A for Albatross:
"An Albatross around one's neck" is usually used by those who never read the opium-addicted Romantic's poem, and -- more importantly -- who don't have the foggiest what an "albatross" is.
B for Birds [and Bees]:
If you were really taught about "the birds and the bees," you are NOT prepared to have sex.
C for Cat:
A "cat nap" is a short sleep. I had a cat. It slept eighteen-hours a day, usually for several hours at a time. [Also, "'til the cows come home" means when you put the feed out. They will reliably show up. If your cows are coming home late, that's on you.]
D for Duck:
Re: "having your ducks in a row." Baby ducks naturally follow in a line. If you're having to man-handle your ducks into rows, you should learn wu wei - the Taoist principle of effortless action.
E for Elephant:
If there's "an elephant in the room," it is definitely not a good time to talk matters over. Get the hell out, now!
F for Fish:
"Fish out of water" may be fine, but -- to be fair -- "man in water" is just as accurate. A little waddling Gentoo Penguin could outswim Michael Phelps in the 400m and be finishing its kipper snacks while Phelps was still slogging through his first length. And Phelps is among the fastest our species can put in water. If the average human were dropped in the ocean, he'd thrash around until he got a lungful of water and died...and that's a kilometer offshore.
G for Goose:
With respect to a "wild goose chase"... fun fact: if you chase a goose, it might well chase you back. I once read a book on the most dangerous animals (for humans) and, to my surprise, the goose was in it. They don't kill many, but they put their fair share of people in the hospital with beak-cracked shins.
H for Horse:
So, about "straight from the horse's mouth." If you got your information from a talking horse and are proud that it was 'right from the source,' you might want to consider cutting your acid blotters into smaller pieces.
I for Indian:
Not sure how the term "Indian burn" came to be, but I've lived in India for almost a decade and have never known anyone to induce a friction burn by twisting the forearm of another person. You may be saying, "Well, it's meant as in, 'Native American burn.'" But I still don't see any evidence for that. [Don't get me started on 'Indian giving' as an insult against someone who has the gall to want their stolen shit back.] Now, if you called it the "shitty little American schoolboy burn," that -- I would totally buy.
J for Jackal:
Jackals are, like anyone who's ever eaten at McDonald's, opportunistic omnivores, but to make them out to be the exemplars of "exploiting situations' is a bit harsh. For example, did you know a Jackal won't cheat on its spouse, even when an opportunity falls right in its lap.
K for Kangaroo:
I don't know who came up with "kangaroo courts" but I don't think we know enough about marsupial jurisprudence to cast aspersions upon the Kangaroo legal system. I think it is -- like many instances on this list -- simply deflecting.
L for Leopard:
Why would a leopard even want to change its spots? Certain humans (frequenting the Wal-Mart) go to great lengths to appropriate leopard spots. If they are fashionable for a plus-sized woman's stretch pants, why would the leopard think any differently.
M for March Hare:
They say "mad as a March Hare" because March is mating season. I think the saying should be "Horny as a March Hare." Alliteration intact.
N for Nightingale:
I suspect ninety-nine percent of those who use "sings like a nightingale" couldn't pick a nightingale's song out of an audio lineup of bird noises.
O for Oyster:
"The world is your oyster" is supposedly a great thing. But when I elaborate by saying, "The world is your slimy raw foodstuff that has a twenty percent chance of making you vomitously ill," it doesn't sound like a good thing.
P for Pony:
We need to stop people from bitching about the fact that their pony only knows one trick. It's a fucking pony. You should be grateful it knows the one trick.
Q for Quail:
To "quail at ______" means to be timid in the face of some stimulus. I don't think it's particularly fair. If you were considered a delicacy, you'd be a bit skittish, too.
R for Rat:
If you "smell a rat," it's definitely dead, and -- ergo -- will not be plotting against you.
S for Sheep:
I shouldn't have to point out that a "wolf in sheep's clothing" is completely naked.
T for Turkey:
A "Turkey voting for Christmas" is said to be acting against its own interests, but since everybody eats turkey for Thanksgiving and many people have ham for Christmas, I'd say the turkey knows exactly what it's doing. Even if it's one of the unlucky Christmas turkeys, it still got another month of living. Hell, there are humans who rack up million-dollar medical bills for the same outcome.
U for Underdog:
The first use of the term "Underdog" was in 1859, long before the cartoon from my youth. Is there an "Uber-dog" or an "Overdog?" How did this even enter someone's mind?
V for Viper:
"A nest of vipers," is another bit of anthropomorphizing. The premise of the idiom is that it's a group of nasty people getting together. Whereas the snakes in a viper's nest are as likely to be as good as any.
W for Weasel:
When someone uses ambiguous words to obscure their meaning, we say they're using "weasel words." But as far as I can see, weasels have the good sense to keep their mouths shut. (Unlike those secret-betraying horses.)
X for XYZ:
People say, "for XYZ reasons" when they mean for an extensive list of reasons that no one seems to know.
Y for Yak:
Somehow, we use "yak" for the act of being relentlessly chatty, and -- once again -- I must say that I've found yaks to be less than gabby.
Z for Zebra:
"A zebra can't change its strips." See: "L for Leopard."
language is liquid;
meaning meanders.
in the long-run,
meanings are meaningless,
untethered and adrift
in an ocean of possibility.
[political words' meanings
don't drift, but tumble with
whiplash violence through
a desert of the possible.
But, predictably, the first variation
of a political word is the exact
opposite of its original meaning.]
Available online at The Orwell Foundation
In this essay, Orwell decries a scourge of weak writing in the English language, writing marked by cliched phrases, imprecise descriptors, meaningless words, and pretension. In short, he tells us that writing is becoming simultaneously more verbose and less meaningful.
While the essay isn’t as fun to read as George Carlin’s rants on the same subject, it’s a clear and well-organized discussion of this flaw. Orwell presents the problem, offering examples of random unreadable passages and discussion of where each goes awry. He also contrasts a clear and concise Biblical passage with how its message would sound translated into this corrupt modern form of the language. (That’s the most comedic portion of the essay.) Next, Orwell offers writers simple questions they might apply to making their writing less bloated and more impactful. The key insight of the essay is that thought corrupts language, but language also corrupts thought.
The essay is almost eighty years old, but the problem persists — particularly among politicians, a class of people who love to both sound impressive but without saying anything definitive, anything that might pin them down. That said, since Orwell we’ve developed new linguistic afflictions unique to the internet age, and the essay could probably use updating. Still, it’s an excellent place to start one’s reflection on what’s going wrong in the English language.
"in the trenches"
what a circuit
that phrase has taken:
from the Western Front
of World War I, where the trenches
were cold, claustrophobic places
of mud and creeping mustard gas;
harbor & prison for shell-shocked
souls at wit's end
to become used by businesspeople &
politicians to describe metaphorical fights...
but there are no metaphorical fights,
they should be called metaphorical games
games have winners & losers,
but not the living & the dead
& the dying & the disabled &
the permanently disturbed
it feels like a frivolous bit
of linguistic creep as fighters
now stand on cold, wet feet
in muddy trenches
in Eastern Ukraine
talk of salespeople or
grassroots political organizers
as "in the trenches"
misses the point that everyone
in trenches is a soldier --
be they a salesperson
in the metaphorical "trenches"
of calmer days.
Amazon.in Page
Information is one of those topics that remains obscure not because it’s rare or hidden, but because it’s everywhere and the term is used for so many purposes it’s not thought of cohesively. It might seem like a book on this topic would be hopelessly boring by virtue of the fundamental meta-ness of the material. Instead, Gleick had a vast sea of topics and stories involving intense stakes for humanity from which to choose, e.g.: how did we learn to communicate and advance said capability until it was arguably the most important feature of our species, by what instructions are people “assembled,” might the most fundamental layer of reality be informational, and – in recent decades — will our species drown in flood of cheap information?
Given the vast sprawl of the subject matter, organization becomes a crucial question. In a sense the book is chronological, presenting humanity’s experience with information in more or less the order we came to think about the subject. I think this was a wise move as it starts from what most people think of when they think of information – i.e. language and its communication. That makes it easier to wrap one’s head around what comes later, and to see the conceptual commonalities. This approach might seem self-evident, but an argument could be made for starting with information as the word is used in Physics (as addressed in Ch. 7 – 9,) an argument that that approach is more fundamental and generically applicable, and while it might be both of those things, it wouldn’t be as easily intuitively grasped.
I found this book to be fascinating and easily followed — even though it covers some conceptually challenging topics, it does so in an approachable manner. It is over a decade old, but holds up well – though I think there is much more to say these days about the detrimental effects of information overload, a topic discussed at the end of the book. I recommend it for nonfiction readers.
Amazon.in Page
Semiotics is the study of how symbols and signs are used to represent various things and actions in language and communication. This brief guide traces the subject from its origins with Saussure and Pierce (late 19th century) to the present day. It’s not a well-known discipline and overlaps with others (e.g. information science, linguistics, etc.) so as to further obscure it’s boundaries. It’s generally considered a sub-discipline of philosophy.
I’ve read several titles in this series. This one had the fewest and longest chapters – i.e. most of these books have sections that are only a page or two long, but here the sections were generally several pages long. The book looks at differences between American and Soviet approaches as well as discussing the Prague School and the influence of prominent philosophers on the subject.
I felt that I learned something about this obscure subject, though – I must admit – knowing so little of it, I can’t say that I would have recognized if there were any glaring oversights or mistakes in the book. As should be expected of such a concise introductory guide, it’s readable and not difficult to follow. However, it can be dry; though I suspect that’s difficult to avoid, given the subject matter.
The girl cast an incantation —
and as her words bore fruit —
they burned her as a witch.
-Blaming the woman
-Blaming her magic
-Blaming a Devil,
But granting amnesty to the words.
What human endeavor is unswayed
by the force of words?
What marauding army was sent off
without a flurry of furious words?
How many Generals have tried
to match the grace of the St. Crispin’s Day Speech?
And though they fail,
their words aren’t without kinetic effect.
What lost cause found victory in words
spewed by a red-faced coach
in a half-time locker-room?
Hasn’t the stab of careless words
been felt more deeply than a dagger?
— splitting up couples, if not Empires.
It may be true that words don’t kill people,
that people kill people,
but when did anyone ever get lethally worked up
in the absence of a well-sequenced string of words?
Some words are words; some words are garbage trucks.
They carry steaming piles of dumpster lumps,
and all the rained refuse the dim can chuck.
Becoming too laden to make the Dump.
Tiger Riding for Beginners 