I was talking with some baseball aficiandos recently and asked them to think up the most common descriptor of left-handed and right-handed pitchers. They agreed quickly on “big farm kid” for righties (runner up: “Hard-throwing”) and “crafty” for lefties (runner up: “wily”).
Jesse Wolfersberger believes that this linguistic distinction has it roots in reality. He presents statistical analysis indicating that left-handed pitchers are better at striking out batters with off-speed, tricky, curving pitches rather than straight-at-you fastballs.
You can see what you think of his analysis by following the link, but even if it holds water I doubt that is the full explanation because it leaves out the moral nuance of the contrasting descriptors.
The idea that the right side is morally better than the “sinister” side goes back centuries, and we have not fully escaped it even though we recognize that it has no logical basis. “Crafty” is not too far from “sneaky/dishonest”. Meanwhile, consider the descriptor “big farm kid” for righties. That doesn’t just imply strength; it also connotes All-American wholesomeness. Many right-handers certainly grow up in cities and many left-handers grow up on farms, yet it would feel strange to hear a baseball announcer speak of a left-handed pitcher as a “farm kid”.
Likewise, there have many been right-handed pitchers who didn’t just manfully throw a straight and true fastball down the pipe, challenging their opponents honestly like Arthurian Knights at the jousts. Knuckle ball masters Phil Niekro, Joe Niekro and Tim Wakefield all pitched right-handed. And the New York Yankees, whom all God-fearing people agree are servants of Satan, have employed many right-handed pitchers over the years.
Although most people on the east coast (and many people here) haven’t realized it yet, Eric Garcetti was elected Mayor of Los Angeles on Tuesday.Â I’m pleased. I voted for him, and despite the fiscal and governance difficulties thatÂ he faces, I think he will do a good job as much any Los Angeles mayor can.
Much of the media has been taken up with Garcetti’s status as the City’s first Jewish mayor.Â In fact, he is quite the hybrid, much like the city itself: his Mom is Jewish, his Dad (former LA County DA Gil Garcetti) is of Italian descent, but the family lived in Mexico for a couple of generations, making him also something of a Latino.Â Perfect for a Los Angeles politician.
But he is going to have to do better than this if he wants to get real credibility among the Latino population (which he carried in the election).Â Addressing an east side audience, Garcetti declared:
Soy uno de vosotros.
That literally means, “I am one of you,” andÂ the notion isÂ standard politician fare.Â Notice something?Â For “you”, Garcetti used vosotros, a form that is perfectly grammatically correct, but is basically only used in Spain.Â It supposedly means something like “you guys” in my understanding: it is the plural form of tu.Â But I have never heard it used in Latin America or among Latinos in the United States.
A colleague of mine learned how to speak Spanish in Spain, and then went to Argentina on an exchange.Â He used vosotros, and, he says, “my hosts thought it was absolutely adorable, like speaking with an English accent.”Â And that’s with Argentinians, who have their own series of strange words, and make every effort to dissociate themselves from the rest of Latin America.Â (See Mario Vargas Llosa’s Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter for more).Â The closest comparison I could make would be something like, “Hey — I’m down with thee.”
In fact, this is such an obvious mistake I’m wondering whether it was reported correctly.Â But I’ve now heard it from different places.Â Anyone else have a different take — has anyone heard it used among Latinos in the United States?Â We would love to hear from thee.
My disagreements with Keynesâ€™s economic philosophy have never had anything to do with his sexual orientation. It is simply false to suggest, as I did, that his approach to economic policy was inspired by any aspect of his personal life.
Not for one moment did I mean to suggest that Keynesian economics as a body of thought was simply a function of Keynesâ€™ sexuality. But nor can it be trueâ€”as some of my critics apparently believeâ€”that his sexuality is totally irrelevant to our historical understanding of the man. My very first book dealt with the German hyperinflation of 1923, a historical calamity in which Keynes played a minor but important role. In that particular context, Keynesâ€™ sexual orientation did have historical significance. The strong attraction he felt for the German banker Carl Melchior undoubtedly played a part in shaping Keynesâ€™ views on the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath.
I was in Russia when a tourist from New York turned to me and said, â€œWhatever happened to Chicago?â€ To this mysterious question he added, â€œI kept thinking it was going to break through, but it never did.â€ Nonplussed, I tried to think of a Chicago breakthrough. Eventually I must have sputtered something about Nobel laureates because he interrupted me dismissively. â€œEds and meds,â€ he said. â€œEvery second-tier city has those.â€ That concluded conversation between usâ€“-for the rest of the trip.
And thatâ€™s the problem with Rachel Shteirâ€™s article on the front page of last weekâ€™s New York Times Book Review. Conversation ended the minute she turned a review of books about Chicago into a pan of the city itself. Oh, there were responses aplenty, but most were reflexively protective, the kind youâ€™d expect from a mother charged with having an ugly baby. So weâ€™ve had a week of â€œSoâ€™s your old manâ€ and â€œIâ€™m rubber, youâ€™re glueâ€ without anybodyâ€™s communicating much of anything worthwhile.
Which is a shame, because Shteirâ€™s review was a gigantic missed opportunity to investigate the fact that â€œChicagoâ€ is a performance. Chicagoans perform the cityâ€™s epic nature, its street smarts, its unshockability. Most of all we perform its blue-collar roots evenâ€“especially–when we have none of our own. How could a professor of theater miss the fact that sheâ€™s in the midst of a production as deft and complicated and self-referential as Brecht? Continue reading “Rachel Shteir versus Chicago: Performance versus Reality”
Iâ€™m a fan of George Orwell. I think one of the most important pieces of writing in the English language, for example, is his set of rules for how to make the perfect cup of tea. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether people can really make a cup of tea, andtherefore participate in civilised society, without following those rules; I often ungraciously request that my friends read Orwellâ€™s piece before I permit them to hand me a brew.
Ed Smithâ€™s last column from the New Statesman argued that Orwellâ€™s rules have been co-opted and deployed for precisely the nefarious purposes Orwell had hoped to prevent:
Orwell argues that â€œthe great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between oneâ€™s real and oneâ€™s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words.â€
I suspect the opposite is now true. When politicians or corporate front men have to bridge a gap between what they are saying and what they know to be true, their preferred technique is to convey authenticity by speaking with misleading simplicity. The ubiquitous injunction â€œLetâ€™s be clearâ€, followed by a list of five bogus bullet-points, is a much more common refuge than the Latinate diction and Byzantine sentence structure that Orwell deplored.
The argument seems plausible to me. Indeed, the Guardian has a lovely infographic that illustrates how SOTU speeches have adopted increasingly simpler vocabulary and syntax over time. You can decide for yourself whether this has accompanied more political duplicity, as Smith argues.
I enjoyed Smithâ€™s post not just because I think the argument seems accurate. Itâ€™s because I’d like to think that in my own case, grandiloquent writing isnâ€™t really the problem. Orwellâ€™s concern was not with the choice of words (a stylistic concern); it was with the way words can be used to manipulate thoughts (a substantive concern). Hence, the dispositive sixth rule.
My take-away from Orwellâ€™s writing rules, then, is that the sixth is the only true â€˜rule,â€™ as it is the only one with substantive content â€“ not to write anything barbarous. The preceding five â€˜rulesâ€™ arenâ€™t really rules at all. Theyâ€™re more like suggestions, and Orwell didnâ€™t have much of a bee in his bonnet for those.
“Loath” is an adjective meaning “reluctant.”
“Loathe” is a verb meaning “abhor.”
Therefore a phrase such as “They would be loathe to admit it” is gibberish. Any given instance could be a mere typo, such as I constantly make in this space. And it’s a typo the spell-checker won’t catch, since “loathe” is a perfectly good word. But I detect a trend of substituting “loathe” for “loath,” which would be a shame.
Here are five phrases that are typically quoted today in a way that departs from their original wording. For each misquotation, score 1 point if you can recall the original quote and another point if you can guess the source for the original quote. If you score 7 or more out of a possible 10, I for one will be highly impressed. Answers after the jump.
1. Pride goeth before a fall.
2. Bubble bubble, toil and trouble.
3. Money is the root of all evil.
4. Gild the lily.
5. Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.
I think that the English language must have changed when I wasn’t looking.Â A recent Gallup Poll question asks:
The way my Mom always taught it to me was: who is the subject of a sentence, and whom is an object of a sentence.Â Thus, shouldn’t this question be: whom would you blame if we go off the [misnamed] fiscal cliff?Â The subject here is “you”.Â
But now I see this so frequently that I figure either I am getting it totally wrong or that the language has changed.Â That’s the way language always changes — in usage, not in the halls of L’academie Francaise.Â I was always taught that if in Spanish you want to say, e.g., “There were many things” you would say Habia muchas cosas, but apparently now people are making it agree in number i.e. Habian muchas cosas.Â And if that’s what people say, then that’s what people say.Â But I wish someone would tell me!
Maybe it’s Bo Diddley’s fault.Â But if so, it’sÂ worth it.Â I’d certainly make that trade!
That would be William of course, who was re-dubbed William the Conqueror after his victory at Hastings 946 years ago today. Alan Massie reflects on how the Norman Conquest changed the law and history of England, as well as its language:
So, if you were to begin by asking, in Monty Python style, “what have the Normans ever done for us?” you might first reply that the most enduring consequence of the Conquest is the richness of the English language, with its Anglo-Saxon base and Franco-Latin superstructure. This mixture gives us a huge vocabulary, and many words with essentially the same meaning, yet a different shade of emphasis: fatherly and paternal, for example.
I am in Durban, South Africa, staying with friends who are second-generation Indian immigrants. While having no nostalgia for the empire, they keep the British fashion of afternoon tea, at which I am offered a “rusk”. It’s a tasty baked goodie, much harder than a scone, and cut into rectangles.
I have never heard this word during countless tea times in Britain, nor have I heard it used in the States. Why isn’t this little bit of bread called some variant of biscuit/biscotti?
The answer may be the Portuguese influence in Southern Africa, which is reflected in many place names and other words today. “Rosca” means roll or breadtwist in that language, which may have evolved into “rusk”.
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.