I'm so proud of myself; I made my first successful Firefox search engine! Had to look at some source code of some other search engines (like the default google one), but all in all, I did it ... my way~♪
So now I can look things up in a japanese dictionary. yey. If I ever find a decent online Chinese dictionary, I'll be sure to add it. :P
2005/08/03
2005/08/01
Komm, Süsser Tod
I know, I know I've let you down
I've been a fool to myself
I thought that I could
live for no one else
But now, through all the hurt and pain
Its time for me to respect
the ones you love
mean more than anything
So with sadness in my heart
'feel the best thing I could do
is end it all and leave forever
whats done is done, it feels so bad
what once was happy now is sad
I'll never love again
my world is ending
I wish that I could turn back time
'cause now the guilt is all mine
can't live without the trust from the ones you love
I know we can't forget the past
you can't forget love and pride
because of that it's killing me inside
It all returns to nothing, it all comes
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
It all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
In my heart of hearts,
I know that I called never love again
I've lost everything, everything
that matters to me,
matters in this world
I wish that I could turn back time
'cause now all the guilt is mine
can't live without
the trust from those you love
I know we can't forget the past
you can't forget love and pride
because of that, it's killing me inside
It all returns to nothing, it just keeps
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
it all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
It all returns to nothing, it just keeps
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
it all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
I've been a fool to myself
I thought that I could
live for no one else
But now, through all the hurt and pain
Its time for me to respect
the ones you love
mean more than anything
So with sadness in my heart
'feel the best thing I could do
is end it all and leave forever
whats done is done, it feels so bad
what once was happy now is sad
I'll never love again
my world is ending
I wish that I could turn back time
'cause now the guilt is all mine
can't live without the trust from the ones you love
I know we can't forget the past
you can't forget love and pride
because of that it's killing me inside
It all returns to nothing, it all comes
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
It all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
In my heart of hearts,
I know that I called never love again
I've lost everything, everything
that matters to me,
matters in this world
I wish that I could turn back time
'cause now all the guilt is mine
can't live without
the trust from those you love
I know we can't forget the past
you can't forget love and pride
because of that, it's killing me inside
It all returns to nothing, it just keeps
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
it all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
It all returns to nothing, it just keeps
tumbling down, tumbling down,
tumbling down
it all returns to nothing, I just keep
letting me down, letting me down,
letting me down
2005/07/21
Mine English Empery
For those of you who know me, as some of you are already woefully ruing, I am a sesquipedalian bibliophile. Moreover, I am a traditionalist, an imperialist and a very shrewd grammarian. I am also seeking to become a discerning dialectician, although with the advent of globalisation, I fear that a lot (if not most) of the richness of any language will be lost with the death of its dialectic diversity.
And as some of you may be keen to guess, I was not always like this. There was a time when I (or rather, the physical origins of my body) was a single cell in the womb of my mother, mindlessly multiplying into the multi-cellular organism I am today.
But as for my linguistic history (as I'm sure you're all dying to know), I was born and raised in Toronto, Canada, a predominantly English-speaking nation. However, being born to parents of foreign birth, the English tongue was not introduced to my linguistic faculties until I was nigh six years of age. So, with a willful and determined mind (something I've seem to have lost since), I sought to learn the rudiments of English speech and spelling. I still remember to this day, the first book I was able to read on my own, as well as the first word with which I had trouble pronouncing. The book was called Hello House, and it was about this rabbit who would always manage to thwart his predator wolf. The word I had trouble reading was "house". I would first try to read it was "hoe-wu-ss". Come to think of it, I should have been raised in German; at least it's phonetic. ("Bearbeit", for example, is pronounced be-ar-bite.)
Now I was the proud owner of a set of phonetic rules of the English language, so I set out to devour as much as I could with these new tools. I read, and I read and I read. I read so much, in fact, at such a speed, that when I was placed in the "advanced reading circle", my peers there in the second grade were in disbelief that I finished reading about twice or even thrice as fast as they did.
And I wasn't a picky reader either back then. As a child with virtually no power or lnfluence, it was natural for those of my demographic (at the time) to be enticed by the concept of a skill and science that would enable the user power and persuasion. And what was that? Magic. Or more generally, fantasy.
Not to say that I dislike fantasy now, but just simply that I had no taste for literature when I was a child. Novels? They were long, but boring and dry. Who would want to read Pride and Prejudice? There were no dragons in it!
And as time waned by, after my succession of old and soon-to-be retiring teachers (with all their strict and stern rules of grammar and writing), I naturally developed a strong sense of language, that has been growing ever since (especially now with my introductory education into linguistics).
Now, by no means do I claim to be an expert on language. Granted, my interests in grammar and language are not shared by many of my age (or even by those one or two generations above me), and so by virtue of being interested in something most aren't, I automatically seem to become a leading authority on the subject. But, for example, I still don't know what a "dangling modifier" is, even though I've heard that grammatical term many times before. What are the six cases for all nouns? Nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, ablative and vocative. But what do they all mean? I've no idea what the ablative is, though after making this post, I'm of a mind to find out.
So yes, my knowledge of the English language (or of any language) is terribly incomplete, and I fear will always be so, if only because of a certain curséd fact that languages live, and are always changing.
But, I do intend to (eventually) earn my PhD in linguistics, after which I hope to teach class in university and have my nerves wracked after every class from the new generation of youth with their staggeringly incomplete and imperfect grammar.
So there you have it, the abbreviated, linguistic life and times of Joseph Tam.
Oh, and I should add that though my language has not always been as it is, I was always raised in that standard.
And although I do enjoy editing your essays (in which I hope I'm helping a friend), please have the decency to do three things (these courtesies which should be extended to any peer editor):
1. Attach a copy of the assignment so that the editor (i.e. I) have a better idea what the essay is supposed to address.
2. Allow yourself the time to go through your finished essay once before tossing it in my direction, expecting me to up its grade by 20%. While I do find the natural and subconcious errors of language intriguing, I would rather analyse those for my thesis than having to cut through them in a vain attempt to glean what you mean to say.
3. Give me at least two days to edit your essay. Especially if you know your English to be particularly weak (e.g. non-native speaker, or not very well-read, etc), certain awkward phrasing that you invent will take me a little more time than 20 minutes to phrase and re-phrase into a better, natural sentence.
So that's my English rant for the day. Don't flame me for any small error I make; I myself acknowledge that we're all human, and that we're all prone to error. I'm just a stickler for certain things because I find them to be very basic and rudinmentary. If, for example, in a friendly, casual conversation, someone says "protractor" when they mean "compass", I'll let it slide. But other howling errors (such as the redundancy contained in "from whence did you come") I will be more quick to correct.
What was the point of this post? I don't remember any more. That just goes to show what a good writer I am. Ha-ha.
Totally irrelevant, but here's a quote I found immensely hilarious:
"You don't die of heart-break; you only wish you did."
And as some of you may be keen to guess, I was not always like this. There was a time when I (or rather, the physical origins of my body) was a single cell in the womb of my mother, mindlessly multiplying into the multi-cellular organism I am today.
But as for my linguistic history (as I'm sure you're all dying to know), I was born and raised in Toronto, Canada, a predominantly English-speaking nation. However, being born to parents of foreign birth, the English tongue was not introduced to my linguistic faculties until I was nigh six years of age. So, with a willful and determined mind (something I've seem to have lost since), I sought to learn the rudiments of English speech and spelling. I still remember to this day, the first book I was able to read on my own, as well as the first word with which I had trouble pronouncing. The book was called Hello House, and it was about this rabbit who would always manage to thwart his predator wolf. The word I had trouble reading was "house". I would first try to read it was "hoe-wu-ss". Come to think of it, I should have been raised in German; at least it's phonetic. ("Bearbeit", for example, is pronounced be-ar-bite.)
Now I was the proud owner of a set of phonetic rules of the English language, so I set out to devour as much as I could with these new tools. I read, and I read and I read. I read so much, in fact, at such a speed, that when I was placed in the "advanced reading circle", my peers there in the second grade were in disbelief that I finished reading about twice or even thrice as fast as they did.
And I wasn't a picky reader either back then. As a child with virtually no power or lnfluence, it was natural for those of my demographic (at the time) to be enticed by the concept of a skill and science that would enable the user power and persuasion. And what was that? Magic. Or more generally, fantasy.
Not to say that I dislike fantasy now, but just simply that I had no taste for literature when I was a child. Novels? They were long, but boring and dry. Who would want to read Pride and Prejudice? There were no dragons in it!
And as time waned by, after my succession of old and soon-to-be retiring teachers (with all their strict and stern rules of grammar and writing), I naturally developed a strong sense of language, that has been growing ever since (especially now with my introductory education into linguistics).
Now, by no means do I claim to be an expert on language. Granted, my interests in grammar and language are not shared by many of my age (or even by those one or two generations above me), and so by virtue of being interested in something most aren't, I automatically seem to become a leading authority on the subject. But, for example, I still don't know what a "dangling modifier" is, even though I've heard that grammatical term many times before. What are the six cases for all nouns? Nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, ablative and vocative. But what do they all mean? I've no idea what the ablative is, though after making this post, I'm of a mind to find out.
So yes, my knowledge of the English language (or of any language) is terribly incomplete, and I fear will always be so, if only because of a certain curséd fact that languages live, and are always changing.
But, I do intend to (eventually) earn my PhD in linguistics, after which I hope to teach class in university and have my nerves wracked after every class from the new generation of youth with their staggeringly incomplete and imperfect grammar.
So there you have it, the abbreviated, linguistic life and times of Joseph Tam.
Oh, and I should add that though my language has not always been as it is, I was always raised in that standard.
And although I do enjoy editing your essays (in which I hope I'm helping a friend), please have the decency to do three things (these courtesies which should be extended to any peer editor):
1. Attach a copy of the assignment so that the editor (i.e. I) have a better idea what the essay is supposed to address.
2. Allow yourself the time to go through your finished essay once before tossing it in my direction, expecting me to up its grade by 20%. While I do find the natural and subconcious errors of language intriguing, I would rather analyse those for my thesis than having to cut through them in a vain attempt to glean what you mean to say.
3. Give me at least two days to edit your essay. Especially if you know your English to be particularly weak (e.g. non-native speaker, or not very well-read, etc), certain awkward phrasing that you invent will take me a little more time than 20 minutes to phrase and re-phrase into a better, natural sentence.
So that's my English rant for the day. Don't flame me for any small error I make; I myself acknowledge that we're all human, and that we're all prone to error. I'm just a stickler for certain things because I find them to be very basic and rudinmentary. If, for example, in a friendly, casual conversation, someone says "protractor" when they mean "compass", I'll let it slide. But other howling errors (such as the redundancy contained in "from whence did you come") I will be more quick to correct.
What was the point of this post? I don't remember any more. That just goes to show what a good writer I am. Ha-ha.
Totally irrelevant, but here's a quote I found immensely hilarious:
"You don't die of heart-break; you only wish you did."
2005/07/19
The Apostrophe
In many young writers today do I see a (what I like to call the) Apostrophe Catastrophe. Below are some (but by no means complete) list of rules for when an apostrophe should be used.
When some of a word or phrase is omitted (including contractions). e.g.:
Good morning - g'morning - 'morning
I was born in 1983 - I was born in '83 - 'born in '83
I have gone - I've gone
To form the plural of numerals and acronyms. e.g.:
In the eighteen hundreds - In the 1800's
I own many compact discs - I own many CD's.
There are so many chief executive officers in my company - there are many CEO's in my company
Possessives (of singular nouns) e.g.:
This book belongs to Stacy - this is Stacy's book
Listen to the words of Jesus - listen to Jesus' words
We're the top radio station in Toronto - we're Toronto's top radio station
Possessives (of plurals) e.g.:
All my friends have broken computers - all my friends' computers are broken
Men have few thoughts - men's thoughts are few
Sinophiles have freaky behaviour that scare me - sinophiles' freakish behaviour scare me
Although the people to whom I'm mostly directing this post probably don't read, I do hope that you, dear reader, will have found this to be at least a little interesting, if not educational.
When some of a word or phrase is omitted (including contractions). e.g.:
Good morning - g'morning - 'morning
I was born in 1983 - I was born in '83 - 'born in '83
I have gone - I've gone
To form the plural of numerals and acronyms. e.g.:
In the eighteen hundreds - In the 1800's
I own many compact discs - I own many CD's.
There are so many chief executive officers in my company - there are many CEO's in my company
Possessives (of singular nouns) e.g.:
This book belongs to Stacy - this is Stacy's book
Listen to the words of Jesus - listen to Jesus' words
We're the top radio station in Toronto - we're Toronto's top radio station
Possessives (of plurals) e.g.:
All my friends have broken computers - all my friends' computers are broken
Men have few thoughts - men's thoughts are few
Sinophiles have freaky behaviour that scare me - sinophiles' freakish behaviour scare me
Although the people to whom I'm mostly directing this post probably don't read, I do hope that you, dear reader, will have found this to be at least a little interesting, if not educational.
2005/07/13
Carpe Diem
"Live every day as if it were your last, for one day it will be."
Intellectually, I think we can all understand and appreciate the weighted meaning behind these words. That we all take life for granted, no amount of planning or plotting will prevent the eventuality of death.
But how many of us actually heed these words? I myself, after some time alone have given some thought to the matter, and I've realised that no matter how many times I'm reminded of these cute phrases, they never really hit home until I myself have a near-death experience. (Of course, it could be argued that those who don't live life fully aren't really living, so really I just need a "near-life" experience.)
How many days have I wasted this summer on pure nothing? Meaningless conversations online, random blog stalking, drawings without a future or purpose, playing piano without focus or determination. And all for what?
Even if I were to be "productive", if I truely practised piano diligently, if I went through my entire list of books to read, if I managed to improve and polish all those languages I've shown interest in, for what would it all be?
What is our purpose in life? Upon which are the foundations of our society? In the end, most of what we do in life are just chasings after the wind.
Just some food for thought.
Intellectually, I think we can all understand and appreciate the weighted meaning behind these words. That we all take life for granted, no amount of planning or plotting will prevent the eventuality of death.
But how many of us actually heed these words? I myself, after some time alone have given some thought to the matter, and I've realised that no matter how many times I'm reminded of these cute phrases, they never really hit home until I myself have a near-death experience. (Of course, it could be argued that those who don't live life fully aren't really living, so really I just need a "near-life" experience.)
How many days have I wasted this summer on pure nothing? Meaningless conversations online, random blog stalking, drawings without a future or purpose, playing piano without focus or determination. And all for what?
Even if I were to be "productive", if I truely practised piano diligently, if I went through my entire list of books to read, if I managed to improve and polish all those languages I've shown interest in, for what would it all be?
What is our purpose in life? Upon which are the foundations of our society? In the end, most of what we do in life are just chasings after the wind.
Just some food for thought.
2005/07/07
Double Standards
There seems to be an intrinsic duality in nature. Dark-Light; Male-Female; Life-Death. Perhaps that is part of the reason why we have so much trouble conceiving the nature of the Trinity. But that is not what I purpose to discuss in this entry. Rather, that our perception often is equally binary as well (and perhaps more so in men). E.g. You are either friend or foe. After a pursued relationship, a girl can only either be a girlfriend or of no relation at all.
And it is in this vein of thought in which I first ideated the following contents of this post. How many of us have an idea of whom we'd like to be with? How many criterions do we have clearly defined for our Lady Love or Prince Charming? How many of us have a very good idea what would be the "perfect" guy/girl for ourselves?
But therein lies the problem. We're so busy looking outwards, dreaming in imaginary worlds that we often forget to stop and look at ourselves. If you have such a clear image of the perfect mate, and let us be generous and surmise that it is indeed perfection for this purpose, why would they pick you to be their partner?
(And apparently this concept is very abstract, as a certain incorrigible, obtuse, obstinate individual had great difficulty grasping at the basic concept I've outlined here.)
Simply stated, the question, then, is thus: If that perfect person exists (and let us assume that s/he both exists and matches your definition of perfection in a mate), why would they pick an imperfect you?
The basic idea is this: we, imperfect and full of flaws yearn for something "better", a sort of "perfection", a higher standard. But while all slow-witted slobs would love to marry a certain type of woman, I think it is fairly safe to say that very few intelligent beauty pageant winners would even feign to consider such an aforementioned slob.
Am I saying that you should give up on your dreams of the perfect woman because it's hopeless? Maybe, but that's not entirely my point either.
Perhaps instead of whittling the days away deranged and depraved on some desperate dream of stastistic improbability, one should instead focus on oneself. (And no, I don't mean to say that you should be more selfish.)
If one has a goal in mind (in this case, this elusive, quite possibly ethereal perfect mate), what does one plan to do about it in order to work towards its success? Yes, stereotypes are bad, nerds also have feelings, blah, blah, blah, but when it really boils down to it, are you so attractive to those to whom you are attracted?
Ah, one might argue, but part of his/her perfection would be his ability to look beneath the superficial and love me for whom I am. And while that may be true, what's stopping this perfect prince from finding someone better? And between you and someone better, why should they pick you?
So really, what have you got at the end of your useless and ultimately unproductive fantasising? minutes (or hours, or days, or eras, whatever unit of time applicable) wasted, and nothing gained. ..Except, perhaps, the temporary, false euphoria induced by indulging in such silly dreams, only to wake up to the bitter taste of reality.
(Given my tangents and my side notes, you can tell I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the structure of my arguments.)
If it's ok for you to be so superficial to want the ideal mate to be this and that, isn't it only natural for him or her to be equally superficial in her quest for her ideal mate? If it's ok to want a girl who's gorgeous, why can she not demand that same physical perfection? (Or is that why the head cheerleader always ends up with the star quarterback?)
All of us have opinions about others and society, the outside world, philosophy, all these things which are wonderfully removed from us, however related they are to us. But how many of us actually bother to wonder about how we figure into these oceans of personalities, our place in these societies, our significance in our philosophies?
If you're so free to fantasise about your dream girl, or dream job, or dream residence, then stop dreaming and WORK! (practical examples follow)
E.g. if you are attracted to the sort of girl who is shy and proper, do you really think wiping your mouth with your sleeve is really the best way to win her over?
If you're a japanophile who only lives under antiquated and over-stereotyped views of japanese society and worship japanese animation as if it were a pantheon of gods, then you could either wake up and realise it's never happening, or learn to wash your face a little more often, learn the art of subtlety that your conceived master race is supposedly so adept at, and learn the language!
Yes, I realise that some of this is highly superficial and that the greater half of the past three decades have been spent dispelling just that. But really, some of it is an excuse for laziness. While it may be base and superficial to judge someone on his physical appearance, personal hygiene is both an attractive quality and good for your own health. "Don't judge people by appearances" and suddenly both the number of anorexic and obsese people rise up at unnatural rates (both considitions of which, aside from being equally unsightly, are problematic andd equally dangerous to one's health)."Perfection is an impossible goal" they say, and suddenly national literacy plummets. People can't spell anymore and we marvel at the 19th century citizens for seemingly having this higher mental faculty which now seems to be lacking in the modern population. "If it can't be applied, it's useless", and suddenly with the expulsion of classical languages from the classroom, diction falls into disarray; the loss of literature for law and people fail to understand simple phrases and concepts.
And I think it is due to this modern attitude, at least in part, which we have to thank for our current population of decadence, laziness and general degeneration.
So in summary, and as reinforced by the title of this post, if you've such a clear image of who you want to be with, you should also have a pretty clear image of who that person would want to be with. Don't hold people up to such a high standard if you're not willing to be held by the same (or equivalent) standard.
Yes, I realise that this all sounds awfully preachy, and definitely not one of my more politically correct posts, but it's late, I'm tired and emotionally charged about the topic as I think more and more about certain associations I've been cursed with. (Not that I'm going to name any names, but you may rest assured in knowing that some come from Waterloo.)
And it is in this vein of thought in which I first ideated the following contents of this post. How many of us have an idea of whom we'd like to be with? How many criterions do we have clearly defined for our Lady Love or Prince Charming? How many of us have a very good idea what would be the "perfect" guy/girl for ourselves?
But therein lies the problem. We're so busy looking outwards, dreaming in imaginary worlds that we often forget to stop and look at ourselves. If you have such a clear image of the perfect mate, and let us be generous and surmise that it is indeed perfection for this purpose, why would they pick you to be their partner?
(And apparently this concept is very abstract, as a certain incorrigible, obtuse, obstinate individual had great difficulty grasping at the basic concept I've outlined here.)
Simply stated, the question, then, is thus: If that perfect person exists (and let us assume that s/he both exists and matches your definition of perfection in a mate), why would they pick an imperfect you?
The basic idea is this: we, imperfect and full of flaws yearn for something "better", a sort of "perfection", a higher standard. But while all slow-witted slobs would love to marry a certain type of woman, I think it is fairly safe to say that very few intelligent beauty pageant winners would even feign to consider such an aforementioned slob.
Am I saying that you should give up on your dreams of the perfect woman because it's hopeless? Maybe, but that's not entirely my point either.
Perhaps instead of whittling the days away deranged and depraved on some desperate dream of stastistic improbability, one should instead focus on oneself. (And no, I don't mean to say that you should be more selfish.)
If one has a goal in mind (in this case, this elusive, quite possibly ethereal perfect mate), what does one plan to do about it in order to work towards its success? Yes, stereotypes are bad, nerds also have feelings, blah, blah, blah, but when it really boils down to it, are you so attractive to those to whom you are attracted?
Ah, one might argue, but part of his/her perfection would be his ability to look beneath the superficial and love me for whom I am. And while that may be true, what's stopping this perfect prince from finding someone better? And between you and someone better, why should they pick you?
So really, what have you got at the end of your useless and ultimately unproductive fantasising? minutes (or hours, or days, or eras, whatever unit of time applicable) wasted, and nothing gained. ..Except, perhaps, the temporary, false euphoria induced by indulging in such silly dreams, only to wake up to the bitter taste of reality.
(Given my tangents and my side notes, you can tell I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the structure of my arguments.)
If it's ok for you to be so superficial to want the ideal mate to be this and that, isn't it only natural for him or her to be equally superficial in her quest for her ideal mate? If it's ok to want a girl who's gorgeous, why can she not demand that same physical perfection? (Or is that why the head cheerleader always ends up with the star quarterback?)
All of us have opinions about others and society, the outside world, philosophy, all these things which are wonderfully removed from us, however related they are to us. But how many of us actually bother to wonder about how we figure into these oceans of personalities, our place in these societies, our significance in our philosophies?
If you're so free to fantasise about your dream girl, or dream job, or dream residence, then stop dreaming and WORK! (practical examples follow)
E.g. if you are attracted to the sort of girl who is shy and proper, do you really think wiping your mouth with your sleeve is really the best way to win her over?
If you're a japanophile who only lives under antiquated and over-stereotyped views of japanese society and worship japanese animation as if it were a pantheon of gods, then you could either wake up and realise it's never happening, or learn to wash your face a little more often, learn the art of subtlety that your conceived master race is supposedly so adept at, and learn the language!
Yes, I realise that some of this is highly superficial and that the greater half of the past three decades have been spent dispelling just that. But really, some of it is an excuse for laziness. While it may be base and superficial to judge someone on his physical appearance, personal hygiene is both an attractive quality and good for your own health. "Don't judge people by appearances" and suddenly both the number of anorexic and obsese people rise up at unnatural rates (both considitions of which, aside from being equally unsightly, are problematic andd equally dangerous to one's health)."Perfection is an impossible goal" they say, and suddenly national literacy plummets. People can't spell anymore and we marvel at the 19th century citizens for seemingly having this higher mental faculty which now seems to be lacking in the modern population. "If it can't be applied, it's useless", and suddenly with the expulsion of classical languages from the classroom, diction falls into disarray; the loss of literature for law and people fail to understand simple phrases and concepts.
And I think it is due to this modern attitude, at least in part, which we have to thank for our current population of decadence, laziness and general degeneration.
So in summary, and as reinforced by the title of this post, if you've such a clear image of who you want to be with, you should also have a pretty clear image of who that person would want to be with. Don't hold people up to such a high standard if you're not willing to be held by the same (or equivalent) standard.
Yes, I realise that this all sounds awfully preachy, and definitely not one of my more politically correct posts, but it's late, I'm tired and emotionally charged about the topic as I think more and more about certain associations I've been cursed with. (Not that I'm going to name any names, but you may rest assured in knowing that some come from Waterloo.)
2005/06/09
五十歩笑百歩
In Chinese, this phrase is literally translated to, "he at 50-paces ridicules him at 100-paces". A fair approximation in English is, "the pot calling the kettle black". Why do I bother mentioning this? Well, aside from enriching your Chinese vocab by a picometre, I think it aptly describes a variety of people.
I'm hesitant to call them hypocrites, because it implies that they don't do it at all, which isn't really the case here. Nay, what I'm talking about here are those who are only half-way and yet look down on those who aren't. Case in point are the many students I've had the misfortune of meeting in the course of my education. English, being a rather common language spoken around here, manages to garner a reasonable amount of attention. And as all people discover at one point or another, not everyone speaks quite the same way. Some people use fancier words, some people speak more directly, others are very taciturn, etc, etc.
I don't think there is a "wrong" way to speak (except grammatically), but even then, it's a bit of a lost cause, since conversation is all about compressing information instead of elocution. But there are some, more often of foreign birth (like myself), who wish to rise above their birth and find for themselves a seat in society, instead of just one that is expected of them. These people will wish and want to better and improve their English, to be more natural, more intelligent and loquacious.
And that's not wrong. I myself am one such a person who was dissatisfied with what I was simply given, and decided to better my language through the efforts of reading a very large number of books. I encourage those who would seek to improve themselves and better those parts of themselves which they *can* change [naturally]. (Plastic surgery is something else, and something I don't want to get into.)
BUT, I do have a problem with people who are only halfway there and not only think that they're already all the way there, and who look down on others who aren't even halfway there. In this specific case of English and communication, it would be those who have perhaps expanded their vocabulary, maybe as much as 50%, but who have no concept of literature, or what it means to be literary. They condescend those whom cannot even bother with the few precious necessary seconds to look up the definition of a word when yet they themselves are no literati.
Words are only the beginning, my friend. It is how they are used in conjuction with each other, that they start to matter. Do not use a larger word just because it is sesquipedalian. I personally use a word because it fits and sometimes does the job of many words. It's a bit of an irony, but the more words one knows, the less words one needs to write. Consider:
"She threw her homework out the window"
vs.
"She defenestrated her homework"
Two whole words were saved, out of an original six. But I would still use a small word if it fit just as well. Promulgate may be a "good" word, but the phrase still remains as "spread the Gospel". Nobody says "Promulgate the Gospel".
I'm sure some of you can see a recurring theme here in my thoughts. It basically boils down to fractals, if I may be so bold as to make that analogy. We have an opinion of something or someone, which we may call our relation. And they in turn may have a similar relation with another person. But how many of us consider whether we are in someone else's relation? Visually, it's a self-repeating pattern, like two mirrors which are face-to-face. We are but one small reflection, seeing many smaller reflections, but yet not considering whether we ourselves are a relfection in a larger mirror.
But it's all the same! I know I'm not perfect and that's precisely why I prefer not to confront people about their flaws because I know I have mine too. But, one thing that I cannot abide by is people who look down on people for having flaws or characteristics which they themselves have (even if it's just a smaller degree).
I think Emily Post says it best when she wrote, "when you see a woman in silks and sables and diamonds speak to a little errand girl or a footman or a scullery maid as though they were the dirt under her feet, you may be sure of one thing; she hasn’t come a very long way from the ground herself," in her book Etiquette, published 1922.
In summary, it's good to strive to better oneself, and self-improvement is certainly no vice. But those who would look upon others with contempt shouldn't be so sure that they aren't so contemptuous themselves.
I'm hesitant to call them hypocrites, because it implies that they don't do it at all, which isn't really the case here. Nay, what I'm talking about here are those who are only half-way and yet look down on those who aren't. Case in point are the many students I've had the misfortune of meeting in the course of my education. English, being a rather common language spoken around here, manages to garner a reasonable amount of attention. And as all people discover at one point or another, not everyone speaks quite the same way. Some people use fancier words, some people speak more directly, others are very taciturn, etc, etc.
I don't think there is a "wrong" way to speak (except grammatically), but even then, it's a bit of a lost cause, since conversation is all about compressing information instead of elocution. But there are some, more often of foreign birth (like myself), who wish to rise above their birth and find for themselves a seat in society, instead of just one that is expected of them. These people will wish and want to better and improve their English, to be more natural, more intelligent and loquacious.
And that's not wrong. I myself am one such a person who was dissatisfied with what I was simply given, and decided to better my language through the efforts of reading a very large number of books. I encourage those who would seek to improve themselves and better those parts of themselves which they *can* change [naturally]. (Plastic surgery is something else, and something I don't want to get into.)
BUT, I do have a problem with people who are only halfway there and not only think that they're already all the way there, and who look down on others who aren't even halfway there. In this specific case of English and communication, it would be those who have perhaps expanded their vocabulary, maybe as much as 50%, but who have no concept of literature, or what it means to be literary. They condescend those whom cannot even bother with the few precious necessary seconds to look up the definition of a word when yet they themselves are no literati.
Words are only the beginning, my friend. It is how they are used in conjuction with each other, that they start to matter. Do not use a larger word just because it is sesquipedalian. I personally use a word because it fits and sometimes does the job of many words. It's a bit of an irony, but the more words one knows, the less words one needs to write. Consider:
"She threw her homework out the window"
vs.
"She defenestrated her homework"
Two whole words were saved, out of an original six. But I would still use a small word if it fit just as well. Promulgate may be a "good" word, but the phrase still remains as "spread the Gospel". Nobody says "Promulgate the Gospel".
I'm sure some of you can see a recurring theme here in my thoughts. It basically boils down to fractals, if I may be so bold as to make that analogy. We have an opinion of something or someone, which we may call our relation. And they in turn may have a similar relation with another person. But how many of us consider whether we are in someone else's relation? Visually, it's a self-repeating pattern, like two mirrors which are face-to-face. We are but one small reflection, seeing many smaller reflections, but yet not considering whether we ourselves are a relfection in a larger mirror.
But it's all the same! I know I'm not perfect and that's precisely why I prefer not to confront people about their flaws because I know I have mine too. But, one thing that I cannot abide by is people who look down on people for having flaws or characteristics which they themselves have (even if it's just a smaller degree).
I think Emily Post says it best when she wrote, "when you see a woman in silks and sables and diamonds speak to a little errand girl or a footman or a scullery maid as though they were the dirt under her feet, you may be sure of one thing; she hasn’t come a very long way from the ground herself," in her book Etiquette, published 1922.
In summary, it's good to strive to better oneself, and self-improvement is certainly no vice. But those who would look upon others with contempt shouldn't be so sure that they aren't so contemptuous themselves.
2005/06/06
Social Relativity (Part II)
As promised, however late, hier ist mein Wortschwall der soziale relativität. Any relationship (used here to describe any rapport between two persons, whether it be familial, friendly, or romantic) is always in three states: the state in which it "is", the state in which party A thinks it is, and the state in which party B thinks it is. And in any relationship, since one's perspective is the only one that one has, it is the only one one cares about.
Therein, tragically, lies the difficulty. A relationship may actually be a tremendous success, but one party might tend to think negatively and see it as only doomed to go downhill. Or both parties could be delusioned with failure, when the relationship could have been a success.
In considering this, imagine how different things would be if one could know "the" truth about one's relationships with others. How many people would be freed from their burdens, and how many more would find happiness? (Although I do realize that knowing something and acting on that knowledge are two different things. Prime example being me; I *know* it's healthy to exercise, but I'm still the skinny, sedentary, senescent sesquipedalianist.)
Although I do have certain very specific relationships in mind (some of which directly include me, others which have me included), I shan't specify them here, for fear of discovery. (I've found that anonymity seems to be a popular practice on the internet.)
But here basically are the facts: with varying personalities, there are also varying abilities. People have different compatibility rates, and people also have varying degrees of observation. One can therefore easily speculate how a relationship could hypothetically contain two persons with a relatively low compatibility rate (given their personalities), where one of the two parties has a particularly low level of observation, therefore being more prone to delusions of emotions, elongating the duration of the relationship, and only further torturing and tormenting the poor soul on the other end. Let this sort of relationship be called the "Blind" relationship (because as humans, we all have an obsession for naming things).
One ought also to easily be able to conceive of a relationship in which the two parties have a reasonably high compatibility rate (for their personalities), but one of the two parties is particularly sensitive and tends to dwell on the negative, thereby concluding the relationship to be in decline. This relationship we shall name the "hypochondrial" relationship.
It is easy for us (or perhaps some of us) to think of relationships in our own lives which fit the description of the blind and the hypochrondrial. But imagine every friendship in which you were the one who tended to initiate contact, propell the conversation forward, advocate get-togethers. What if you were the blind one in a blind relationship?
Think of all the relationships in which you think you easily get along, but too much history has happened and there's simply too much "past" for things to go back to the way they used to be. What if you were the hypochondriac in a hypochondrial relationship?
In the same way that you would wish to instantly break all ties with the blind in blind relationships, would you appreciate it if your "friends" instantly broke all ties with you for being equally blind?
In the same way that you would wish to end all relationships that simply had too much history, would you appreciate it if your friends ended their relationships with you for their hypochondria?
It's easy to answer those questions when we only think about ourselves, but how many of us bother to consider if we've ever been on the receiving end of our own actions?
Of course, there are less destructive relationships which also illustrate this relativity (or imbalance). Between the pair AB, A may consider B to be A's best friend, but B may only see A as a good friend. Reasons are innumerable. A might have fewer friends, or B might have more criteria, &c, etc.
How, then, are we to proceed? In every one of our relationships, the other person is certain to think differently of you than you of him/her. Communication, obviously. But there is one small problem about language. A lawyer put it best when he said, "years in the legal service have only taught me to distrust language".
Then perhaps in actions? After all, actions speak louder than words, right? With our acts of respect and affection, surely we would be able to convey what we wish? Ah, but there is one small problem -- the loophole, as it were, of the Golden Rule. (The Golden Rule being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".) Say, for example, that one respects another by not looking at his watch -- he feels that it implies he is bored and finds more excitement in knowing the time than continue conversing with his partner. Suppose the partner is meticulous about punctuality and is also incidentally eternally busy with meetings. Then they are eternally offending each other while still observing the golden rule because while the one is willing to be a little late for the sake of a good conversation, the latter is always obsessing over time, subtlely insulting the one. The latter is also perpetually insulted at the lack of one's punctuality and untimely partings, which often are the cause of his tardiness at his following meetings. And this isn't even an extreme example (because it would be easily resolved through the imprecision of words). But other times it cannot be remedied, if the faults are integral to the personality. (If, for example, one were considerably more contact-based, and the other not touchy-feely.)
The purpose of this rant is not to say that we're all doomed, or to give some sort of clever solution to this problem (is there a solution to the egocentric predicament? I don't remember..), but rather, to just make aware the possibility that the relationships you are in may not quite be the same condition as you think of them.
So remember kids, if I take a long time to respond to your MSN messages, and come up with half-baked excuses, you can depend upon it that I probably think of you as being in a blind relationship.
Or more seriously, don't be too quick to dismiss people, especially if you're unsure of your own faults. Nobody's perfect, and nobody should be. But do you really want to be the sort of idiot who would break off relationships with people for the same faults that your other friends have been forgiving you for for a long time? Hrmm...
Therein, tragically, lies the difficulty. A relationship may actually be a tremendous success, but one party might tend to think negatively and see it as only doomed to go downhill. Or both parties could be delusioned with failure, when the relationship could have been a success.
In considering this, imagine how different things would be if one could know "the" truth about one's relationships with others. How many people would be freed from their burdens, and how many more would find happiness? (Although I do realize that knowing something and acting on that knowledge are two different things. Prime example being me; I *know* it's healthy to exercise, but I'm still the skinny, sedentary, senescent sesquipedalianist.)
Although I do have certain very specific relationships in mind (some of which directly include me, others which have me included), I shan't specify them here, for fear of discovery. (I've found that anonymity seems to be a popular practice on the internet.)
But here basically are the facts: with varying personalities, there are also varying abilities. People have different compatibility rates, and people also have varying degrees of observation. One can therefore easily speculate how a relationship could hypothetically contain two persons with a relatively low compatibility rate (given their personalities), where one of the two parties has a particularly low level of observation, therefore being more prone to delusions of emotions, elongating the duration of the relationship, and only further torturing and tormenting the poor soul on the other end. Let this sort of relationship be called the "Blind" relationship (because as humans, we all have an obsession for naming things).
One ought also to easily be able to conceive of a relationship in which the two parties have a reasonably high compatibility rate (for their personalities), but one of the two parties is particularly sensitive and tends to dwell on the negative, thereby concluding the relationship to be in decline. This relationship we shall name the "hypochondrial" relationship.
It is easy for us (or perhaps some of us) to think of relationships in our own lives which fit the description of the blind and the hypochrondrial. But imagine every friendship in which you were the one who tended to initiate contact, propell the conversation forward, advocate get-togethers. What if you were the blind one in a blind relationship?
Think of all the relationships in which you think you easily get along, but too much history has happened and there's simply too much "past" for things to go back to the way they used to be. What if you were the hypochondriac in a hypochondrial relationship?
In the same way that you would wish to instantly break all ties with the blind in blind relationships, would you appreciate it if your "friends" instantly broke all ties with you for being equally blind?
In the same way that you would wish to end all relationships that simply had too much history, would you appreciate it if your friends ended their relationships with you for their hypochondria?
It's easy to answer those questions when we only think about ourselves, but how many of us bother to consider if we've ever been on the receiving end of our own actions?
Of course, there are less destructive relationships which also illustrate this relativity (or imbalance). Between the pair AB, A may consider B to be A's best friend, but B may only see A as a good friend. Reasons are innumerable. A might have fewer friends, or B might have more criteria, &c, etc.
How, then, are we to proceed? In every one of our relationships, the other person is certain to think differently of you than you of him/her. Communication, obviously. But there is one small problem about language. A lawyer put it best when he said, "years in the legal service have only taught me to distrust language".
Then perhaps in actions? After all, actions speak louder than words, right? With our acts of respect and affection, surely we would be able to convey what we wish? Ah, but there is one small problem -- the loophole, as it were, of the Golden Rule. (The Golden Rule being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".) Say, for example, that one respects another by not looking at his watch -- he feels that it implies he is bored and finds more excitement in knowing the time than continue conversing with his partner. Suppose the partner is meticulous about punctuality and is also incidentally eternally busy with meetings. Then they are eternally offending each other while still observing the golden rule because while the one is willing to be a little late for the sake of a good conversation, the latter is always obsessing over time, subtlely insulting the one. The latter is also perpetually insulted at the lack of one's punctuality and untimely partings, which often are the cause of his tardiness at his following meetings. And this isn't even an extreme example (because it would be easily resolved through the imprecision of words). But other times it cannot be remedied, if the faults are integral to the personality. (If, for example, one were considerably more contact-based, and the other not touchy-feely.)
The purpose of this rant is not to say that we're all doomed, or to give some sort of clever solution to this problem (is there a solution to the egocentric predicament? I don't remember..), but rather, to just make aware the possibility that the relationships you are in may not quite be the same condition as you think of them.
So remember kids, if I take a long time to respond to your MSN messages, and come up with half-baked excuses, you can depend upon it that I probably think of you as being in a blind relationship.
Or more seriously, don't be too quick to dismiss people, especially if you're unsure of your own faults. Nobody's perfect, and nobody should be. But do you really want to be the sort of idiot who would break off relationships with people for the same faults that your other friends have been forgiving you for for a long time? Hrmm...
Nomenclature
In the words of our irrepressible pride of the English language, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
That just serves as an intro; I'm not going to get into the linguistic side of things. But there certainly is something to think about in our own lives; how closely do we identify with our own names, and/or how actively do we seek to change them? That distinction is sometimes made between one's birth-name, and nicknames, nuances that denote varying levels of familiarity.
And before we continue, I just have to add this because it's been bothering me of late: when introducing two people, no matter which order you do it in, always say the person's birth-name first, then followed by any prefered nicknames. Someone, and I won't say whom, made the grevious error of reversing the order, thereby thoroughly confusing me and consequently, retarded my eagerness to better acquaint myself with him.
Anyways, back to names. I, for example, am very sensitive to names. I may not know the meaning of most names, but I do err on the side of propreity than presumption. "Joseph" is the most commonly accepted form to address me, while "Joey" requires a few more stipulations. "JT" is also acceptable, but only to appease incorrigible parties to whom presumed familiarity is a way of life. Imagine the fun I would have if I actually had a title... (e.g. Doktor, Sir, Marquis, Duke, etc.)
How is it with you? Or rather, how aware are you with your own name(s)? Or more importantly, how careful are you when you use another's name? Whether subconscious or not of the speaker, would you as the listener find it more intimate and personal if addressed with your name in addition to a salutation? How much more personal is "good night, Joseph" than "g'night~"?
I realize that such precise etiquette is quite antiquated, but is its current disuse a sign of evanescence, or rather, that it is becoming progressively internalized and subconscious? Would that we had patronymics as in Russian!
That just serves as an intro; I'm not going to get into the linguistic side of things. But there certainly is something to think about in our own lives; how closely do we identify with our own names, and/or how actively do we seek to change them? That distinction is sometimes made between one's birth-name, and nicknames, nuances that denote varying levels of familiarity.
And before we continue, I just have to add this because it's been bothering me of late: when introducing two people, no matter which order you do it in, always say the person's birth-name first, then followed by any prefered nicknames. Someone, and I won't say whom, made the grevious error of reversing the order, thereby thoroughly confusing me and consequently, retarded my eagerness to better acquaint myself with him.
Anyways, back to names. I, for example, am very sensitive to names. I may not know the meaning of most names, but I do err on the side of propreity than presumption. "Joseph" is the most commonly accepted form to address me, while "Joey" requires a few more stipulations. "JT" is also acceptable, but only to appease incorrigible parties to whom presumed familiarity is a way of life. Imagine the fun I would have if I actually had a title... (e.g. Doktor, Sir, Marquis, Duke, etc.)
How is it with you? Or rather, how aware are you with your own name(s)? Or more importantly, how careful are you when you use another's name? Whether subconscious or not of the speaker, would you as the listener find it more intimate and personal if addressed with your name in addition to a salutation? How much more personal is "good night, Joseph" than "g'night~"?
I realize that such precise etiquette is quite antiquated, but is its current disuse a sign of evanescence, or rather, that it is becoming progressively internalized and subconscious? Would that we had patronymics as in Russian!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)