No More Encyclopaedias

Quick, when I mention the word Encyclopaedia, what brand springs to mind? Depending on how recently you were born I would wager that you either said Encyclopaedia Britannica, or else Wikipedia. True there may also have been some Encartas thrown in there, or if you are like me, a reference to good old Funk and Wagnall’s. But chances are that Encyclopaedia Britannica, once considered the epitome of condensed and categorised knowledge, was the first brand to spring to mind.

It bugs me that this image has disorganised books a little too much....

But the times have changed. To those of you who have only just discovered the internet and this so-called information revolution (there might be some of you out there), it may shock you to discover that electronic mediums are slowly replacing many forms of physical ones. However, to the rest of us living in the modern world, this has long been an accepted turn of affairs. The latest casualty of this natural progression is the aforementioned repository of earthly knowledge.

That's right, the last edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15 which was printed in 2010, will indeed be just that; the last one ever printed.

2010 took both Britannica and Lost from us; it was a tough year.

I feel a slight pang of nostalgia here, as having hailed from the days before the internet I fondly remember constantly flicking through my parents Funk and Wagnall’s encyclopaedias, and searching for answers on a variety of unrelated questions. I was a very curious child, and had the questionably endearing quality so often prized in children of asking ‘why, why; why!’ of everyone until invariably I had to move from reluctant and annoyed people, to amenable and complacent books.

Ah books, you shall never call me annoying, nor implore me to shut up.

But all that being said, any sadness I feel at losing these old physically bound books pales in comparison to the excitement (and thinly veiled jealousy) I feel every time my son and I consult the internet, with its vast catacombs of information, at his persistent (and I wish I could claim genetically inherited) requests of ‘why, why; why!’. After all, things generally find themselves being replaced by more fitting alternatives; such is the nature of progress. Who can deny that the new mediums of computers, the internet, and a multitude of other connectable devices, have far greater capacity for the advance of knowledge than the still admirable, though wholly innovation saturated, physical books?

However Britannica lovers out there, do not despair; the Encyclopaedia bearing its name isn’t disappearing entirely. The company responsible for its creation is simply doing the smart thing and embracing the online frontier, with their focus now being delivering their lauded product in the digital arena.

At least the ascension of Wikipedia means that given we are looking at an Americanized (the 'z' in there is on purpose) information source as the go to receptacle for this generation, I won’t have to try and remember which order the 'a's and 'e's go in 'paedia'.
MM

A little post on a littler man

Just a quick post here about something that recently blew my mind.
Meet Chandra Bahadur Dangi, not only the new smallest man in the world today, but the smallest human being who has ever lived (at least as far as our records go).

546 mm tall!

A full 25.5 mm shorter than the previous claimant Gul Mohammed, Chandra isn't only smaller by a significant degree; he has managed to live a further 32 years longer than the previous record holder. Look at the image above; this man is in pretty good nick for a 72 year old!
Chandra is a primordial dwarf, unlike one of my favourite actors at the moment, one Peter Dinklage; who isn't a primordial dwarf, but actually just a plain awesome one.

The more we see of Joffrey in Game of Thrones, the more I enjoy re-watching this

I couldn't help but think upon reading the term 'Primordial Dwarf' that there was something slightly Tolkienesque about the title. Then when I stumbled upon this picture of the pint-sized Nepali, no doubt off on some adventure, it further reinforced the fantastical elements of this story for me.

You can read a bit more about how Chandra was'discovered' (which seems an odd verb to apply to a human) over here, and hear a bit of what he has to say about the titles inferred upon him. Seems like a nice bloke.

A Development on Tolkien’s Monogram

Here at Thoughts From The Antipodes I am rather keen to get comments, and hear what people think about my posts, or the subjects they deal with. However up until a while ago comments could only be entered if you had certain compatible accounts. So once a few people highlighted this restriction to me I figured out how to enable anonymous and guest comments here on my blog, and it is already paying off.

During a recent post on a Tolkien themed monogram I created for myself, I lamented the fact that my research turned up little in the way of a background for Tolkien’s own symbol. Apparently I am not the only one interested in such things, as I got the following anonymous comment earlier in the week:

“I was also doing a little research on that monogram and I couldn´t ignore the resemblance between that monogram and a chinese character (i´m studying mandarin) it looks almost the same in my opinion, and since I heard that Tolkein was fluent in many languages maybe he knew a little chinese as well and was inspired by this character, this is the one i´m talking about "束" it means to bind, to restrain to control, makes you think about the quote: "one ring to rule them all".
 BEST REGARDS”

This is why I love the internet: there is always someone out there with similar interests, and generally more capabilities (or at least a different enough approach to your own).

Upon looking into it, there is quite a curious resemblance between the two symbols; check it out for yourselves:

The Chinese character shù - 束

Tolkien's monogram - 

Then there is the possible connection between the proposed meanings, and Tolkien's work. Shù can mean to bind or control. And as the anonymous commenter pointed out, one of the more famous quotes associated with Tolkiens masterworks reads:

"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

But then again, what random verb probably couldn't be tenuously linked to something significant in Tolkien's legendarium?

I just wanted an excuse to get this picture in here, so a connection to Gandalf will have to do......

Again though, I find the internet is great at peaking my curiosity, but not so good at sating it. Even with this new possible clue as to the inspiration, if not origins, of Tolkien’s monogram; I am unable to find any more definite answers. In fact as far as the resemblance goes, the only other mention I can find is on a forum discussing the Japanese translation of Tolkien’s works, found here.
Though this is just a quick mention of the similarities between the two characters, it is also slightly interesting to look over the rest of the forum page, and to see just how translating a written work from one language to the next can be so fascinating.

The posters in the forum are correct in that Tolkien was a prodigious learner of languages, and apparently spoke around 12 fluently, and was competent in another 13.

Plus he rocked an awesome pipe.

However if you look at his background in languages, it does not look as self evident that this would lend credence to him borrowing his monogram from the Chinese character as it initially appears. Tolkien was twice elected to the post of professor of English Language at Oxford; but as the title suggests, this is specifically relevant to our mother tongue, not languages in general. In university after he shifted his major from classical studies to the English language, it was a specialty in Norse languages that defined his time there. This, along with a general Euro-centric mythological vibe in his fantasy books, seems to highlight his limited scope regarding the languages of the world.

But at the end of the day there is no way to know for certain. After all, history may record our major drives, accomplishments and influences; but it can’t always be privy to our day to day whims, happenstance or coincidence. So who is to know if perhaps upon a trip to the university library, Tolkien happened upon a book of Chinese characters, and noted the inherent possabilities imbued upon shù, and how its composition managed to draw a rough outline of his initials?

Anyhow, I just thought this little find was a bit interesting, even if it were ultimately not true.
What do you all think? Is this symbol similar enough to Tolkien's to make you think twice about its origins?
Let me know in the comments.
MM

P.b.
Since writing this I also noticed this forum, where the same resemblance with Chinese characters was noticed, however this time there is a different theory offered. However I have been unable to find an example of the character they refer to here:

"The reason for me to post about this subject is related to... chinese characters.
In fact, Tolkien's logo is very similar to a specific chinese character named Haikka.
The meaning of Haikka is "center", "land in the center", "Land in the middle of...".
In resume: it is the chinese symbol to... Middle-Earth.
Well, Tolkien knew it, I think.
So maybe the logo creation is linked to this chinese character."

On Moon Landing Evidence and the Dangers of Conspiracy Theories

2010 marked the year of extensive lunar mapping thanks to the launch of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and as a result scientists and regular science loving people were quick to come out and use some of this new lunar photography to thwart an old foe, stuck firmly in the popular imagination: the Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy theory.

Back in September of last year images of the Apollo moon landing sites were released, which showed not only the remains left behind from the lunar landers, but also the tracks left by the astronauts themselves (as the moon has no atmosphere to disturb them after 40 odd years).

Then again last week another announcement was made which had one article boasting “refute this hoax lovers; more proof men totally walked on the moon”. This was in response to more images made public which show moonwalkers Pete Conrad and Alan Bean’s tracks from their sojourn to the Surveyor 3 probe while on the moon as a part of the Apollo 12 mission.

Now I love science as much as the next guy, and yes if I meet someone who entertains the idea of a moon landing hoax, I am quick to get an argument going (if only a friendly one). But it seems a bit odd to be touting this new evidence as being in any way convincing to those in the conspiracy theory camp.
After all, they are willing to dismiss photos apparently taken on the moon back in the 60’s-70’s; so why should we feel confident in debunking their theories with photographs taken remotely? Not to mention the more important fact that these new images were produced in the modern age of Photoshop and computer generated imagery. If anything, the release of these images is something that would have been long expected by any forward thinking hoax claimer. Of course NASA and the shadowy government conspiracy (which must be staffed with a lot of very old men these days) would have the ability to fake photos from satellite; after all they even placed laser reflectors on the moon to support their lie.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if when future people return to the moon, and the Chinese explorers there tour the remains of a once mighty America’s space efforts, that there would be people who still maintained that the landing was a fake, and any subsequent evidence was a party to this.
This is always going to be the case, as with most conspiracy theories there are pervasive elements at work that undermine our mental faculties. They are driven by wants and desires; generally of the kind where we don’t want something to be true. We don’t want to believe that an influential person like JFK, who seemingly had such a steadfast place in history set out before him, could be so easily taken from the world by the actions of a lone gunman. So we push our reasoning slightly aside, and delve into the conspiracy theory box to pull out something that agrees with how we want the world to be.

Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes once said “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts”, which seems to capture the general idea, except that in this case the conspiracy theorist twists the facts to their theories when the alternate theories seem too impalpable.
This abandonment of rational thinking is a dangerous thing, as once you get rid of the tenets of evidence and logical thinking, you will find self referential confirmation and verification all too easily.
It reminds me of that other great conspiracy theory. The one that states that after we die we don’t actually cease to exist, but rather there is some obscure secondary existence awaiting us. Something that is hidden from the world as we know it, but nonetheless must be out there, because if it wasn’t, then we would have to live up to uncomfortable realities.
And the best part about conspiracy theories (and yes, religions too), is that it takes relatively little effort on our behalf in order to ascribe to them, and reap the mental benefits of believing our world is just that little bit better.
It is easy to assert that man didn’t walk on the moon, as you don’t have to give up anything, except perhaps the respect of a few more discerning people.
The problem with conspiracy theories, as with religion, is that you can evoke your powerful external force in order to explain away any objections to the theory. In the Moon Hoax example the external force is some form of government body who are either working to keep the lie undercover, or else have simply succeeded in their goal of fooling the world, and are now inactive.

In the case of most modern religions, the external force is much more potent, as any god can generally be said to have controls over reality, and thus any contrary evidence to the god’s theory can be explained away through magic. This is akin to how people used to claim (and some still do today) that the fossil record is a work of the devil, put there to fool man. The external powerful force at work.

Clearly the work of the devil

Once you start entering in these agents with seemingly limitless abilities, you can work your way around almost any rational argument, or contrary evidence.

This is the crux of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s theology, where any experiment or evidence which appears contradictory to the word of the Pastafarians only appears so due to the diligent manipulations of ‘his noodly appendage’.

So in closing, though I like these new images being produced from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, I don’t think it is wise to use this evidence in an argument against conspiracy theorists. Their bag of magic tricks can explain away anything that could be used as proof, especially now that the thing we are talking about is set firmly in the past, and beyond direct investigation.

Rant complete.

MM


P.b. (post bloggedum) 
I also note that Russia has announced plans to get a cosmonaut to the moon by 2030. I guess second place in the space race is still quite an achievement, even if it would mark sixty years since the yanks beat them to it.
Then again, it might get crowded up there, what with the Chinese and Indians hoping to beat the Ruskies to it in 2025 and 2020 respectively.

Thoughts on the Homeland Finale

Spoiler alert: Read no further if you haven’t seen the final episode of Homeland, or indeed any of the middle ones; I have a rave in me that needs to get out!

================================

Last night’s Homeland finale was everything I wanted it to be and more.
Brilliant acting on the part of all my favourite characters. Brody was as ambiguous as ever, but this episode at least gave us a lot more of a look inside his mind, and at his conflicted nature. I can't recall any show recently that managed to evoke as much intensity as the suspenseful moment when Brody was preparing himself to flick the switch.

As the episode progressed I was swinging back and forth regarding my feelings toward Brody the character; about what I thought he was going to do, if he would survive, and then when the big moment came, how he would get out. My wife suffers the brunt of this as I voice my every concern, theory and hope as the show goes on, just in case I end up being right later (I like to have confirmation). Though in this respect Lizzie is far better at predicting shows than I.

Fuck this shit indeed

Carrie was really going crazy in this episode, and Claire Danes' acting had you believing the fine line she was walking on between driven passion and downright insanity. The best thing about this show is that you don’t really know what is going on, and that at any point it seems like it could go either way.
We finally now have insight into Brody and who he is, though it was left ambiguous most of the season. The best part is we know his whole story, and what he was prepared to do, but then were surprised by his last minute reversal, so now we just have to ponder what he will do next.
Conversely we have the opposite situation with Carrie now, as everyone else looks at her tipping between reality and insanity, whereas we know she is one of the few characters with a definite road she is traveling on (she knows the truth, or at least suspects it; but everyone else doubts her).

Who wouldn't trust that face?

My favourite character in this show has to be Saul however, and in this episode he truly shone. We learned early on in the series that he was willing to do a bit of blackmail on the side if it lead to apprehending the bad guys, and this episode brought that side back to bear. However unlike the other duplicitous characters in the show you actually believe that Saul is working for the greater good. He is willing to blackmail to get around some hurdles in the beginning, but now he is blackmailing one of the ‘bad guys’ to try and get to the truth. A truth he uncovers, and then has to agonise over whether or not to make public.
On the other hand you have the Vice President and the other ‘conspirators’ who take to heart the fact that they are working for the greater good, and seem all the more blinded by this assurance, and thus willing to commit atrocities that they feel are fully justified. Hell, the Vice President even seeks to remove himself completely from blame after bombing children! You really see why Brody would despise these people so much (if not for the unfortunate fact that he doesn’t know how truly complicit they were in Issa’s death).
But Saul, I have to commend him and the actor Mandy Patinkin. His character has gone through a lot, and still manages to stick by those in need. Sure he set the bodyguards on Carrie when he thought she was nuts, but it seemed to be more of a compassionate move than a mere dismissal of her part in his life. This is all the more evident by the fact that he continued Carrie’s quest in her absence.

The great moment where he realised the extent of Carrie's problems

Mandy really brings this character to life, albeit in a quiet and brooding manner. You get the feeling that Saul is always deeply in-tune with whatever he is dealing with, to the detriment of his own personal life.
Oh, and what was the deal with the lie detector thing halfway through the series? Was he responsible for the blade? I really don’t want him to be the mole, unless the shows writers can do an equally good job of explaining these motivations as they did with Brody's; which I think would be damn near impossible.
Speaking of the mole, I like how nothing was revealed here yet. There is going to be a second series, and though this really does feel like a nice ending, it only appears thus if you know there will be further resolution; otherwise you would just feel jilted.
Another character I was happy with in last nights show was the daughter Dana. I remember earlier in the series liking the way she was portrayed. There was something different about her, true she had the standard teenage girl lines and motivations, but it was less two dimensional than most other teenage offerings in dramas. After all you can expect a level of stereotype with these things, as teenagers as a group generally do have defining qualities. But too often a show will rely only on these quirks, and leave true characterisation for the grown ups.
To watch Dana dealing with her fathers suspicious behaviour in the previous episode, and couple them with her discovery of Brody in the midst of a late night Muslim prayer, really made me want her to do more as the finale progressed. And I was not disappointed!
She knew something was up, but didn’t quite know what. She was worried about her dad, and suspicious of what was going on, but wasn’t willing to believe the worst about him. I don’t know how much we are supposed to believe that she truly knew her dads motivations that day, but the way she handled the phone call; forcing her dad to connect, and to promise things without merely pushing her questions aside with platitudes, was actually quite brilliant.
Then there were the characters I didn't like, but that nevertheless formed a part of the show. There were those you weren't meant to like, and those that I think I just didn't like.
I will start with the purposefully dislikable.
The Vice president. What a douche.
I remember thinking this early on, that he seems like a douche, and a bit of a prick. But as this episode went on, I just started to dislike him more and more to the point where part of me was actively wanting Brody to blow the fucker sky high! He had shown in previous episodes how self-centred he was, and how willingly he put his needs before others, and their safety behind his own machinations for power. He was willing to circumvent proper protocols by effectively bribing Estes with promised future promotions.
Then as the icing on the ‘hate cake’, we are privy to a discussion in some clandestine war room where the VP orders a school to be bombed, regardless of the inevitable human casualties.
What a prickhole.

Must be odd to be an actor that can play smarmy so well..

Speaking of Estes, he is purposely unlikable character number two. We discovered in this episode that not only does he thwart Carrie's investigation because of personal feelings toward her, and seek to further his career at the expense of doing his current job. But he was also instrumental in the reason for Abu Nazir's current plot, and withheld useful information to save his and the Vice Presidents futures. It was a pleasure to see Saul rip into him in the end, but he slimed his way out yet again, and no doubt will annoy me next season too.

Just look at him, and his grey suit.

Now, the characters I found unlikable, but that weren't necessarily meant to be.
The wife. I was glad that her character didn't have much to do in this episode, as I really haven’t grown to like her that much. Though at the end of the last episode I was feeling for her, if only for the fact that I thought Brody would most likely be leaving them again soon, though on a much more permanent level.
And then there is Walker. The boring robot sniper terrorist Walker. He was too evil, too snarly, and in this episode I found him speaking with a bit too much of a ‘street dawg’ accent. I was glad when Brody put a bullet in his head, because his character had no real sufficient motivation, which given the whole ‘American soldier turned into a terrorist’ storyline, is something you really need.

"I'm a terrorist because............ Grrrrr America and such" - Generic bad guy

But as great as the finale was, my favourite line still comes from episode #10?#, and was delivered by the Saudi diplomat the CIA was hoping to blackmail onto their side via the threat of exposing his homosexuality to the world. What was that line? Only this bit of unexpected brilliance:

“Thats right, I suck cock; and I love it. Yummy, yummy, yummy!”

Delivered with flair, realism, and humour.

Needless to say I am eager for the next season to start, and have a while to wait till it does. Luckily a new Game of Thrones is around the corner.......

It’s not just hearts that break on St Valentines Day

I am not really one for Valentine’s Day. The idea of a scheduled day for expressing love toward ones significant other seems somewhat against the point to me, and consequentially I was not going to make any Valentine’s Day related post. But then as usual I read something that got my mind ticking along, and before you knew it, I had a rant on the way.

It was this article over at io9, 10 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Love and Sex that started it all; this line in particular jumped out at me (no pun intended):

"We had this patient who suffered penile fracture after running across the room and trying to penetrate his wife with a flying leap," he says.

The ‘he’ in this case was Hunter Wessells — chair of the urology department at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and he is talking about "[Penile fracture] a severe form of bending injury to the erect penis that occurs when a membrane called the tunica albuginea tears". Apparently then blood fills areas that it isn’t meant to, and you are left with painful swelling and bruising. Ouch!

But enough about that, I am only including the quote because it spurred me on in writing this post (and because it creates a pretty amusing mental image). You have to admit, the man must have had some gusto. And though perhaps this doesn't embody the more loving parts of Valentine’s Day, it nevertheless was the catalyst for the rest of this post.

All I can say is I hope the guy had some form of costume on when they dragged him to the emergency room.

"Holy fractured penis Batman!"

Anyhow, onto the rest of the post:

Saint Valentine's Day, as the name hints, is a celebration rooted in religious steeping. There are a lot of holidays that try and force their religiosity on us, but I can’t claim that it is my atheism that makes me averse to this Saint centered holiday, as one of my favourite days of the year likewise takes its name from an esteemed Catholic of old.

There are 14 Saint Valentines (the Catholics are nothing if not thorough in their application of religion en masse), but the one most often associated with the holiday was a Roman priest martyred (cf. killed) during the reign of Claudius II. What had he done during this time to enrage the then Emperor, but to also instill himself as the name of a holiday based on love?

Marrying Christians.

You see back then it was the Christians who were being persecuted and refused marriage; something you think they would have learnt from by now. The emperor was against marriage for young men in general, because he figured married men would be less willing to serve in his army. So combine the fact that Valentine was helping out Christians (a crime in itself), and marrying people under the Empires nose, and you begin to understand why he was soon put to death.

While in prison, the ever pious Valentine even tried to convert the Emperor, who was likewise trying to convert him! It wasn't much of a competition in the end, with the Emperor being offended by the others efforts (an offended religious person; who would have thought it?), and as a result having Valentine beaten with clubs, stoned and beheaded.

Perfect fodder for a day celebrating love yes?

But there are much more interesting facts about Valentines Day from around the world that don't necessarily involve gruesome murder, for instance:

It is a public holiday in Mexico.

In Slovenia the traditional day of love is March 12, the Saint Gregory's day, which I love solely for its dispassionate sound.

Guatemala isn't as willing to commit, and simply calls it Affection Day. While Latveria celebrate it as ‘Just Good Friends’ day, though don’t quote me on that one.

The most depressing of all the worlds traditions I read about has to be Korea’s. It starts off good; on the 14^th of February men are given chocolate by women, so I am up for that. Then on March 14^th, men reciprocate by giving non-chocolate candy to the women, in what is called White Day. But then, to add insult to what would have hoped to have been private injury, April 14^th is called ‘Black Day’, and those who did not receive anything on Valentine’s Day, or White Day, “go to a Korean restaurant to eat black noodles (자장면 jajangmyeon) and "mourn" their single life”!!

Nothing helps you cheer up about your single life more than drab black noodles

After reading up a bit on Valentine’s Day, and how it is expressed across the globe, I have to say that the cynics, who often bemoan the commercialisation of this ‘holiday’, are pretty on the ball in this case. It’s obvious that Valentine’s Day is latched on to by the flower, chocolates and greeting card industry, but in many cases this is the sole reason for the holiday’s existence. Many cultures have a love related day, and many western ones derive this from some sort of religious origin and custom dating back to the days of Chaucer. But many more, such as those in Japan, Denmark and Norway were forced into the native culture by florist organisations, and chocolate company executives.

This has been so successful in Japan that Japanese chocolate companies now make half their annual sales during this time of the year!

Japanese ladies may seem a bit jilted, as due to a typo from one of these executives back when they were fabricating this special day, it was perceived that the custom should be only for women to give chocolates to men. However don't feel too bad for the Japanese female population, as those crafty execs also managed to institute a ‘White day’, or ‘Reply Day’ on March 14^th, where men are expected to return the favour to those women who gave them chocolate, but the return gifts are expected to be at least two or three times more valuable than the gifts received on Valentine's Day.

The obverse situation to all this lovey stuff is of course found in Saudi Arabia where the ‘cheer police’ not only ban the holiday for its Christian origins, but also warn local store owners not to stock any red items on that day. How lovely.

I suppose it is better than in Malaysia where last year over 100 couples were arrested on Valentines Day simply for being together (and perhaps wanting to have sex), while the Deputy Prime Minister remarked on how celebrating romantic love was "not suitable" for Muslims.

At the end of the day there is no real harm in having a day set aside for celebrating romantic love. And hell, it might even spur on those less likely to express this stuff daily to their loved ones. But honestly I find the stuff above, the changes through history, and the differing perspectives of the world, far more interesting than boxes of chocolates and soon to die flowers.

Tata for now.

MM

February

February is definitely the weirdest month of the year. Its the only variable month; the only month that never (at least nowadays) has the standard 30, or 31, days. As a result, this mucks up that useful rhyme that helps us remember how long a month is. Or you can just use this handy tool:

It is also the month most often mispronounced, with the initial ‘r’ causing a lot of trouble. There is something called the dissimilation effect, which explains the fact that having two ‘r’s so close together in a word causes us to drop the pronunciation of one of them as we speak (think of surprise, or particular for instance). This is why we sometimes hear February being called ‘Febuary’, like its January neighbour.

Incidentally both these months share name roots with two ancient Roman gods; January Being Janus (that’s right, the god of doors), and February being Februu. Though actually the god Februu was named after a purification ceremony that took place at that time of the year. I find it interesting that the Romans explicitly named their gods after things that already existed, such as festivals, or concepts. Seems a much more human way of making a religion.

Janus also had two faces, one to look back and the other forward; which makes sense as the first month of the year I suppose. Looking back at the previous year, looking forward to the new year.

Anyhow, odd though February may be, looking into its history actually helps explain why our calendar looks the way it does today, and solves a little quirk involving the months names that used to annoy me as a child.

Way back prior to 713 BCE, before Jesus was invented, the Roman calendar was based on the lunar cycle, so that every month had around 30/31 days. It was a ten month calendar, with roughly each month being named in the Roman fashion for its position throughout the year. Hence back then the fifth month was called Quintilis (literally Latin for fifth), and the sixth was Sextilis (later to become August, the best month), ‘sept’ for seven made September, ‘oct’ for eight: October, and so on up to December.

I remember noticing this as a kid and being confused as to why the numbering order was out of sync with the months place in the year.

Well it turns out that back when this roman lunar calendar was being used, there were only ten months in a year, and they were named and set out as such:

Martius (31 days), Aprilis (30 days), Maius (31 days), Iunius (30 days), Quintilis (31 days), Sextilis (30 days), September (30 days), October (31 days), November (30 days), December (30 days).

The more astute of readers might have noticed that this leaves us with a year only 304 days long. It turns out that the Romans didn’t consider the winter season as having any months at all, and so when the month of December came to an end, the calendar simply stopped and waited until the winter season broke, and Martius (March) could begin.

Then King of Rome, Numa Pompilius, put a stop to this practise by adding in two 26 day months at the end of the year; and here is where we find the beginning of January, and February.

Around two-hundred and sixty years later the start of the year was moved from March to January, and the length of the months altered so that January began to resemble a more normal month, while February was doomed to forever be the odd month out, accounting for the sloppy ellipse our planet makes around the sun each year (why didnt the gods just make a more evenly divided circuit of the sun?).

And so February moved from being a disjointed time of the year, to the end of the year, and now to its current spot as the second month of the year. It started off as no days, was born with 26 days, fluctuated for a while from 23, to 27 and even 30 days before settling on its four year oscillation from 28 to 29 days.

On a leap year it is the only month that ends on the same day of the week that it began, which just has to be true, because it’s on Wikipedia.

Though it is named after a ritual that we no longer practice, perhaps we should think ourselves lucky that February didn’t retain its old English name of Solmonath, which described it as the mud month, or the curious Kale-monath, which proclaimed it the month of cabbage.

Cabbage; great for Chow Mein, not so great for naming months after.

There are languages whose names for February stem from nicer etymologies, such as the Finnish name helmikuu. This translates to the month of the pearl, and describes the frozen droplets that form on trees around that time of year in Finland. The Polish and Ukrainian languages likewise refer to the obvious season properties in that region, where they call February Luty or лютий, meaning the month of ice or hard frost.

Luckily us English speakers from the southern hemisphere can focus on our defunct Roman ritual based month, instead of having to reside in a month named after cold, when the time of year can be anything but.

February also has some interesting anniversaries in it:

National No-Bathroom Month [sic] (whatever that means) 

Groundhog Day: February 2 

Abraham Lincoln's birthday: February 12 (More importantly Darwin Day, as the great naturalist was born on the same day in history as the great emancipator) 

Liberation Day (Kuwait) February 26 (Really?) 

National Wear Red Day………..

I for one celebrated Groundhog Day with a re-watch of the Bill Murray classic.

"I would love to stay here and talk with you... But I'm not going to ......." - Phil Connors

And with that I end my little post on the shortest month of the year; I hope it was in some way enlightening for you.
Cheers.
MM

A Curious Trend

I have noticed a spate of language based posts on my blog, like here, or here, and even here. It's odd because I don't really know much about language, and have many other interests I presumed would have taken a higher billing here. I suppose this is just a bit of a side effect of writing a blog, because I am exposed to language in a recreational sense much more than I would have in the past. I am an extremely curious person, so once a rant gets in my head, I soon follow the rabbit hole down as far as it will go, and with the internet at my fingertips, its makes for quite a deep hole.
This is why my previous posts on offensive language managed to grow a bit out of hand, and rather off their original topics.But at the end of the day, I really love expanding my knowledge, and learning as much as I can about the world, so this isn't a bad thing.
Speaking of which, since I had been blogging on offensive language and offensive words so often, I figured it was time to get a bit more educated on the subject, and got myself a Kindle copy of this wonderful book.

I had heard great reviews of it in the past, and thought it time to get better acquainted with that most versatile of word; fuck.
It has proved entertaining so far, with an in depth history of the origin of fuck furnishing the beginning of the book. But so far the stand out thing for me has been the revelation that before we called the smaller members of the falcon family kestrels, they were referred to as windfuckers, or fuckwinds. This was due to their propensity to hover in the air, or 'fuck the wind'.

I love that this page exists.

No doubt as I read further something else will tickle my fancy and soon enough you will find another offensive language based post coming your way.
That's all for now dear reader.
MM

Linguistic Attire

Note: There may be a lot of Blackadder references as this blog continues

"Language is the dress of thought" – Samuel Johnson

I came across this interesting quote the other day thanks to my daily work calendar. Initially I agreed with its premise, thought it made for a nice saying, and was prepared to go on with the rest of my day. With language as the dress of thought I imagined that good dress (language) would amount to good thought.

However upon reflecting on this I was a bit dismayed when I realised what the implications of this would be for me. I am not very good with my language (as evidenced I believe by that mash-up of a sentence), though if pressed I would like to be able to maintain that I am somewhat half decent with my thoughts. I can cobble together a cogent argument when the need arises, though perhaps not in as succinct a way as a more experienced rhetorician.

Luckily later in the day as I was reading the quote over again (and started writing the predecessor to this blog post); I began to interpret its meaning in a different light.

You see originally I was working under a false assumption so often enforced in our society; that those in better dress are better people. Or in this case, thought dressed with better language is better thought. However we can look at other examples, bereft of our preconceived prejudices against sloppy dress, or ‘good’ thought, and see an ancillary truth in this statement all the more clearer.

One can dress up an ugly person in appealing attire; much like one can dress up ugly thought in appealing language. The Nazi’s were experts at this, with the horrible atrocities of their regime being glossed over with terms such as ‘final solution’ or ‘special treatment’. Likewise one can see past the unsightly clothing of a person to see their true beauty, or see through ungainly language to hear the true beauty of one’spropositions.

So rather than taking the original quote as trying to make any value judgments about the dress, or the thought, I feel it makes a more simple distinction of the relationships between these concepts. It was only an error in my analysis that made me apply this maxim with any hierarchy in mind. Luckily however, I started to write up my thoughts on the subject, and soon began to see the chinks in my armour.

Language as the dress of thought is something we must be aware of. It can be a tool for making our thoughts more available to the public, or even more palpable to others (after all, a naked thought can be like a naked person; perhaps attractive, but also equally likely to be a bit shocking, if not outright confusing). Conversely we must be careful to look beyond the language and dress presented to us, and try to best judge things on their fundamental merits.

Rant complete.

Oh and if you were wondering why at the beginning of this post I went with the Robbie Coltrane version of Samuel Johnson from Blackadder over a historical portrait of the man, this might answer your question:

He has a face for the meticulous cataloging of the English language.....

Harrison on Important Body Parts

Out of the blue my son Harrison said to me today:
"The most important part of your body is your heart." before I could interject, he added "Oh, and your brain. Your heart and your brain".
I was pretty impressed and interested, as I am with most of my sons non sequiturs, when he gave his explanations for why this is so. "Because your heart keeps you alive, and your brain is what you think with".
I asked him what other parts of him are important and he didn't know. I suggested the lungs, which help you breath, and he agreed.
Then I moved on to the stomach, to help you eat, and he scoffed at me!
"That's not important Dad!"
"It kind of is", I explained, "as you need it to eat".
"Well", he said after a quick ponder of the situation, "then so are teeth".

I agreed.
He agreed
"In fact", he said, "all of you is important".
"What about your little finger?", I rejoindered.
"Nah", he shot back, "not unless you need to pinkie swear".

Its times like these I really enjoy having created this little human being..

Out with the old license, in with the new...

Well it has been the standard however many years, when VicRoads starts to worry that I might not properly match my old license photo, and order up a new one.

I remember my old license photo day fondly, because my mum had to organise the appointment (due to my slackness), and drove me in at 9am in the morning, on my birthday of all times.

I did not want to be up early on my birthday, especially in my uni days when I rarely saw the morning hours for four of the seven days of the week. But there i was, unshaven, unkempt and uninterested (mum previously had to drag me to VicRoads to make me get my L's a year after most of my mates had).

I don't think I have changed much, perhaps as a reflection of my uni days versus my working life you can see the slightly dazed look being replaced by a somewhat frustrated glare. The black hoodie is replaced by a black work jumper; my wardrobe isn't that extensive in colour or style (this way I can just chuck on any helter skelter combination).
But the glasses are the same, the facial hair is un-manscaped; I still have eyebrows, and maintain the usual, eyes then nose then mouth order of facial features
I will always admire the passionate Austrian Pastafarian who fought for his right to wear his religious headgear in his license photo; in this case it was embodied in the form of a colander (that was of course, after he had passed a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive).
This license expires in 2014; I will be 30 years old, and my son 8 (my wife a spritely 28). If by the power of the gods I have kept this blog alive, I will keep you updated.

On Anapodotons

My previous post on the phrase “When the going gets tough, the tough get going” got me thinking; when does a saying get so engrained in popular society that we are able to cut off the ‘punchline’ and still get our point across?
You see it all the time; we shorten “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” to a simple “When in Rome..”. I think this one makes sense, as generally it is a prelude to an act preformed as the ‘Romans’ (whoever they might be in this case) would do it.
You’re holding on to a cooked and skewered insect in a Chinese market, and before you pluck up the courage to pop it in your mouth and munch on the tasty exoskeleton, you give the somewhat tentative remark “When in Rome”, then pop it in. Crunch!
It makes sense; if only for dramatic effect.
It can create confusion however, as if we don’t know the origins of the saying, we can’t always apply it correctly; hence the difficulties of a certain Mr Ron Burgundy.
A quick foray into Wikipedia informs me that, as is always the case, there is a name for this kind of thing:

anapodoton [noun] (uncountable)

1. (uncountable, rhetoric) The rhetorical device in which a main clause is implied by a subordinate clause, without mention.

Other examples include: if looks could kill [I’d be a dead man]; if pigs had wings [they could fly]; if the hat fits [wear it]; if the mountain won't come to Muhammad [the mountain shall come to Muhammad]; if the shoe fits [wear it]; when the cat's away [the mice will play]; and where there is a will [there’s a way].

Sometimes we even omit the first part of a saying, like how the often confused saying “If that’s what they think, they have another think coming” is shortened to simply “they have another think coming”. Though more often than not, people think the saying is actually “another thing coming”, because they haven’t learnt it through a shortening of the original saying, but rather some cultural form of Chinese whispers.

It makes me wonder: are there any other sayings out there ripe for anapodotonisation?

Delving into the Custom Dictionary

During one of the more boring moments at work I was writing up a word document when a squiggly little red line informed me that it had little to no idea what I was trying to say (I was saying ‘Guinnessland’ that particular time, so I'm not surprised). But as I am wont to do, I added the word to my custom dictionary, and kept on writing my emails. Then as the work died down, and my propensity for procrastination took over, it got me thinking.

I use my personal dictionary a lot. Of late I have even been entering in misspelt word just for the heck of it; whether this is latent mischievousness laid out for the unwitting persons who inherit my computer, or if I just find it quicker to skip some corrections in a spell check, I don’t know. But the fact remains; I was bored and thinking of my custom dictionary. I decided to track it down, and after a quick windows search, had the small text file in my virtual hands.

It contained 507 entries, many of which were the standard and expected values, however there were a bunch of quirky, or random entries that really got me thinking. As I read further I began organising them in my head, and was amused to see how a small picture of the person I am could be built out of such a thing. So for my own amusement, and now perhaps dear reader for your own curiosity, I have compiled a few interesting examples below.

As a highlight of my dislike in giving predictions of when I will do things I have added 4ish, 5ish, and Soonish

There are the expected references to new companies, websites or programs which enter the cultural zeitgeist a bit quicker than Microsoft Word can follow, such as BitTorrent, facebook, Gizmodo, GoodReader, Lifehacker (Note there is not mention of tweet or twitter as they are their own words already); not to mention new products weaselling their way into my lexicon like the ubiquitous iPad and iPhone.

There are the ones I just have plain no idea why I added them (though I imagine it was the same source of much of my office ‘work’; boredom), the prime example being Alakfhlahvfoisg.

Word is never good at picking up any onomatopoeia in writing, especially those with an undefined length, so I did my best to cover some random ones, such as:

Hmmmm, Hmmmmm, Hmmmmmm, Hmmmmmmm, Mmmmmm, Mmmmmmm, Numnumnumnum, Ummm, wooo, Wooo, Urgh, Booyah

(Note the capital ‘Wooo’ appears distinct from the lowercase ‘wooo”. This must have been important at some time)

There were things that I have since had to look up again to understand why I added them, like Haufniensis, a pseudonym used by Søren Kierkegaard in writing some of his philosophical works. Or Centaurus, a group of stars which for some reason warranted not only their conclusion in something I was writing, but the added safety of including their spelling in future missives. And even ones like parsimology, which though it sounds awfully important, I'm still not quite sure what it is.

I mentioned the odd movie, TV show, or character, which found its way to the mathewonary including Borat, Caddyshack, Dragonball, Hellboy, and Rainman

(Note: mathewonary is now also in the mathewonary; so it is a self-referential beast now)

Some obscure technical words like Necrocracy, Correlogram, Eigenvalues and Compatibilism came in usually from me doing a bit of homework in my spare time. Or some less than technical words snuck in, including weeing or Thingie. Not to mention the almost oxymoronic Thinkability.

A bunch of words I made up by a quick addition or extrapolation also found their way in, under a heading which itself also comes from the list; Mathewisms like Guinnessland or Liztastic.

There was also a lot of slang, or jargon (is that the right usage of the word? I highly doubt it), or generally just words I apparently use a lot but aren’t quite proper English, like Gotta, Idiotish, Indeedy, killin, nerding, or problemo.

(Note: the ‘killin’ entry shouldn’t be cause for concern; it combines with the ‘nerding’ term, in the sense that I am sometimes ‘nerding it up doing some killin on the xbox’.)

Sometimes words just need that extra bit of emphasis, as evidenced buy the inclusion of Cooooooooool and neeeeeeed in my custom lexicon.

Peoples names inevitably found their way in, whether they be famous individuals which shed some light on those I may admire (Dawkins, Gervais, Hitchens), parents and friends (Harley, Hutchy, Harrison (the number of times Word suggested I meant to call my son ‘Garrison’ seemed to turn into an insult)) or even my own name, which everyone in the world constantly suggests to me is missing that superfluous extra 't' (Mathew).

Then there were the oddballs. Like the twitter tag GamerDadLikes, the adjective that most people would like to avoid (Hitleresque), the worrying inclusion of the verb Sweatingly, the Orwellian Thoughtcrimes, or the just plain strange presence of the suspect profession; xenobiologist.

And thus ends the strange expedition into my custom dictionary.
Thanks for stopping by.
MM