Your choice of language

[Dr Markus]

My choice of language depends on who I’m taking to and what about.

[harvey k-tel]

What the fuck is wrong with paint-by-numbers?

[harvey k-tel]

Where is the Kath option?

Along any time now, hopefully!

BTW, and yeah, I can imagine you being a Vonnegut sort of guy, Jimbo, and I mean that in a strictly complimentary sense.

Thank you. I know you are not saying I write like him. I wish. If a BCBer is a Vonnegut it is Harvey K-Tel.

Noooooo!

I appreciate what you said, Jimbo, but I'm not fit to be a carbuncle on Vonnegut's little toe.

[Dr Markus]

What the fuck is wrong with paint-by-numbers?

The Canadian numeric system only goes to 34?

[Deebank]

Welsh

Perhaps I should have said cymraeg

[Jimbo]

I'm not fit to be a carbuncle on Vonnegut's little toe.

Lose a few pounds and you might be.

[copehead]

U R a Stylizt.

U iz a stylist, shurely?

Fo shizzle

[kath]

What the fuck is wrong with paint-by-numbers?

calm down, kurt. nothing the fucque is wrong with paint-by-numbers. paint-by-numbers is a groovy, luvly lil thing. we all luvv paint-by-numbers. wonderful. it can be an effective way to teach kids to paint (although it must be said that most of em have a fine time painting just with fingerpaints and yer dining room wall.) the only time paint-by-numbers becomes a sucky enterprise is when people think painting should be paint-by-numbers exclusively and nowt else. so alll those painters who don't do it by the numbers, they're doin it wrong. see? it's kinda sorta like photography-by-numbers, or carpentry-by-numbers, or cheesecake-by-numbers, or songwriting-by-numbers, or spawnule-raising-by-numbers. sure, sometimes one feels compelled to find order amid all the chaos, but bynumbering is never, ever the only way to do something, even when it's math-by-numbering.

okay, maybe when it's math-by-numbering.

.. although some of those math theorist types are really fucquin freaky.

trying to make language play neatly within these clearly marked lil line boundaries, that's all well and good, for those who think they can put their finger in the dam. it is obvious enough that many people prefer straight up, clear, concise, streamlined, less-is-more, pared down and to the point language. that kinda language can be fitting, especially when i'm trying to read an instruction manual. but as a general style preference, when we're talkin about life, language and everything? welllll those hemingway types can keep their minimalist, newsprint kinda style, and i'll keep my brevity-is-the-soul-of-shit approach.

tell the truth harvey... did you draw binky by trying to draw an exact replica? did you even trace binky with tracing paper? or did you draw binky with extra whiskers and freckles and maybe fire comin outta his nose, in full, color-markered fiery glory?

[sloopjohnc]

You can call bollocks to my bullshit, I'm just bangin' it real yo.

It's just my opinion and it's more a barroom discussion where I'm calling people on their affectations they don't use in real life.

I'm being provocative to engage discussion.

If it does, great. I wanna hear ya.

this is what i don't get, at all: the "affectations" part of it, the unnatural, never-in-real-life, puttin-on-airs thang you got goin on with it. i just don't get it. never mind the fact that i think of words, any words, from anywhere, as toys, ripe for the playin. igg that side of it completely, for the sake of engaging discussion. why are britishisms "affectations" exclusively? i mean, if i say c'est la fucquin vie, or je ne say-hey quoi, or laisse les bons temps rouler... am i flaunting my french "affectations"? do i have a secret desire to be french, to present myself as french, to rise up to some imagined airy heights of frenchification? if i call you amigo or i axe you que pasa, do i inwardly wanna be spanish? do i have dreams of bein katino? let's get even more narrowed in. after all, the principle should be the same, right? if i sponge up words from another regional dialect... if i soak up yute from brooklynese, just cuz i luvvvv the sound of it, and i insert it into my daily lingo (in much the same way as i've inserted nowt, for example), does that mean i have brooklyn envy?

i submit to you that *you* consider britishese some kinda higher, more gold-worthy language, whether it's from the shakespearean/dickensian/et ta bias we both went thru as lit majors, or whether it's from the broader notion of the quing's english.. whatever. there is SOME kinda diff level thing goin on in yer subconscious sloopgoop that makes you see britspeak as something someone would have affectations toward in the first place... britspeak as the 'air' in puttin-on-airs. what else would explain it? cuz lorddd knows you haven't come out against amigos. maybe you feel just as strongly about that and ya just haven't had the occasion to really come out against it. then again, maybe you don't see spanish as so exotic or airy, as some higher thing that poseurs and wannabes would shoot for imitating, seein as yer surrounded by it in caleef everyday and it sounds normal to you; i.e., non-affectatious. but how the principle behind it is any different... well, yer gonna hafta clear that up for me, senor manchadeconcha.

I'm confused.

Please translate to Esperanto.

[Jimbo]

Please translate to Esperanto.

I got it.

jen kion mi ne komprenas, al ĉiuj: la "affectations" parto de ĝi, la nenatura, neniam-en-la reala vivo, puttin-on-elsendas Thang vi got Goin ĝin ripetadis. i simple ne atingas ĝin. ne gravas la fakto ke mi pensu pri vortoj, vortojn, ie ajn, kiel ludiloj, maturaj por la playin. igg tiu flanko de tute, pro engaĝi diskuto. kial britishisms "affectations" ekskluzive? i signifas, se mi diros c'est la fucquin vie, aŭ je NE diru-hey quoi, aŭ laisse les bons temps rouler ... mi i flaunting mia franca "affectations"? ĉu mi havas sekreta deziro esti franca, prezenti min kiel franca, levi supren al iu imagita aireado altecoj de frenchification? se mi nomas vin Amiko aŭ i hakilo vi Que Pasas, ĉu mi interne volas esti hispana? ĉu mi havas sonĝojn de Bein katino? ni ricevas eĉ pli striktas in post ĉiuj, la principo devus esti la sama, ĉu ne? se i spongon vortojn de alia regiona dialekto ... se i disiĝi supren yute de brooklynese, ĝuste Cuz i luvvvv la sono de ĝi, kaj mi enmetas gxin en mia ĉiutaga lingo (en multa la sama vojo kiel mi insertados nowt, ekzemple), tio signifas i havas Brooklyn envio?

i prezenti al vi, ke * vi * konsideri britishese iuj kinda alta, pli oro-inda lingvo, cxu gxi estas de la Ŝekspiro / dickensian / et ta emo ni ambaŭ iris Thru kiel lit plej grandaj, aŭ ĉu ĝi estas de la plej ampleksa nocio de la quing la angla .. ajn. estas KELKAJ kinda malsamoj nivelo afero Goin sur en yer subkonscio sloopgoop kiu vin faras vidi britspeak kiel iu iu havus affectations al la unua loko ... britspeak kiel la 'aero' en puttin-on-aeroj. kio alia povus klarigi tion? Cuz lorddd scias vi ne eliros al Amikoj. eble vi sentos same forte pri tio kaj ya simple ne havis la okazon vere eliris kontraŭ ĝin. tiam denove, eble vi ne vidas hispana kiel tiom ekzotika aŭ aireado, kiel iuj altaj afero poseurs kaj wannabes estus mortpafi por imiti, seein kiel yer ĉirkaŭita per ĝi en caleef ĉiutaga kaj ĝi sonas normala al vi; te ne-affectatious . sed kiel la principo malantaŭ ĝi estas ajna malsama ... bone, yer gonna hafta certe ke por mi, sinjoro manchadeconcha.

[KeithPratt]

I appreciate Orwell's stance and value the power of brevity, but I do think that his approach and its legacy has led to the propensity for people to reshape the language to their own ends whilst keeping within those narrow parameters. Whilst language will always be bent, twisted and amended in unexpected ways, the distrust embedded in the taste for the more unusual or exotic in our ever-expanding and changing lexicon has resulted in crimes such as changing nouns into verbs to slot into that philosophy. Abhorrent words like "monetise" sum up for me this unfortunate fashion.

[Graham Murakami]

I will happily use foreign language phrases to pepper my everyday language.

But of course! Even though I only have a fairly modest grasp of French and Latin (and a very little German and Italian).

The basic functional/brutish attitude to language dumbfounds me. We might just as well resort to a system of physical blows and grunts. Language is expressive - we should use it as such. Therein also lies a very particular jouissance, as well as a proper enabling and communication of nuance and meaning.

I don't really want to talk to someone who doesn't even recognise the distinction between 'less' and 'fewer' - I mention that because I have (astonishingly) seen 'less' openly misused in print perhaps three or four times in the last couple of days - and really, I view it with the same distaste as I would someone spitting on the ground when they're talking to you because they think it's 'macho'. No, not at all, sir - it simply means that you're an illiterate (in many senses) cunt. You see, language should be about saying things, painting an artful picture, and that may be figurative, or it may not. Anyone who is unprepared to grasp that, well, I'm not prepared to cast myself in the role of some Mickey Spillane protagonist just to share. I may dumb down just to be friendly or under chemical influence, but I won't tolerate either wilful stoopidity, or deliberate linguistic deception. And just don't get me started on that....

As far as language goes, the French have the right idea. A lot of life may be shit, but the sublime can (and will) be truly sublime. We can invoke and live in beauty by talking about life in a beautiful and significant way. It is part of an invocation that elevates us.

Soi-disant flâneur, c'est moi.

I find the snobbery of the anti-less brigade utterly extraordinary. I also find their unwillingness to explain where the problem is with a 'ten items or less' sign a little baffling.

I wouldn't start a sentence with a preposition, but I don't assume that anybody who does is on a par with Jeremy Clarkson. I do have a mental image of somebody doddery and unable to use a computer or even cope with modern life whenever I see two spaces after a full stop though.

[John Mc]

I do have a mental image of somebody doddery and unable to use a computer or even cope with modern life whenever I see two spaces after a full stop though.

Really, Graham? Maybe you're just being provocative.

I recall the convention of 'two spaces after a full stop' in Word docs being taught around the time I first started using PCs at work extensively in the mid 90s, probably a little while before I became IT training officer at Action for Blind People. On a practical level, it also breaks up the text a little, visually (albeit subliminally?) and makes it easier to read. I dare say it's probably regarded as somewhat old school these days, though.

You're right, though, 'modern life' is rubbish. Same as it ever was.

[Jimbo]

I do have a mental image of somebody doddery and unable to use a computer or even cope with modern life whenever I see two spaces after a full stop though.

Really, Graham? Maybe you're just being provocative.

I was going to address that quibble as well. I was taught to use two spaces between sentences and I fail to see how one could be so up tight as to insult doers of such a minor thing. And let me ask Graham, where does it say two spaces after a period is wrong?

[John Mc]

I also find their unwillingness to explain where the problem is with a 'ten items or less' sign a little baffling.

No, I'm certainly happy to!

It's a semantic issue. Therefore, it's important for cognitive reasons, nothing to do with pedantry, or tradition.

Items are discrete things, not 'stuff'. Therefore, we distinguish them, or evaluate their quantity by counting them, hence the use of 'more' or 'fewer', which relate to number.

'Stuff', in contrast - anything which is amorphous or undifferentiated - is described in terms of 'less' or 'more' simply because it's not obviously broken up into individual things, and therefore can't be counted in the same way. It's probably more sensible to talk (in most contexts) in terms of 'less sand' than it is of '2,895,745 fewer grains' of sand.

I wouldn't argue that the difference of usage is 'essential', in any sense of the word; it's more to do with (cognitive and semantic) common sense. I was going to say that these conventions aren't intrinsic, they're more to with locating and anchoring ourselves in the real world via cognitive 'points de capiton', but skip that! (I'm thinking it, though; and that seems a perfectly clear and sensible thing to say). I think (and sometimes speak/write as I do) not from any affectation, whatever, but because I believe words help us think (and vice versa). And thinking is central to being.

I never much enjoyed the psychedelic experience, by the way; I used to like being stoned, though.

[Muskrat]

I find the snobbery of the anti-less brigade utterly extraordinary. I also find their unwillingness to explain where the problem is with a 'ten items or less' sign a little baffling.

I wouldn't start a sentence with a preposition, but I don't assume that anybody who does is on a par with Jeremy Clarkson. I do have a mental image of somebody doddery and unable to use a computer or even cope with modern life whenever I see two spaces after a full stop though.

I find the showing off one's grasp of language -- English or otherwise -- often de trop.

[Bungo the Mungo]

I appreciate Orwell's stance and value the power of brevity, but I do think that his approach and its legacy has led to the propensity for people to reshape the language to their own ends whilst keeping within those narrow parameters. Whilst language will always be bent, twisted and amended in unexpected ways, the distrust embedded in the taste for the more unusual or exotic in our ever-expanding and changing lexicon has resulted in crimes such as changing nouns into verbs to slot into that philosophy. Abhorrent words like "monetise" sum up for me this unfortunate fashion.

[KeithPratt]

I think if you're going to make a point, you should at least add it.

[naughty boy]

[Snarfyguy]

Orwell was right and a lot of people here would be well served to heed adhere to his advice.

Fixed that for you.