Via Language Log, comes this urging from Helen Zille (the leader of the South African Democratic Alliance party):
While back-tracking entries in my server log, I ran across the quote that is the title of this post. It comes from Steph Swainston's The Year of Our War. Amazon has "search inside" for this book, so I was able to pull up the context. It's a fantasy, and refers to several invented languages:
From Wired Blogs comes news that HBO's Chief Technology Officer, Bob Zitter, wants us to stop using the term "DRM" (digital rights management) and start using "DCE" (digital consumer enablement) to refer to the system by which
media blood-suckers intellectual property owners make sure that we can only view their material on exactly the terms that they dictate.
If Mr. Zitter is serious he needs a crash course in semantics, and perhaps the history of English.
In comparison to the commercial SAT-prep books, the material that comes from the College Board is of much higher quality. That's not surprising, of course, since it's the College Board's test, and they get to reuse all those questions that they have spent so much time (and money) writing, editing, and validating.
When I taught linguistics-for-teachers courses, I spent a significant portion of my class time trying to get students to question their assumptions about language, assumptions that, whether they learned them in school or by general osmosis, are based on premises that linguists know to be incorrect. It always distressed me, therefore, when certain students would make it to the end of the course and drop some comment that made it clear they had internalized little of what I was trying to communicate.
I'm contemplating changing polysyllabic's tag-line to "commentary by a licensed grammarian." Oh, wait! I don't have a license. There's no license required to set yourself up as a grammarian. And it shows in the quality of material that supposedly will teach you grammar. I'm not actually a fan of requiring paper credentials for every field, but the complete lack of quality control in writing about grammar irritates me so much that I fear I'm in danger of becoming just as cranky as Goold Brown:
If you are a high school student studying for one of the big standardized tests (the SAT or the ACT), or if you are the parent of such a student, I have one important piece of advice for you: don't waste your money on commercial test prep books, especially when it comes to the material for writing.
Today, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, which involves a teenager who was suspended after unfurling a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school-sanctioned event.
I am something of a creature of habit, and therefore will stick to the same blogs for a long time. Lately though, I've been trying to expand my reading, and so I've been following links from the sites I frequent to language-oriented sites that I haven't visited before. In the process, I have discovered 1) Language Log really needs to update their links. At least half the sites on their sidebar are defunct.
Creative Commons has just released version 3.0 of their license, and I have relicensed everything on this site (apart from the out-of-copyright stuff, which remains public domain) with this latest license. Unless you're planning to reuse my material, that will be of no interest to you, but it does give me a chance to praise the good folks at Creative Commons for their invaluable work promoting the ideals of free culture.