I'm nobody too!

Part I
Today I have a tasty morsel of a poem that I found by Emily Dickinson, which I particularly love because sometimes I feel very discouraged at my own nothingness, but to hear from Dickinson herself that she, and me and we are nothing was a great relief. What is all of this chasing after somethingness about anyway? What makes the contribution of a 19th century recluse/poet more or less then my own? Maybe nothing.

I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us - don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

Part II - Poetry, for my feet!
I really like shoes. They are fantastic little pieces of art, which got me to thinking about poetry and art. I think that poetry is so much more than words on a page. Words themselves are nothing but a medium to get across the true purpose of poetry which is, for me, a process of grasping the disappearing thread or as another poet said "sing[ing] a song for which we haven't quite found the words." Poetry, then, is not bound to the letters and spaces, it is a lifestyle, an aesthetic, a way of looking at things, which makes almost anything poetry. Even shoes, and especially these ones. They are made by the brand aptly named "Poetic Licence"

A poem

Since people are actually inclined to come to this spot every now and again, I thought I should put out another post to bait you into coming back, or maybe let cyberspace know that I'm not dead.
I've been reading/writing a lot of poetry this past year, and I think it is time to share some of my findings with the world. Often poetry is regarded as uninteresting, esoteric, confusing, or some variation on that theme, but I am inclined to side with Leonard Cohen who said; "Poetry is just the evidence of life. If your life is burning well, poetry is just the ash". So I would like to share some of the ashes that I have been scavenging lately.
Here is a poem that enticed me to loving poetry. I couldn't get the last line out of my head for days...

"The Lake Isle of Innisfree"

I WILL arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made:
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the mourning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet's wings.

I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.

William Butler Yeats (1893)

While I could ramble on about the imagery in this poem and so on, I won't. Poems rely highly on subjectivity, so use your own!

We Folks Call it a Hoax - Annual Post

University degrees are like some type of fungus. The type of fungus that first covers all possible surface area and then, for lack of anywhere else to grow, grows on top of itself. Though many university degrees are based on very valid subject areas, such as chemistry, or linguistics say, other degrees seem to have been developed ad hoc (to use university-speak). Examples are always enlightening so let me provide one: I recently took an anthropology class that explored methods of anthropological theory in the last couple of centuries. The more I learned about the different methods of anthropology the more I came to suspect that perhaps anthropology does not have an underlying structure. Let me explain. We in linguistics refer to 'underlying structure' and 'surface representation'. The underlying structure is the form of the word or grammar or whatever that exists as a sort of theoretical concept that we exploit when using language (language proper, not that kind of language, although it works for that type as well). The surface representation is the form that shows up when we actually use the underlying representation. All of this is really just fancy terms for theories based on observations of natural phenomena. OKAY SO, back to anthropology. As I studied it I soon felt sure that there can never be a concrete and definitive way to do anthropology because there is no underlying structure! Maybe I am relying too much on linguistic theory for this analogy, but it got me to thinking that maybe anthropology is all a hoax. As I relayed this theory to Kara she told me of how she thought that there is no practical difference between a Physiology and an Anatomy and Cell Biology degree. Two degrees which are essentially they same, but which are separated for some reason. Perhaps to look better because of more degree offering or maybe because two nit-picky individuals couldn't get agree on one small part of the one degree so they created two so that they wouldn't have to work together. Kara also said that she was suspicious about Physics as well. I then told her that just because you don't like it doesn't mean its a hoax. Maybe when it comes to anthropology I should listen to my own advice.

On linguisitc puritanism and adherence to the standard

There are essentially two ways of looking at grammar. There is the prescriptive approach which tells people which forms of language to use based on the standard and the descriptive approach which explains naturally occurring grammatical phenomena. For this blog I will be looking at the prescriptivist approach to language grammar.
My title for this blog may seem a bit esoteric, but this is a phenomenon that almost everyone is familiar with. Indeed, I'm sure that your grade school teachers did their part to teach you what is standard and what is non-standard English Many people are very sensitive, and many are not so sensitive, to the correct and incorrect ways of speaking English. This is less of a case of right and wrong, and should more accurately be labeled as standard and non-standard distinction. Standard being the form of English which we deem "right" or "correct". These linguistic puritans make sure that speakers of the English language, or at least they themselves, are using English the proper way. It should come as no surprise to us then, that a large number of the population are like this, me included, because of the correction we have received through our lives from teachers, parents, etc.
Linguistic puritanism is an interesting movement. It is good because it means that since we are all at least familiar with standard English we can understand almost all other speakers of English with no difficulty. The problematic part, however, is what it seeks to accomplish. A whole-hearted linguistic puritan would desire strict adherence to the standard wherein there may be no room for linguistic change at all. This is a problem because languages are either changing or dead. This sort of extremism is not encountered much, however, so English dying any time soon is of little concern.
When we begin to think of English forms as standard and non-standard we also encounter another little interesting tidbit. Should we be so concerned with what is "right" English if the changes are just necessary and logical changes in the progression of English? Why do differences in English seem to offend us on a moral level where we can classify "good" forms of English and "bad" form? For instance I know many people who are offended or somewhat annoyed at least by the wide sweeping use of "seen" as the past tense of "saw" as in "I seen it". There should be nothing "wrong" about this use of 'seen' as it is a simple matter of dialectal variation and standard English not some moral code that we must adhere to. There is nothing "more correct" about the standard form of English or the rules laid down in grammar textbooks. (It is also interesting to note that some of those rules were simply made up by the grammarians themselves.)
So if you have made it this far, pause for a minute to look at your own approach to language grammar. Do you take the puritan approach and side with the prescritivist or do you tend to not worry about maintaining "pure" English with the descriptivist?
Are you somewhat morally offended when people use forms of English improperly, and do you have any insights as to why this may occur?

Learn to speak archaically, with flare!

I have noticed that many people have the tendency to use archaic verb and pronoun forms, as well as syntax, especially when referring to the King James Bible or the writings of Shakespeare. Both of these great giants of literature date form the Early Modern English period (1500-1800) and in both they use a form of English called (big surprise) Early Modern English. People like using Early Modern English, but I have also noticed that it tends to be abused slightly, so in this informative blog I want talk about how to speak Early Modern English. (This sounds like one of those phrasebooks people get when they are going to another country on holiday. Something that may be titled, "Early Modern English With Ease!" or "The Quick and Easy Way to Learn Early Modern English, Today!") Okay so, I admit that a phrasebook on Early Modern English might not be the next bestseller, but here are some tidbits just for interest sake.
On pronouns: The pronouns are mostly the same as ours with a few slight differences. The general rule is all the pronouns are the same as you would think to use except the 2nd person pronouns. Today we use the same pronouns to refer to singular and plural in 2nd person, but there was a distinction in Early Modern English.

	SG	PL
Subject	Thou	Ye/ you
Object	Thee	You
Possessive	Thy/ thine	Your (s)

So if you were going to address one person you would use the 'thou' forms and more than one person the 'you' forms. However, beyond this there was also a formal/informal distinction, similar to the one in French and Spanish. If you were referring to one person but wanted to address them formally you would use the 'you' forms, like the king for instance by saying "your majesty", though the king is only one person. The 'thou' forms then only became used as the informal singular way of addressing someone. So the 'thou' forms would be used with a close friend or social inferior. It is also important to note that the formal/informal distinction developed after the singular/plural distinction. I know some of you may be wondering at this point why the King James Translation of the Bible does not use this formal/informal distinction, such as referring to God as 'thou'. This is a bit complicated, but it mostly has to do with the conservative way in which it was translated, and its strong reliance on (by that I mean almost copying) earlier translations.

On verbs
The verb must agree in number and person with the subject.
I will use the verb "walk" as an example:

1SG: I walke	1PL: We walketh
2SG: thou walkest	2PL: Ye walketh
3SG: He/She/it walketh	3PL: They walketh

Here are some examples of usage and just for fun I have thrown in some other archaic vocabulary:
- Whither thou walkest?
- I walke yonder, whilst they walketh thither.
- Doest thou walk by thineself? ('walk' does not need the ending here because it is attached to 'do')
- Verily, as ye walketh together, I walke alone.
Okay, I think you get the idea.
And there you have it! Speaking Early Modern English never seemed so easy! Alright, so it probably doesn't seem any simpler at this point and it may in fact seem more confusing, but I am just trying to do my part to encourage properly spoken archaisms.

What? Is this a new post I "C"?

an you believe it? A new post indeed. Today I would like to address the status of the letter "c". As a linguist-in-training I reserve the right to be completely obsessed with language and its orthographic representations, the alphabet in the case of English, so today I will ramble on about the letter that resides as the third letter in our alphabet but yet is one of the most unstable and unreliable letters in the alphabet. While most of the letters in the alphabet represent one instance of sound in all places, take the reliable "p" for instance, "c" may represent 5 different sounds:
1. It is pronounced as a "k" sound. The hard "c", if you will, like in the word 'cake' and 'cookie' and Cookie Monster eating cake.
2. "c" becomes "s" before the vowels e, i, y. This is the so-called "soft c"
3. "c" may form an alliance with "h" as in the word 'cheese'.
4. "c" also has the tendency to become a "sh" before "e" or "i" such as in 'ocean' or in some borrowings from French such as 'champagne'.
5. "c" may also be silent, such as in 'muscle'.
Many of the problems that arise in the unreliability of "c" come from its unstable origins. In early Latin the letter "c" consistently was pronounced with the "k"-like pronunciation. However, this clarity was short lived. By about 400 B.C, a sound change had diffused through Latin where the hard "c" sound became what we know as the "ch" sound before high front vowels, e, i, and y, a process called affrication. Thus giving us 2 varieties of "c", one like "k" and one like "ch". In some languages, such as French, this process of weakening continued until "c" was pronounced as a soft "c" or "s" sound. English imported all of this variety of "c" usage, giving "c" such a diverse pronunciation.
The problem of "c"'s ambiguity has not escaped linguists throughout the history of English. Many people have sought to resolve the problem that "c" presents in the English language, some giving it the harsh fate of banishment from English. During the Early Modern English period (1500-1800 A.D.) John Hart wanted to reform the spelling of English. The image above is an example of John Hart's proposed spelling reform for English from his book An Orthographie published 1569. Notice how 'k' replaces 'c' in the word "come" spelled by Hart as "kum". Hart wanted "c" to remain only to represent the sound "ch", and for the other symbols "k" and "s" to take over the places where "c" is used to represent these sounds. Not at all a bad idea in my estimation. However, like any spelling reformation the costs of such a project would be almost insurmountable, not to mention that the whole process would be extremely confusing. So, instead of jumping one the spelling reform bandwagon I think I will remain content to leave the status of "c" as is. As long as I get to complain about how stupid it is.

An exerpt from my life

Back by popular demand is the following story which I composed while I was at Capernwray in England. It chronicles a small token of my life in a fashion that you will hopefully find enjoyable.

It happens that sometimes in the pursuit of fitness there are mishaps. Some of these have to do with the mutilation of the human body, others the destruction of valuable specially bought, most of the time, expensive equipment. The particular mishap that befell my exercise experience had to do with a defective bottle of shampoo.
I recently decided that I would, in light of the freshman 15 affliction, pursue an exercise regimen. There are a number of sweat producing activities that can be participated in at Capernwray. The most popular option seems to be jogging. According the Heathers Concise Dictionary of the English Language, often abbreviated as HCDEL, jogging is defined as, “the exhausting punishment of the human body in order to achieve physical fitness.” As a strong supporter of the HCDEL, I decided against this popular choice. I began searching for other ways to work off a few pounds that didn’t cause me to hate the sport after three days. What I found was quite exciting. I decided that I would take up swimming laps in the pool in the mornings before breakfast. Not having swum since the 7th grade when I was an active member of the swim club, made an interesting show for the first while, but eventually I took to it like a fish to water.
Yes all was well, I was getting exercise, I was enjoying it and I was not gaining weight, as rapidly that is. However one dark day, I came across something very disconcerting. My backpack which I toted to and from the pool was slightly wet, a little gooey and smelled mildly like the fruity goodness of Herbal Essences. Yes, you guessed it, my backpack had been attacked, by a improperly shut bottle of shampoo, that is. This was a proper catastrophe. Now my beautiful backpack, the instrument of my traveling experience had the encountered first hand just what the essence of the Herbals is.
I, in my typical band aid fix style, spot cleaned my backpack and kept on using it for my swimming purposes. This all had to come to an end, however, when I needed the backpack for a weekend trip to Edinburgh, Scotland. I was forced to clean it. I could not be a simple throw in the washer situation because this particular backpack has a metal frame. This forced me to scrub it in the sink and like all good shampoos my whole backpack took to frothing and lathering something extraordinary. The lathering seemed never ending, no need for repeat, so I just stopped washing it and let it to try hoping the bubbles would do what bubbles do and dissipate. Now this could be the end of this escapade, but since I am still writing you as the reader must now understand that there is more. So much more. The wrench in the situation was that I needed this sopping wet bubbly backpack that night to pack in for the trip. I needed this to dry much faster than nature was willing to work. So I did what any girl living in a dorm with 5 other roommates would do. I took the blow dryer to it. So there I am, blow dryer in one hand, backpack in the other in a last attempt to render this pack ready to fulfill its calling in life, to be packed in. It turns out that the fabric of the backpack is hard to penetrate, even with air, so my pack had a difficult time to achieve dryness. After much drying, I retired it to hang on my closet to air dry for a while. So this is where it sits now. It is now much dryer than it was, but it will forever be afflicted with a small aroma of fruitiness. A small memento of a run in with one bottle of shampoo with a vengeance for backpacks.