careless reckless fearless
ruthless pitiless heartless
voiceless limbless eyeless
speechless
Sunday, 16 June 2013
Both glamourous and humourous
I've noticed what I have "dubbed (as)" - minor peeve there - "US / BrE hypercorrection", as in book shops having a "Humourous" section. I first noticed this in a UK Borders and wondered if there was any significance in this being a US chain.
But is it really hypercorrection going on here? Or just co-incidence that these two examples have US connections? An American writing BrE might be tempted to overdo the humor / humour change. Brits in the US might lose touch a little or momentarily "over-egg" it, too. I noticed it in the recent article by, I think, a British 'Telegraph' correspondent in the US. The example in this case was "glamourous". A trend or just a common spelling mistake by BrE speakers? Comments, please.
But is it really hypercorrection going on here? Or just co-incidence that these two examples have US connections? An American writing BrE might be tempted to overdo the humor / humour change. Brits in the US might lose touch a little or momentarily "over-egg" it, too. I noticed it in the recent article by, I think, a British 'Telegraph' correspondent in the US. The example in this case was "glamourous". A trend or just a common spelling mistake by BrE speakers? Comments, please.
Scores of casualties
100 - 2
Last year, 2012, a snippet of a poem came to me, partly prompted by the daily scores of casualties in Gaza, with a vague (contrasting and possibly inappropriate) memory of Milton's "Samson Agonistes". The numbers of dead and wounded were reported each day and they were very unbalanced. A heavy defeat in sport is often put in war-like or violent terms - a beating, a thrashing even a massacre. Sometimes a rugby or football / soccer match is said to be approaching "a cricket score", which could be, say, a hundred runs for two wickets lost, or 100 - 2. Whatever the true numbers, this is the impression the Gaza figures made, a reflection and memory of a great imbalance and injustice.
This comparison of sport to war and vice versa reminds me that some people do consider violence very coldly or perhaps as a game, as long as it doesn't directly affect them, totting up casualties, assessing impact and even PR factors. And of course many soldiers and civilian fighters (the distinction is often now blurred) seem to be trained and to spend their off-duty time on simulations / computer games in which deaths are kept as a running score. As I say, in a fantasy game or in a foreign country it doesn't seem that real human beings are involved. Or at a computer, controlling Drone strikes in Pakistan, perhaps.
Lurking in the sporting comparison is the English phrase "It's just not cricket." No, war certainly isn't, or shouldn't be, any type of sport, but this sometimes satirised phrase has the basic meaning of "It's unfair." This is not to trivialise, I think, but to say that we all recognise injustice when we see it.
Last year, 2012, a snippet of a poem came to me, partly prompted by the daily scores of casualties in Gaza, with a vague (contrasting and possibly inappropriate) memory of Milton's "Samson Agonistes". The numbers of dead and wounded were reported each day and they were very unbalanced. A heavy defeat in sport is often put in war-like or violent terms - a beating, a thrashing even a massacre. Sometimes a rugby or football / soccer match is said to be approaching "a cricket score", which could be, say, a hundred runs for two wickets lost, or 100 - 2. Whatever the true numbers, this is the impression the Gaza figures made, a reflection and memory of a great imbalance and injustice.
This comparison of sport to war and vice versa reminds me that some people do consider violence very coldly or perhaps as a game, as long as it doesn't directly affect them, totting up casualties, assessing impact and even PR factors. And of course many soldiers and civilian fighters (the distinction is often now blurred) seem to be trained and to spend their off-duty time on simulations / computer games in which deaths are kept as a running score. As I say, in a fantasy game or in a foreign country it doesn't seem that real human beings are involved. Or at a computer, controlling Drone strikes in Pakistan, perhaps.
Lurking in the sporting comparison is the English phrase "It's just not cricket." No, war certainly isn't, or shouldn't be, any type of sport, but this sometimes satirised phrase has the basic meaning of "It's unfair." This is not to trivialise, I think, but to say that we all recognise injustice when we see it.
Wednesday, 12 June 2013
Disappointed as usual by summer, / we settle for autumn...
People are saying that the two-day sunny spell we had the other week was the summer and that it feels like autumn has set in. I wrote a poem about that years ago, also looking at ways of settling. I won't publish it here now in case it is needed for my Collected, but I think that was how it began.
Saturday, 25 May 2013
The lucky blessed
So many people seem blessed these days - aren't they the lucky ones?
Is it the rise of religion in this secular society that encourages so much blessing?
What's wrong with being lucky or fortunate? Leave the blessings where they belong - in the churches!
Is it the rise of religion in this secular society that encourages so much blessing?
What's wrong with being lucky or fortunate? Leave the blessings where they belong - in the churches!
Monday, 20 May 2013
Homeless nomads and museums: "home to"
Even well-known writers seem to use the "home to" cliché when they could just as easily put "there are" or even "has" or something. I recently read about a certain cathedral being "home to 13th century choir stalls". Do you, like me, sometimes fail to restrain your sarcasm? "Well, yes, it would be sad to see homeless choir stalls sleeping rough, with a dog, or selling the Big Issue."
But really, cities being "home to museums", libraries "home to three million books" and even - my favourite this because it does make you think - "the desert is home to many nomads."
But really, cities being "home to museums", libraries "home to three million books" and even - my favourite this because it does make you think - "the desert is home to many nomads."
Friday, 26 April 2013
Historic Present: so yesterday!
Why do historians on, for example, "In Our Time" (BBC R4) use the historic present? Don't they realise it annoys many listeners? Aren't they sensitive to the awkwardness caused by doing this, not so much real ambiguity but rather more difficulty in relating events and periods to each other? Also it seems so patronising, as if they are saying, "If we do this we can make history cool, now and happening for the listeners / students / young people / youth." Do they think we are so easily fooled?
If you look online, you find that, as with many topics, there is much more discussion about it in the US. Things seem to start there and spread fast. Scientists there have been starting every answer with "So..." for years. And others have been complaining about it ever since.
If you look online, you find that, as with many topics, there is much more discussion about it in the US. Things seem to start there and spread fast. Scientists there have been starting every answer with "So..." for years. And others have been complaining about it ever since.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)