Skip to main content

we try not to talk about uncle jack at family reunions

in case you've ever wondered, i use all lowercase letters because i find the effect more aesthetically pleasing. there's an evenness to the text that looks better than the jagged chaos caused when you start including capitals.

and if you think about it, capitalization is completely arbitrary. each language has slightly different rules for what gets capitalized and what doesn't. german insists that you capitalize every single noun. dutch used to, but realised that this was a pain and a half and got rid of it. if you ever wonder why some people think german is an ugly language, it has nothing to do with how it sounds and everything to do with the fact that it looks like it's about to poke you in the eye with its many harsh capitals.

i would also have argued that capitals don't really serve any purpose. if i say something about 'venice', is there really anyone who's going to run to the dictionary because they assume it's some word they've never seen before? no, they'll more than likely realise that i'm talking about the city. and if you want to say that it would become confusing when you were dealing with proper names that also mean something different when used as a 'regular' word, allow me to remind you that we've been using 'lead' for centuries and the language has survived. [i might also point out that 'buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo' is a grammatically correct sentence and even if you insert the capitals, there are still different meanings in the uncapitalized words.]

for all their capital letters, germans don't distinguish between saying "i eat" and "i am eating". polish doesn't even have definite and indefinite articles [the/ a]. because germans and poles are clever enough to be able to figure things out from context.

but then the poor gentleman tasked with editing the stuff i write for heathen harvest [where i do use capitals] posted this on my facebook wall this morning:


ok, maybe in this one specific instance, it might help to have access to capital letters.

or maybe, given that my family have done some pretty unsettling things, maybe i'm just happy to leave things ambiguous.

i'm still going to continue with using all lowercase letters here on more like space. but i probably won't be discussing horses. or uncle jack. let's just leave him alone. 

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …