chronic.linguist

Just saw Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. I have three things to say:

1. You need to see this movie.
2. As much as I’m afraid to get my hopes up about Gore running for president again, this film convinced me that he’s at least considering it, despite what he says publicly.
3. If you’re utterly baffled as to why I would want him to run again, refer to #1.

Two reviews worth reading:

Roger Ebert:

In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

Franklin Foer, The New Republic (h/t Jordan):

The film has genuine rhetorical power. It builds an incredibly frightening case without hints of fear-mongering or over-wrought moments….I think the movie has the potential to become a seminal political document—a cinematic Silent Spring.

Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas founded two of the most influential political blogs in cyberspace—they’re called MyDD and DailyKos, respectively, and are part of an Internet-based grassroots movement (fondly referred to as the “netroots”) which has begun to revolutionize how progressives organize. Their book—entitled Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics—might just as well have been titled A Guide to Taking Back Our Democratic Party So We Can Take Back Our Country.

It makes the case for a democratically-organized Democratic Party, and it does so passionately, persuasively, and concisely. They attack what they characterize as a clumsy and antiquated (1970s-era) party apparatus on the Democratic side, contrasting this woeful state of affairs for progressives with the nimble, 21st-century conservative machine which has been frighteningly effective in turning out Republican dollars and votes. Some of the biggest shortcomings of the Democrats, according to Markos and Jerome, include: a historical reliance on a few wealthy donors to the alienation of grassroots activists; the fragmentation and short-sightedness of single-issue groups; the increasing focus on a few races and swing states to the detriment of the Democratic image elsewhere; a reliance on Washington consultants who profit from connections rather than performance; the lack of investment in progressive infrasture (media, think tanks, and young activists); and the disjointed laundry list of policy stances that is our message. This tough and honest assessment of our current weaknesses comes with suggestions on how they can be overcome, with netroots-style populism obviously playing an important role.

Maybe, as a techie and one of the million or so daily visitors of DailyKos, I’m a little biased, but I think these guys are right on the money. (My only criticism of the book is that it spends too much time harping on the consultants, and too little time on message.) To most Americans right now, Democrats are the party which exists to oppose Republicans, not to promote its own agenda. A large part of recent Democratic failures are is due to our inability to modernize our own strategy and message to counter the conservative apparatus. But this is slowly changing, and the YearlyKos convention this month showed that the fledgling netroots, if still relatively small, are by all means a force to be reckoned with. Hopefully, this book will help convince Democrats to get their act together so these changes happen sooner rather than later. Lord knows what America will face if we don’t.

While browsing the New Books section of the library, I stumbled upon—what else?—a linguistics book. Guy Deutscher’s The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind’s Greatest Invention is a fascinating account of how the evolution of complex structures in language can be explained using just a few very basic principles of language change. The first several chapters explain these principles with wonderful illustrations from a diverse set of languages, ranging from Akan to Akkadian to English. (Ever wonder how Proto-Indo-European dont became tooth in English? The answer lies in the famous sound change known as Grimm’s Law.) Since I’ve saved my Historical Linguistics class for next semester, many of these concepts were new to me, and I think Deutscher does an excellent job of elucidating each of them.

One of the coolest aspects of this book is that while it touches on some of the coolest features studied by linguists, it does not assume prior familiarity with linguistics. So all you non-linguists need to read it as well —it’ll give you an appreciation for how we all make use of such a complex and varied phenomenon.

If you’re interested, I’ve written summaries of the chapters in more detail:
(more…)

Watched one of the Pink Panther movies tonight. A definite highlight of the films is Inspector Clouseau’s famous pronunciation of room ♫ (he uses a similar vowel ♫ for dog). To a linguist, of course, this begs the question: How would this pronunciation be transcribed?

(more…)

It was the name that did it.

On one apparently ordinary day—judging by the notification message in my inbox, it was July 27, 2005—I had a burst of inspiration. I suddenly realized that chroniclinguist would be a great name for a blog.

For those of you who don’t get it¹, it’s a pun because the study of linguistics can be divided into two groups: synchronic linguistics, the study of the nature of a language at a particular point in time, often the present; and diachronic linguistics, the study of language change over time. We learned these terms in my introductory linguistics class in Spring 2005—and I gradually came to realize that my obsession with linguistics was neither synchronic nor diachronic, but simply chronic. Members of my family will, no doubt, tell you that I’ve been correcting their grammar for as long as they can remember.² And, as much as I try my best to be a descriptivist outside of the home when it comes to spoken language, I’m downright tyrannical when it comes to usage and punctuation in writing³ (don’t even get me started on everyday vs. every day⁴).

So I had the title, but was it worth starting a blog? People had asked why I didn’t have a blog, and I had my excuses for not blogging:

1. I can’t figure out how to make this Internet-thingy work. (Damn, I knew nobody would buy that one.)
2. I don’t have time. (But you have time to play 12 games of Minesweeper? An hour?)
3. Everyone else is doing it. (Like that stopped you from becoming obsessed with the Harry Potter books?) (HEY, Skeptical⁵ Voice, that was before they became a huge fad. Plus, I hated The Da Vinci Code.)

In fact, my main qualm about starting a blog (or after July 27, a public blog) was that I didn’t think I’d have much of interest to write about. But fear not—I promise to do my best not to bore you with tiresome posts about extremely uninteresting things such as my life. Rather, I hope this will be a space for choicier morsels: obscure facts and knowledge, links to and commentary on good (or bad) articles,⁶ even an occasional Rant (whether on programming, pronouns, or politics).

However, I cannot pledge to post on a daily or even weekly basis. In fact, I probably should promise NOT to update this regularly.⁷

Below you will find a few earlier posts of some natterings; they should give you a rough idea of what to expect. Feel free to use the comments to make fun of what I write, share interesting tidbits of your own, and call to my attention any mispellings or errors⁸ so as to spare other readers of the painful, instinctive reaction that you are no doubt experiencing right now if you are one of us Sticklers (to borrow the term from Lynne Truss, who, in Eats, Shoots, and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, describes this sort of reaction as “a ghastly private emotional process similar to the stages of bereavement, though greatly accelerated”). If you have no idea what I’m talking about, I envy you.

Lastly, a couple of Housekeeping Items:

Assuming I know who you are, email me the URL of your blog so I can link to it.

In case you’re confused, hover your mouse over the superscript numbers to see snarky asides.⁹

In case you were wondering, the dates on entries are in Pacific Time.

Enjoy.

Is Mark Haddon’s The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, a novel from the perspective of a 15-year-old autistic boy named Christopher. Or, to be more precise, he will tell you (on page 40) that his age is 15 years, 5 months and 3 days.

Christopher likes:

1. Mathematics and physics
2. Prime numbers
3. Animals
4. Maps and timetables
5. Puzzles
6. The Expert level of Minesweeper (his best time is 99 seconds)
7. The color red

He fears/hates:

1. Crowded places
2. Strangers
3. When people touch him
4. The colors yellow and brown
5. Different kinds of food touching each other

He doesn’t understand:

1. Faces
2. Emotions
3. Jokes
4. Most metaphors

226 pages, 51 chapters (all prime numbers), 7 important characters, 4 math problems¹, 2 mysteries. Recommended.