For that one person who wanted to read the original: here it is (in slightly edited form).
Nouns are perhaps the most plentiful group of words in the English language, and one of the few grammatical categories that exist in all known, spoken, human languages. They are also the first class of words to be learned by infants.
Nouns can take the place of the subject, object and complement of a clause. As in perceived "primative" speech, the absence of verbs ields a strong, implicit sense of copula, thus equating two nouns, whence such famous examples as, "I Tarzan, you Jane".
Nouns can be separated into several categories (in a rather binary fashion). They are either proper or common, common nouns are either countable or non-count, and both types of common nouns are either concrete or abstract.
Proper nouns are those which we use to refer to very specific (and usually corporeal) things, such as individuals, locations, prototype mechanisms, etc. Examples include "Zeus," "Chicago," "Saturn," and "SPUTNIK-III".
Common nouns, on the other hand, refer to groups of things, such as species, tpes of land, groups of people, classes of manufactured items, etc. Examples include "hammer," "fox," "ocean," "country," "ghost," and "adverb".
The distinction between count and non-count common nouns lies in their ability to pluralize and take articles. As their names imply, count nouns can be counted (pluralized) while non-count nouns cannot.
In English, count nouns are most often pluralized by the appendage of the letter S. We can see this in words such as "words," "nouns," "trees," "planets". A small group of words also suffer orthographic change, as words which end with the letter "y" and are preceeded by a consonant. Thus, "fly" becomes "flies," and "story" becomes "stories". The converse is also true, in which words whose penultimate letters are vowels and end in the letter "y" retain the "y" and simply add an "s" as in "essays".
The other type of regular English pluralizer is the -es. This pluralizer is used for words which end with a /s/ or /z/, as well as the letter "x". Thus, "fox" and "bus" become "foxes" and "buses".
There are finally an even smaller group of words which are pluralized in neither of the two aforementioned ways. In this group, the general rule is to "pluralize as in its original language," in which the original language is indo-european in origin. This yields plural nouns such as "oxen," "cacti," "referenda," "geese" and "mice" from "ox," "cactus," "referendum," "goose" and "mouse".
Non-count nouns are either those which remain the same when pluralized, or require a sort of qualifier. Examples of the first type include "sheep," "cattle" and "beer". Examples of the latter include "water" and "money".
But whether these common nouns can be pluralized, they are also often dependent on special qualifiers to group them. Thus, "a muder of crows," "a school of fish," "a pride of lions" and "a pack of wolves".
Both count and non-count nouns are also semantically divided into "concrete" and "abstract". Concrete nouns are those which refer to real, nascent, and usually tangible things, while abtract nouns refer to imaginary, incoporeal things, such as "ideas," " thoughts" and "globalization".
While proper nouns cannot be counted, they may sometimes be used as a category, as in "all the Josephs in the world".
Nouns can also be qualified, as with determiners, adjectives and sometimes other nouns. The determiners most often give information on number (how many? sing/pl?) and also specify anaphorically or catephorically (eg. "the cat" or "a cat"). Adjectives give information aon the nature of the thing being refered to by the noun, whether it be colour, size, shape, age, æsthetic, etc., which in turn can be intensified by adverbs (eg. "the extremely grotesque boutique"). Some proper nouns may modify common nouns to specify type or brand. An example of this is "lecture hall".
Nouns also have case, a distinction that has virtually disappeared from English, due to its lack of inflection and declension. However, they are still evident in syntax-cognitive understanding, as well as the change in personal pronouns.
The nominative case, is simply the "subject," or more precisely, the case in which the noun is used in the subject. Thus, for copular verbs, both subject and complement are in the nominative. (eg. "It is I, Aladdin.")
The second case is the accusative, which is the noun which suffers the verb. In English grammar, this simply translates to the object. In pronouns, this is seen in the change from "I" to "me," or "he" to "him".
The third case is the dative, which is often the indirect object, and in English, even pronominal distinction is nonexistent. (Consider "I gave her away" and "I gave a cat to her".)
The fourth most common case is the genitive, in which possession is expressed. In English, this is found in using proper nouns to modify common nouns, eg: "Mary's lamb" or "John's eraser".
Another aspect of nouns is gender. While English does not have grammatical gender, as does German and French, there do exist a small set of words which do have semantic gender, most commonly in describing people and animals. Masculine nouns include "man," "boy," "bull," "stallion" and "rooster," while feminine nouns include "woman," "girl," "sow," "mare" and "hen". Most nouns, however, are neutral, and use the personal pronoun "it" or "they", depending on plurality.
A few neuter nouns, however, seem to become feminine when spoken by entusiastic (and/or inspired) males, giving rise to such statements as "she's a fast car," or "English, she was industrious during the 19th-century".
On the whole, nouns are one of the most fundamental and plentiful class of words. While they are an open class, they have a closed sub-class of pronouns. Over time, nouns are removed and added to the English lexicon to meet the need to name and describe new inventions, discoveries and ideas.
Incidentally, I got an "A+/A" on it, with the following comment: "Excellent. Also, beautiful handwriting." Ha-ha... My prof's so funny.
2006/01/09
2005/12/18
Here are a few common errors in speech that I've noticed (one, particularly, seems to be a localized phenomena at the post-secondary establishment of Sheridan College's Musical Theatre program).
What they say: P.S.
What they think they're saying: "by the way"
What they're actually saying: "the following text is written(even though they're speaking, and not reading) after the author's signature(even though they weren't writing anything)"
The logical fallacy here is that a written form can take place of a verbal one. It's as logically confusing as requesting an e-mail with "verbal instructions" when perhaps they mean "explicit," or "detailed," or "written," ...
How unfortunate for the author that the definition and meaning of "verbal" does not include "not visual".
What they say: per se
What they think they're saying: "[not] necessarily" (adverbial)
What they're actually saying: "in and of itself"
Here, in an adolescent abuse of attempted academic advancement, this latin phrase has been beaten and battered into serving the function in the place of a perfectly legitimate English phrase. The statement "he didn't die, per se," is now more commonly interpreted to mean "he didn't die, exactly" or "he didn't die, necessarily", when really, they're saying "he didn't die, in or by himself," which really makes no logical sense.
The statement, "that painting is beautiful, per se" actually means that the painting refered is beautiful on its own; it's intrinsically beautiful, rather than some clever arrangement of its lighting or framing, or location.
What they say: i.e.
What they think they're saying: "e.g.; for example"
What they're actually saying: "that is; specifically"
Often, the two are reversed, in which one will incorrectly say "e.g." when they in fact mean "i.e."
The difference between the two is actually quite easy to discern. The latin phrase "id est" (i.e.) means literally, "that is", and is used to specify something specifically after speaking about it generally. "E.g.," on the other hand, stands for "exempli gratia" which quite literally means "for example" or "for the sake of an example".
Thus, if I were talking about the gravitational pull of varying stars, it would be correct for me to say, "Stars with the greatest gravitational pull, i.e. black holes, ..." It would be inappropriate to say "e.g." in this case because only one, the black hole (or Schwartzchild Singularity, if you want to be historical), has the greatest gravitational pull.
And, if I wanted to illustrate what I meant, when talking about something highly abstract, it would also be appropriate for me to say, "derivational adverbs may be formed when the schwa vowel of the root word is maintained, and the morpheme -ly is appended to the end. E.g. lively.
A better example of displaying what I mean by the abuse of the two, I write the following two sentence fragments:
Those who gave birth to me, i.e. my parents, ...
Those who gave birth to me, e.g. my parents, ...
The first means that "my parents" is being specified and identified as the previously ambiguous form of "those who gave birth to me", whereas in the second sentence means something closer to, "those who gave birth to me, among whom were my parents, ..." which really makes no sense.
What actually impresses me is not so much the low calibre with which we seem to satisfy public education, so much as the ingenuity for individuals to corrupt and twist established words and meanings into illogical and unnatural concepts. It really gives rise to the despair.com quote, "none of us is as dumb as all of us!"
What they say: P.S.
What they think they're saying: "by the way"
What they're actually saying: "the following text is written(even though they're speaking, and not reading) after the author's signature(even though they weren't writing anything)"
The logical fallacy here is that a written form can take place of a verbal one. It's as logically confusing as requesting an e-mail with "verbal instructions" when perhaps they mean "explicit," or "detailed," or "written," ...
How unfortunate for the author that the definition and meaning of "verbal" does not include "not visual".
What they say: per se
What they think they're saying: "[not] necessarily" (adverbial)
What they're actually saying: "in and of itself"
Here, in an adolescent abuse of attempted academic advancement, this latin phrase has been beaten and battered into serving the function in the place of a perfectly legitimate English phrase. The statement "he didn't die, per se," is now more commonly interpreted to mean "he didn't die, exactly" or "he didn't die, necessarily", when really, they're saying "he didn't die, in or by himself," which really makes no logical sense.
The statement, "that painting is beautiful, per se" actually means that the painting refered is beautiful on its own; it's intrinsically beautiful, rather than some clever arrangement of its lighting or framing, or location.
What they say: i.e.
What they think they're saying: "e.g.; for example"
What they're actually saying: "that is; specifically"
Often, the two are reversed, in which one will incorrectly say "e.g." when they in fact mean "i.e."
The difference between the two is actually quite easy to discern. The latin phrase "id est" (i.e.) means literally, "that is", and is used to specify something specifically after speaking about it generally. "E.g.," on the other hand, stands for "exempli gratia" which quite literally means "for example" or "for the sake of an example".
Thus, if I were talking about the gravitational pull of varying stars, it would be correct for me to say, "Stars with the greatest gravitational pull, i.e. black holes, ..." It would be inappropriate to say "e.g." in this case because only one, the black hole (or Schwartzchild Singularity, if you want to be historical), has the greatest gravitational pull.
And, if I wanted to illustrate what I meant, when talking about something highly abstract, it would also be appropriate for me to say, "derivational adverbs may be formed when the schwa vowel of the root word is maintained, and the morpheme -ly is appended to the end. E.g. lively.
A better example of displaying what I mean by the abuse of the two, I write the following two sentence fragments:
Those who gave birth to me, i.e. my parents, ...
Those who gave birth to me, e.g. my parents, ...
The first means that "my parents" is being specified and identified as the previously ambiguous form of "those who gave birth to me", whereas in the second sentence means something closer to, "those who gave birth to me, among whom were my parents, ..." which really makes no sense.
What actually impresses me is not so much the low calibre with which we seem to satisfy public education, so much as the ingenuity for individuals to corrupt and twist established words and meanings into illogical and unnatural concepts. It really gives rise to the despair.com quote, "none of us is as dumb as all of us!"
2005/11/30
The "Nominal" Essay (Supplimentary)
Becauses I'm such a nerd, and a grammar freak, I cannot help but express this urge to share all I know about nouns (which I didn't get to do in my exam this afternoon).
[blahblahblah grammatic/semantic gender blahblahblah...]
An exception is the noun "child", which traditionally used to take the pronoun "it", as used as recently as by the eminent author, C.S. Lewis. However, in modern times, the pronoun "it" seems to carry a sub-human nuance, and thus, "child" either is repeated, or uses "he," "she," "s/he".
[blahblahblah Noun Cases blahblah...]
The genitive case, while described as being the modified proper noun possessive as in "Mary's lamb" or "John's eraser," is actually erroneous. The *true* genitive case, as well as the other cases as the Latin ablative, or the Russian instrumental, have all been replaced by prepositional phrases, yielding phrases like "the fang OF doom"(genitive), "the dart was thrown FROM the wall"(ablative), or "I go to school BY bus"(instrumental).
[...blahblahblah conclusion (the end!) blahblahblah]
Overall, it was pretty good, if a bit ridiculous. I spent almost an entire page just on the pluralizing rules for English nouns (the regular -s, and -es endings, as well as explaining the irregular forms for other pluralizing endings, as well as internal vowel shifts, as in "oxen", "geese", "mice", "cacti", "agenda"(as opposed to agendum), etc.)
And I'm pretty sure I lost a few points on the sentence-parsing tree diagram. So much for that perfect... Actually, I probably got significantly less than perfect. I have a bad feeling that I got 8.3/10 on the tree diagram, and only around 9.7/10 on the essay. If I'm lucky. 90% total!? Yes, I'm breathing. Really. Not hyperventilating, nope, not me, uh-uh, not at all...
I wonder what would have happened had I chosen to write on adverbials instead...
[blahblahblah grammatic/semantic gender blahblahblah...]
An exception is the noun "child", which traditionally used to take the pronoun "it", as used as recently as by the eminent author, C.S. Lewis. However, in modern times, the pronoun "it" seems to carry a sub-human nuance, and thus, "child" either is repeated, or uses "he," "she," "s/he".
[blahblahblah Noun Cases blahblah...]
The genitive case, while described as being the modified proper noun possessive as in "Mary's lamb" or "John's eraser," is actually erroneous. The *true* genitive case, as well as the other cases as the Latin ablative, or the Russian instrumental, have all been replaced by prepositional phrases, yielding phrases like "the fang OF doom"(genitive), "the dart was thrown FROM the wall"(ablative), or "I go to school BY bus"(instrumental).
[...blahblahblah conclusion (the end!) blahblahblah]
Overall, it was pretty good, if a bit ridiculous. I spent almost an entire page just on the pluralizing rules for English nouns (the regular -s, and -es endings, as well as explaining the irregular forms for other pluralizing endings, as well as internal vowel shifts, as in "oxen", "geese", "mice", "cacti", "agenda"(as opposed to agendum), etc.)
And I'm pretty sure I lost a few points on the sentence-parsing tree diagram. So much for that perfect... Actually, I probably got significantly less than perfect. I have a bad feeling that I got 8.3/10 on the tree diagram, and only around 9.7/10 on the essay. If I'm lucky. 90% total!? Yes, I'm breathing. Really. Not hyperventilating, nope, not me, uh-uh, not at all...
I wonder what would have happened had I chosen to write on adverbials instead...
2005/11/29
Greed
I had the pleasure of attending a guest lecture yesterday at Waterloo, titled "The Curse and Potential of Greed: Social and Political Issues Arising from Acquisitiveness".
Talked about the evils of greed, which we're all acutely aware in society, as in capitalist corporations and their shameless exploits of their employees and smaller companies (which they bleed dry), all protected by this system of legality which they created for themselves. Or in modern post-secondary institutions, as we can all relate to with the ridiculous rise in tuition.
But then, the orator gave an interesting spin on it, and offered some positive results of greed: those who have more have the potential to do more; philanthropy is only meaningful because those few people with a lot of wealth are able to contribute a lot and make something happen. (As opposed to the meager offerings of "normal" people, and their unco-ordinated efforts, which ultimately result in little being done.
He quoted several figures from history, most of whom were religious. One very interesting quote which I liked was, "Virtue gave birth to Prosperity, but the daughter killed the mother".
The lecture was recorded, but I have no idea where and when it'll be released, so I'll need my trusty UW spies to keep me informed. :)
You can read more about the guy and the intro to the lecture here
A lot of the ideas weren't really new to me; I've actually found it surprising that he actually mentioned so many of those points that my friends had disagreed with me on (or simply not considered). The same statements or statistics that have been iterated time and time again. That North Americans spend 10 or 15 times more on our pets than we do on humanitarian aid, that we spend several billion dollars on movies and the cinema every year, when all that money could have saved the whole of Africa from poverty and starvation.
Oh, what decadent times we live in...
Talked about the evils of greed, which we're all acutely aware in society, as in capitalist corporations and their shameless exploits of their employees and smaller companies (which they bleed dry), all protected by this system of legality which they created for themselves. Or in modern post-secondary institutions, as we can all relate to with the ridiculous rise in tuition.
But then, the orator gave an interesting spin on it, and offered some positive results of greed: those who have more have the potential to do more; philanthropy is only meaningful because those few people with a lot of wealth are able to contribute a lot and make something happen. (As opposed to the meager offerings of "normal" people, and their unco-ordinated efforts, which ultimately result in little being done.
He quoted several figures from history, most of whom were religious. One very interesting quote which I liked was, "Virtue gave birth to Prosperity, but the daughter killed the mother".
The lecture was recorded, but I have no idea where and when it'll be released, so I'll need my trusty UW spies to keep me informed. :)
You can read more about the guy and the intro to the lecture here
A lot of the ideas weren't really new to me; I've actually found it surprising that he actually mentioned so many of those points that my friends had disagreed with me on (or simply not considered). The same statements or statistics that have been iterated time and time again. That North Americans spend 10 or 15 times more on our pets than we do on humanitarian aid, that we spend several billion dollars on movies and the cinema every year, when all that money could have saved the whole of Africa from poverty and starvation.
Oh, what decadent times we live in...
2005/11/23
Dvorak, Dvorak
As I type the following paragraphs, I struggle with the initial problems of adjusting to a new keyboard layout, the Dvorak keyboard layout!
This layout has claimed to be able more effecient than QWERTY keyboards, a point which is "hotly" debated. But aside from that, this Dvorak keyboard claims that it uses less "hurdling" than that used in the QWERTY system. (While actual typing speeds may not increase, it is said that a Dvorak typist's fingers travel 95% less than QWERTY typists, making it a more ergonomic preference.)
Kinda brilliant, keeping all the vowels in one area... and also things like consonant clusters, such as "th" "nt" "cr" "sn" "rl"...
I'm having too much fun with this... haha...
This layout has claimed to be able more effecient than QWERTY keyboards, a point which is "hotly" debated. But aside from that, this Dvorak keyboard claims that it uses less "hurdling" than that used in the QWERTY system. (While actual typing speeds may not increase, it is said that a Dvorak typist's fingers travel 95% less than QWERTY typists, making it a more ergonomic preference.)
Kinda brilliant, keeping all the vowels in one area... and also things like consonant clusters, such as "th" "nt" "cr" "sn" "rl"...
I'm having too much fun with this... haha...
2005/11/09
Sanguinary Serenity
It's been a really long time since last I wrote here. What is there to say? Well, on the general life front, I'm pretty well. I'm enjoying myself at work, I'm getting enough sleep, I'm taking a course in English for general interest, ...
On the health front, however, I am not doing so well. My extremely sensitive body does not like the extremely arid climate that Southern Ontarian winters wreck. And if it's not the outside weather, the heating system indoors is equally dry. I've had so many nosebleeds these past few weeks. It's been suggested that I may want to see a doctor. It's kinda calming though. Rather, it forces me to be calm. No sudden movements, and I can't afford to react overtly, as it would irritate what little scabbing managed to form inside my nose. And then *gush* comes the blood. It's kinda cool, how it makes such a nice contrast with my (relatively) pale skin, but sometimes health isn't worth the price for art.
Speaking of art, I've recently been more into the "real" stuff of art. Anime is fun and all, but it's essentially cartoons, and I don't exactly draw anything meaningful with them. No dynamic compositions, no artistic expression, just meaningless mush. And since I now have two designer friends (one just graduated from Sheridan in Design, the other soon-to-be graduating from the same program), I'm getting into designer-type stuff. So, I'm creating my own typeface! Ha-ha. Even though I don't have the formal training that those two have, I hope that they won't stint on advice or knowledge in that area... I have a certain distaste for knowledge-elitists who insist that everybody else has to pay $7000 or so that they did for their education. Knowledge is free! And knowing isn't everything anyways... But I'm going to end here, ere I rant about epistimology.
On the health front, however, I am not doing so well. My extremely sensitive body does not like the extremely arid climate that Southern Ontarian winters wreck. And if it's not the outside weather, the heating system indoors is equally dry. I've had so many nosebleeds these past few weeks. It's been suggested that I may want to see a doctor. It's kinda calming though. Rather, it forces me to be calm. No sudden movements, and I can't afford to react overtly, as it would irritate what little scabbing managed to form inside my nose. And then *gush* comes the blood. It's kinda cool, how it makes such a nice contrast with my (relatively) pale skin, but sometimes health isn't worth the price for art.
Speaking of art, I've recently been more into the "real" stuff of art. Anime is fun and all, but it's essentially cartoons, and I don't exactly draw anything meaningful with them. No dynamic compositions, no artistic expression, just meaningless mush. And since I now have two designer friends (one just graduated from Sheridan in Design, the other soon-to-be graduating from the same program), I'm getting into designer-type stuff. So, I'm creating my own typeface! Ha-ha. Even though I don't have the formal training that those two have, I hope that they won't stint on advice or knowledge in that area... I have a certain distaste for knowledge-elitists who insist that everybody else has to pay $7000 or so that they did for their education. Knowledge is free! And knowing isn't everything anyways... But I'm going to end here, ere I rant about epistimology.
2005/09/24
Workaholic
It's been far, far too long since last I posted. To update my dear and faithful readers (you really would have to be a faithful reader if you're still reading my blog after all these months/years of inconstant posting), I've been very, very busy! How?
Thankfully quit my job at SSBC. It was a learning experience, a humbling experience and a traumatic experience, but one that I'm glad to have lived. The people were horrible, the managers incommunicable, the workplace unimaginable, the customers discourteous, and the location remote.
So, now I'm working as a "lab assistant" for a digital photo imaging company. Completely digital, so very few chemicals involved. And I don't even get to touch the chemicals, so even fewer opportunities to poison my body with funny fumes. I've been doing stuff like cleaning up databases, merging and loading databases, designing and printing (highschool) student ID cards, and designing/printing pictorial directories(PD). PD's are what every principal of each school would normally have, in order to be able to have a face for every name. If, for example, parents call in complaining about a certain student, the principal will be able to look him or her up. And there are also barcoded pictorial directories. For the school libraries, and other cool stuff.
Commute is a bit painful; I wake up at 6:00am, or 6:30am depending on how tired I am, barely manage to make it downtown to get into work (in Burlington) for 9:00am. Stay until 6:00pm, usually with only a 15 min. lunch break, and don't get home again until 8:00pm. Try to sleep before 11:00pm, so that leaves me with 3 hours of leisure - one of which is usually devoted to food. Small wonder I haven't had the time to read my peers' blogs, much less write my own!
But I'm happy. My bosses are very nice and understanding and kind, and almost to a fault. My current wages with them is significantly higher than the minimum wage I was offered at that horrible, horrific fastfood restaurant.
Not exactly an expert in my field, but I'm learning a LOT at the workplace, and it's really interesting stuff. One of my friends, in a one of his weaker moments of good taste, suggested that I might get bored of my job after a month or two. Why would he say such a thing? Can't he just be happy for me? But whatever, he wasn't the only one. Yes, I know Burlington is quite a distance away, but by public transportation, it can take that long to get from one place to another in Toronto alone! Of course, they're doing that for school, and school usually doesn't start at 9:00am every morning, so they kinda have it a bit easier than I, but hey, I'm enjoying it, if only for the moment, right?
Other things aside from my current burning desire to do better and excel at my job? Well, I wish I had more time to practise piano. I also wish I had a piano upon which I could practise more properly. I can hear myself play everything soulessly, and it hurts. I need to learn to re-sensitize my fingers to that wonderful world of dynamics. Where ppp does mean something from fff, and staccato means something different from legato. Well, maybe in time...
Thankfully quit my job at SSBC. It was a learning experience, a humbling experience and a traumatic experience, but one that I'm glad to have lived. The people were horrible, the managers incommunicable, the workplace unimaginable, the customers discourteous, and the location remote.
So, now I'm working as a "lab assistant" for a digital photo imaging company. Completely digital, so very few chemicals involved. And I don't even get to touch the chemicals, so even fewer opportunities to poison my body with funny fumes. I've been doing stuff like cleaning up databases, merging and loading databases, designing and printing (highschool) student ID cards, and designing/printing pictorial directories(PD). PD's are what every principal of each school would normally have, in order to be able to have a face for every name. If, for example, parents call in complaining about a certain student, the principal will be able to look him or her up. And there are also barcoded pictorial directories. For the school libraries, and other cool stuff.
Commute is a bit painful; I wake up at 6:00am, or 6:30am depending on how tired I am, barely manage to make it downtown to get into work (in Burlington) for 9:00am. Stay until 6:00pm, usually with only a 15 min. lunch break, and don't get home again until 8:00pm. Try to sleep before 11:00pm, so that leaves me with 3 hours of leisure - one of which is usually devoted to food. Small wonder I haven't had the time to read my peers' blogs, much less write my own!
But I'm happy. My bosses are very nice and understanding and kind, and almost to a fault. My current wages with them is significantly higher than the minimum wage I was offered at that horrible, horrific fastfood restaurant.
Not exactly an expert in my field, but I'm learning a LOT at the workplace, and it's really interesting stuff. One of my friends, in a one of his weaker moments of good taste, suggested that I might get bored of my job after a month or two. Why would he say such a thing? Can't he just be happy for me? But whatever, he wasn't the only one. Yes, I know Burlington is quite a distance away, but by public transportation, it can take that long to get from one place to another in Toronto alone! Of course, they're doing that for school, and school usually doesn't start at 9:00am every morning, so they kinda have it a bit easier than I, but hey, I'm enjoying it, if only for the moment, right?
Other things aside from my current burning desire to do better and excel at my job? Well, I wish I had more time to practise piano. I also wish I had a piano upon which I could practise more properly. I can hear myself play everything soulessly, and it hurts. I need to learn to re-sensitize my fingers to that wonderful world of dynamics. Where ppp does mean something from fff, and staccato means something different from legato. Well, maybe in time...
2005/09/17
Business
What does it mean when everybody has trouble relating or reacting positively to your good news concerning your new or current job? Only that nobody cares.
Well, no matter. I still have fun at my job, and I still have the society of my friends, so no harm done.
Well, no matter. I still have fun at my job, and I still have the society of my friends, so no harm done.
2005/09/05
South St. Burger Co.
HORRIBLE time. Never want to work there again. And I wonder if the "necessity" of money outweighs the effects it has on my life.
I was on my feet since 3:30pm 'til 11:15pm. Only ONCE did I get a break and sit down, for about 10 minutes, during which, I had the opportunity to read the Operations Manual for SSBC. My feet hurt, my lower back aches, my hands seem to permanently smell like vegetable oil, and I'm now turned off food even more than before I worked there.
So that means that I'm inducing extra stress on my already-weak body, I'm bathing my hands in repugnant chemicals, and I'm making myself even more anorexic than I already am (comfortably underweight, according to my BMI).
As a short ingestion history surrounding my time at SSBC, (one day so far), 2 hours before I went in to work/train, I had only a fastfood combo (not very filling, nor very healthy). Worked for almost 8 hours with no breaks and no food. Came home, didn't feel like dinner. Now is lunchtime, I haven't had breakfast, and if I were any dumber, I wouldn't be having lunch either. The thought of food now churns my stomach because of the horrors I've had to bear witness to in the kitchen of SSBC.
Money isn't everything, and certainly not in this case. I'd gladly be broke than work there again. Even as a homeless youth, the smell I'd accrue would be more easily removed than that accurséd stench of vegetable oil.
Now I need another job.
I was on my feet since 3:30pm 'til 11:15pm. Only ONCE did I get a break and sit down, for about 10 minutes, during which, I had the opportunity to read the Operations Manual for SSBC. My feet hurt, my lower back aches, my hands seem to permanently smell like vegetable oil, and I'm now turned off food even more than before I worked there.
So that means that I'm inducing extra stress on my already-weak body, I'm bathing my hands in repugnant chemicals, and I'm making myself even more anorexic than I already am (comfortably underweight, according to my BMI).
As a short ingestion history surrounding my time at SSBC, (one day so far), 2 hours before I went in to work/train, I had only a fastfood combo (not very filling, nor very healthy). Worked for almost 8 hours with no breaks and no food. Came home, didn't feel like dinner. Now is lunchtime, I haven't had breakfast, and if I were any dumber, I wouldn't be having lunch either. The thought of food now churns my stomach because of the horrors I've had to bear witness to in the kitchen of SSBC.
Money isn't everything, and certainly not in this case. I'd gladly be broke than work there again. Even as a homeless youth, the smell I'd accrue would be more easily removed than that accurséd stench of vegetable oil.
Now I need another job.
2005/09/01
Love
Just wanted to share a humerous poem by Ravi Zacharias, apparently written in his youth.
Slippery ice, very thin
pretty girl tumbles in.
Saw a boy, on the bank,
gave a shriek, then she sank.
Boy on hand, heard her shout,
Jumped right in, pulled her out.
Now she's his, very nice,
But she had to break the ice.
The other one can be found here.
Slippery ice, very thin
pretty girl tumbles in.
Saw a boy, on the bank,
gave a shriek, then she sank.
Boy on hand, heard her shout,
Jumped right in, pulled her out.
Now she's his, very nice,
But she had to break the ice.
The other one can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)