h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's interesting information, Ictoan.

Ictoan,

"Although this is all from my blessed memory so it may well be a load of whatsit."

That's my recollection, too.
(Worryingly, I'm usually wrong.)

In turkish they have two i's (that does look wierd without an apostrophe but I'm not sure if it needs one - having reread it it sounds weird too!). One of them has a dot and the other doesn't (you can find it in the Latin Extended-A characters on your computer e.g. when you choose "insert symbol" in Word)

The second "i" without the dot over it is pronounced like an indefinable "er" - i.e. with the mouth quite closed, and what would pass almost as a grunt in English. It is very important with Turkish not to confuse the two. Don't ask me if any unfortunate misunderstandings can occur if you do - I'm afraid my Turkish isn't that good.

Vestboy,
"In turkish they have two i's"
H'mm - they can't be accused of being egocentric, then.

I would have used:

two "i"s

as my preferred construction but I know what you mean. Wasn't that the coffee bar where Tommy Steele began his career? Or was it "the Vipers"?

Indeed. And the palace in Istanbul is pronounced Top-kap-uh rather than Top-kap-i, which always annoys me.

I was told in primary school that there were only two words in English that were spelt with a single letter: O and I. The capitalisation of both seemed to have something to do with that.

So you say O you twit, but oh dear me.

How about 'a' then?

Primary school must have been very difficult weithout the word "A".

Please miss, can I have one number pencils please and not less than one sheet of paper....

Just heard on the radio going on about buzzwords in the current political climate.
These included:
Dog whistle - This being where you raise an issue which you know will make people get up and pay attention, supposedly like a dog reacting to a dog whistle.

prebut - where you get your rebuttal in before the argument takes place. The idea being you do this, then you have the argument, and then you have the rebuttal, thereby ensuring that the issue itself is drowned out by all your butting either side of it.

Sometimes my wife sort of does that.
"I know what you're about to say! Well let me tell you..."
I let her argue with herself for a while and then say, "No I just thought you look particularly endearing in gumboots and bin liner."

Yes, there always was an a

There was something about O and I, and no other words (other than proper nouns) needing capitals perhaps.

A better example of O is "Lead me O thou great Jehovah" A3477927

Some people put "oh" instead of "O" but that's not right; O is needed for the vocative. Remember Alice in Wonderland: "O mouse".

Or The Life of Brian: http://members.chello.se/hansdotter/romanes.html

Gaelic has a vocative too: Seán --> a Sheáin

Ictoan,

"ensuring that the issue itself is drowned out by all your butting either side of it."

Sir, are you trying to circumvent the electoral discussion directive by implying that "all" politicians are goat-like?

That's a rhetorical question and a self evident answer.

>> ..suffer from the common practice of substituting one cuss word for another.. <<

Yes I have seen that happen. Far too often for my tastes. Personally I take every precaution to be precise in my usage and there is a very clear distinction of degree between what might scare the p**s out me and what it would take to frighten off a good f**k.


~jwf~

Dog whistle, yes, I like that! (I wish that term was used here, in place of the usual cliches...)

Buzzwords... People invent words that just sound nice, and as no one really knows what they mean, it gets one the opportunity to see the opponent fumbling for a reply. Politicians want to do this, because people watching a debate on TV tend to think that if the opponent cannot come up with a good reply, that opponent is actually agreeing with the first speaker. He really doesn't, because he might not know what the other person meant. If he doesn't know what it means, how can he agree with it?
Another thing politicians are notorious about (sic?): they think about what they want to say, rather than spending time to listen to their opponent or thinking about how to say it. They start a sentence with enthousiasm, and halfway through, they realize they don't know where the sentence is going to end. What they do then, is elaborating, and hoping we won't notice their (lack of) use of language.
Buzzwords are in fact evil. Their only use is making listeners think the speaker knows everything about the topic. Knows it so well, in fact, that normal language no longer suffices to get the message across. They are basically a towel. If you know where your towel is, then...

Well at the end of the day and in the fullness of time and in a manner that can only be described as ..err..courageous. Let me say my friends..(and I DO mean my FRIENDS) that the the Bell that is tolling is not tolling for thee!! As the Bell that is tolling is tolling for him! Him you might ask??!!! Well !! Now there you have a story in it's self. Let me tell you about Him..Blah,Blah,blah....and then some more Blah!..Buzzwords! Wheres my Pilates when I need it?..

Peter Sellers did a terrific "Party Political Speech" on his album "The Best of Sellers" downloadable at http://www.mp3.com/albums/181441/summary.html

It begins "My friends, in the light of present day developments, let me say right away that I do not regard existing conditions lightly" and goes on in that vein for several minutes without saying anything.

A heckler interrupts "What about the workers?" (this was 1958). The speaker replies "What about the workers indeed, sir? Grasp I beseech you, with both hands, oh I do beg your pardon madam, the opportunities that are offered". Apparently it was done in a MacMillan voice; you don't remember him.

A good example of buzzwordery was given in a Molière play where a doctor is asked why opium makes you sleep, and he replies that it is because opium has *dormitive* properties. Which simply means sleep-making properties, but apparently it satisfies the questioner.

That example is given in M O'C Drury's book "The Danger of Words", a wonderful book, recently reprinted. Drury was a pupil and friend of Wittgenstein's, who studied medicine and became head of a large psychiatric hospital. As guided by Wittgenstein, and confirmed by his long experience, he says (p 21) "I am not convinced that in psychiatry an air of omniscience and omnipotence is appreciated by the patient; more often all that is required is a concerned listening and an obvious attempt to do something helpful."

Politicians could learn this too.

Well, to me anyway!

In the following article :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1448140,00.html

it says
"Paralysed from the neck down..., he is the first person to have controlled an artificial limb using a device chronically implanted into his brain."

In what sense do you think they are using the word 'chronically'?
It just doesn't seem to fit.

Unless there is some usage of the word related to its time-related origins meaning that it wasd a long term implant or something.

Any one any ideas? Or just a typo?

Well, when speaking of diseases, "chronically" is normally used to mean recurring, or persisting for a long time. Perhaps they mean "permanently" implanted.

I'm more inclined to think they meant some other word, but I can't think what.