cortex makes music September 3, 2006 10:55 PM Subscribe
This and the Irwin obit post are going to net you a LOT of comments Effigy2000. (Well, I dunno if they're yours, exactly.)
posted by cgc373 at 11:19 PM on September 3, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 11:19 PM on September 3, 2006
This and the Irwin obit post are going to net you a LOT of comments Effigy2000. (Well, I dunno if they're yours, exactly.)
Effigy is the gold farmer of cortex and Irwin.
/nerd
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 5:30 AM on September 4, 2006
Effigy is the gold farmer of cortex and Irwin.
/nerd
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 5:30 AM on September 4, 2006
22 minutes? Crazy.
Cortex you can really crank out music.
posted by delmoi at 6:14 AM on September 4, 2006
Cortex you can really crank out music.
posted by delmoi at 6:14 AM on September 4, 2006
Astounding. I listened to all of it and never got bored.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:08 AM on September 4, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:08 AM on September 4, 2006
What Astro Zombie said.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:25 AM on September 4, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:25 AM on September 4, 2006
Funny, I am just working on some alternate words to Wagner's Ring cycle, and...
Jesus, cortex. How long can you keep up being the cool all the time?
Oh, and sonofsamiam, the irony is that the image would've been better rendered as JPEG, no?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:28 AM on September 4, 2006
Jesus, cortex. How long can you keep up being the cool all the time?
Oh, and sonofsamiam, the irony is that the image would've been better rendered as JPEG, no?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:28 AM on September 4, 2006
Four years old, but still golden:
I am the very model of a Mefi net contributor
posted by ColdChef at 8:39 AM on September 4, 2006
I am the very model of a Mefi net contributor
posted by ColdChef at 8:39 AM on September 4, 2006
I choose to pronounce it Guh-if. And char is Kar. That is all.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:39 AM on September 4, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 8:39 AM on September 4, 2006
I was saying boo-urns.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:51 AM on September 4, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:51 AM on September 4, 2006
God cortex, stop clogging up MetaTalk!
Seriously though, this is fantastic; good on you (and your brother)!
posted by Stauf at 9:06 AM on September 4, 2006
Seriously though, this is fantastic; good on you (and your brother)!
posted by Stauf at 9:06 AM on September 4, 2006
the irony is that the image would've been better rendered as JPEG, no?
I should say not! The image has substantial horizontal blocks of single-colored pixels, ideal for the GIF format's run-length encoding. JPEG would break those long low-entropy sections into 8x8 blocks and attempt to recreate the colors with FFTs, clearly a less elegant solution. A vector reproduction would also be a good option, if any were well-supported by browsers.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:34 AM on September 4, 2006
I should say not! The image has substantial horizontal blocks of single-colored pixels, ideal for the GIF format's run-length encoding. JPEG would break those long low-entropy sections into 8x8 blocks and attempt to recreate the colors with FFTs, clearly a less elegant solution. A vector reproduction would also be a good option, if any were well-supported by browsers.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:34 AM on September 4, 2006
I'm agunna marry cortex.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:37 AM on September 4, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 9:37 AM on September 4, 2006
attempt to recreate the colors with FFTs
DCTs, which are non-lossy, so no recreation required if the file is large enough.
posted by cillit bang at 10:02 AM on September 4, 2006
DCTs, which are non-lossy, so no recreation required if the file is large enough.
posted by cillit bang at 10:02 AM on September 4, 2006
I'm going to have to send out a lot of prizes. Amazing work fellas. To think it was all just a slightly hungover wish scant days ago.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:00 AM on September 4, 2006
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:00 AM on September 4, 2006
Everyone but you!
For "everyone" read "30% of the population":
On the other hand, surveys reveal that around 70% of speakers prefer the plosive pronunciation [i.e., with g- as in gift -- LH], which is consistent with the pronunciation of the individual words in the acronym.
And it's how I say it. So there.
posted by languagehat at 11:26 AM on September 4, 2006
For "everyone" read "30% of the population":
On the other hand, surveys reveal that around 70% of speakers prefer the plosive pronunciation [i.e., with g- as in gift -- LH], which is consistent with the pronunciation of the individual words in the acronym.
And it's how I say it. So there.
posted by languagehat at 11:26 AM on September 4, 2006
A real accomplishment for all concerned, especially IRFH, I think. I don't mean to diminish French Fry's and cortex's contributions—not very many people could manage to sustain such a good Arlo Guthrie vocal imitation for as long as French Fry did without a number of lapses. Even with many takes.
But IRFH's writing is both a constantly excellent mimicry of the original song with both just the right amount of mefi in-jokes and lucid contemporary political dissent to succeed at all levels, and continuously with no tedium in a 22 minute-long song. That's extraordinary—though I suspect that French Fry's spot-on and knowing nuances deserve a lot of credit there, as well.
And though I don't doubt that cortex's guitar work is praiseworthy, my guess is that he deserves more recognition for putting the pieces together into such a competent whole.
The partial (but prominent) MetaFilter-specific nature of the song may keep it from gaining the noteriety around the web that I think it deserves, but I do want to say that I think this is a pretty high-quality Alice's Restaurant parody that deserves more than only local MeFi praise for its quality.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:33 AM on September 4, 2006
But IRFH's writing is both a constantly excellent mimicry of the original song with both just the right amount of mefi in-jokes and lucid contemporary political dissent to succeed at all levels, and continuously with no tedium in a 22 minute-long song. That's extraordinary—though I suspect that French Fry's spot-on and knowing nuances deserve a lot of credit there, as well.
And though I don't doubt that cortex's guitar work is praiseworthy, my guess is that he deserves more recognition for putting the pieces together into such a competent whole.
The partial (but prominent) MetaFilter-specific nature of the song may keep it from gaining the noteriety around the web that I think it deserves, but I do want to say that I think this is a pretty high-quality Alice's Restaurant parody that deserves more than only local MeFi praise for its quality.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:33 AM on September 4, 2006
I prefer the plosive pronounciation of gif, because I likes blowing things up.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:39 AM on September 4, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:39 AM on September 4, 2006
"For 'everyone' read '30% of the population'"
Right you are. And you know that I concur with your general descriptivism more often than not. But there's certain words that have an etymology such that I think a "correct" pronunciation can be ascertained—those with a recent genesis and which are of a technical nature are in that class. Especially those, I think, where we have documentation as to how the coiner of the word pronounces it. So, to my mind, it's the affricative. The majority is wrong. And I don't think the word will be in widespread use long enough for a descriptive rule to take precedence over whatever you want to name the rule I appeal to here. (The "technical nomenclature" rule?)
This is also my reasoning on deciding the pronunciation for Linux.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:42 AM on September 4, 2006
Right you are. And you know that I concur with your general descriptivism more often than not. But there's certain words that have an etymology such that I think a "correct" pronunciation can be ascertained—those with a recent genesis and which are of a technical nature are in that class. Especially those, I think, where we have documentation as to how the coiner of the word pronounces it. So, to my mind, it's the affricative. The majority is wrong. And I don't think the word will be in widespread use long enough for a descriptive rule to take precedence over whatever you want to name the rule I appeal to here. (The "technical nomenclature" rule?)
This is also my reasoning on deciding the pronunciation for Linux.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:42 AM on September 4, 2006
You're the one who decided the pronunciation for Linux?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:53 AM on September 4, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 11:53 AM on September 4, 2006
This is also my reasoning on deciding the pronunciation for Linux.
But in this case the popular pronunciation is also the correct one, isn't it? Unless you're arguing that we should use the European /i/ in place of the American /ɪ/, which is clearly inconsistent with the general pattern of American borrowings from languages with pure vowels.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 12:03 PM on September 4, 2006
But in this case the popular pronunciation is also the correct one, isn't it? Unless you're arguing that we should use the European /i/ in place of the American /ɪ/, which is clearly inconsistent with the general pattern of American borrowings from languages with pure vowels.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 12:03 PM on September 4, 2006
Especially those, I think, where we have documentation as to how the coiner of the word pronounces it.
So you say "Ahoy. Ahoy." when you answer the phone?
posted by cillit bang at 12:21 PM on September 4, 2006
So you say "Ahoy. Ahoy." when you answer the phone?
posted by cillit bang at 12:21 PM on September 4, 2006
GIF pronounced like "gift" with no T; Linux pronounced LIN-uks, like "Linda." These are the True, Right Pronunciations. Right?
posted by cgc373 at 12:22 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 12:22 PM on September 4, 2006
documentation as to how the coiner of the word pronounces it
Irrelevant. Not saying you shouldn't factor it into your calculations of how you personally prefer to say the word, but it's just nuts to claim that if everybody but the inventor (to take an extreme example) says a word one way, it's still "wrong" because the inventor has the right to choose. And what's wrong if it's just the inventor is wrong if it's the inventor + 30%. Nobody gets to impose pronunciation or other features on the users of a language, not even the inventor of a word. (Another case in point is quark; people say it how they say it, regardless of the preferences of Murray Gell-Mann.)
[OED: ‘I employed the sound “quork” for several weeks in 1963 before noticing “quark” in “Finnegans Wake”, which I had perused from time to time since it appeared in 1939... The allusion to three quarks seemed perfect... I needed an excuse for retaining the pronunciation quork despite the occurrence of “Mark”, “bark”, “mark”, and so forth in Finnegans Wake. I found that excuse by supposing that one ingredient of the line “Three quarks for Muster Mark” was a cry of “Three quarts for Mister...” heard in H. C. Earwicker's pub.’—M. Gell-Mann, private let. to Ed., 27 June 1978.]
I remember a thread where somebody was claiming that the entire population of some city was wrong because they didn't pronounce the name of some street or neighborhood the way this somebody thought was "correct." Remember, kids: prescriptivism can lead to insanity!
Right?
As far as I'm concerned, yes and yes.
posted by languagehat at 12:39 PM on September 4, 2006
Irrelevant. Not saying you shouldn't factor it into your calculations of how you personally prefer to say the word, but it's just nuts to claim that if everybody but the inventor (to take an extreme example) says a word one way, it's still "wrong" because the inventor has the right to choose. And what's wrong if it's just the inventor is wrong if it's the inventor + 30%. Nobody gets to impose pronunciation or other features on the users of a language, not even the inventor of a word. (Another case in point is quark; people say it how they say it, regardless of the preferences of Murray Gell-Mann.)
[OED: ‘I employed the sound “quork” for several weeks in 1963 before noticing “quark” in “Finnegans Wake”, which I had perused from time to time since it appeared in 1939... The allusion to three quarks seemed perfect... I needed an excuse for retaining the pronunciation quork despite the occurrence of “Mark”, “bark”, “mark”, and so forth in Finnegans Wake. I found that excuse by supposing that one ingredient of the line “Three quarks for Muster Mark” was a cry of “Three quarts for Mister...” heard in H. C. Earwicker's pub.’—M. Gell-Mann, private let. to Ed., 27 June 1978.]
I remember a thread where somebody was claiming that the entire population of some city was wrong because they didn't pronounce the name of some street or neighborhood the way this somebody thought was "correct." Remember, kids: prescriptivism can lead to insanity!
Right?
As far as I'm concerned, yes and yes.
posted by languagehat at 12:39 PM on September 4, 2006
"So you say 'Ahoy. Ahoy.' when you answer the phone?"
and
"GIF pronounced like 'gift' with no T. [...] Right?"
No and no.
The first is implicitly clear in what I wrote (hint: I didn't suggest the rule might be named "original pronunciation exclusive of all other factors" rule) and the second explicit (hint: "affricative").
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:42 PM on September 4, 2006
and
"GIF pronounced like 'gift' with no T. [...] Right?"
No and no.
The first is implicitly clear in what I wrote (hint: I didn't suggest the rule might be named "original pronunciation exclusive of all other factors" rule) and the second explicit (hint: "affricative").
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:42 PM on September 4, 2006
Oh, and on the JIF vs. GIF differences (JUH vs. GUH?), I say GUH but I don't care much about how anybody else says it, as long as I understand them to be talking about the file format. Same with LYE-nuks or LIN-uks or ETH-er-net or EETH-er-net. When I hear somebody saying it differently from the way I say it, I wonder sometimes where they learned it, but as long as I can understand them, I shrug mentally and continue talking. Rarely if ever does it seem worth making an argument that the way I pronounce something is better or more correct than the way they do.
posted by cgc373 at 12:56 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 12:56 PM on September 4, 2006
...as long as I can understand them, I shrug mentally and continue talking. Rarely if ever does it seem worth making an argument that the way I pronounce something is better or more correct than the way they do.
Now, there's a man with sense.
posted by languagehat at 1:03 PM on September 4, 2006
Now, there's a man with sense.
posted by languagehat at 1:03 PM on September 4, 2006
documentation as to how the coiner of the word pronounces it
Irrelevant. ... Nobody gets to impose pronunciation or other features on the users of a language, not even the inventor of a word.
Are you seriously going to say that if Linus Torvalds stood on your coffee table and said "I'd prefer that you pronounced it lee-nux," you'd point him to statistics showing that he was wrong? Or that if people are mispronouncing my name in referring to a theorem I proved, that I can't tell them they're mispronouncing it? Garbage. Some things are correct, and some are simply wrong. You can exercise your right as a free agent to do them or not, but that doesn't magically move them from one category to the other. The vast majority are in neither, of course, but sweeping statements like the above are just silly.
posted by gleuschk at 1:55 PM on September 4, 2006
Irrelevant. ... Nobody gets to impose pronunciation or other features on the users of a language, not even the inventor of a word.
Are you seriously going to say that if Linus Torvalds stood on your coffee table and said "I'd prefer that you pronounced it lee-nux," you'd point him to statistics showing that he was wrong? Or that if people are mispronouncing my name in referring to a theorem I proved, that I can't tell them they're mispronouncing it? Garbage. Some things are correct, and some are simply wrong. You can exercise your right as a free agent to do them or not, but that doesn't magically move them from one category to the other. The vast majority are in neither, of course, but sweeping statements like the above are just silly.
posted by gleuschk at 1:55 PM on September 4, 2006
"Irrelevant."
No. You're taking descriptivism to an absurd absolutist extreme. I can only guess it's a reactionary impulse to equally absurd rampant absolutist prescriptivism.
Your argument would seem to apply to personal names and I think there it shows its fault. My argument pointed to a prescriptivist position when there truly is some sort of authority. An individual "owns" his own name, they are the authority on its pronunciation. The majority may pronounce it otherwise; that doesn't make them correct. Similarly, my argument claims that technical nomenclature is quite a bit more like personal names than it is to other ordinary language. And both my argument and the similar argument for personal names requires a recent coinage and a limited usage centered upon the context where it was coined. It should be noted that even personal names can move from this limited realm with this obvious authority to one without it. As the usage moves farther away in both time and direct relationship from its coinage, the primary context shifts to the same descriptivist context as most language. This is true, for example, of most widely known historical names. The utility of the names lies largest in the context of its shared comprehension independent of when and where the word was coined. When Shakespeare was alive his name belonged to himself, its utility (by far) found in its personal use and use directly related to his person. Today, not at all.
Anyway, to sum up, my argument relies upon both an assertion that there's an authority (implied by a sort of ownership) attribute of technical nomenclature that most other language lacks and that technical language qualitatively differs from ordinary language by the context of its use. Thus I think it's an exception to the descriptivist rule.
It's sort of amusing to see what appears, at least in this thread, to be a dogmatic descriptivist. I think it's more likely an example of a certain weakness of yours, which is to overcorrect certain bugbears which annoy you. I'm pretty sure I share this vice.
cgc373: /ˈlɪnʌks/ not /ˈlaɪnʌks/
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:59 PM on September 4, 2006
No. You're taking descriptivism to an absurd absolutist extreme. I can only guess it's a reactionary impulse to equally absurd rampant absolutist prescriptivism.
Your argument would seem to apply to personal names and I think there it shows its fault. My argument pointed to a prescriptivist position when there truly is some sort of authority. An individual "owns" his own name, they are the authority on its pronunciation. The majority may pronounce it otherwise; that doesn't make them correct. Similarly, my argument claims that technical nomenclature is quite a bit more like personal names than it is to other ordinary language. And both my argument and the similar argument for personal names requires a recent coinage and a limited usage centered upon the context where it was coined. It should be noted that even personal names can move from this limited realm with this obvious authority to one without it. As the usage moves farther away in both time and direct relationship from its coinage, the primary context shifts to the same descriptivist context as most language. This is true, for example, of most widely known historical names. The utility of the names lies largest in the context of its shared comprehension independent of when and where the word was coined. When Shakespeare was alive his name belonged to himself, its utility (by far) found in its personal use and use directly related to his person. Today, not at all.
Anyway, to sum up, my argument relies upon both an assertion that there's an authority (implied by a sort of ownership) attribute of technical nomenclature that most other language lacks and that technical language qualitatively differs from ordinary language by the context of its use. Thus I think it's an exception to the descriptivist rule.
It's sort of amusing to see what appears, at least in this thread, to be a dogmatic descriptivist. I think it's more likely an example of a certain weakness of yours, which is to overcorrect certain bugbears which annoy you. I'm pretty sure I share this vice.
cgc373: /ˈlɪnʌks/ not /ˈlaɪnʌks/
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:59 PM on September 4, 2006
I pronounce Linux as "Windows Junior" and jpg as "juh-puh-guh". It's all cromulent.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:00 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 2:00 PM on September 4, 2006
I suppose I should say more about Linux for those who may care but don't know the details.
There is also the possibility of /ˈlɪːnɤks/, "lee-nicks", which is to some ears closer to how Torvalds speaks his own name. However, of course Linux isn't the Finnish Linus, Torvald's name alone can't be our guide because they are simply not the same word. Furthermore, that Finnish vowel "i" in his name doesn't directly translate to an English vowel, either. It's somewhere in between "leen" and "lin".
However, we know that Torvald prefers "lin-ix". And there's a good reason for this: Torvalds began creating his OS as his own personal alternative to Minix, a popular academic flavor of Unix that predominated at the time.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:13 PM on September 4, 2006
There is also the possibility of /ˈlɪːnɤks/, "lee-nicks", which is to some ears closer to how Torvalds speaks his own name. However, of course Linux isn't the Finnish Linus, Torvald's name alone can't be our guide because they are simply not the same word. Furthermore, that Finnish vowel "i" in his name doesn't directly translate to an English vowel, either. It's somewhere in between "leen" and "lin".
However, we know that Torvald prefers "lin-ix". And there's a good reason for this: Torvalds began creating his OS as his own personal alternative to Minix, a popular academic flavor of Unix that predominated at the time.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:13 PM on September 4, 2006
Thanks, Ethereal Bligh.
And: MetaFilter: I'm pretty sure I share this vice.
posted by cgc373 at 2:15 PM on September 4, 2006
And: MetaFilter: I'm pretty sure I share this vice.
posted by cgc373 at 2:15 PM on September 4, 2006
there's an authority (implied by a sort of ownership) attribute of technical nomenclature that most other language lacks and that technical language qualitatively differs from ordinary language by the context of its use
i'm pretty sure that when it shows up in a song about shitting elephants, it's left the realm of technical and is now in the colloquial. don't you think?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 2:27 PM on September 4, 2006
i'm pretty sure that when it shows up in a song about shitting elephants, it's left the realm of technical and is now in the colloquial. don't you think?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 2:27 PM on September 4, 2006
JIF vs GIF
...Well at least this isn't as bad as the time I mispronounced JPEG, Six men died and they still haven't put out the fire...
Sigh.
posted by French Fry at 3:25 PM on September 4, 2006
...Well at least this isn't as bad as the time I mispronounced JPEG, Six men died and they still haven't put out the fire...
Sigh.
posted by French Fry at 3:25 PM on September 4, 2006
I still don't see how you got "gay page" out of that, dyslexia or not.
posted by cortex at 3:34 PM on September 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex at 3:34 PM on September 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
Is this some kind of weird, brother-on-brother action?
posted by cgc373 at 3:46 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 3:46 PM on September 4, 2006
gay page? LOL! :)
You're totally in the right on the pronunciation of GIF – I generally only hear the gift version from n00bs who've never heard it spoken aloud before.
posted by blasdelf at 3:49 PM on September 4, 2006
You're totally in the right on the pronunciation of GIF – I generally only hear the gift version from n00bs who've never heard it spoken aloud before.
posted by blasdelf at 3:49 PM on September 4, 2006
GEighPayJ, makes sense to me.
posted by sonofsamiam at 4:02 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 4:02 PM on September 4, 2006
Are you seriously going to say that if Linus Torvalds stood on your coffee table and said "I'd prefer that you pronounced it lee-nux," you'd point him to statistics showing that he was wrong?
Yes, I seriously am. And if I invent a word "glaber" and insist it's to be pronounced to rhyme with robber but everybody who uses it pronounces it to rhyme with saber, then that's how it's pronounced, and if I can't accept it and go around bitching about how nobody but me can pronounce the word, I'm an idiot and deserve to lead a wretched, unhappy life.
You're totally in the right on the pronunciation of GIF – I generally only hear the gift version from n00bs who've never heard it spoken aloud before.
Are you paying attention? Seventy percent of the population says it with hard g. Time to recalibrate your prejudices.
Your argument would seem to apply to personal names
It most certainly would not, and the fact that someone as generally sensible as you can even make that argument saddens me. But at the moment I have neither the time nor the energy to deliver yet another rant about the matter, so go ahead and glory in your triumph over the dogmatic descriptivist. It's really amazing how hard it is for people to grasp what seem to me utterly simple concepts. I know that's going to come across as condescending, but maybe if all you techies can translate it into your own terms, you'll see that it's just like IT types getting fed up with users who can't figure out they should have plugged in the computer. Just for fun, I'll say it once more and go do actual work: languages belong to their users and nobody else, not even Linus Torwald. He gets one vote, just like the rest of us.
posted by languagehat at 4:40 PM on September 4, 2006
Yes, I seriously am. And if I invent a word "glaber" and insist it's to be pronounced to rhyme with robber but everybody who uses it pronounces it to rhyme with saber, then that's how it's pronounced, and if I can't accept it and go around bitching about how nobody but me can pronounce the word, I'm an idiot and deserve to lead a wretched, unhappy life.
You're totally in the right on the pronunciation of GIF – I generally only hear the gift version from n00bs who've never heard it spoken aloud before.
Are you paying attention? Seventy percent of the population says it with hard g. Time to recalibrate your prejudices.
Your argument would seem to apply to personal names
It most certainly would not, and the fact that someone as generally sensible as you can even make that argument saddens me. But at the moment I have neither the time nor the energy to deliver yet another rant about the matter, so go ahead and glory in your triumph over the dogmatic descriptivist. It's really amazing how hard it is for people to grasp what seem to me utterly simple concepts. I know that's going to come across as condescending, but maybe if all you techies can translate it into your own terms, you'll see that it's just like IT types getting fed up with users who can't figure out they should have plugged in the computer. Just for fun, I'll say it once more and go do actual work: languages belong to their users and nobody else, not even Linus Torwald. He gets one vote, just like the rest of us.
posted by languagehat at 4:40 PM on September 4, 2006
well, as long as we're bickering linguistically, I always hear "mathowie" in my head as "maðowie", not "maÞowie"
posted by boo_radley at 4:50 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 4:50 PM on September 4, 2006
Okay, wait. I agree that "languages belong to their users and nobody else," but I also agree that people can pronounce their names how-some-ever they choose to do so. If somebody says their name in a particular way, they ought to be able to request and to expect others to say their name their way, as a matter of personal preference and of courtesy, if nothing else.
So if Ethereal Bligh's argument-by-extension holds, where personal names and the preferential pronunciation thereof map somehow onto "the 'technical nomenclature' rule,", and Linus Torvalds magically appears upon my desktop and asks me to pronounce Linux LEE-nuks, I think I'm pretty justified in saying, "Uh, too many people say LIN-uks now, Linus, and I can't even pronounce your first name the way you do, so I have to go with the flow, and say no, sorry," to him. But if he appears and asks me to pronounce his first name LYE-nyoos, because he likes the way it sounds, I'd go along with it.
And I think Ethereal Bligh is saying that, since there's a record of the GIF guys saying JIF, we have an obligation to use their preferred pronunciation. I don't agree, because the pronunciation has been "in the wild" too long, but if a novel technology comes along and its inventors want us to pronounce it WEE even if it's written Wii (for whatever ridiculous reason) I guess we will, for a while, anyway.
posted by cgc373 at 5:14 PM on September 4, 2006
So if Ethereal Bligh's argument-by-extension holds, where personal names and the preferential pronunciation thereof map somehow onto "the 'technical nomenclature' rule,", and Linus Torvalds magically appears upon my desktop and asks me to pronounce Linux LEE-nuks, I think I'm pretty justified in saying, "Uh, too many people say LIN-uks now, Linus, and I can't even pronounce your first name the way you do, so I have to go with the flow, and say no, sorry," to him. But if he appears and asks me to pronounce his first name LYE-nyoos, because he likes the way it sounds, I'd go along with it.
And I think Ethereal Bligh is saying that, since there's a record of the GIF guys saying JIF, we have an obligation to use their preferred pronunciation. I don't agree, because the pronunciation has been "in the wild" too long, but if a novel technology comes along and its inventors want us to pronounce it WEE even if it's written Wii (for whatever ridiculous reason) I guess we will, for a while, anyway.
posted by cgc373 at 5:14 PM on September 4, 2006
Good song though.
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:31 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:31 PM on September 4, 2006
if a novel technology comes along and its inventors want us to pronounce it WEE even if it's written Wii (for whatever ridiculous reason)
Well, for one thing, that pronunciation is totally consistent with the standard romanization of Japanese.
Good song though.
There was a song?
posted by cortex at 5:35 PM on September 4, 2006
Well, for one thing, that pronunciation is totally consistent with the standard romanization of Japanese.
Good song though.
There was a song?
posted by cortex at 5:35 PM on September 4, 2006
Jig a what?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:38 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:38 PM on September 4, 2006
If somebody says their name in a particular way, they ought to be able to request and to expect others to say their name their way, as a matter of personal preference and of courtesy, if nothing else.
I completely agree.
So if Ethereal Bligh's argument-by-extension holds
But it doesn't. It makes no sense at all. It's like saying "If you accept that people have a right to have their names pronounced they way they say them, then they have a right to tell you who to vote for." Personal names and common nouns are entirely different sorts of entities, and I would have thought that a guy who's studied as much philosophy as EB would have no problem with that concept.
I think I'm pretty justified in saying, "Uh, too many people say LIN-uks now, Linus..."
Well, exactly.
posted by languagehat at 5:39 PM on September 4, 2006
I completely agree.
So if Ethereal Bligh's argument-by-extension holds
But it doesn't. It makes no sense at all. It's like saying "If you accept that people have a right to have their names pronounced they way they say them, then they have a right to tell you who to vote for." Personal names and common nouns are entirely different sorts of entities, and I would have thought that a guy who's studied as much philosophy as EB would have no problem with that concept.
I think I'm pretty justified in saying, "Uh, too many people say LIN-uks now, Linus..."
Well, exactly.
posted by languagehat at 5:39 PM on September 4, 2006
Oh, sure, cortex, if you want to let the Japanese decide how to say it. Fine.
*goes off in a huff*
posted by cgc373 at 5:52 PM on September 4, 2006
*goes off in a huff*
posted by cgc373 at 5:52 PM on September 4, 2006
I bet this argument would be even funnier were it conducted using your real voices, not type on a page.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:59 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 5:59 PM on September 4, 2006
"And I think Ethereal Bligh is saying that..."
I'm saying that there are good reasons that a person gets to determine how their own name is pronounced and the same reasons are true for technical nomenclature. It's because these words are closer to mathematical symbols than they are to common language. This is why personal names and technical words are less often translated from their supposed native language than regular words. It's because they have less need to be. Their referrent is very direct, the context limited. That is the functional part of my argument. The ownership part of the argument is just its flip-side. (That a sort of ownership intuitively exists, that it is possible, is the hint that there is some qualitative distinction between these words and ordinary words. But the real insight is when you realize how relatively extraordinarily limited is the context for usage of both personal names and technical nomenclature.)
To expand on this a bit, note that technical nomenclature, like personal names, have their utility deeply bound up with the users being in good sorts with the "gatekeepers", those who also happen to be the ones who invent the language and define its usage. Because of this, unlike in the case of ordinary language, usage can be—and is—carefully controlled. With ordinary language, those who have any reason to use it are also in charge, collectively, of the utility of its use.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:06 PM on September 4, 2006
I'm saying that there are good reasons that a person gets to determine how their own name is pronounced and the same reasons are true for technical nomenclature. It's because these words are closer to mathematical symbols than they are to common language. This is why personal names and technical words are less often translated from their supposed native language than regular words. It's because they have less need to be. Their referrent is very direct, the context limited. That is the functional part of my argument. The ownership part of the argument is just its flip-side. (That a sort of ownership intuitively exists, that it is possible, is the hint that there is some qualitative distinction between these words and ordinary words. But the real insight is when you realize how relatively extraordinarily limited is the context for usage of both personal names and technical nomenclature.)
To expand on this a bit, note that technical nomenclature, like personal names, have their utility deeply bound up with the users being in good sorts with the "gatekeepers", those who also happen to be the ones who invent the language and define its usage. Because of this, unlike in the case of ordinary language, usage can be—and is—carefully controlled. With ordinary language, those who have any reason to use it are also in charge, collectively, of the utility of its use.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:06 PM on September 4, 2006
"Personal names and common nouns are entirely different sorts of entities, and I would have thought that a guy who's studied as much philosophy as EB would have no problem with that concept."
Or, alternatively, perhaps I never claimed that personal names and common nouns were the same. Perhaps I have enough philosophy that I choose my words carefully and it was no accident that I wrote technical nomenclature over fifteen times. Perhaps I have enough philosophy that from the beginning I made specific arguments for why technical nomenclature shares an unusual characteristic with personal names that makes them both unlike common language in an important respect.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:13 PM on September 4, 2006
Or, alternatively, perhaps I never claimed that personal names and common nouns were the same. Perhaps I have enough philosophy that I choose my words carefully and it was no accident that I wrote technical nomenclature over fifteen times. Perhaps I have enough philosophy that from the beginning I made specific arguments for why technical nomenclature shares an unusual characteristic with personal names that makes them both unlike common language in an important respect.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:13 PM on September 4, 2006
Oh: And one day someone is going to write a book about you.
posted by absalom at 6:45 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by absalom at 6:45 PM on September 4, 2006
BTW, the musical MetaMegaMagnumOpusVegeMin that is "Mathowie's Community Blog" IS the absolute
Bestest.
Of.
The.
Web.
Evar!!!11!!
posted by wendell at 7:04 PM on September 4, 2006
Bestest.
Of.
The.
Web.
Evar!!!11!!
posted by wendell at 7:04 PM on September 4, 2006
The way I'm reading languagehat and Ethereal Bligh, it sounds as if languagehat gives the idea of technical nomenclature far less latitude than Ethereal Bligh does, which makes sense, since EB made up the term as a way to make the point about a type of common noun subject more closely to the rules governing personal names than to ordinary nouns. EB isn't even talking about ordinary nouns; he's talking about technical nomenclature.
I think EB has a pretty good point about the way a newly introduced technical word works, functionally, and I'd agree to pronounce GIF as JIF if I'd been at some conference where the term was introduced. I expect languagehat would have done so, as well. The only disagreement I can see is, EB would still pronounce it according to its inventors' rules, and languagehat and I wouldn't, preferring to go with the more widely used pronunciation.
posted by cgc373 at 7:13 PM on September 4, 2006
I think EB has a pretty good point about the way a newly introduced technical word works, functionally, and I'd agree to pronounce GIF as JIF if I'd been at some conference where the term was introduced. I expect languagehat would have done so, as well. The only disagreement I can see is, EB would still pronounce it according to its inventors' rules, and languagehat and I wouldn't, preferring to go with the more widely used pronunciation.
posted by cgc373 at 7:13 PM on September 4, 2006
Who gives a flying fuck about "GIF" or "Linux", I've always (internally) proncounced Mathowie: "Math-ow-ee".
posted by signal at 7:36 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by signal at 7:36 PM on September 4, 2006
But have you ever been to #1's user page, signal?
Anyway, when it was time to get my first shell account and email address in college, I wanted a phonetic version of my name, to remind people. It was an old VAX system, and had a max character limit of 8, so I couldn't get "matt_howie" or "matthowie" and instead had to smash it down to "mathowie." I thought it was self-explanatory, but I more often heard "Math Owie? Is that like some sort of algebra injury?" But no, it's just "Matt Haughey," spelled phonetically, and crammed into eight letters.posted by cgc373 at 7:41 PM on September 4, 2006
Is this the world's longest derail?
I accidently posted my comment in the wrong thread, so here it is again (mine's actually about the song):
It's scenarios like this that make me lament the fact I play music for a living and have no time to do it for fun.
Though I suppose that drunken crowds and willing women ten years my junior does qualify as fun, I suppose.
posted by sourwookie at 8:30 PM on September 4, 2006
I accidently posted my comment in the wrong thread, so here it is again (mine's actually about the song):
It's scenarios like this that make me lament the fact I play music for a living and have no time to do it for fun.
Though I suppose that drunken crowds and willing women ten years my junior does qualify as fun, I suppose.
posted by sourwookie at 8:30 PM on September 4, 2006
cgc373: mathowie has ascended into the technical nomenclature.
posted by mullacc at 8:40 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by mullacc at 8:40 PM on September 4, 2006
GIF is pronounced with a hard 'G', since the first word is Graphics (which is, incidentally, not pronounced Giraffe-ix).
I heard that Linux was supposed to be pronounced Line-ux. But that's just silly.
Also, SQL is usually pronounced S-Q-L, except for the times when people pronounce it like "Sequel." If you find you have to say 'SQL" more than a couple of times in a single sentence, try and mix 'em up a bit so people think you think they're two separate things.
Similarly, OGNL is pronounced O-G-N-L, and not "ahgunul," which sounds like a person being strangled.
Apparently, the term "long-lived" is supposed to be pronounced "long lye-ved." While there is disagreement over this issue, there is universal agreement that "long-lye-ved" certainly sounds more stupid.
Finally, ridiculous is not spelled rediculous.
That is all.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:07 PM on September 4, 2006
I heard that Linux was supposed to be pronounced Line-ux. But that's just silly.
Also, SQL is usually pronounced S-Q-L, except for the times when people pronounce it like "Sequel." If you find you have to say 'SQL" more than a couple of times in a single sentence, try and mix 'em up a bit so people think you think they're two separate things.
Similarly, OGNL is pronounced O-G-N-L, and not "ahgunul," which sounds like a person being strangled.
Apparently, the term "long-lived" is supposed to be pronounced "long lye-ved." While there is disagreement over this issue, there is universal agreement that "long-lye-ved" certainly sounds more stupid.
Finally, ridiculous is not spelled rediculous.
That is all.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:07 PM on September 4, 2006
Popeosterous.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:11 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:11 PM on September 4, 2006
Astro Zombie, are you in the right thread? Pope-chucking, etc., are a ways off, anymore.
posted by cgc373 at 10:17 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 10:17 PM on September 4, 2006
I'm a fan.
posted by persona non grata at 10:55 PM on September 4, 2006
posted by persona non grata at 10:55 PM on September 4, 2006
I take my pope talk where it is needed.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:25 AM on September 5, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:25 AM on September 5, 2006
It sounds as if languagehat gives the idea of technical nomenclature far less latitude than Ethereal Bligh does, which makes sense, since EB made up the term as a way to make the point about a type of common noun subject more closely to the rules governing personal names than to ordinary nouns.
Ayup.
EB isn't even talking about ordinary nouns; he's talking about technical nomenclature.
See, if you create some fake distinction and get people to talk about it as if it were real, you can pull all sorts of rabbits out of hats. There are, for these purposes, only two types of nouns: those that refer to a unique person, and thus are in some meaningful sense "owned" by that person (I can decide how my own name should be rendered), and those that refer to entities out there in the world, which are owned by whoever wants to talk about those entities. The word gif is not any different, linguistically, than the word gift. You can say "Look at that gif" and "Look at that gift"; the fact that the former is used more by techies at present is utterly irrelevant to what we're talking about here. The only relevant fact is how the people who actually use the word (whoever they are) say it. If scientists say some Greek-derived word in a way that makes my head hurt (as someone who has studied Greek), I'll just have to take an aspirin, because they're the ones who use it. I could say "Well, it's a Greek word, so scholars of Greek should be able to tell everyone how to say it," but I'd be wasting my breath. Once a word is out there, it's free for use by anyone who wants to use it, and if those users collectively tend to say it a certain way, then that's its pronunciation. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.
posted by languagehat at 6:05 AM on September 5, 2006
Ayup.
EB isn't even talking about ordinary nouns; he's talking about technical nomenclature.
See, if you create some fake distinction and get people to talk about it as if it were real, you can pull all sorts of rabbits out of hats. There are, for these purposes, only two types of nouns: those that refer to a unique person, and thus are in some meaningful sense "owned" by that person (I can decide how my own name should be rendered), and those that refer to entities out there in the world, which are owned by whoever wants to talk about those entities. The word gif is not any different, linguistically, than the word gift. You can say "Look at that gif" and "Look at that gift"; the fact that the former is used more by techies at present is utterly irrelevant to what we're talking about here. The only relevant fact is how the people who actually use the word (whoever they are) say it. If scientists say some Greek-derived word in a way that makes my head hurt (as someone who has studied Greek), I'll just have to take an aspirin, because they're the ones who use it. I could say "Well, it's a Greek word, so scholars of Greek should be able to tell everyone how to say it," but I'd be wasting my breath. Once a word is out there, it's free for use by anyone who wants to use it, and if those users collectively tend to say it a certain way, then that's its pronunciation. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.
posted by languagehat at 6:05 AM on September 5, 2006
I hereby proclaim It's Raining Florence Henderson, cortex, and French Fry to be the Triumvirate of Metafilter, and offer my man-womb to bear their seed.
posted by UKnowForKids at 7:23 AM on September 5, 2006
posted by UKnowForKids at 7:23 AM on September 5, 2006
I personally did not hear it ever pronounced with a hard g until only a few years ago. For a decade before that it had been widely jif, and the confusion only began relatively recently with the influx of newbies who've never heard it out loud before. This is a substantial dimension of he issue that you've been ignoring, languagehat.
And people who think GIF needs a hard G because the G stands for Graphics – The P in JPEG stands for Photographic – do you pronounce it as jay-pheg accordingly?
posted by blasdelf at 7:28 AM on September 5, 2006
And people who think GIF needs a hard G because the G stands for Graphics – The P in JPEG stands for Photographic – do you pronounce it as jay-pheg accordingly?
posted by blasdelf at 7:28 AM on September 5, 2006
"There are, for these purposes, only two types of nouns: those that refer to a unique person, and thus are in some meaningful sense 'owned' by that person (I can decide how my own name should be rendered), and those that refer to entities out there in the world, which are owned by whoever wants to talk about those entities."
You're not even attempting to make an argument for the distinction you're assuming, aside from a tautology (I own it, therefore I can decide how it's pronounced, therefore I own it). On the other hand, I don't just assume a qualitative distinction, I construct an actual argument to show what this qualitative distinction is and why both personal names and technical nomenclature share that distinction.
You say that anyone can assume a fake distinction and make an argument. Well, yes, of course they can. I'm not.
In the end, the bottom line is that you're not actually thinking about this argument we're having. You're on autopilot. You're combining a knee-jerk attack on anything you perceive as prescriptivism with an unselfcritical long-held assumption that there's something special about personal names unique to they alone. Since you're on autopilot, you're depending upon vague appeals to authority, saying you're not going to argue the matter and then arguing the matter, condescending attacks on my acumen with a sad shake of your head, and whatever else comes to mind. Excepting, of course, an actual argument supported by any sort of evidence. So, allow me to shake my head and sadly say, "I thought better of him than this."
The simple truth is that while, yes, of course everyone on the internet thinks they're experts and will speak authoritatively about things they know nothing about, that they'll almost always be wrong, and that this is infuriating for those with actual expertise; it's also the case that a counter-phenomena happens to those experts who do constantly find themselves infuriated and filled with the need to slap down those upstart knownothings—they stop paying attention and thus assume a bit of a variety of knowthingness themselves. They no longer question what they think they know. They challenge other experts, sneeringly, before they realize the fool they think they are slapping down is not a fool. They are unable to recognize that non-experts sometimes know things, too, and sometimes make important points because, well, they're actually thinking about the subject.
We've always been on good personal terms and I know we respect each other. But I think you've used up your quota of "I think he really smart about X, but he knows jackshit about Y" condescensions which seem to assume the supposed praise allows the insult. It doesn't, really, and though I'm guilty of other kinds of insults, I don't do this to you—at least, I'm pretty sure I don't.
At any rate, I thought already several times in the last day that I cannot believe I'm arguing about this because, really, I don't care that much. I think I've made my argument and I'll let it stand. As to sparring with you about how is or is not being thick-headed, I think I've made my case there, as well.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:24 AM on September 5, 2006
You're not even attempting to make an argument for the distinction you're assuming, aside from a tautology (I own it, therefore I can decide how it's pronounced, therefore I own it). On the other hand, I don't just assume a qualitative distinction, I construct an actual argument to show what this qualitative distinction is and why both personal names and technical nomenclature share that distinction.
You say that anyone can assume a fake distinction and make an argument. Well, yes, of course they can. I'm not.
In the end, the bottom line is that you're not actually thinking about this argument we're having. You're on autopilot. You're combining a knee-jerk attack on anything you perceive as prescriptivism with an unselfcritical long-held assumption that there's something special about personal names unique to they alone. Since you're on autopilot, you're depending upon vague appeals to authority, saying you're not going to argue the matter and then arguing the matter, condescending attacks on my acumen with a sad shake of your head, and whatever else comes to mind. Excepting, of course, an actual argument supported by any sort of evidence. So, allow me to shake my head and sadly say, "I thought better of him than this."
The simple truth is that while, yes, of course everyone on the internet thinks they're experts and will speak authoritatively about things they know nothing about, that they'll almost always be wrong, and that this is infuriating for those with actual expertise; it's also the case that a counter-phenomena happens to those experts who do constantly find themselves infuriated and filled with the need to slap down those upstart knownothings—they stop paying attention and thus assume a bit of a variety of knowthingness themselves. They no longer question what they think they know. They challenge other experts, sneeringly, before they realize the fool they think they are slapping down is not a fool. They are unable to recognize that non-experts sometimes know things, too, and sometimes make important points because, well, they're actually thinking about the subject.
We've always been on good personal terms and I know we respect each other. But I think you've used up your quota of "I think he really smart about X, but he knows jackshit about Y" condescensions which seem to assume the supposed praise allows the insult. It doesn't, really, and though I'm guilty of other kinds of insults, I don't do this to you—at least, I'm pretty sure I don't.
At any rate, I thought already several times in the last day that I cannot believe I'm arguing about this because, really, I don't care that much. I think I've made my argument and I'll let it stand. As to sparring with you about how is or is not being thick-headed, I think I've made my case there, as well.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:24 AM on September 5, 2006
Y'all know URL is pronounced "earl"? No question there, eh?
posted by deborah at 10:06 AM on September 5, 2006
posted by deborah at 10:06 AM on September 5, 2006
what about giraffes then ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:11 PM on September 5, 2006
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:11 PM on September 5, 2006
Huh. I almost always say the individual letters U-R-L. Who knew?
posted by cgc373 at 2:40 PM on September 5, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 2:40 PM on September 5, 2006
cortex, you rock. Ethereal Bligh, do you have any idea just how boring you are?
posted by salmacis at 4:02 PM on September 5, 2006
posted by salmacis at 4:02 PM on September 5, 2006
In the end, the bottom line is that you're not actually thinking about this argument we're having.
Sigh. We've had this exact same discussion several times before, and it always ends up the same way: you get offended and start insulting me, assuming that I'm insulting you when all I'm doing is pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, which is not an insult but a plain fact. If I wandered into a discussion of computer animation, I wouldn't know what I was talking about, and I'd be bound to make mistakes if I was so foolish as to start throwing my intellectual weight around. The difference between you and me is that I know my limits. I know you hate to be wrong and hate to have people tell you so, but: you're wrong.
posted by languagehat at 4:04 PM on September 5, 2006
Sigh. We've had this exact same discussion several times before, and it always ends up the same way: you get offended and start insulting me, assuming that I'm insulting you when all I'm doing is pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about, which is not an insult but a plain fact. If I wandered into a discussion of computer animation, I wouldn't know what I was talking about, and I'd be bound to make mistakes if I was so foolish as to start throwing my intellectual weight around. The difference between you and me is that I know my limits. I know you hate to be wrong and hate to have people tell you so, but: you're wrong.
posted by languagehat at 4:04 PM on September 5, 2006
I almost always say the individual letters U-R-L.
Me2.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:19 PM on September 5, 2006
Me2.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:19 PM on September 5, 2006
Do you pronounce "varchar" VARE-CARE or VARR-CHAR?
posted by matildaben at 4:22 PM on September 5, 2006
posted by matildaben at 4:22 PM on September 5, 2006
I think you mean "lol sequel".
posted by cillit bang at 5:26 PM on September 5, 2006
posted by cillit bang at 5:26 PM on September 5, 2006
It's blatantly pronounced gif.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 5:33 PM on September 5, 2006
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 5:33 PM on September 5, 2006
Actually, you don't even really own your own name. I used, for a long time, to point out to people that shortened my name that I disliked being called "Jon" (my full name is Jonathan), largely because my Dad is called John, and as a then-quite-insecure teen/young adult, I wanted to maintain a little distance between our names.
Of course, people kept shortening it anyway, just as I would have if they were called Benjamin or Daniel. I objected for a while, but eventually it seemed prissy and overbearing to keep insisting on the full 3 syllables. So I stopped, and caved into the majority usage, "right way" or no.
I like it now.
It's a hard G on the GIF, by the way.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 6:03 PM on September 5, 2006
Of course, people kept shortening it anyway, just as I would have if they were called Benjamin or Daniel. I objected for a while, but eventually it seemed prissy and overbearing to keep insisting on the full 3 syllables. So I stopped, and caved into the majority usage, "right way" or no.
I like it now.
It's a hard G on the GIF, by the way.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 6:03 PM on September 5, 2006
This is a substantial dimension of he issue that you've been ignoring, languagehat.
Uh, I've been internet'n since before there was internet'n (we called it BBS'n—that's B-B-S'n, not buhhbus'n), and it has always been hard-g GIF.
Also, WWIV is pronounced World War Four, not Double-you-double-you-eye-vee.
And SysOp is siss-op, not, for the love of all that is fucking holy, Seyes-Op. Man did that shit bug me.
Finally bps is always pronounced baud. But fps is not pronounced faud.
This concludes today's stroll down memory lane.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:13 PM on September 5, 2006
Uh, I've been internet'n since before there was internet'n (we called it BBS'n—that's B-B-S'n, not buhhbus'n), and it has always been hard-g GIF.
Also, WWIV is pronounced World War Four, not Double-you-double-you-eye-vee.
And SysOp is siss-op, not, for the love of all that is fucking holy, Seyes-Op. Man did that shit bug me.
Finally bps is always pronounced baud. But fps is not pronounced faud.
This concludes today's stroll down memory lane.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:13 PM on September 5, 2006
Just as RBOC is pronounced pirate style, ASCII is pronounced ask-eee and my name is pronounced with a fucking sincere smile the next time you say it, you buncha chiefs. Good ass song, by the bye.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:06 PM on September 5, 2006
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:06 PM on September 5, 2006
Oh, and it's sug as in sugar and hrue as in rue the fucking day.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:20 PM on September 5, 2006
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:20 PM on September 5, 2006
Actually, you don't even really own your own name. I used, for a long time, to point out to people that shortened my name that I disliked being called "Jon"
Yeah, nobody listened to me either when I informed that that my name is correctly prefaced with "Your Excellency, Lord Admiral of the Ocean Seas, Avatar of the Godhead Among Mortal Men, the Right Reverend." Fuckers.
Also, the only people with any business pronouncing the letter 'V' as /w/ when quoting Latin are at least a thousand years dead, so please stop correcting me on this, OK?
And, it's a trick question. The correct pronunciation is U-R-I.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:49 PM on September 5, 2006
Yeah, nobody listened to me either when I informed that that my name is correctly prefaced with "Your Excellency, Lord Admiral of the Ocean Seas, Avatar of the Godhead Among Mortal Men, the Right Reverend." Fuckers.
Also, the only people with any business pronouncing the letter 'V' as /w/ when quoting Latin are at least a thousand years dead, so please stop correcting me on this, OK?
And, it's a trick question. The correct pronunciation is U-R-I.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:49 PM on September 5, 2006
...Avatar Of The Godhead Among Mortal Men...
Yes, that was sort of my point. You don't own your name at all, society just lends you a copy for a bit. If you start fucking about with it too much, they take it right back. Just look at Prince.
No, actually, don't,.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 9:40 PM on September 5, 2006
Yes, that was sort of my point. You don't own your name at all, society just lends you a copy for a bit. If you start fucking about with it too much, they take it right back. Just look at Prince.
No, actually, don't,.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 9:40 PM on September 5, 2006
Uh oh...
Looks like someone took it literally.
Great, now I have one more thing to google periodically.
posted by ktrey at 10:21 PM on September 5, 2006
Looks like someone took it literally.
Great, now I have one more thing to google periodically.
posted by ktrey at 10:21 PM on September 5, 2006
crash, that's compelling but it is clearly not animated.
posted by cortex at 6:50 AM on September 6, 2006
posted by cortex at 6:50 AM on September 6, 2006
Yeah, and it's a jpg too, but I have a limited number of tools at my disposal here.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:55 AM on September 6, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:55 AM on September 6, 2006
Oh, come on. There's something like fifty tools in this thread alone.
posted by cortex at 7:34 AM on September 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex at 7:34 AM on September 6, 2006 [1 favorite]
Fantastic job. Can we have an opera next? - yeti
Taking the initiative to write the libretto will increase the chances of making your dreams come true.
When I hear somebody saying it differently from the way I say it, I wonder sometimes where they learned it, - cgc373
Because pretty much everything I know about computers and the internet (much less than many here, much more than my friends, co-workers, and family) is self-taught, I've had to decide for myself how to pronounce all of it, because I learned it all from reading and from text-based discussions, not from verbal ones.
overcorrect certain bugbears which annoy you. I'm pretty sure I share this vice. - Ethereal Bligh
Based upon my emperical research (skimming over your posts here for the last 2 years or so - Yes. How very self-aware of you.
I've always (internally) proncounced Mathowie: "Math-ow-ee". - signal
Me too, even though I'm aware of the explanation on his userpage.
Also, I pronounce GIF like "jiffy" probably because of my own mental association of JPEG (which I pronounce "jay-peg") and GIF. Because I know you were all holding your breath wait for me to weigh in.
posted by raedyn at 8:47 AM on September 6, 2006
Taking the initiative to write the libretto will increase the chances of making your dreams come true.
When I hear somebody saying it differently from the way I say it, I wonder sometimes where they learned it, - cgc373
Because pretty much everything I know about computers and the internet (much less than many here, much more than my friends, co-workers, and family) is self-taught, I've had to decide for myself how to pronounce all of it, because I learned it all from reading and from text-based discussions, not from verbal ones.
overcorrect certain bugbears which annoy you. I'm pretty sure I share this vice. - Ethereal Bligh
Based upon my emperical research (skimming over your posts here for the last 2 years or so - Yes. How very self-aware of you.
I've always (internally) proncounced Mathowie: "Math-ow-ee". - signal
Me too, even though I'm aware of the explanation on his userpage.
Also, I pronounce GIF like "jiffy" probably because of my own mental association of JPEG (which I pronounce "jay-peg") and GIF. Because I know you were all holding your breath wait for me to weigh in.
posted by raedyn at 8:47 AM on September 6, 2006
Whew! Now that raedyn has weighed in, this thread can be closed.
Next time, don't keep us waiting so long. :)
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:16 PM on September 6, 2006
Next time, don't keep us waiting so long. :)
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:16 PM on September 6, 2006
The libretto is written. I just need someone to transcribe it out of my mind. There are 41,566 main characters and it's rife with intrigue, mistaken identities, jilted anonymous lovers, and a finale whereby the Count Mathowie exacts his revenge!
posted by yeti at 2:12 PM on September 6, 2006
posted by yeti at 2:12 PM on September 6, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by cortex at 11:05 PM on September 3, 2006