought", or pronouncing first party of .co.uk as "see oh", not "coe" [the only people who persistently use "c o" are the world service, which is understandable. The other people who pronounce it as that usually have just read out something along the lines of "www dot name at name2 dot c o dot u k dot", to demonstrate they are truly au fait with such technology].
[2] Personally I think of a better description of Sellotape, largely based on its ease of use, but it might not be entirely suitable for a children's programme.
Does this all mean that American telegrams used to travel slower? Well, if "STOP" is four letters and "PERIOD" is 6, that's a 50% increase every time a sentence finishes.
But if you want really confusing names for punctuation marks, just look to computer code. Why are exclamation marks called bangs? I can understand it's because things go "bang!", but why not something more fun like "ka-pow!"?
In other news, recent search engine hits:
- winning slogan weetabix mini cooper competition. "Shit a brick!" perhaps?
- euro slider+door opener+schematic diagram. Have you tried Homebase? Ah, they haven't conquered the Americas yet? You'll have to busqueda elsewhere then.
- damien hurst bigger than god. Is that a question or a statement? Did he say that, or just his ego?
- Bigger than God — Damien Hurst Text Painting. Oh, I get the picture now. Not literally of course, because I don't think I've seen it. But I tend not to remember names of artworks, and usually struggle with the artists.
- vasectomy, puns. I ought to be able to milk this easily, but I'm sorry I just can't come up with anything.
- with prostitution there is the whole pathetic customer(male) feeling sorry for his scabby cunt whore who destroys so many happy-families she is a nasty spiteful mailicous piece of dog shit not a poor little girl who don't know exactly what she is doing. The Ask Jeeves answer: Your car keys are where you left them.
- "mouse trap" christian object lessons. Play or game? I'm not sure either would provide a very Christian lesson. Or did you mean an actual mousetrap? In which case I think Sunday School attendance might drop dramatically.
- sage 50 accountancy programme download +crack. Skinflint accountants - woo!
Anyhoo,
Or perhaps cities will become adorned with neoclassical colonnades, with 4 foot gaps between the pillars. Actually I started this train of thought off jokingly, but it could so easily happen. Somewhere near here already has a line of metal trees purely for decorative purposes (what was wrong with real trees?). Why not take it a little further and have metal flowerbeds skirting bits of pavement? Make sure it's strategically strengthened, and it'll work quite well at blocking access. Perhaps there might be problems with occasional pedestrian injuries, and people invariably climbing the thing, but that happens with anything left outside [and strangely all the straight lines start to gain anti-grind lumps of metal. I've even seen these applied to a stone wall between two grass terraces. Obviously whoever fixes them on hasn't figured out that soggy grass isn't really an ideal skateboarding surface]. If pointless squiggles of plant-like metal aren't the right thing for your town [though if it's good enough for China...], then obviously substitute random lumps of concrete.
Or simply build some cunningly robust benches. There seems to be a fashion at the moment for solid blocks of stone or metal, both of which I imagine would slow anything trying to ram explosives into a building (and both of which are incredibly uncomfortable to sit on, being resolutely hard, and invariably stone cold, literally. But what does comfort matter when the design is so simple that the architect can render images of them with the oldest computer in the office?).
Whilst milling about the CC site, I found a link to this article, which contains a curious turn of phrase I hadn't come across before. The use of the word "wholecloth" in the following:
Originality is not synonymous with creativity. Both require imagination and resourcefulness, but creativity is less about generating wholecloth or from scratch, and more about working with givens or within a system.
I've never heard of wholecloth as a word [4,320 ghits], and its use appears to be analogous with colloquialism "wholesale", as in: in its entirety.
Oh words and stuff found somewhere round the there:
Eroei - energy return on energy investment. Funky word (well, acronym, but EROEI looks too confrontational for modern tastes), but hands up if you can pronounce it. It sounds like it's either Ireland in Cornish, the name of some Indian tribe (I meant as in "Native American, formerly known as Red..." sense, though the "people from India" sense could equally apply), or some svelte elf from Tolkien.
And one from the comments: chicken little. From the context, and from the similarity of the sounds I'd guess that he meant Chicken Licken, from children's story (basically the sky's going to fall, and er, it doesn't. Sorry for the spoiler).
But consulting Google I am informed that the Disney corporation thinks it's "Chicken Little". However I've seen a 1920s edition of the book (it'll be around somewhere in family), and that definitely used the -licken version. And when did Disney start up? Oh, apparently the Disney version isn't even out yet.
I can't understand how the old version I know of, and know to be pretty old, is currently the minor version. Chicken Licken gets 4,760 ghits, Chicken Little 86,400 ghits. This seems like somewhere along the the name got amended by some publisher somewhere (or possibly a Disney) in order to get round some awkward piece of copyrighting.
It certainly does seem odd that the rest of the cast have names like Goosey Loosey, Gander Lander, Turkey Lurkey and Foxy Loxy[1], and when the main character is Chicken Little.
[1] There appear to be separate forms which either use the ending in an "ee" sound, or don't. I think the version I've been exposed to didn't, as I remember having far too many problems with the apparently simple Hen-len.
Hmm, is that why chick-lit seems such a comfortable phrase for so many people? Because it coincidences with a shortened of something they remember from childhood? Whereas if I apply the same model I get chick-lick, which doesn't seem as convenient, and might carry the risk of salmonella (or, taking the other sense, worse).
This -cken/-ttle dichotomy could just be based on one side of the Atlantic using one version, whilst the other side uses the other. But I suspect that it is the influence of one particular popular edition, maintained by some suitable company.
[Of the top ten Google results for the -licken version: an unattributed.com cites a 1919 edition; another .com cites the same book as 1909; 4 .co.uk's; 2 .co.za's; a UK based .com; and a .com discussion board which suggests that Chicken Licken is the original 1849 English version. The same sampling for the -little version brings up: Disney; a Geocities site narrated by an American voice (and the author's page gives an apparently American phone number); a .com run by a New Jersey woman; a subsection of a Texan .com; a Guam based site; the NYT; Amazon.com; a Canadian .com; a Canadian .com that mentions the Disney film; and a defunct AOL homepage. So that's 6 US sites, 2 Canadian, 1 from Guam, and 1 I can't find out about. So -little is obviously the Americanised version, hence the plethora of webpages].
And while I'm on the us and them angle (well, I can't have the US and us, can I?), Language Log once again weighs in with how they Americans are better. They have stricter publishers enforcing grammatical rules, whereas the British don't care. Um, has it occurred to them that the reason that British publications differ grammatically from American ones, is not through sloppy application of the US rules, but perhaps because they use different grammatical rules? Everyone I know has always been taught that the author's punctuation goes outside speech marks. Hence if I quote the man who said "Quote", then my punctuation goes outside his speech. It's not his comma or question mark. For example: do you agree with "quote"? American usage apparently puts it as: do you agree with "quote?" Which if the quote was a statement, is misquoting the quoted person. And which leaves the sentence unfinished.
Even in the more grammatically correct new paragraph quotes, as in dialogue, receive the same pattern.
"Rhubarb rhubarb", said Jeremy.
Kate replied "Custard".
However for all this "I'm right, you're wrong, sorry, different, and possibly special", I'm still never very sure what one does with quoted punctuation marks, such as exclamation or question marks, or ellipses (that the plural of ellipsis?).
"US model?" Looks lopsided and unfinished.
"UK rules logically applied!". Looks too complicated.
"The probably correct UK version"? Looks a bit tangled too, but theoretically the author can take up the inflection of the quoted person, just not vice versa.
Now I've started thinking about, I'm not even all that sure about the commas by speech marks. Does one need them before and after, or only after?
Why is it that more one thinks about grammar, the worse it gets?
Anyway, I'd better give up this train of thought now, as I'm no longer quite sure of anything, and have already done enough to provoke a widespread "you're wrong and stupid" response. But as the English and Americans can't even agree on what to call the punctuation marks. Period? I mean, seriously? A period's not a full stop, a period is ... something involving Tampax (and they're probably not even called that in America. Even something simple like Sellotape becomes Scotch tape [does it come from Scotland?]. But then not even the Australians get that right [is it made from condoms then?]. But I suppose they are all preferable to that famous Blue Peterism, "sticky tape", which, while it may be descriptive [2], just sounds so foreign - a bit like people calling 0 "zero" not "o", or at the outside "nought", or pronouncing first party of .co.uk as "see oh", not "coe" [the only people who persistently use "c o" are the world service, which is understandable. The other people who pronounce it as that usually have just read out something along the lines of "www dot name at name2 dot c o dot u k dot", to demonstrate they are truly au fait with such technology].
[2] Personally I think of a better description of Sellotape, largely based on its ease of use, but it might not be entirely suitable for a children's programme.
Does this all mean that American telegrams used to travel slower? Well, if "STOP" is four letters and "PERIOD" is 6, that's a 50% increase every time a sentence finishes.
But if you want really confusing names for punctuation marks, just look to computer code. Why are exclamation marks called bangs? I can understand it's because things go "bang!", but why not something more fun like "ka-pow!"?
In other news, recent search engine hits:
- winning slogan weetabix mini cooper competition. "Shit a brick!" perhaps?
- euro slider+door opener+schematic diagram. Have you tried Homebase? Ah, they haven't conquered the Americas yet? You'll have to busqueda elsewhere then.
- damien hurst bigger than god. Is that a question or a statement? Did he say that, or just his ego?
- Bigger than God — Damien Hurst Text Painting. Oh, I get the picture now. Not literally of course, because I don't think I've seen it. But I tend not to remember names of artworks, and usually struggle with the artists.
- vasectomy, puns. I ought to be able to milk this easily, but I'm sorry I just can't come up with anything.
- with prostitution there is the whole pathetic customer(male) feeling sorry for his scabby cunt whore who destroys so many happy-families she is a nasty spiteful mailicous piece of dog shit not a poor little girl who don't know exactly what she is doing. The Ask Jeeves answer: Your car keys are where you left them.
- "mouse trap" christian object lessons. Play or game? I'm not sure either would provide a very Christian lesson. Or did you mean an actual mousetrap? In which case I think Sunday School attendance might drop dramatically.
- sage 50 accountancy programme download +crack. Skinflint accountants - woo!
Anyhoo,
