Showing posts with label Brit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brit. Show all posts

Monday, October 3, 2011

fabulous english country house libraries

which one would you like?

(no. you can't have them all.) 

I know one thing: my english desk (i think it's a partner's pedestal) would fit right in and feel right at home in any one of these room--even standing in the middle of one. Especially standing in the middle of one. 

More fab libraries here.

 

Monday, August 15, 2011

mosaic of coolness

A lovely mosaic of Virginia Woolf's covers designed by Vanessa Bell--her sister.

0tumblr_lk7q7wxqwj1qdps4co1_500

via Woolfwriter via Maidontheshore

Monday, August 8, 2011

proudly clogging up arteries + inboxes...

Spamreg
SPAM was invented in 1937 by Hormel Foods (found at www.spam.com). It is pre-cooked port and ham in a can and was called "Hormel Spiced Ham" originally but the name didn't stick so they held a contest to rename the affordable meat product. The winning name was SPAM.

What does it stand for? 

In Britain it was a popular wartime food and they called it "Specially Processed American Meat" or "Supply Pressed American Meat" (yum). But there are other theories for what the acronym stands for...

"Something Posing As Meat" or

"Spare Parts Animal Meat"

(why not come up with your own??)

155554663_89beb0ac63
Then of course there's the famous Monty Python sketch...

Even after the poor woman tells the cafe she doesn't want spam, can't stand spam, hates spam--it is relentless, it just keeps coming... and that's how we got the name for that other thing that's relentless, that just keeps coming even when we don't want it, can't stand it, hate it--spam in our inboxes.

 

Monday, July 25, 2011

Americanisms and The Queen's English

_54048011_mont_getty_464

The BBC did an article all about why Americanisms are so irritating (here) and then did a column (here) where people in Britain were invited to write in with their least favorite Americanisms--their pet peeves.

The Economist then followed up with another one that showed that at least 20% of them were British in origin (here)

In the end it seems that what all of this really shows up is this: the anti Americanism in the UK that believes if something is ugly it must have come from the States...

Here's the text from the Johnson column in The Economist this week (LOVE it!):
___________________________________________________________________________

...never let facts get in the way of a good rant. let the peeving being! The BBC published a top 50. The original peeve is in bold; I've removed the peevers' names and added my comments:

The next time someone tells you something is the "least worst option", tell them that their most best option is learning grammar.  

Besides the fact that the double comparative/superlative had a long life in English ("the most straitest sect of our religion", Acts 26:5, KJV, for example), this is obviously playful, not ignorant.  

To "wait on" instead of "wait for" when you're not a waiter - once read a friend's comment about being in a station waiting on a train.  

Yes, to "wait on" also means to be a waiter, but writers from Chaucer to Milton to George Eliot used "to wait on" in various senses including "to observe", "to lie in wait for", "to await" and more. 

Is "physicality" a real word?  

Yes, first noted in a book published in London in 1827. 

Transportation. What's wrong with Transport?

Nothing. What's wrong with transportation? Brist prefer "to orientate oneself", Americans prefer "to orient oneself". Not worse, just different.

What kind of word is "gotten"? It makes me shudder. 

It is the original past participle, from old Norse getenn, now obsolete in English English, but surviving in America. Participial "got" is the newcomer.

"I'm good" for "I'm well". That'll do for a start.  
 
That'll do what?  Linking verbs including "am" take adjectives, not adverbs. "I'm healthy," not "I'm healthily." There's nothing wrong with "I'm well", since "well" is also an adjective, but nothing wrong with "I'm good" either.
_54041131_flagstogether_getty
"Oftentimes" just makes me shiver with annoyance. Fortunately I've not noticed it over here yet.

The OED cites six hundred years of British usage of "oftentimes", including the King James Version and Wordsworth. 

"Hike" a price. Does that mean people who do that are hikers? No, hikers are ramblers!  

And words sometimes have multiple meanings!

 Going forward? If I do I shall collide with my keyboard.  

If you cannot understand metaphorical language, colliding with your keyboard is the least of your worries.  A visit to the neurologist may be in order. 

 The most annoying Americanism is "a million and a half" when it is clearly one and a half million! A million and a half is 1,000,000.5 where one and a half million is 1,500,000.   

By that logic, could "one and a half million" not be 1 + 500,000, or 500,001?

___________________________________________________________________________

That's enough peeving on peeving. Many of these are truly Americanisms, and many are (to my eye) annoying, too.  But so many share one or more of these features: 

1) selective hyper-literalism: refusal to understand idioms as such

2) amnesia, or else the " recency illusion": A belief that something quite old is new

3) simple anti-Americanism: the belief that if something is ugly, it must have come from the states

Since Matthew Engel and the Beeb's readers had so little trouble spouting dozens and dozens of "Americanisms" they dislike (the BBC closed comments after 1,295 had arrived), and since such a high proportion seem to be false Americanisms, I propose that this is a common thing, and thus deserves its own count noun. We all know what Americanisms are. From here on, Johnson will refer to false Americanisms used to take a cheap but ill-aimed transatlantic shot as "Anti-Americanisms". 

_54048011_mont_getty_464-1

Thursday, December 30, 2010

New York Blizzard time-lapse video

in case you didn't see this... it might make you feel like you were there

(If you were sorry, you don't need reminding)

I managed to totally miss the entire storm--just back from the UK (aka The Frozen North) where I was snowed in for over a week (handily along with lashings of the best Christmas cake ever made and strong cups of tea and friends and family)

but I've made it back OK through the chaos at JFK last night and the ginormous taxi lines via subway and bus

Friday, October 29, 2010

miranda

Here's a comedian I completely adore and a clip of her in one of my all time most favorites...

I want more please

Posted via email from s@lly l-j

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

David Suchet narrates: Video 22: The Light of the Whole World



(no need to add a code, just hit ENTER and it'll play)

visit the The Jesus Storybook Bible site to learn more
buy the book: here
download audio on The Jesus Storybook Bible: Every Story Whispers His Name (Unabridged) or amazon

Friday, March 5, 2010

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Monday, February 1, 2010

Happy Birthday OED!


Today, in 1884, the first part of the first edition of the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY was published. From A to Ant.

The Philological Society of London came up with the idea of a new dictionary 30 years before. And made an agreement with Oxford University Press to publish it. They said it would take 10 years to complete and they'd do 4 volumes and it would be 6,400 pages. (Oh dear. What were they thinking?) In fact it took them 5 years just to finish the first volume--A to Ant. And in the end the dictionary took 70 years, was 10 volumes and 15,490 pages.

When I worked at OUP in Oxford, they said you could always tell who were the Dictionary People. They had a pasty underground look and scurried between buildings and wore big macintoshes (they of all people would not, I imagine, call them macks) all buttoned up and belted tight (as if this was the only thing holding everything together) with big cloudy glasses and greasy hair (who has time to wash your hair when you're compiling such a work and it's taking you your whole life to get from a to ant?).

But this was not in the 1880s of course (I'm good for my age but not that good). It was the 1980s. And well OK this is a description of only a few Dictionary Persons because those are the only ones anyone ever saw (the rest were in The Dictionary Building working of course--probably on the OED2 published in 1989 in 20 volumes). So this description is obviously a terrible generalization. Unfair. Exaggerated. Probably not true. And you shouldn't believe a word of it. After all, you don't judge a book by it's cover. Or a Dictionary even.

I like Dictionaries. And Dictionary People. Where would we be without them?

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

week 16 storytime video: The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd from Jonathan Michael on Vimeo.


(no need to add a code, just hit ENTER and it'll play)

visit the The Jesus Storybook Bible site to learn more
buy the book: here
download audio on The Jesus Storybook Bible: Every Story Whispers His Name (Unabridged) or amazon

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Monday, January 11, 2010

War Horse


This Christmas I was lucky enough to see the award-winning smash hit War Horse at the New London Theater. Based on the children's novel by Michael Morpurgo, it's a play about a plough horse commandeered by the cavalry and sent to the front in the First World War. It's a story of loyalty, bravery, and the extraordinary bond between a young recruit and his horse.

What is most incredible about this production though is the astonishing way they conjure a horse on stage: so life-like, so convincing, so minutely observed, that you totally forget it's a puppet and believe instead that what you're seeing on stage in front of you is an actual living breathing horse.

And it's not because you can't see the puppeteers. That's the odd thing. You can see them clearly at all times. And there is no effort to hide them. Each seven foot tall horse puppet is manipulated by a team of three actors: one for the back legs and tail; another for the front and neck; and another to guide the model. (In the photo above, for instance, the three on the left are the puppeteers for the young foal Joey.) But because of the realism of the movements (even down to the movement of the horses' ears) and the mastery of the puppeteers your brain simply blanks them out leaving only the horse.

It's astonishing. And magical. And powerfully moving. And of course impossible to describe--you need to see it for yourself. So take a look at this to get an idea and go if you possibly can. (If you can't make it to London, the production apparently will be in NYC sometime in 2011.)

Britain lost close to a million horses in the First World War. This play is a tribute to them. And through that lens, it also gets you to see the tragic human loss of the Great War. And feel it afresh.

(Adapted by Nick Stafford from a novel by Michael Morpurgo. The puppets were designed by the Handspring Puppet Company of South Africa. Directed by Marianne Elliott and Tom Morris, War Horse opened at the National Theater in 2007 and transferred to the West End’s New London Theatre in the spring.)

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

where AM I?

back to my site?
back to twitter?

back to my super duper blog?
Blog Widget by LinkWithin