Mid-English

As most readers of this blog should know by now, I'm back in school, with a view to change majors into English, and currently taking 6 courses (which in my school is 120% course load).

Having little experience with Uni English, and being a sort of outsider, as well as joining late, I had some reservations and doubts about whether I'd be able to succeed or not. But now, about a third into the term, I can confidently say that my expectations are totally reversed. My 4th-yr brit. lit. course isn't too bad, so long as I keep on top of my readings and pay attention in class (and since the profs are cool, I don't have a disinclination to attend lectures). And I suppose that's generally true for any course. I'm surprised by the number of people who still don't maintain their readings, even into 3rd or 4th year. Sorta makes one wonder the sort of people in business or politics who're expected to read these hundred-page reports about policy.

One thing that really struck me was the huge difference in ethnic distribution between my math classes of 1st-yr, and of my current English classes. In math, there was usually somewhere between 50~80% asian (although, oddly enough, in the advanced courses, there were more caucasians, most of european birth). I was sorta used to seeing the diversity; it was like being in Toronto, or high school. But now with the English classes, I'm back to being a stark, visible minority. Some of the profs I've talked to seem to have held some reservations about me joining their classes, from some sort of subconscious reservations about having non-native english speakers in their class. (Is my voice really that nasally!?!? I'm wondering if I subconsciously soften my voice by making it more nasal as a sort of respect, versus a regular gruffer voice which I'd reserve for friends. ....Although my voice isn't really gruff to begin with...)

It's fun though. Speech errors are much less common in class, and dialects are more subtle. One thing I have to watch out for that I never needed to in math, are the angry lesbians. They seem to have some sort of vendetta against male-kind. As if they could ever hope to regress into asexual, single-cellular organisms. "Sorry toots, you're stuck with us!"

Alright. 7am. Time to go to school!

Fancy and Finery

Intro to English Lit. Prof was remarking on the different ways in which those in the sciences and those in the humanities work and think. And while I agree that there are certainly trends in the behavioural patterns between those of either camp, I don't think that stressing such differences, even if to say that it's better to have both, is beneficial. It is only because we continue to label and pigeon-hole people into these territories that separatists continue to perpetuate the rift between the two realms. Human beings have an inherent Grand Unifying Mind, which would allow them to be equally successful in either field. As far as I can make out, both schools require the same sort of logic. I sincerely fail to see where the approach to one is different to the other. Anywhoo..

Another curious affect I've noticed from taking my crazy 6 courses of English Literature, is how trivial and hollow certain forms of entertainment become. I can't watch shows without analysing the character relations, and how they might echo certain themes in the not-yet determined motifs in the storyline. I blame British Literature 1885-1918.

Meativore?

Apparently, for most people whom I don't directly inform, my preference for meat (in either sense of the term) has been constantly questioned. "Is he vegetarian or not? I could have sworn I've seen him eat a hotdog before... But it might have been a veggie dog." And also, "He says he's fruity... does he really know what that means? Also, is it normal for a guy to make gay jokes about himself so often?"

As for the dietary preference, I've apparently exuded a vegetarian-type personality long before I made the decision to actually be vegetarian. (But contrary to belief, I'm a practical vegetarian, instead of the moral vegetarian; I abstain for health reasons, not out of any sentiments of kinship with the lower mammals.) But then, I'll also eat organic meats.

So what would this imply for my other preference? "40% gay" to go with my "80% vegetarian"? Unfortunately, you'll not get a straight answer here! (no pun intended)

I will, however, share a little secret: my ambiguity for the latter is intentional. Why? Two reasons: (1) it keeps undesirables away, and if confronted with one, I can always use the plausible excuse that I run the other way (or is it "swing" the other way?); (2) it's a cheap preliminary way to keep only the friends who wouldn't be so insensitive as to only forge friendships over something so superficial. (Can't really do much about the looks though. Although I'd only consider getting contacts 'cause glasses fog up too much when I go out/inside in winter, as now.)

Chaotic Conformity

What is morality without religion? Or better stated, what does it mean for something to be intrinsically "good" or "bad" when we assume that living things are just fact without a predetermined value?

Now, that's a very broad topic, and one that seems to be warmly debated between a/theists. So let's look at a relatively neutral and local example: "it's fine as long as it doesn't hurt or affect anybody else".

On the surface, this seems like a pretty fair statement. What I do to myself is my business, and as long as my blood-splattered remains don't stain your carpet, what matter is it to you that I took my life? Or how does it hurt your business if I lie and claim to be older in order to contribute to your business in sex/booze/drugs? No skin off your nose, as it were.

But when you really think about it, it's quite a loaded (and tall) statement to make. Just by being in the observable vicinity of others, you affect them. Your appearance and behaviour can cause people to fall into rapture or seizure, to drool or convulse. A random act of kindness has the power to lift a stranger from the pits of oblivion and obscurity, and a clumsy word might incur a hundred-year wrath. When you're faced with these possibilities, how can you possibly claim to have knowledge of the extent to which you affect others? And to that end, how can you possibly justify any questionable actions that you take?

In theory, the safest route would be isolate yourself from society and hope to stem all impressions you leave on society. But the neighbouring kids would gossip about the crazy old man down the street, or the "haunted" house. But that's kind of a waste of a life, so you may as well go out there and do the best that you can.

Having said that, we finally come to my main point: social norms. When we talk about affecting people, we can legitimately extend this to include social instruction and public conduct. Shaking hands and speaking greetings are some pretty direct modes of interaction with others. But, people being different, and certain individuals being more negatively impressionable than others, do we have a right to instruct them on their errors? Do we have the position or authority to tell them that they should smile, or shower?

If we don't, we're technically tacitly approving certain rude or offensive behaviours. So if everything we do already affect the people we're in contact with, we may as well go all out and actively mend the broken cogs in others' social mechanics.

As a tutor of pre/teens, this means I have the prerogative to correct any socially unacceptable behaviour. I only wish my students weren't so violent. :'(

Trapped

Trapped in so many senses: trapped in this body, trapped in this time, trapped in this family, trapped in school, trapped by emotion...

One thing I really hate about well-wishers, is that very often, they don't go beyond just that -- they'll sit there and accumulate as many "good-feeling" points as they can, but they wouldn't lift a finger to aid you.

But ones that I find worse, are those who genuinely mean well, and often try to help, but just lack the ability (or intelligence, aptitude, etc). Every time they mess up, they're "sorry", when really, they're just stupid.

Joseph's hierarchy of people:

Smart > Sorry > Stupid

It's worse when the sorry-but-stupid induhviduals are consanguineous relations. You're pretty much cursed to suffer their actions the rest of their lives.

Pissed Mist

I woke up this morning in a miasma of discomfort. Dis-ease, almost. Apparently, during sometime in the 6 hours that I was asleep, the cat decided to claim a towel on the bathroom floor as its own by marking it (with it's putrid urine). That pleasant scent rose into the air, flooding the bathroom, the hallway, and then into my room, waking me up for a pleasant morning.

I'm reminded of an online comic I read a while back.
Also related is this one.

Brand New! (And so can you too!)

I figure most people interested in my life probably aren't interested in my language stuff, so I've decided to start a new blog for it here. Enjoy!

Seniscent Scribbles

Historically (and anthropologically?), systems of writing were said to have been powerful mechanics of communications. With the advent of an intelligible orthography that extended beyond the iconic pictures, people were able to communicate effectively across great distances and times. It is for this reason alone that we are still able to enjoy the "magic" of Shakespeare, the wisdom of Confucius, and the poetry of Rilke. And yet, times do change, as do the pens that record them.

Most of Europe has naturally developed its "latin" alphabet (the one I'm using now), direct from the original latin script (which by now carries some significant differences). During WWII, Germany switched alphabets from a relatively indigenous one to a more latinate one. (For those curious, google Suetterlin or "Sütterlin".) More recently, Germany also experienced a spelling reform, aimed to improve general spelling and literacy. (How well it's worked is yet to be shown.) Even now, there exists a society calling for spelling reform in English, arguing that our traditional spellings are too antiquated and cause more confusion than necessary, especially for those whose mother tongues are phonetic (as Italian, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, etc). Personally, I think we owe our historical spelling retention to our former French masters.

Apparently, there's currently a petition asking the UN to *not* ban Traditional Chinese(now TC) to be totally replaced by Simplified Chinese(SC) in 2008.
Petition link: here
For those who read Chinese: here and here

The main argument in support of TC basically relies on the idea that [1]information is lost when TC text is converted to SC, since SC is more phonetic, and therefore loses its semantic value. Well, that, and the whole [2]"but we've been using it for thousands of years! We can't quit now!"

As for argument [1], I'm inclined to agree - to a point. If we look at our humble English example of homophones, we'll see that "there", "their" and "they're" mean different things, and are spelt accordingly. But that hasn't stopped each and every generation from stumbling across this spelling division, nor has it critically changed the intelligibility of a sentence in such a way as to be misunderstood. The reason here is that these three are different parts of speech, and would thus be placed in different parts of the sentence. If I were to replace all three with a new spelling of "th%r", you would still understand. Observe:

"Th%r not looking for th%r dog over th%r"

(Technically, I cheated, since "they're" is clearly a contraction, and that would still be denoted somehow in any spelling reform. ...like "th%'r" or something.)
Anyway, my point is that despite the loss of direct semantic information from the word, the contextual information is strong enough to be understood. (Case in point: when spoken, the three homophones sound exactly the same, so why should a spelling that reflects speech be any different?)

Similarly, while SC does lose some of its embedded semantic information, the contextual information is strong enough to maintain coherency.

As for argument [2], I think the time argument is particularly weak. It's almost like saying, "well, the girl's lived for 80 years, so she can live another 80 years, right?"

There has been an argument that since the introduction of SC in China, older poetry has become increasingly difficult to understand -- not dissimilar to that of understanding Chaucer in its original form. Personally, I think more of it has to do with the depth of education in general, rather than any inherent flaw in SC.

However, while I personally do have a preference for TC, I don't agree that it should be for daily use. What I would propose, if I cared enough (which I guess would go a bit beyond just blogging about it), is to have SC used in daily routine: newspapers, billboards, magazines, etc. And perhaps restrict the use of TC to specific areas like civil and criminal law, historical poetry, and maaaaybe novels. Areas in which such precise wording would be necessary. In the case of novels, I'd think it'd be up to the choice of the author, enriching the forum of Chinese literature.

The only "danger" of encouraging SC is the obscurity of finer nuances in TC, which is happening anyway as the vernacular translations of characters obscure the archaic definitions of older logographs. But those older meanings are preserved in other texts that help interpret and even translate older texts from earlier eras.

To me, choosing between the two scripts is almost like choosing between printing and writing. Both have their styles and identities, and, I feel, both are useful in different ways. It's only a shame that the issue has to be clouded by political and geographical biases.

Conveyed Confusion

Being in linguistics, and an analytical speaker of certain tongues, the topic and theme of communication isn't entirely foreign to my brain.

Specific-yet-generally speaking, men and women, for example, tend to understand geography in very different ways. Whereas it might be more communicative for a man to hear "drive north on Yonge, then head east on Sheppard. After the third set of lights, turn north again onto xxx dr., house number 34," a woman would be more comfortable with, "go up on Yonge, then turn right on Sheppard. After about a 4-minute drive, turn left. It'll be the green house on the left."

And while I cannot argue with the fact that directions given by women are effective for women, the same cannot be said when a woman is giving directions to a man. I say this not out of personal spite against all women, but rather from personal experience and random psychology studies (which we all know are very conclusive and totally reliable). In any case, as my sister tried to explain to me, the whole relativistic left-right business is effective because it gives the quick and immediate direction for the driver, without having to keep track of any cardinal direction. As for men, I think the beauty of the cardinal directions help with the general geometry of locations, relative to each other. (Thus, we know that Toronto, Montreal and New York City make a large triangle, and that London, Hamilton and Toronto form a rough line, tracing the northern coast of Lake Ontario.)

But despite this "well-documented" phenomena, I have found a certain common communicative confusion with both men and women in the way that I personally explain things. I've noticed that when met with a question, I would answer with a story -- a story which I start from the beginning, instead of starting from the ending, and back-pedaling to the front. (The idea that concepts make more sense in chronological order than antichronological order.) But maybe that's just me.

For example, if I were asked why fire doesn't have a chemical composition (unlike water, which is H20), I might start first with a review of atomic theory. bizzare, I know, but apparently this approach has caused more than one person, of more than one gender or sex to be confused as to why I would respond with a seemingly unrelated topic.

And in thinking about how and why this confuses others, I've become curious about how others would have addressed the same, or similar questions -- questions that cannot be easily and directly answered without the aid of allegories or analogies. Although, with analogies, you're basically describing its relationship as being similar to a more familiar phenomenon instead of actually explaining why things exist in such a state.

Curious, isn't it.

Mating Season

...and love is in the air. Two of my friends recently announced their startling, budding romantic relationship. I wish them well, but I only hoped they wouldn't be such a horrible statistical conformity (in which relationships begin in the spring/summer).

And while I'm not particularly bitter about losing two friends to each other (since so far they've been careful to keep things the same), it has got me thinking about my own ineligibility for such states of existence, and the grotesque double standard in society that has evolved from the legitimate roots of feminism.

In yet another stunning (yet typical) feat of female philosophy, women who are so unladylike as to rival the average man in his masculinity, have found in their thoughts that it be natural for them to be romanced in a classical courtship fashion. Or am I the only one missing something here? In my mind, people get what they "deserve", in the sense that if I am a slimy businessman, I'd be treated with general distrust. Or if I were a refined lady, I would be courted with the highest civility. But a slimy businessman being courted by high society is a little ridiculous. Similarly, I find it a bit absurd for women who odiously lack feminine traits to expect to be treated as high ladies.

Of course, I am no definitive judge of people's characters, especially when it comes to those of the Second Sex, but I think my powers of perspective count for something, and from what I can see, most women in this generation are hardly what they were a century ago. (Or maybe they're just being more openly honest about themselves?) But in either case, I fail to understand how unladylike behaviour would warrant a ladylike treatment.

Actually, I think this is the next step in the male curriculum. After all, a real gentleman would treat all women as ladies, no matter how unladylike they may act, right? I mean, it was proven in the movie Pretty Woman, so it's gotta be true! Oh wait, what was that about Hollywood and factual felicity?

In any case, I think my attitude towards the whole thing pretty much proves my own ineligibility for this market. I mean, what kind of girl would prefer the kind of guy who's not willing to romance a girl? The exact kind of girl that the kind of guy who's attractive to that kind of girl wouldn't want. Or maybe when the girl with just the right pheromone configuration (or something) comes along, I'll come around and actually become antidisromantic. But hopefully not this year. I dread the day when my bitter cynicism melts away and is replaced by a foppish dreamer.