http://prankstgrup.com
the most hilarious set of pranks!! And also something I feel like doing all the time. ...maybe.
(it would explain why I'm always singing random songs, eh?)
Go enjoy. :)
2006/08/17
2006/08/16
"men"
Japanese men are incredibly feminine by North American standards, or so I've noticed.
Of course, this only applies to the current young generation, as the older generations are more traditional.
All japanese male youth have perfectly shaped eyebrows as a result of tweezing and waxing. They also take extremely good care of their skin, and carry handbags instead of backpacks because it's more convenient. It is also commonplace here to wax any leg and facial here, if you're a guy. Fashion is also significantly more feminine than in America, which is proving to be a most interesting experience for me.
And women are more-or-less the same.
Now to find me some Yakuza...
Of course, this only applies to the current young generation, as the older generations are more traditional.
All japanese male youth have perfectly shaped eyebrows as a result of tweezing and waxing. They also take extremely good care of their skin, and carry handbags instead of backpacks because it's more convenient. It is also commonplace here to wax any leg and facial here, if you're a guy. Fashion is also significantly more feminine than in America, which is proving to be a most interesting experience for me.
And women are more-or-less the same.
Now to find me some Yakuza...
2006/08/02
Sinophilia
Random observation. I was just thinking about languages and linguistics (which isn't too hard to believe when you consider that it's I who's doing the thinking) earlier today.
And I thought about language pairs and relative difficulty: e.g. English phonetics is hard for Japanese speakers, but Japanese logographs are difficult for English speakers. So it's a bit of a trade off, I guess.
Anyways, I was thinking how most people don't flinch when a person of asian descent speaks fluent English. And yet, most people are shocked when a person of european descent speaks Chinese. Is this an example of unidirectional racism? Or is just simply because most white people who bother to learn to speak Chinese also come with some of the hugest egos known to man? It's as if they need this extra ego as some sort of overcompensation for self-confidence or something.
But I guess, anyone who does anything outside of his demographic norm would carry some pride for being able to do something outside his expected experience at all. So in that sense, it's normal. Just damned annoying.
And I thought about language pairs and relative difficulty: e.g. English phonetics is hard for Japanese speakers, but Japanese logographs are difficult for English speakers. So it's a bit of a trade off, I guess.
Anyways, I was thinking how most people don't flinch when a person of asian descent speaks fluent English. And yet, most people are shocked when a person of european descent speaks Chinese. Is this an example of unidirectional racism? Or is just simply because most white people who bother to learn to speak Chinese also come with some of the hugest egos known to man? It's as if they need this extra ego as some sort of overcompensation for self-confidence or something.
But I guess, anyone who does anything outside of his demographic norm would carry some pride for being able to do something outside his expected experience at all. So in that sense, it's normal. Just damned annoying.
2006/07/24
Equality
me: blahblahblah feminism.
her: you mean equal rights and opportunities.
me: why would you want to lower yourselves to our standards?
her: you mean equal rights and opportunities.
me: why would you want to lower yourselves to our standards?
2006/07/04
Poetry
Long discussion about morality with friend. Hopefully still friend. Distress = no grammar.
I really ought to learn when to keep my trap shut. Or in the words of Murasaki Shikibu, "in few people is discretion stronger than the desire to tell a good story".
*burrows back into the abyss of obscurity*
I really ought to learn when to keep my trap shut. Or in the words of Murasaki Shikibu, "in few people is discretion stronger than the desire to tell a good story".
*burrows back into the abyss of obscurity*
2006/04/30
Freedom
Yay! Back in school, which normally would be a bad thing, but in this case, I'll be happy to finish my degree. :)
Aaaaand, it means no work. Yay.
Aaaaand, it means no work. Yay.
2006/03/18
Believe
Short, simple thought. I was recalling a conversation with a coworker on the subject of religion, it basically got broken down to the belief in God (or some other higher all-powerful deity).
The statement "I believe in God" implies that one is religious, tries to be good, do good, etc. Or at least, that seems to be the commonly accepted understanding among [North American] society. But let's think about this a little bit deeper. In the case that one believes in [the existence of] God, one must also believe in the devil, right?
In this system, the devil is in direct opposition to God. It would therefore logically necessitate that the devil has no doubt of God's existence. And yet, for the devil to be in direct opposite to God, he would also have to oppose everything God does and wishes.
Having said that, the statement "I believe in God" says nothing about how I am as a person, or whether I'm even moral. In short, in the context of religious discussion, it's practically a meaningless statement. (Well, not really, but it's pretty close.)
Me: Are you religious?
Coworker: well, I believe in God
Me: So?
The statement "I believe in God" implies that one is religious, tries to be good, do good, etc. Or at least, that seems to be the commonly accepted understanding among [North American] society. But let's think about this a little bit deeper. In the case that one believes in [the existence of] God, one must also believe in the devil, right?
In this system, the devil is in direct opposition to God. It would therefore logically necessitate that the devil has no doubt of God's existence. And yet, for the devil to be in direct opposite to God, he would also have to oppose everything God does and wishes.
Having said that, the statement "I believe in God" says nothing about how I am as a person, or whether I'm even moral. In short, in the context of religious discussion, it's practically a meaningless statement. (Well, not really, but it's pretty close.)
Me: Are you religious?
Coworker: well, I believe in God
Me: So?
2006/03/05
Lent
Not that I've been regularly updating this site anyways, but yah. School work, deadlines, aspirations of graduating, etc. So I'm going to disappear from the online scene. ...sorta. Mostly from dA and here. ...and xanga. Maybe LJ. Hesitating about MSN; got some very informed contacts on me list...
Anyways, wish me luck on my translations and other outstanding projects. <3
Anyways, wish me luck on my translations and other outstanding projects. <3
2006/03/04
Normal and Regular
I think ppl who only read this blog of mine might start to think that I'm becoming some sort of Grammar nazi. So, here's a post on some lighter, meaningless things in life.
It's always fun to spend a weekend away with a group of friends in a chalet in the dead of winter in the middle of nowhere without even going skiing on the skiing slopes on the mountain 50 metres away.
Seriously, though, it's always interesting to learn about how the differences in one's situation either help shape their character, or simply make them different without affecting anything.
For example:
Single children cannot brush their teeth while sharing a sink with someone else. I learned this when I was brushing my teeth (with the washroom door open) and my friend walked in. I motioned that he could share the sink, but he's like, "what? at the same time? but like, wouldn't it interfere...?"
I paused for a bit then asked, "are you an only child?"
"yeah..."
"Ah, that's why. Trust me, it's not too hard."
"Just the same, I think I'll wait 'til you're done."
And at the time, I knew to ask that because logically, only people without siblings [close to their age] would have any chance of having no experience with brushing their teeth with other people while sharing a sink. Not that it makes a marked difference in daily behaviour, but it just means that the maximum number of minutes that the washroom is used is raised because of those single children.
Some other minor things that I've learned is that people squeeze their toothpaste tubes differently. Guys tend to just grabble the middle (perhaps from habit of handling some other shaft-like object?) while girls tend to be more neat and push from the ends. Of course there are exceptions, and those exceptions are reflected in their personalities - the neater guys tend either to be the engineering type (maximize resources, efficiency, etc), and the 'exceptional' girls are the messy, raucous, random types.
Also, people pour their cereal differently. I haven't found any *real* difference here, but from what I've seen, most people keep the bag of cereal in the box as they pour into the bowl, but one person I've seen, at least, pulls the bag out. But another thing is that while some people cut it and then clip it (to preserve freshness?), others rip it open, then crumple it back in the box, while others fold it neatly, etc...
Some people need to wear slippers while on hardwood/tiled floors, while for others, socks are as good a barrier between the soles of their feet and the floor as any pair of slippers would be.
And boy, when you live with a group of post-teenagers, you REALLY learn who's a morning person, and who isn't.
Yah, no deep thoughts here, just some causual observations.
It's always fun to spend a weekend away with a group of friends in a chalet in the dead of winter in the middle of nowhere without even going skiing on the skiing slopes on the mountain 50 metres away.
Seriously, though, it's always interesting to learn about how the differences in one's situation either help shape their character, or simply make them different without affecting anything.
For example:
Single children cannot brush their teeth while sharing a sink with someone else. I learned this when I was brushing my teeth (with the washroom door open) and my friend walked in. I motioned that he could share the sink, but he's like, "what? at the same time? but like, wouldn't it interfere...?"
I paused for a bit then asked, "are you an only child?"
"yeah..."
"Ah, that's why. Trust me, it's not too hard."
"Just the same, I think I'll wait 'til you're done."
And at the time, I knew to ask that because logically, only people without siblings [close to their age] would have any chance of having no experience with brushing their teeth with other people while sharing a sink. Not that it makes a marked difference in daily behaviour, but it just means that the maximum number of minutes that the washroom is used is raised because of those single children.
Some other minor things that I've learned is that people squeeze their toothpaste tubes differently. Guys tend to just grabble the middle (perhaps from habit of handling some other shaft-like object?) while girls tend to be more neat and push from the ends. Of course there are exceptions, and those exceptions are reflected in their personalities - the neater guys tend either to be the engineering type (maximize resources, efficiency, etc), and the 'exceptional' girls are the messy, raucous, random types.
Also, people pour their cereal differently. I haven't found any *real* difference here, but from what I've seen, most people keep the bag of cereal in the box as they pour into the bowl, but one person I've seen, at least, pulls the bag out. But another thing is that while some people cut it and then clip it (to preserve freshness?), others rip it open, then crumple it back in the box, while others fold it neatly, etc...
Some people need to wear slippers while on hardwood/tiled floors, while for others, socks are as good a barrier between the soles of their feet and the floor as any pair of slippers would be.
And boy, when you live with a group of post-teenagers, you REALLY learn who's a morning person, and who isn't.
Yah, no deep thoughts here, just some causual observations.
2006/02/28
Know Knots!
It's always interesting to learn about historical examples of change in language, but to actually *witness* it? Some very exciting stuff. Either that or I haven't been around laymen enough. But in any case...
Around mid-december, 2005, was the first time I heard this curious linguistic phenomenon. "Will you be coming in my car, or no?"
Some very exciting stuff. It struck me as being unusual because the natural sentence would be, "Will you be coming in my car, or not?"
And since then, I've been encountering it more and more often, from my co-workers, from my churchmates, from random snippets of conversation that manage to waft into my ears on the public transit system, ... .
It's so queer, it's almost addictive! ...except that it's wrong. Nevermind this curious shift in conversational grammar, another thing I've learned is that "younger" adults (in their mid-thirties) are also extremely susceptible to these changes in colloquial speech.
And here's why it's wrong:
When one asks a yes/no question with a choice, the pivotal point, the ellipted part, is the verb. And one does not negate a verb with "no"; one negates it with "not".
e.g. "I did not go to the store today" instead of "I did no go ..."
Hence, it is illogical (and ungrammatical) to ask, "will you be coming or no?" because in full, the sentence would be, "will you be coming, or will you not be coming?"
Some have argued (pitifully and rather unsuccessfully) that the "... or no" is legitimate as an alternative ellipsis. They postulate that the "no" is the implied expletive in the expectent statement, "no, I will not be coming". But there are two main problems with this:
1. Lack of parallel structure. In the same way that it's wrong to say, "I hate fishing, going to school, and to take things out of trash cans", it is wrong to ask, "are you leaving or no?"
2. The converse is never expressed. If one is to advocate the legitimacy of this odious bastard "no", then one must also legitimise his sister "yes". And yet, consider the following sentence: "Are you not leaving or yes?"
Strange, isn't it.
But like the malicious tapeworm that's slowly devouring the flesh of your cute little kitten, the "no" bastard is devouring proper English speech. Will we ever find a cure? Unfortunately, there is no cure for idiocy.
...and here I feel the need to make some disclaimers. I am not saying that I equate speech with intelligence, although I do find that to be a very popular attitude within society (the reason why "smart people" always talk "smart", and the same reason why "dumb people" always think "big words" are the answer to remedy their speech). What I am saying is that I find it rather bothersome (and maybe on some level hilarious) that people with the pretense to pretend to be princely would make such howling errors as the one above. Also, I have known some very bright and intelligent people to have exceedingly poor speech. But seriously, what's the point? Yes, perhaps the attitute that one's speech reflects one station in life is outdated and wrong, but if you can't fight that current, why fail to it? Why would anybody want to be wrong? (whether morally, or grammatically)
...in short, use "not"!
Around mid-december, 2005, was the first time I heard this curious linguistic phenomenon. "Will you be coming in my car, or no?"
Some very exciting stuff. It struck me as being unusual because the natural sentence would be, "Will you be coming in my car, or not?"
And since then, I've been encountering it more and more often, from my co-workers, from my churchmates, from random snippets of conversation that manage to waft into my ears on the public transit system, ... .
It's so queer, it's almost addictive! ...except that it's wrong. Nevermind this curious shift in conversational grammar, another thing I've learned is that "younger" adults (in their mid-thirties) are also extremely susceptible to these changes in colloquial speech.
And here's why it's wrong:
When one asks a yes/no question with a choice, the pivotal point, the ellipted part, is the verb. And one does not negate a verb with "no"; one negates it with "not".
e.g. "I did not go to the store today" instead of "I did no go ..."
Hence, it is illogical (and ungrammatical) to ask, "will you be coming or no?" because in full, the sentence would be, "will you be coming, or will you not be coming?"
Some have argued (pitifully and rather unsuccessfully) that the "... or no" is legitimate as an alternative ellipsis. They postulate that the "no" is the implied expletive in the expectent statement, "no, I will not be coming". But there are two main problems with this:
1. Lack of parallel structure. In the same way that it's wrong to say, "I hate fishing, going to school, and to take things out of trash cans", it is wrong to ask, "are you leaving or no?"
2. The converse is never expressed. If one is to advocate the legitimacy of this odious bastard "no", then one must also legitimise his sister "yes". And yet, consider the following sentence: "Are you not leaving or yes?"
Strange, isn't it.
But like the malicious tapeworm that's slowly devouring the flesh of your cute little kitten, the "no" bastard is devouring proper English speech. Will we ever find a cure? Unfortunately, there is no cure for idiocy.
...and here I feel the need to make some disclaimers. I am not saying that I equate speech with intelligence, although I do find that to be a very popular attitude within society (the reason why "smart people" always talk "smart", and the same reason why "dumb people" always think "big words" are the answer to remedy their speech). What I am saying is that I find it rather bothersome (and maybe on some level hilarious) that people with the pretense to pretend to be princely would make such howling errors as the one above. Also, I have known some very bright and intelligent people to have exceedingly poor speech. But seriously, what's the point? Yes, perhaps the attitute that one's speech reflects one station in life is outdated and wrong, but if you can't fight that current, why fail to it? Why would anybody want to be wrong? (whether morally, or grammatically)
...in short, use "not"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)