Oh, JvP, I send you virtual aspirin. Wells was thinking of the underclass of the Industrial Revolution, forced to work in dark factories while the wealthy elite (hint) enjoyed foolish, frivolous lives at the expense of the working class.
In his future, the working class has indeed seized the means of production, but so late in history that they can no longer live aboveground.
Now, I'm not sure if Wells ever says that the Morlocks eat the Eloi. I only read the Classic Comics version, where it's the opinion of the Eloi for sure, but never IIRC verified -- no gnawed bones or anything. I always suspected they were actually taking them as mates, which would be Wells playing into the very WORST fears the ruling class of his time had about their slaves -- um, that is, the working class.
It may be that eating is used as a metaphor for the Fate Worse Than Death. I guess I should really read that book.
Trying to apply that to today's politics doesn't make any sense. The ridiculous 60s movie tried that -- the Morlocks, instead of hunting Eloi, simply blow air-raid sirens, which mysteriously still sound exactly the same after 800 centuries or whatever it's supposed to be, and the Eloi walk underground. "We have to go underground when the sirens blow," one of them explains.
Why don't you write your own brand-new allegorical novel about the if-this-goes-on future? I'm sure you could write 2000 pages without any trouble, and then turn them over to an editor to take the mathematical digressions out. The resulting 400-page novel would be just right! :-)
Any t-shirt with Patrick's quote on it, I will buy as long as it's vaguely legible. I think it needs a flag to really work, but I'll buy it, flag or no. I won't WEAR it if it's day-glo orange, and neither should any white person, but any other color I'll wear with pride.
I WANT a t-shirt with that quote on it. It's absolutely perfect. Take back patriotism!
To me, the term 'radical Christian' evokes a person who takes the gospels as the critical material...the ultimate "what would Jesus do/have me do" Christian.
That doesn't sound so bad, actually. So not the right term. We want them to sound bad, at least when we get done. Besides, the bad ones ignore the (implicitly socialist) message of the Gospels in favor of Leviticus. (Sell your daughter as a slave, but don't lie with another man.)
I vote for 'Christianist'. No associations save a vague one with 'Islamist'. Neutral to negative: best it's gonna get.
Teresa pichala: The problem, as is so often the case, is where to draw the line. What's mainstream English? What's imposed linguistic snobbery? Everyone thinks they know the answer. No two know exactly the same answer.
This is very true. And there is a shift in every generation, too, to the annoyance of the previous generation. I myself am irritated by the use of the word 'awesome' which I first encountered in the 80s, though I'm getting used to it. I think 'awesome' should mean 'awe-inspiring'.
I've picked my example carefully, though. A century ago (or maybe longer; I'm good at what the changes ARE but spotty on the timing) the word 'awful' meant the same thing I'm saying 'awesome' should...and I'm sure there was a pedantic BOF complaining about its use for 'very bad'.
Linguistic change is like aging. Nobody likes it, and you can try to fight it, but you inevitably lose. That doesn't mean it isn't annoying, or that you have to accept it without complaining, though!
By the way, 'prescriptive' and 'proscriptive' are two different words; opposites, usually, in fact. To prescribe something is to recommend or even command that it be done. To 'proscribe' something is to condemn it, or forbid it entirely. We talk about 'prescriptive' grammarians because they tell you what to do. A 'proscriptive' grammar would only tell you what NOT to do.
However, since that's the position many of these silly people seem to take, I can't exactly say 'proscriptive' is incorrect in this context!
Well, that depends on how you define 'grammar'. When linguists talk about the grammar of English, they're being descriptive. Therefore the grammatical and ungrammatical uses of "ain't," for example, can be discussed.
When grammarians and other self-appointed "authorities" use the term, it's often prescriptive. In that sense no use of "ain't" can be grammatical, since it's a banned word.
The uses that are considered "proper grammar" are, in fact, the dialect spoken by the ruling class. That's what makes it preferred. Scientifically, all dialects are equal -- and I've discussed elsewhere the usefulness of the aspect phenomenon in inner-city American English, a deeply non-standard (i.e. non-preferred) dialect. The standard dialect has to talk a lot longer to get to the concepts which "Black English" communicates with the presence or absense of a single word.
Of course, most of us here are committed to one or more of the standard dialects in a pretty intense way. I have to say, I prefer the standard ones in writing. Does that make me a classist prig? Perhaps it does, honestly. But there's a certain sense in which any standard is better than no standard at all; and a de facto standard (however unsavory the means by which it established itself) is preferable to a new one imposed by a Committee of the People or some such. IMO.
So, your friend does have a point. But the dynamic is much more complex than he realizes. One example in his favor: whether the New York upper class pronounces 'r' after a vowel goes back and forth; the "best" pronunciation is currently with, whereas if you rent some old movies you'll find the upper crusties not pronouncing it.
This is because the middle class tries to sound like the upper class. Once they succeed, the upper class changes so they won't sound middle class. This isn't my conjecture; it's a standard example in sociolinguistics class.
I really disagree. Her neglect contributed to his isolation. If he was soiling himself at school, don't you think she could have noticed?
And her house went way beyond "a sinkful of dirty dishes."
Not that I exonerate the school, not by a long shot. And what about all the people who could have called Child Protective Services or the equivalent? No one knew about the conditions he was living in?
It's all very well to say "she was working two jobs to support him." Sorry, if she couldn't care for him any better than that, she had a moral responsibility to get help -- for him and/or for herself, up to and including surrendering him to the foster care system if need be. (No, I don't think that's a great place either; just better than being dead.)
I agree, in part, with Nancy's post above. She was arrested because she was targetable, not because she was the only one to blame. BUT she cannot be considered blameless: parents have the PRIMARY responsibility to see to the health and safety of their kids. The unjust thing was not her arrest, but the LACK of arrests in other areas.
Flight Suit Lad. I hereby declare it.
I yield with good grace before so much grace.
I remember Super President. (icky shivers)
Note that "mean something" is not the same as "be true."
I always thought that "Colorless green ideas..." thing was crap. If you make a well-formed English sentence, it WILL mean something -- even if it's something really confusing and hard to understand.
In the case of Chomsky's famous "content-free" sentence, I'd translate it as "The more banal eco-friendly beliefs and notions have disappeared from public discourse, and are lying dormant, but those who hold them hold them with passion and anger."
spacewaitress, I've told the story on here, I think, about how some people took that literally (using the modern meaning of the word 'closet' instead of the KJ meaning of 'a private space')?
This is why text fundamentalism is flawed in its very concept. The language has changed, while the text stays the same; if you take it literally without interpreting, you will be consistently wrong.
Nay, matey, me dam brought the blush to many a sailor's cheek. The passel o' Brownies (now I'm talkin' o' the junior Girl Scout kind) in the car when she turned awrong, and gave a cry of "Shitballs!" were not sailors, but fer a' that were taken much aback.
Aye, sure and if somebody tol' me ta bugger 'im standin', I might take 'im right up on it...but I'd invite 'im ta me quarrters first. Arrrr.
Alan, I didn't actually think you were defending it, but it's good to have that reassurance. My comment was more of a tirade; sorry about the confusion.
Anne, I know. The two elegant tuxedoed gentlemen drinking white wine: "What kind of rosin do you use?" Two guys swilling beer: "What kind of valve oil do you use?" Two bums in the gutter: "What kind of sticks do you use?"
I, in case it's not evident, am a drummer. Though I rarely use sticks.
Harriet - [smacks forehead] That's IT! That's why this sounded familiar.
Thanks, that was driving me crazy.
Um, with insulting strangers on the net, it's just best to assume that anyone who uses the term is a total jerk, and will remain one however you respond. Treat it as part and parcel of their general obnoxiousness.
Alan, I have encountered that usage. Other examples include 'jew down', meaning 'haggle' (though that one actually comes from 'jaw' meaning 'talk excessively') and worse than either, 'nigger' to mean 'lazy, useless person'.
They're common. We don't have to tolerate them.
I have successfully argued some of the more thoughtful youth of my equaintance out of using the term. One of them actually said that he'd never thought about how it might make gay people feel.
As a technique, I suggest the use of the speaker's ethnicity, or hair color, or grade in school (sophomores have already lost this battle), or any adjective pertaining to them that you can come up with. "He made a complete fool of himself in front of that girl...he was trying to be real cool, and he wound up being totally trumpet player." Or whatever. They'll get the point.
I am morally certain that right now, all over this country, there are fine upstanding patriotic American girls [sic] who wouldn't hesitate to volunteer to blow someone in the Oval Office, if doing so would magically repair our economy, get us out of that godawful war in Iraq, and restore the respect in which the United States was formerly held by the other nations in this world.
I'd blow anyone you care to name for that result. Well, except Rush Limbaugh. I'd try, but be prevented by the uncontrollable vomiting.
It's my standard response to people who say dumb things like "Clinton was just as bad;" I say "More Blowjobs! Fewer wars!"
And Alan (and everyone else who thinks they misplaced a tag) - the italics are cleared when you paragraph. Have to put in new ones for each para.
Tom, re the periods (and T not having commented), I think the one inside the parens should go. That's a style thing, not a strict punctuation rule. Personally I'd recast the sentence to avoid the issue.
My 1/50 of a dollar. FWIW. IMV,VHO. Void where prohibited, restricted or taxed.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 7 |
| 2003 | 258 |
| 2002 | 133 |
Total: 398 comments. View all these comments on a single page. (May take some time to load.)
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by (Not-Saint) Christopher Hatton:
Show all comments by (Not-Saint) Christopher Hatton.