polyglot conspiracy

Ok, the NYT is not ceasing to amaze me lately with its to-me unfelicitous headlines:

G.O.P Leaders Knew in Late ‘05 of E-Mail

That’s what, like, 20 years after the government started using email? (Wikipedia)  I knew the G.O.P was a bit slow on the uptake with some things, but geez.
[The story is actually about creepy Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) and his "overfriendly" emails with a teenage boy. A proper headline could've been "Why 16-year-olds should not work on the Hill (Reason 1)."]

Via Ann Arbor is Overrated, my new favorite near-daily source of amusement is Left Behind at the Fishbowl, wherein an anonymous UM student puts up what he finds left at the printers of the Fishbowl, which is a big computing center on campus:

The author usually scrawls snarky commentary all over their findings and also makes cartoons reminiscent of xkcd, which should be up all of your alleys. Here’s a good example from yesterday:

And, for that extra good snarky snark, take this one:

Brilliant, just brilliant. Actually, lots of the comments on the blog spark discussion about writing conventions, which I find totally interesting as well. But I’m mostly just glad I’m at a place where that bitterly sharp midwestern wit prevails. (There’s something to be said about privacy incursions here, but for now I’m just appreciating this in its humorous spirit.)

Sometimes I look at Craigslist personal ads. I could try to justify that to you in apologetic terms, which is what the normal person would perhaps do (”I’m not REALLY looking at them!” “It’s just interesting!” “I’m doing RESEARCH!” etc.). Whatever. The point is, the Ann Arbor Craigslist personals seem to be dominated by men seeking to be “sugar daddies” to young(er) women (and, to a lesser extent, girls seeking sugar daddies). I don’t remember ever seeing such a high proportion of this genre of ads for Boston or DC Craigslist.

Anyway, other than the ads that are obviously created by individuals, I noticed an ad by a company that will actually MATCH you with a sugar daddy, momma, or baby (btw? those terms are so creepy?). A sugardating service, if you will. Here’s its ad logo:

What does this have to do with words, wit, or whimsy? Well, I’m looking at the phrase “mutually beneficial” and marveling at the brilliant re-framing it does here. I’m imagining a sugar daddy talking to his boss, or a coworker at his Fortune 500 company:

Coworker: So, are you married?
SD: No.
Coworker: Dating?
SD: Not exactly. I’m in a mutually beneficial relationship.

First, it turns the whole thing into a business relationship - which, of course, such an arrangement is constructed like. In an oversimplified version: man gets sex and attention, woman gets money and attention, or vice versa. It lends legitimacy to this type of arrangement by giving it a non-slangy, official-sounding term. So it can now join the ranks of popular, publicly acceptable genres of relationships. [Note that this term may have been around a while for such an arrangement...I'm no historian on such matters. Also note that I'm not judging anyone for any such arrangements they might have. Free country, and all that.]

Second, aren’t all relationships supposedly “mutually beneficial”? If you’re in a romantic relationship, isn’t it usually because you’re both giving and getting good things - whether sex, love, resources, support, or etc.? This terminology compartmentalizes, essentializes, and commodifies all those aspects of relationships, such that the giving and taking of each is divided up and not done by the same person. It assumes that different but complementary things are wanted by each partner - and implies that such demarcated desire is unique to sugarfamily relationships.

Also? I think it’s funny that there’s a big fat “Join Free” spot on the logo. Like a sugar daddy needs to worry about that! I guess “Join free if you want to be a baby; fees apply for prospective mommies and daddies” was too long.

Am I the only one who finds this headline extremely difficult to parse?

Bush Makes Public Parts of Report on Terrorism

It may have had something to do with the alignment, where it read on-screen as:

Bush Makes
Public Parts
of Report
on Terrorism

Where lots of constituents (_VP[makes public], _NP[parts of _NP[report on terrorism]]) aren’t viewed in line. But there are some other things going on, namely that the phrase public parts has independent meaning, or at least for me brings to mind the opposite of private parts. That first gave me pause; second interpretation was that the public is somehow being made part of the report, as in the report incorporates the public’s feedback. Then there’s also the option of interpreting, again, public parts of the report on terrorism as an NP, in which case it seems to lack a predicate: What does Bush make the public parts of the report? Methinks publicize might have done better.

Yes, it’s that time of year: the blog has turned the big two years old. Watch out, y’all. I’m ’bout to get feisty.

Thanks to everyone for ever reading and especially commenting. I’m surprised I’m still doing this, but it’s been rewarding in interesting ways, and let’s hope that the remainder of PhD school acts as blogging inspiration rather than the blog/soul crusher that it is more famed to be.

I’m going to go celebrate by reading through my RSS feeds for the day, perusing a phonetics article, and reading some stuff about language ideology. But first, I’m going to read this article about the MySpace profiles of murderers because it’s just the kind of creepy thing I need first thing in the morning.

The Tensor is brilliant.

In reference to my previous post about how for me “love” doesn’t go with “better,” today at the Food Co-op I heard people discussing what counts as a “senior citizen,” and they said this:

A: Yeah what’s the age now?
B: I think 60 or better.
A: Oh is that right?
B: Yeah, 60 and better counts as “senior.”

Does “better” traditionally go here, or is this one of those reframing things (as in “Better, not older!” or “Better with age”)?

Polyglot Palindromes from Achewood (thanks Dominic!).

Contributions to this general topic are warmly encouraged.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much I use the word “also” to introduce further points to a topic that have varying relevance to the topic itself. I do this mainly in writing, online, in my blog posts and also (!) things like MySpace comments. Examples:

1
um, ok, it is going to be bad when i move to michigan. i already have a case of the missing-yous.

also, yesterday my friend was talking about how he wanted to start a band called The Whales…

2
you just made the second reference to Mrs. Lincoln that i’d heard in two days’ time. that expression must be so hot right now, or else you were also listening to NPR yesterday.

also, i want you to know that friends are friends forever…

3
um, at this rate, probably only if you plan it. also, i just noticed that shamu is BACK on the top 10 after a hiatus. also, t-rex: [image of t-rex sandsculpture]

And here are examples of comments my friends have left me:

1
Hey. I think I’m staying home today because I’m afraid of my homework. But be ready JUST IN CASE. Or not. Cos either way, I have a key.

Also, mer-lions.

2
(first comment) Come back, it’ll be bike.

(consecutive comment) Also, Sean goes “Emily, what did your drunk friends write in the guest book?” Emily responded “To be fair, they weren’t drunk.”

3
you can tell we’re superheroes because we’re never in the same place at once. also, the adamantium claws are a clue.

I’ve caught myself using this quite a bit lately, and then stopped myself because I’ve become conscious of how much I use it. And it usually introduces a thought that’s somehow only ironically related to what came before it, or ironically juxtaposed because it’s not related at all.

Today, however, I saw a chalkboard sign in the coffeeshop that said (details are made up):

Coffee: Colombian
Decaf: Sumatran
Fair trade organic: Hazelnut
———
Also,
It’s latte week!
16 oz. = $2.50, 20 oz = $3

So there it is: it’s really not just me. I’m not sure to what extent the prevalence of this is a new thing, though also seems to be replacing lots of other possible conjunctions/transition/introductory words that often have more nuanced (or at least more varied) implications: however, moreover, likewise, in addition (to), additionally, and, but, another thing is, etc. It’s as if also has taken to mean not just “along those same lines” or “here is another similar item” but more broadly, “another topic.” Thoughts? Anyone else noticing this? Does it have any higher probability of happening in writing or speech? Is it taken to writing from its high prevalence in speech?

Also, local birding posts from Ann Arbor is Overrated: who knew?

Again with the Facebook, but I happened to see this note on one of my contacts’ mini-feeds (oh, the contentious mini-feed!):

Dear Facebook

I have a myspace account and I honestly can say I LOVE FACEBOOK SO MUCH BETTER…. THE WAY IT IS. Sorry to yell but I think a lot of us want you to know how much we like facebook how it is.

I love it better? Is it just me, or does this seem odd? I can do I like it better or I love it more (or, for that matter, I like it more), but loving it better doesn’t make sense to me unless you’re talking about, like, biblically loving (er, biblically knowing? whatever).

Googlefight gives 28,500,000 for “love * more” as compared to 2,520,000 for “love * better.” Why can love can vary quantitatively but not qualitatively? If you can love something more or less, why can’t you love it more or less well? Maybe because love is dependent mainly on the agent, whereas like is dependent on the object? As in, if I don’t love you or love something, that says something about *me*, not *you*. As opposed to me liking you or not, which says something about *you*. Or does it just reflect an extension or semantic change in better and/or love?

This also brings to mind the (recent, I think) construction “love * hard” or so hard. People seem to be looking for ways to qualitatively modify love.