Soon, the centre of the universe should be back at cenobyte.ca. The big change will be no more cenobyte.ca/words; just the root directory. I’ll let you know when that happens.
Um.
Carry on.
16 March 2010 at 11:26 am (Everything Else Drawer)
Soon, the centre of the universe should be back at cenobyte.ca. The big change will be no more cenobyte.ca/words; just the root directory. I’ll let you know when that happens.
Um.
Carry on.
10 March 2010 at 1:29 pm (piss in your eye)
Tags: Canadian Politics, Government
I just read this article about how the Saskatchewan provincial government plans to end the subsidy it provides to chiropractors. Of all the stupid decisions that the Saskatchewan goverment has made lately, this is the stupidest. I realise they have to cover their arses for the utterly irresponsible budget they passed last year that depended so heavily on one resource that even the people working in that industry thought it was irresponsible. I realise that “times are tough” and the guvviment has to, as a governing body, tighten our proverbial belt.
But listen.
Just like supporting and training midwives in the province will save millions of dollars in health care, making chiropractic care affordable prevents all kinds of patients from requiring more intensive care. Chiropractic care relieves pain, restores mobility, and improves posture.
If you’re lucky, your health plan will cover chiropractic. If you’re not lucky, you’ll now be either paying out of pocket for chiropractic care, or you’ll be waiting longer to see specialists and surgeons.
So. Bad move, SaskParty. Bad, bad move. I was tempted, you know, to think about voting for you. But where are our midwives? THREE YEARS before a licensed midwife will be practising in Regina? And now you take away chiropractic care? Bad move in an election year. Dummies.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/03/10/sk-chiropractors-1003.html
8 March 2010 at 1:05 pm (piss in your eye)
Tags: nekkit
You know what really gets me? What really gets me is when you’re at the pool or the gym or something and you go to change because you are IN THE CHANGE ROOM and people stare at you and make little uncomfortable coughing noises because you’re naked. Or half-naked.
What, do you expect me to take my clothes into the toilet stall and put them on in there?
We all have the same equipment, people, and if you can’t handle that, then I think you have some serious problems. SERIOUS PROBLEMS. I’m not sure if you know this, but in order to change your clothes, you must at some point be naked. And there is nothing wrong with nakidity.
5 March 2010 at 7:04 am (education, Grammar, piss in your eye)
Tags: Grammar
A while back, I said something which I don’t entirely remember exactly what it was about not wanting to have the discussion about why writing the way people speak is not acceptable if the people doing the speaking are utter morons. Oh right. This is how I said it : save the ‘but that’s how people talk’ discussion for later, because you know my opinion on doing things a) simply because everyone else is doing them, and b) incorrectly.
Someone commented to me recently that it drives her mad when people use “of” instead of “have”. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly, but I don’t think so) she meant in verb phrases/tenses like “should have” and “would have” and the like. I recognise that, in spoken language, because most people are lazy, they do not annunciate well. They use what, linguistically, is called “clipping”. It’s very much like the sort of clipping done during a vasectomy, but with phonemes rather than vas deferens. It’s when you shorten the pronunciation of a segment of a word, or when you truncate a word to …well… part of its parts.
So. To be clear, this is what we’re talking about:
“Should have” becomes the contraction “should’ve”. This is pronounced (and for all you cunning linguists out there, I have opted not to use proper phonemic notation, because not everyone is a cunning linguist): shud-uv. To the lazy listener, or to someone who has forgotten grade four English, this is heard as “should of”. Now, in *speech*, it often doesn’t make much of a difference if you say “should’ve” or “should of”, unless you put a huge break in between the should and the of, a break big enough to have a little sit-down picnic in. In recent times, “should’ve” has become further clipped to shud-a, which, if I were spelling it out rather than trying to write it phonetically, would probably be spelled: “shuddah”, and some poor, hapless student of English as a second language would think it was somehow related to the word “shudder”.
As I said, it shouldn’t make *too* much of a difference in spoken language if you say “should’ve” or “should of”; it’s when you write “should of” that you become a total dolt. In spoken language, I (because I am an elitist fanatic) usually don’t use the contraction. I usually say “should have” or “could have” or “would have” (and not, for the record: shuda cuda wuda). When I’m writing, I often hear the words in my head. And, for the record, I do pronounce “should’ve” differently than I pronounce “should of”…primarily because I do not say “should of”, because it is wrong. WRONG. Wrong.
Now, my good friend Smarty Pants often trots out the following : “but that’s how people TALK.” And that’s true. They’re still wrong, those people, but that is how they talk. They *shouldn’t* talk like this, but they do. If I could hit them with sticks every time they used lax language, I would. But then you all would have to pay more for medicare, and I’d probably get lynched, and then who’d write this bournal? No one, that’s who.
I heard an advertisement on the radio once…I listen to the radio a LOT. I listen to radio more than I watch television. I love radio. So I was listening to the radio once, and the announcer said something ridiculously idiotic like : “shoulda went to blah-de-blah”. I could, can, and may continue to forgive the use of ‘shoulda’. But what I could not, would not, and will not forgive, is the use of “should have went”, which is such a blatant abuse of tense that the pegs are all bent.
Oh look. Look what you’ve done. You have me all side tracked on tense, when that’s not what I set out to talk about. Geez, you.
So, anyway, back to “should of”. It happens because what we hear isn’t always what is said. You can extrapolate this (as some of the folks playing in the LARP know from talking to me) on a much grander scale, and talk about semantics. But this happens on a much smaller scale as well. What I’m getting at is that while it is incorrect to say “would of” or “should of”, it’s understandable why it happens – that’s the way people *hear* it. The missing link in all of this is the proper education of what it *ought* to be, and that is what many people don’t know, and worse, don’t care that they don’t know.
Let me tell you something – the most successful people in the world don’t talk like no-shirt-under-overalls-wearing jug band-playing porch-side hunters. (Yes. I’m making a comment here about poverty. Folks living in poverty aren’t stupid; they just don’t get as good (or even any of) an education as folks with means) And I don’t mean ‘most successful’ in terms of who has the most money, either. I mean most successful in the brief period of time between wailing and waning. Learn to speak properly, and people will listen to you.
Correction: people will listen to what you have to say, rather than just snickering because you talk big, but don’t understand that emanate and emulate are not the same word. Neither are exacerbate and exasperate.
4 March 2010 at 8:43 am (Rants)
Gag writer defends campy closing ceremony
3 March 2010 at 8:25 am (Everything Else Drawer)
Tags: tabula rasa
We haven’t much to tell you these days.
I could talk about the streaker at city hall in the Queen’s City, but that’s already been done. I could tell you about how Canadian Members of Parliament are finally going back to work (lousy shirkers). I could talk about how miffed I am that ‘feminist’ is used as an insult. But, I’ve gone through all of these things before.
So, I’ll pose a question to you: what would *you* like me to blog about today?
1 March 2010 at 1:40 pm (Family, His Nibs)
I love you all. You know that, because I tell you all the time.
Buddy Holly, you were my first boyfriend. Coincidentally, you were also my first dead boyfriend. You know what? I’m not going to harp on little imperfections like not having a pulse.
What can I say to you, Johnny Depp? Oh! A little lower, please.
Gary Oldman, I never wanted to have to do this, but…it’s just not working out. I will always think fondly of you, and we’ll always have Sid and Nancy. I just…I’ve moved on. And really, what did you expect? You haven’t returned my calls in years. And, since you’ll probably ask anyway (yes, I do know you that well), I AM seeing someone else. Hugh Laurie. He and I share a birthday (on the BEST DAY OF THE YEAR), and, well…he’s FUNNY, Gary. He plays piano. Have you even ever SEEN his work with Stephen Fry? Yeah. Well. Not to mention in Blackadder. I think it’s hilarious, for the record, that someone who played predominantly awkward twits in Britain is cast as a brilliant dickhead in the States. Anyway, Gary Oldman…that’s why you haven’t heard from me lately. It’s because I’m with Hugh Laurie now. If y’all feel the need to engage in an EPIC CAGE-MATCH BATTLE over me, let me know. I’ll wear something more comfortable.
I know you and I have known about each other for a long time, Keith Moon, but it’s really been in the last couple of years that we’ve been getting serious about each other. And, just let me say, you make me *very happy*.
Wolverine, you’re beautiful. No one could ever replace you. And that thing you can do in Yoga because of your skeleton made of SOLID ADAMANTIUM…well, this public forum isn’t the place, but suffice it to say…wow.
You and I have spent many, many sleepless nights together, Neil Gaiman, and I think it’s obvious to everyone that as my International Literary Boyfriend, you have quite a big responsibility in our relationship. I’m not difficult to please, as you know; just remember, I’m not going to kick you out of bed for eating crackers, so please bring the tasty onion-flavoured ones next time you’re by.
Robert Kroetsch and Donald Sutherland, as my Canadian Literary and Canadian Performing Arts Boyfriends, I expect the two of you to get along. Donald, just sit nicely while Robert reads; Robert, Donald would do a Wonderful treatment of voicing your work. Also, I think both of you do the chess?
Now, the main reason I’ve mentioned all of you is because i have something to tell you. It shouldn’t surprise you, and it certainly doesn’t change anything between us.
His Nibs is pretty much unsurpassingly awesome. I love hanging out with him (you’ll know that, Keith and Johnny, because you’ve spent time with us together. **Think what you will, dear reader.**), and he pretty much rocks. Even when he’s being a jerk, I love him. You know when you have friends and they get in to a new relationship, and they’re all annoying and smoodgy and snuggly and disgustingly cheerful all over the place? Yeah. Well. I kind of turn in to a brainless teenage girl around His Nibs most of the time. Until he pisses me off.
Anyway, yeah. Doesn’t change anything. I just wanted to make sure you understand that while I love each and every one of you, His Nibs is my HUSBAND.
We can still make out, though.