Query: Tolerance for linguistic evolution
Daniel R. Reitman
actually reflect some level of linguistic evolution. Based on this,
I'm thinking of having the future characters speech written in the
form a modern English-speaker would perceive it. Among the proposed
changes are:
Phonology:
1. Application of Northern Cities Vowel Shift.
2. Unvoiced th replaced by /f/. (Sorry, I can't get Agent to
recognize the theta symbol.)
3. Voiced th replaced by /d/.
4. All stops assimilate to following /l/ by glottalizing.
Grammar:
1. Loss of apostrophe in genitive. (Would only appear in written
form.)
2. Loss of third person singular present inflection in regular
forms.
3. "They" as standard third person singular neuter pronoun.
4. "Be" before progressive as habitual aspect marker in present
tense.
5. "Tall" as positive/negative interrogative marking particle.
(Contracted from "at all.")
6. "Eh" as wh-interrogative marking particle.
Vocabulary changes have yet to be determined.
So, how much of this do people think the reader is likely to tolerate?
Dan, ad nauseam
Ric Locke
As usual, it depends on how good the story is.
cf. /A Clockwork Orange/
Regards,
Ric
R.L.
Um, how about a sample?
R.L.
Dorothy J Heydt
Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>I'm in preplanning on a time travel story in which I'd like to
>actually reflect some level of linguistic evolution. Based on this,
>I'm thinking of having the future characters speech written in the
>form a modern English-speaker would perceive it.
OK; I'll put in such reactions/suggestions as I can. Keep in
mind that I was a Linguistics major [counts on fingers] nearly
fifty years ago.
Among the proposed
>changes are:
>
>Phonology:
>
>1. Application of Northern Cities Vowel Shift.
Okay.
>2. Unvoiced th replaced by /f/. (Sorry, I can't get Agent to
>recognize the theta symbol.)
>3. Voiced th replaced by /d/.
Note: while what you suggest isn't impossible, I would've
*expected* either (a) /theta/ > /f/ and /edh/ > /v/, or
(b) /theta/ > /t/ and /edh/ > /d/. Either the spirant
(voiced or unvoiced) stays a spirant and changes its position,
or it keeps its position and changes from a spirant into a stop.
The first day I ever spent in a linguistics class, Prof. Pitkin
was about two minutes into his opening lecture when he said, with
a smile expressing sheer delight, "The thing I want to get across
to you is how *patterned* language is."
>4. All stops assimilate to following /l/ by glottalizing.
Again, that's not impossible. It's not what I would expect on
strictly phonological grounds. I would expect either (a)
palatalization, not glottalization, (b) the operation of Pitkin's
Law (same Pitkin), which states roughly, "In the environment
of [r] or [l], you get metathesis all over the place" (metathesis,
as I'm sure you know, is where two phonemes switch places) or
(c) both.
>Grammar:
>
>1. Loss of apostrophe in genitive. (Would only appear in written
>form.)
OK. Any other major or minor spelling reforms?
>2. Loss of third person singular present inflection in regular
>forms.
OK ... though e.g. African-American English runs the opposite way.
I is, you is, etc.
>3. "They" as standard third person singular neuter pronoun.
Yes, that one I can easily believe; it's been edging in for some
time now and it looks as if it's going to stay, although I
personally despise it. (I would rather be referred to as "he"
than as "they".)
>4. "Be" before progressive as habitual aspect marker in present
>tense.
As currently used in African-American English. Yes, I can see
that being generalized too. I remember having that explained to
me as "If someone says, 'the cook drunk', it means she's drunk
today. If he says 'the cook be drunk,' it means she's habitually
drunk and will probably be fired."
>5. "Tall" as positive/negative interrogative marking particle.
>(Contracted from "at all.")
Hm. Can you give an example?
>6. "Eh" as wh-interrogative marking particle.
Again, can you give an example?
Sounds as if you're coming from a combination of Great Lakes,
African-American, and Canadian. :)
>Vocabulary changes have yet to be determined.
>
>So, how much of this do people think the reader is likely to tolerate?
Hm. Quite a lot, if you're good enough ... and if you start with
simple text whose meaning can be inferred from context.
It seems to me that if you haven't already, you seriously need to
read Russell Hoban's _Riddley Walker,_ a post-apocalpse story set
in Kent, several centuries after the 1 Big 1 has destroyed
civilization, when the last of the hunter-gatherers are being
driven out of business by the herders-farmers. I found the text
not too difficult to understand, but I have a background (however
rusty) in linguistics and understand the idea of sound changes.
A sample:
Coming back with the boar on a poal we come a long by the rivver
it wer hevvyer woodit in there. Thru the girzel you cud see blue
smoak hanging in be twean the black trees and the stumnps pink
and red where they ben loppt off. Aulder trees in there and
chard coal berners in amongst them working ther harts. You could
see 1 of themn in there with his red jumper what they all ways
wear. Making chard coal for the iron reddy at Widders Dump.
Every 1 made the Bad Luck go a way syn when we past him.
Another book you might like to look at is Greer Ilene Gilman's
_Moonwise_, a very good fantasy of the someone-from-this-world-
is-translated-into-that-world type. One of the characters speaks
a Yorkshire dialect of, I think, about the sixteenth century.
You really have to use your wits to understand him ... but your
efforts will be rewarded.
A sample:
I't Wood, as they were to fell, back end of a year. By t'water I
were, all my lone, ligging i't leaves and laiking, cracking nuts.
"Will tha drink?" says no one. Lad. He were no taller nor a
bairn, all fallow, hair and hood and all, as wan's a winter leaf
i't leaves. And then t'sun leamed thruff and thruff him, bright
as t'burr round a candle. A, thowt I, wha's aloft? being
flawtered wi't light; and allt water runned away thruff me hands.
Reading those should give you, from the reader's viewpoint, a
feeling for just how much linguistic change a reader can cope
with. And they're both great books.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
James A. Donald
<drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
In small doses, like chili, no problem. Making a dish that is in
large part chili, considerably harder.
J.Pascal
David Weber changed the spelling of common proper names in _Armageddon
Reef_ and once I realized the names were "real" ones it made me nuts
because I needed to translate them and sometimes it was hard to figure
out what they were supposed to be. (I can't remember any specific
examples off-hand but it was such things as using a "zh" for "j".)
Similarly annoying was the experience of reading a book by Eric Flint
that I got from the library. A previous reader had taken a pencil
and very lightly underlined less common words and then wrote a
definition for each one in minute cursive. The first few pages were
pretty funny. A quarter of the way into the novel it was distracting
beyond measure because I had to peer at the tiny words to see how each
word was defined and decide if I thought the definition fit the
particular connotation intended in context. It was a relief when I
realized that the commentary had ceased and I was free to read the
remaining half of the novel undistracted.
I realize that on the surface the first example and the second seem to
have nothing in common and little in common with what you are
proposing. Just consider it feedback from one reader, a single data
point... I really don't want to have to do any translating. It is
fun and interesting for a very little while. After that it is only
annoying.
-Julie
Brian M. Scott
<ju...@pascal.org> wrote in
<news:4f30e4b3-7545-42f5...@d4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> David Weber changed the spelling of common proper names in
> _Armageddon Reef_
Nit: _Off Armageddon Reef_
> and once I realized the names were "real" ones it made me
> nuts because I needed to translate them and sometimes it
> was hard to figure out what they were supposed to be. (I
> can't remember any specific examples off-hand but it was
> such things as using a "zh" for "j".)
There's an added touch of realism that makes it even harder:
there appears to be some Safeholdian dialect variation.
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
<news:Kv6u1...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> In article <s878j5hvjsnopdrtm...@4ax.com>,
> Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Among the proposed changes are:
[...]
>> Grammar:
>> 1. Loss of apostrophe in genitive. (Would only appear
>> in written form.)
This isn't a grammatical change; it's purely orthographical.
[...]
>> 5. "Tall" as positive/negative interrogative marking
>> particle. (Contracted from "at all.")
> Hm. Can you give an example?
Possibly he means a question tag, like the 'no' and 'eh' in
'Clicks are ingressive, no?' and 'Better late than never,
eh?', or German <oder>, <gelt>, <nee>, etc., or French
<n'est-ce pas>.
>> 6. "Eh" as wh-interrogative marking particle.
> Again, can you give an example?
Perhaps a particle distinguishing interrogative use of
wh-words from other uses:
What eh you want?
vs.
I know what I want.
and
What a day!
That's the only interpretation that comes to mind, but it's
just a guess.
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<drei...@spiritone.com> wrote in
<news:s878j5hvjsnopdrtm...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> I'm in preplanning on a time travel story in which I'd like to
> actually reflect some level of linguistic evolution. Based on this,
> I'm thinking of having the future characters speech written in the
> form a modern English-speaker would perceive it. Among the proposed
> changes are:
You might want to take a look at
<http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/futurese.html>.
> Phonology:
> 1. Application of Northern Cities Vowel Shift.
> 2. Unvoiced th replaced by /f/. (Sorry, I can't get Agent to
> recognize the theta symbol.)
The ASCII IPA symbol is [T]; you can also use [�]. Do you
mean that Present Day English (PDE) /�/ and /f/ merge as
[f]?
> 3. Voiced th replaced by /d/.
And here that PDE /�/ and /d/ merge as [d]?
So you can knock someone out eider wif efer or wif a club?
My immediate response is the same as Dorothy's: each of
these mergers is individually reasonable, but the
combination seems a bit unlikely typologically. I can't
offhand think of a similar example, but one may yet come to
me.
> 4. All stops assimilate to following /l/ by glottalizing.
*All* stops? It's much more natural with voiceless stops,
starting with [t]; I'd be leery of extending it to voiced
stops. Glottalizing word-final voiceless stops, though,
would fit in well; many speakers do it now.
Other comments and (implied) questions appear in my response
to Dorothy.
[...]
> So, how much of this do people think the reader is likely
> to tolerate?
My guess is that most readers have a relatively low
tolerance for it, though some will treat it as a puzzle (and
may be quite unhappy if they think that your extrapolation
is too implausible).
Brian
R.L.
The old dialect is easier going for me, as I have some idea what it would
sound like, and can skim along with the rhythm (not that I'd bother to
understand it). The Widders is just trudge trudge. I have no idea of the
rhythm or sound, it just looks like bad spelling. I wouldn't read past the
first page.
I can't take Kipling's or Baum's heavy phonetic either, though.
R.L.
JF
>> So, how much of this do people think the reader is likely
>> to tolerate?
>
> My guess is that most readers have a relatively low
> tolerance for it, though some will treat it as a puzzle (and
> may be quite unhappy if they think that your extrapolation
> is too implausible).
The reception of Stewpidd Tytl by Banks might give pause.
JF
Eric Ammadon
I've read books that use invented language to dress up the same old
stuff and they usually hit the wall post-haste. I've read books that
use the same old language to present new thoughts or a different view
of the situation and those gather dust between readings. If there's
something in it worth digging out I'll work at it for as long as it
takes, but it usually doesn't take long to figure out whether it's a
keeper.
Personally, as a writer, I have my hands full finding ways to present
a story crisply. Someday I might become good enough to need a
handicap but I doubt that I have that many years left in which to
improve.
The language you describe reminds me first of what would be spoken
today in a slum in south Chicago.
--
arggh, is it priate day again?
R.L.
> Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm in preplanning on a time travel story in which I'd like to
>>actually reflect some level of linguistic evolution. Based on this,
>>I'm thinking of having the future characters speech written in the
>>form a modern English-speaker would perceive it. [....]
>>4. "Be" before progressive as habitual aspect marker in present
>>tense.
I thought that was going the other way, eg: "We be good" meaning "Our
relationshiop is good NOW" in contrast to a few minutes ago or a few
minutes in future.
>>5. "Tall" as positive/negative interrogative marking particle.
>>(Contracted from "at all.")
>>6. "Eh" as wh-interrogative marking particle.
>>
>>Vocabulary changes have yet to be determined.
>>
>>So, how much of this do people think the reader is likely to tolerate?
>>
>> Dan, ad nauseam
>
> I've read books that use invented language to dress up the same old
> stuff and they usually hit the wall post-haste. I've read books that
> use the same old language to present new thoughts or a different view
> of the situation and those gather dust between readings. If there's
> something in it worth digging out I'll work at it for as long as it
> takes, but it usually doesn't take long to figure out whether it's a
> keeper.
>
> Personally, as a writer, I have my hands full finding ways to present
> a story crisply. Someday I might become good enough to need a
> handicap but I doubt that I have that many years left in which to
> improve.
>
> The language you describe reminds me first of what would be spoken
> today in a slum in south Chicago.
Kipling spoke of taking out extra words as having the same effect on a
story as a fire being poked. Sometimes a departure in language can be
instantly understood -- and feel like a stimulating 'economy.' For example:
"Ima let you finish".
R.L.
Dorothy J Heydt
Uh ... oh, that one. Well, I couldn't read it but that was
because I'd heard about it beforehand.
Suzanne Blom
"Daniel R. Reitman" <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:s878j5hvjsnopdrtm...@4ax.com...
> I'm in preplanning on a time travel story in which I'd like to
> actually reflect some level of linguistic evolution. Based on this,
> I'm thinking of having the future characters speech written in the
> form a modern English-speaker would perceive it. Among the proposed
> changes are:
>
> Phonology:
>
> 1. Application of Northern Cities Vowel Shift.
Okay, I don't do vowels very well, anyway.
> 2. Unvoiced th replaced by /f/. (Sorry, I can't get Agent to
> recognize the theta symbol.)
Logical, but really iffy for my reading.
> 3. Voiced th replaced by /d/.
Same as 2 but with the added warning that I don't think I could do both
together.
> 4. All stops assimilate to following /l/ by glottalizing.
Almost certainly not.
>
> Grammar:
>
> 1. Loss of apostrophe in genitive. (Would only appear in written
> form.)
Well, um, that's a spelling change, not grammar. It seems to just make
reading harder and not really show the future stuff.
"Only...in written"---Hmm, not sure.
> 2. Loss of third person singular present inflection in regular
> forms.
Okay.
> 3. "They" as standard third person singular neuter pronoun.
Okay.
> 4. "Be" before progressive as habitual aspect marker in present
> tense.
I think so?
> 5. "Tall" as positive/negative interrogative marking particle.
> (Contracted from "at all.")
If it has an apostrophe in front of it.
> 6. "Eh" as wh-interrogative marking particle.
>
Most likely.
> Vocabulary changes have yet to be determined.
>
> So, how much of this do people think the reader is likely to tolerate?
>
Not that much. Give the flavor, not the actuality unless it's really,
really important. Have the modern day characters say/think, "sounds like
s/he's got a stuffed up nose, is only talking in the front of his/her mouth,
whatever" to give the flavor of what you want to get in there but would be
too confusing.
Ben Crowell
A good point of comparison would be Heinlein's The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress, which is written in a made-up dialect that
seems to be basically English with a little Russian mixed in.
The main thing you notice as a reader is that articles get
left out. It's annoying at first, and then you get used to
it.
Brian M. Scott
<see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
<news:1y29k562d326o$.bg41lzvx...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:39:14 -0700, Eric Ammadon wrote:
>> Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>> I'm in preplanning on a time travel story in which I'd
>>> like to actually reflect some level of linguistic
>>> evolution. Based on this, I'm thinking of having the
>>> future characters speech written in the form a modern
>>> English-speaker would perceive it. [....]
>>> 4. "Be" before progressive as habitual aspect marker in
>>> present tense.
> I thought that was going the other way, eg: "We be good"
> meaning "Our relationshiop is good NOW" in contrast to a
> few minutes ago or a few minutes in future.
No, that would be 'We good' in AAVE (African American
Vernacular English); 'We be good' is habitual aspect.
[...]
Brian
R.L.
> "Daniel R. Reitman" <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
> news:s878j5hvjsnopdrtm...@4ax.com...
/snip/
>> So, how much of this do people think the reader is likely to tolerate?
>>
> Not that much. Give the flavor, not the actuality unless it's really,
> really important. Have the modern day characters say/think, "sounds like
> s/he's got a stuffed up nose, is only talking in the front of his/her mouth,
> whatever" to give the flavor of what you want to get in there but would be
> too confusing.
I'm surprised any modern readers tolerate heavy phonetic spelling. I'd
assumed it went out with Kipling and Baum's generation. But the REDWALL
series uses it, and they have cardboard racks all their own (or did have).
R.L.
Dorothy J Heydt
I'm thinking now maybe a better way would be to give a few
utterances in very accurate phonetic transcription, so that the
modern reader can't understand it at all, and the viewpoint
character has to think hard (and apply his knowledge of
linguistic changes which the author has thoughtfully given him)
and translate it in his head. And everything else the future-folk
say after that is in [translated] 21st-century English except
maybe a couple of interesting idioms.
Consider de Camp's _Lest Darkness Fall,_ in which Padway,
arriving in sixth-century Rome, at first can't understand the
Very Late Latin the locals are speaking till he stops to analyze
it, and after that everything they say is in English. (Unless
they're speaking Gothic.)
James A. Donald
> > meaning "Our relationshiop is good NOW" in contrast to a
> > few minutes ago or a few minutes in future.
>
> No, that would be 'We good' in AAVE (African American
> Vernacular English); 'We be good' is habitual aspect.
In a movie aimed at blacks, characters will speak regular english when
they aim to be understood, with lengthy splashes of "African American
vernacular english" when the tone, action and circumstances makes the
content of the words redundant.
The proposition that there is such a thing as AAVE in the sense that
it has such well defined rules is therefore doubtful. When one
African American supposedly speaks African American Vernacular
English, another African American who supposedly understands African
American Vernacular English is unlikely to understand him.
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:vljaj5p9b3go4ss76...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> The proposition that there is such a thing as AAVE in the
> sense that it has such well defined rules is therefore
> doubtful. [...]
No, it isn't. The subject has been very thoroughly studied.
Ben Crowell
>> I thought that was going the other way, eg: "We be good"
>> meaning "Our relationshiop is good NOW" in contrast to a
>> few minutes ago or a few minutes in future.
>
> No, that would be 'We good' in AAVE (African American
> Vernacular English); 'We be good' is habitual aspect.
The Wikipedia article on AAVE is fascinating. It seems
like there are distinctions in verb aspect that are finer
than in standard American English. Are there other
verb aspect or tense distinctions that are maintained in
standard AmE but lost in AAVE?
Brian M. Scott
<crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote in
<news:00b132c4$0$13101$c3e...@news.astraweb.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> The Wikipedia article on AAVE is fascinating.
It doesn't have one of my favorite examples, though: 'You
making sense, but you don't be making sense'. (You're
making sense right now, but you don't usually make sense.)
For something quite readable but a little meatier, you might
like
<individual.utoronto.ca/jsidnell/SidnellAAVEGrammar.pdf>
(202 KB).
> It seems like there are distinctions in verb aspect that
> are finer than in standard American English. Are there
> other verb aspect or tense distinctions that are
> maintained in standard AmE but lost in AAVE?
I can't think of any, but I've never looked closely at AAVE
(and syntax is not my favorite part of linguistics).
Brian
James A. Donald
> > The proposition that there is such a thing as AAVE
> > in the sense that it has such well defined rules is
> > therefore doubtful. [...]
"Brian M. Scott"
> No, it isn't. The subject has been very thoroughly
> studied.
So has global warming. In both cases, there is a
politically correct view, and a politically incorrect
view. One can produce politically correct publishable
results without the inconvenience of actual research.
Conversely, the politically incorrect view will not only
be unpublishable, but being suspected of the incorrect
view is apt to ensure one can never publish anything on
any topic anywhere ever.
Ben Crowell
> "Brian M. Scott"
>> No, it isn't. The subject has been very thoroughly
>> studied.
>
> So has global warming. In both cases, there is a
> politically correct view, and a politically incorrect
> view. One can produce politically correct publishable
> results without the inconvenience of actual research.
> Conversely, the politically incorrect view will not only
> be unpublishable, but being suspected of the incorrect
> view is apt to ensure one can never publish anything on
> any topic anywhere ever.
Oh, come on. If you want your point of view to be taken
seriously, you'd be better off not making outrageous blanket
statements.
James A. Donald
<crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote:
"Brian M. Scott"
> >> No, it isn't. The subject has been very thoroughly
> >> studied.
James A. Donald wrote:
> > So has global warming. In both cases, there is a
> > politically correct view, and a politically incorrect
> > view. One can produce politically correct publishable
> > results without the inconvenience of actual research.
> > Conversely, the politically incorrect view will not only
> > be unpublishable, but being suspected of the incorrect
> > view is apt to ensure one can never publish anything on
> > any topic anywhere ever.
Ben Crowell
> Oh, come on. If you want your point of view to be taken
> seriously, you'd be better off not making outrageous blanket
> statements.
The climategate files demonstrate the supremacy of politics over
science, and what they reveal was confirmed by the disingenuous
response of the journals "Nature" and "Science" to climategate.
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:smsaj5t6tr5l80004...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "James A. Donald"
>>> The proposition that there is such a thing as AAVE
>>> in the sense that it has such well defined rules is
>>> therefore doubtful. [...]
> "Brian M. Scott"
>> No, it isn't. The subject has been very thoroughly
>> studied.
> So has global warming. In both cases, there is a
> politically correct view, and a politically incorrect
> view.
Of course you're incapable of thinking in any other terms:
there is no one here whose opinions on everything under the
sun are more at the mercy of his or her
politico-philosophical beliefs -- not even David. By your
own rather repulsive standards, you're quite possibly the
most unthinkingly politically correct person I've had the
misfortune to encounter.
In any case, whether there is a politically correct (in any
sense of the phrase) is in both examples irrelevant to the
facts of the matter.
> One can produce politically correct publishable
> results without the inconvenience of actual research.
True or not, this is irrelevant: much of the AAVE literature
is demonstrably based on real research.
> Conversely, the politically incorrect view will not only
> be unpublishable, but being suspected of the incorrect
> view is apt to ensure one can never publish anything on
> any topic anywhere ever.
I am once again bedazzled by your impressive ignorance of
the world about you.
Ric Locke
At least he's up front about it, which takes a modicum of intellectual
courage.
What's now called "African-American Vernacular English" has been around
for as long as I've been alive, and by the testimony of my relatives and
neighbors has existed for much longer than that. In earlier days it was
discouraged on the ground that you can't have a cohesive society if
people don't all speak the same language. Nowadays AAVE is encouraged by
those who prefer to see the separation enforced -- once the policy of
only the most rabid red-faced racists, now a bedrock of Progressivism.
It is also used as a sort of linguistic Tuskegee Experiment, yielding a
gratifying volume of data about the evolution of language so long as the
welfare of the experimental subjects is studiously ignored.
Regards,
Ric
Joy Beeson
<crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote:
[snip]
"Meihem In Ce Klasrum"
I re-read the first few paragraphs, and noticed that the key is using
each innovation as many times as possible in the paragraph following
its introduction.
But if the reader puts the book down for a few hours, that practice
isn't going to stick.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Ben Crowell
The evidence you cite doesn't even come close to justifying your
very general statement.
Suzanne Blom
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:1jp3q5aztfgii$.1dr8235rkzjed.dlg@40tude.net...
Thanks.
R.L.
> In article <1mwjehbbe7akv.c...@40tude.net>,
> R.L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
[....]
>>I'm surprised any modern readers tolerate heavy phonetic spelling. I'd
>>assumed it went out with Kipling and Baum's generation. But the REDWALL
>>series uses it, and they have cardboard racks all their own (or did have).
>
> I'm thinking now maybe a better way would be to give a few
> utterances in very accurate phonetic transcription, so that the
> modern reader can't understand it at all, and the viewpoint
> character has to think hard (and apply his knowledge of
> linguistic changes which the author has thoughtfully given him)
> and translate it in his head. And everything else the future-folk
> say after that is in [translated] 21st-century English except
> maybe a couple of interesting idioms.
>
> Consider de Camp's _Lest Darkness Fall,_ in which Padway,
> arriving in sixth-century Rome, at first can't understand the
> Very Late Latin the locals are speaking till he stops to analyze
> it, and after that everything they say is in English. (Unless
> they're speaking Gothic.)
This still puts a lump of gobbledeguck early in the story, which may turn
off a reader who doesn't check future pages. If a story has more than one
present-day speaker, so the one who has been there for a while and learned
to deal with the language can reassure the newcomer, that might help.
Hm, if there are infodumps or prefaces or such, they could be told IN the
gobbledeguck, making them easy to skip without the expense of italics.
R.L.
James A. Donald
> > > > > The subject has been very thoroughly
> > > > > studied.
James A. Donald wrote:
> > > > So has global warming. In both cases, there is a
> > > > politically correct view, and a politically incorrect
> > > > view. One can produce politically correct publishable
> > > > results without the inconvenience of actual research.
> > > > Conversely, the politically incorrect view will not only
> > > > be unpublishable, but being suspected of the incorrect
> > > > view is apt to ensure one can never publish anything on
> > > > any topic anywhere ever.
Ben Crowell
> > > Oh, come on. If you want your point of view to be taken
> > > seriously, you'd be better off not making outrageous blanket
> > > statements.
James A. Donald:
> > The climategate files demonstrate the supremacy of politics over
> > science, and what they reveal was confirmed by the disingenuous
> > response of the journals "Nature" and "Science" to climategate.
Ben Crowell
> The evidence you cite doesn't even come close to justifying your
> very general statement.
If you read any article saying the climategates files are no big deal,
that article fails to contain the words "fudge factor" and "artifical
correction", thus the author is lying. If he is lying about
climategate, then he lies about everything.
Google "fudge factor"
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fudge+factor%22+%22very+artifical+correction%22>
to get a hundred posts containing the more interesting parts of the
climategate files, and then compare the more interesting parts of the
files with the pious accounts of the climategate files that you are
evidently relying on. Those who issued those pious accounts, are
knowing lying. Thus the science journals "Nature" and "Science" are
knowingly lying. If one lie, everything is a lie. If they lie on
climategate, they lie on everything.
James A. Donald
> > > > The proposition that there is such a thing as
> > > > AAVE in the sense that it has such well defined
> > > > rules is therefore doubtful. [...]
"Brian M. Scott"
> In any case, whether there is a politically correct
> (in any sense of the phrase) is in both examples
> irrelevant to the facts of the matter.
It is relevant to the facts of the matter, because
science has so regularly been sacrificed to politics.
> True or not, this is irrelevant: much of the AAVE
> literature is demonstrably based on real research.
If it was real research, data sets would be available,
just like the (unabridged) oxford dictionary is. The
climategate debacle gives us reason to suspect that if
the datasets on a controversial topic are unavailable,
the data are merely a cherry picked collection of random
anecdotes, like Briffa's twentieth century tree rings or
Gould's stasis, or are entirely nonexistent.
Observe a black comedian in front of a black audience:
Observed entertainment speech pattern is to use non
standard english for color, rather than communication.
Observed behavior of black people suggests that one
black man using non standard english is not readily
understood by another black man using non standard
english.
Just as Briffa's twentieth century global warming is
largely based on one tree, AAVE is largely based on one
black man. To get evidence on black american language
use, need a minimum of two black men, one to speak, and
one to understand.
R.L.
do they suggest that the decline was in temperatures (wrong) or in tree
ring size (right).
What happened was that tree ring size "diverged" from actual measured
temperatures beginning around 1960. Actual temperatures rose but rings got
smaller. So from that point the actual temperatures were used in the graph
(and labeled as such).
R.L.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:46:24 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
Ric Locke
> A litmus test covering more articles is, if they quote "hide the decline",
> do they suggest that the decline was in temperatures (wrong) or in tree
> ring size (right).
>
> What happened was that tree ring size "diverged" from actual measured
> temperatures beginning around 1960. Actual temperatures rose but rings got
> smaller. So from that point the actual temperatures were used in the graph
> (and labeled as such).
>
> R.L.
>
Yabbut --
If, since 1960, the tree ring "proxy" for temperatures is inverted -- as
it appears to be -- at how many other times in the past has it also been
inverted? /We don't know/ -- and as a result, tree rings are at best an
extremely dubious proxy for temperatures. That, /not/ the "actual
temperature(s)", is the reason to "hide the decline".
The Briffa fraud was selecting one tree whose rings confirmed the
hypothesis, out of 20+ that either failed to confirm the hypothesis or
refuted it. "Hide the decline" is worse. It means that the data are not
useful as a proxy, regardless of frauds.
Regards,
Ric
R.L.
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:46:05 -0800, R.L. wrote:
>
>> A litmus test covering more articles is, if they quote "hide the decline",
>> do they suggest that the decline was in temperatures (wrong) or in tree
>> ring size (right).
>>
>> What happened was that tree ring size "diverged" from actual measured
>> temperatures beginning around 1960. Actual temperatures rose but rings got
>> smaller. So from that point the actual temperatures were used in the graph
>> (and labeled as such).
>>
>> R.L.
>>
> Yabbut --
>
> If, since 1960, the tree ring "proxy" for temperatures is inverted -- as
> it appears to be -- at how many other times in the past has it also been
> inverted?
An issue worth researching -- once an article has identified that "hide the
decline" referred to ring size not temperatures.
Tree rings have diverged from current temperatures but temperatures match
other recent evidence; tree rings did not so much diverge from evidence in
the past.
Btw I saw a good report with recorded dates that shipping was able to
resume each spring in some northern US lakes, going back to the 1800s. Same
pattern.
R.L.
Constantinople
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:46:05 -0800, R.L. wrote:
> > A litmus test covering more articles is, if they quote "hide the decline",
> > do they suggest that the decline was in temperatures (wrong) or in tree
> > ring size (right).
>
> > What happened was that tree ring size "diverged" from actual measured
> > temperatures beginning around 1960. Actual temperatures rose but rings got
> > smaller. So from that point the actual temperatures were used in the graph
> > (and labeled as such).
>
> > R.L.
>
> Yabbut --
>
> If, since 1960, the tree ring "proxy" for temperatures is inverted -- as
> it appears to be -- at how many other times in the past has it also been
> inverted? /We don't know/ -- and as a result, tree rings are at best an
> extremely dubious proxy for temperatures. That, /not/ the "actual
> temperature(s)", is the reason to "hide the decline".
Yes. You really shouldn't have to explain this. Telling that you find
yourself explaining this.
Ric Locke
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:03:09 -0600, Ric Locke wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:46:05 -0800, R.L. wrote:
>>
>>> A litmus test covering more articles is, if they quote "hide the decline",
>>> do they suggest that the decline was in temperatures (wrong) or in tree
>>> ring size (right).
>>>
>>> What happened was that tree ring size "diverged" from actual measured
>>> temperatures beginning around 1960. Actual temperatures rose but rings got
>>> smaller. So from that point the actual temperatures were used in the graph
>>> (and labeled as such).
>>>
>>> R.L.
>>>
>> Yabbut --
>>
>> If, since 1960, the tree ring "proxy" for temperatures is inverted -- as
>> it appears to be -- at how many other times in the past has it also been
>> inverted?
>
> An issue worth researching -- once an article has identified that "hide the
> decline" referred to ring size not temperatures.
Well, yes -- but you have it backwards.
The first thing any scientific hypothesis has to do is predict the
present -- that is, that methodology and data have to produce results
that match what can be seen by other, independent means. If it does,
that data and methodology is a reliable proxy for the other means. In
this case, if tree-ring data matches known temperatures, it is a proxy
for temperature. If it does not -- and it doesn't; it would be
unnecessary to hide the decline if it did -- you don't have a reliable
proxy.
Briffa's fraud is relatively minor. It constituted a blatant violation
of scientific standards, which became apparent as soon as the underlying
data was made public. Mann's lie is a little more sophisticated, but
yields to the same forces -- it's been known for five years that his
model produces a "hockey stick" from any data with even the slightest
hint of periodicity, including so-called "pink noise" and a random page
taken from a metropolitan phone book.
"The decline" is absolutely fundamental, which is why the folks you're
parrotting try to pooh-pooh it to take people's eyes off the ball. Until
and unless a mechanism is discovered for "the decline", and that
mechanism can be determined from ancient data without resorting to
circularity, there is no reason in the world to suppose that any
correspondence between tree rings and temperature is more than a
coincidence. And if that's the case, a huge fraction of the current
science regarding climatic variation is useless, a waste of paper and
ink in journals.
>
> Tree rings have diverged from current temperatures but temperatures match
> other recent evidence; tree rings did not so much diverge from evidence in
> the past.
You have no way of establishing that as a fact; it's an assumption, and
"the decline" calls the assumption into serious question. That's
especially so since so much of the evidence has been suppressed or
called into question by previous frauds; Mann, et. al., are adamant that
there is a "hockey stick" and that the Medieval Warm Period and the
Roman Warm never existed outside of fairy tales -- but Griffa's real
data (not the single outlier he originally reported) do not show a
"hockey stick" and confirm both warm periods. You cannot validate your
methods by invoking data you've already discredited, which leaves a lot
of researchers in a cleft stick.
>
> Btw I saw a good report with recorded dates that shipping was able to
> resume each spring in some northern US lakes, going back to the 1800s. Same
> pattern.
But for the past half century the pattern has /not/ been the same, and
until and unless it is conclusively demonstrated why that is the case,
there is no reason whatever to consider any correspondence more than an
amusing coincidence of no scientific utility.
Regards,
Ric
R.L.
1850-2000. They all show a turn near 1960-70 with the hockey slant from
then on.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/
R.L.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:32:54 -0600, Ric Locke wrote:
Ric Locke
> On Dec 26, 6:03�pm, Ric Locke <warrick.lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:46:05 -0800, R.L. wrote:
>>> A litmus test covering more articles is, if they quote "hide the decline",
>>> do they suggest that the decline was in temperatures (wrong) or in tree
>>> ring size (right).
>>
>>> What happened was that tree ring size "diverged" from actual measured
>>> temperatures beginning around 1960. Actual temperatures rose but rings got
>>> smaller. So from that point the actual temperatures were used in the graph
>>> (and labeled as such).
>>
>>> R.L.
>>
>> Yabbut --
>>
>> If, since 1960, the tree ring "proxy" for temperatures is inverted -- as
>> it appears to be -- at how many other times in the past has it also been
>> inverted? /We don't know/ -- and as a result, tree rings are at best an
>> extremely dubious proxy for temperatures. That, /not/ the "actual
>> temperature(s)", is the reason to "hide the decline".
>
> Yes. You really shouldn't have to explain this. Telling that you find
> yourself explaining this.
Absolutely. We've been called "denialists" all this time; now we have
people in /serious/ denial. The data is crap. The "models" are an
horrendous mass of ad hoc measures grafted onto dubious assumptions to
force the crap data to lead to the desired conclusions. There have been
so many "homogenizations" and "corrections" that the researchers (I will
/not/ call them "scientists") cannot even re-create their results from
as recently as six months ago. And we still have people wailing "but
it's all TRVTH!" That's not science, people. It's faith, and fanaticism
at that.
Regards,
Ric
Ben Crowell
> Google "fudge factor"
> <http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fudge+factor%22+%22very+artifical+correction%22>
> to get a hundred posts containing the more interesting parts of the
> climategate files, and then compare the more interesting parts of the
> files with the pious accounts of the climategate files that you are
> evidently relying on.
I don't see how you would know what I'm "relying on." I haven't even
stated a position on global warming.
> Those who issued those pious accounts, are
> knowing lying.
You haven't logically proved this point.
> Thus the science journals "Nature" and "Science" are
> knowingly lying.
This point doesn't follow from the previous one.
> If one lie, everything is a lie.
I don't agree with your premise. Nature has been published for 140
years. I strongly suspect that at least one true statement and at least
one false statement have been published in Nature over that period.
JF
> Here are recorded dates of ice-out on some New England lakes for 150 years:
> 1850-2000. They all show a turn near 1960-70 with the hockey slant from
> then on.
Benjamin Franklin proved that 5 ml of oil will smooth a two acre
lake. Ruffled water has a higher emissivity than smoothed and a
higher albedo.
If lake water is smoothed, it will freeze slower than an
unsmoothed lake in autumn. If smoothed it will warm more readily
in spring than when unsmoothed.
Hypothesis: New England lakes have a changed freezing pattern
because of oil pollution. Research: plot the use of 2 stroke
engines on lakes since 1950 and demonstrate a correlation. Then
core the beds.
ON topic: it is not the purpose of SF writers to parrot the
paradigm. We are here as gadflies, as questioners. Given a few
facts -- 350 million gallons of oil are coming down the world's
drains every year which is enough to smooth the oceans several
times over, the picture used by the Met Office of a lonely polar
bear on a square iceberg shows smoothing, Arctic ice loss is
concentrated into those areas where oil production might be
expected to cause smoothing -- we spin our magic.
To write a warming story is to be a wimp: to write a cooling
story is to try on the boots of giants. To write an overarching
meta-theory of the scandal (the reptile master-race people are
unable to live comfortably in an atmosphere with greater than 350
ppm CO2) is to _be_ a giant.
JF
R.L.
> R.L. wrote:
>> Here are recorded dates of ice-out on some New England lakes for 150 years:
>> 1850-2000. They all show a turn near 1960-70 with the hockey slant from
>> then on.
[....]
> If lake water is smoothed, it will freeze slower than an
> unsmoothed lake in autumn. If smoothed it will warm more readily
> in spring than when unsmoothed.
>
> Hypothesis: New England lakes have a changed freezing pattern
> because of oil pollution. Research: plot the use of 2 stroke
> engines on lakes since 1950 and demonstrate a correlation. Then
> core the beds.
Look at the graph. So the oil coating increased during WWII, fell from c.
1950-1960, then took a sharp turn up and has been accumulating steadily
ever since? http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/
R.L.
James A. Donald
> I don't see how you would know what I'm "relying on."
> I haven't even stated a position on global warming.
You deny that politics overrules science and evidence in
academia and the science journals. The climategate
scandal is precisely that the climategate files reveal
that on global warming, politics has overruled science
and evidence. Inconvenient evidence was hidden, or
worse, "adjusted", or worse still, replaced by evidence
that was simply made up, like a cop planting the murder
weapon on a suspect that he believes he knows for sure
must be guilty.
The climategate files do not in themselves prove that
the journals were in on this, though they suggest that
they were, however the reaction of the journals to the
climategate files is the reaction of a guilty party, the
reaction of a criminal. Whether they knew that stuff
before climategate and lied about it back then, after
climategate they do know that stuff and lie about it
now.
> > Those who issued those pious accounts, are knowing
> > lying.
> You haven't logically proved this point.
They have to know what is in the files, and they issue
reports that deny what is in the files.
> > Thus the science journals "Nature" and "Science" are
> > knowingly lying.
> This point doesn't follow from the previous one.
Are you suggesting that they are unknowingly erring? If
they are not knowingly lying, what is your explanation
of recent events?
> > If one lie, everything is a lie.
> I don't agree with your premise. Nature has been
> published for 140 years. I strongly suspect that at
> least one true statement and at least one false
> statement have been published in Nature over that
> period.
This sounds as if you propose that they are unknowingly
erring. Is that what you are arguing?
James A. Donald
wrote:
> A litmus test covering more articles is, if they quote "hide the decline",
> do they suggest that the decline was in temperatures (wrong) or in tree
> ring size (right).
>
> What happened was that tree ring size "diverged" from actual measured
> temperatures beginning around 1960. Actual temperatures rose but rings got
> smaller. So from that point the actual temperatures were used in the graph
> (and labeled as such).
Liar
The is the graph with the tree ring decline hidden and replaced by
faked up temperature data.
<http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf>
Observe that the poste 1960 decline in the green line is indeed
hidden, notice the complete absence of any "label as such" informing
the reader of the replacement.
Almost everything in that graph is fraudulent, including the "actual
temperatures" that were used to replace Briffa's data.
The various other frauds are discussed in the emails and generated in
the documents directory, but we emphasize the chicanery on the
Briffa's green line, because that document is wonderfully self
summarizing, while lies in the others need a fair bit of context and
exegesis to explain what is going on.
The only part of that diagram that has any connection to reality is
the green line before 1930. Everything else in the diagram is
fraudulent, but among the many frauds, only one fraud is referred to
as such in the single short phrase. "hide the decline"
Brian M. Scott
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:1itcj5p8va25ijjpg...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "James A. Donald"
>>>>> The proposition that there is such a thing as AAVE in
>>>>> the sense that it has such well defined rules is
>>>>> therefore doubtful. [...]
> "Brian M. Scott"
>> In any case, whether there is a politically correct
>> (in any sense of the phrase) is in both examples
>> irrelevant to the facts of the matter.
> It is relevant to the facts of the matter, because
> science has so regularly been sacrificed to politics.
<sigh> Apparently you can't ride your hobbyhorse and think
clearly at the same time. The scientific facts (insofar as
'facts' is a useful term in this context) obviously don't
change even when science is sacrificed to politics (which in
any case happens far less often than your worldview can
allow).
[remainder snipped unread]
I'm not about to engage in off-topic arguments about
sociolinguistics with a wilfully ignorant loon, and I'm not
about to discuss global warming here with anyone.
J.Pascal
(...)
>
> To write a warming story is to be a wimp: to write a cooling
> story is to try on the boots of giants. To write an overarching
> meta-theory of the scandal (the reptile master-race people are
> unable to live comfortably in an atmosphere with greater than 350
> ppm CO2) is to _be_ a giant.
It was disheartening to check the projected flood maps before even
watering the germ of a story idea and finding out that almost NOTHING
will be underwater with a 20M rise of sea level.
Bleh.
-Julie
JF
> Look at the graph. So the oil coating increased during WWII, fell from c.
> 1950-1960, then took a sharp turn up and has been accumulating steadily
> ever since? http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/
Did it? I don't know. What experimental evidence have you for
saying that?
JF
JF
You don't need much to change things significantly. Yesterday we
abandoned our responsibilities and went walking just above
Southwold, splashing through the alder carrs and muddying it
beside little streams. There beneath the mud and reeds was once a
Viking port, a dry dock, the bustle of invasion fleets, all gone,
with nothing left but the crackle of thin ice beneath our boots
and the hiss of an icy wind through the dead reed stems.
Sic transit.
JF
Look on Google at the area between Corton and Cove Hithe. Then
follow the road east from Cove Hithe but do it warily. It leads
straight over a cliff.
JF
>
> of thin ice beneath our boots and the hiss of [an icy] wind through the
> dead reed stems.
[a bitter]
JF
Eric Ammadon
>To get evidence on black american language
>use, need a minimum of two black men, one to speak, and
>one to understand.
That information also needs to be collected by someone who bes one of
us because talking around whitey just ain't the same.
--
arggh, is it priate day again?
James A. Donald
> wrote:
> > What happened was that tree ring size "diverged" from actual measured
> > temperatures beginning around 1960. Actual temperatures rose but rings got
> > smaller. So from that point the actual temperatures were used in the graph
> > (and labeled as such).
I wrote:
> Liar
To clarify this short response.
The change was not "labelled as such":
The graph in which they hid the decline was:
<http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf>
So either you knew it was not "labelled as such", or else you did not
care whether or not it was labelled as such.
Additional issues:
What the "actual temperatures" were is in dispute, and the documents
directory indicates that the "actual temperatures" came out of Tim's
ass.
The proxies were selected by their conformity to "the actual
temperatures", and no proxy conformed well to "the actual
temperatures", either because the "actual temperatures" were bunkum,
or the proxies were bunkum, or both. If the "actual temperatures" are
bunkum, any proxy that conforms to it will necessarily be a bad proxy,
that conforms only by random chance and data mining.
None of the proxies used in the above graph have the conformity to the
"actual temperatures" depicted in the graph, all of them were faked up
one way or another, but only the green line is mentioned so colorfully
in one of the emails.
Eric Ammadon
Shame you've killfiled me as a troll. Oh well.
Regardless of global whatever, it's colder here this year than it was
last year.
Eric Ammadon
You never know when someone will spot an error that has thrown things
off by a couple decimal places.
James A. Donald
> Tree rings have diverged from current temperatures but temperatures match
> other recent evidence;
No they do not match recent evidence. The documents directory reveals
that the claimed current temperatures came out of Tim's ass. The
fragmentary nature of the surface station record makes it impossible
to assess global temperatures to the claimed accuracy.
Sea ice area has remained constant. Sea levels have remained constant
<http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf>
This is difficult to reconcile with the claimed warming that
supposedly occurred in the seventies to the nineties. The Himalayan
glaciers, that were supposedly on track to disappear in 2035, have
miraculously stopped melting during the period that we have good
satellite photography for them.
Although an accurate reconstruction of global temperatures is
impractical we do have good data for North America. Rural North
American weather stations indicate that present North American
temperatures are about the same as they were in the thirties.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
You really need enough warming to melt the entirety of the icecaps to
get things going; at that point you'll get about a 200 foot rise, which
inundates large parts of coastal cities deep enough to be spectacular,
and would give me beachfront property, or very close.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
R.L.
Try feet and inches. Everyone knows the metric system is just a giant
conspiracy.
R.L.
Ben Crowell
> It was disheartening to check the projected flood maps before even
> watering the germ of a story idea and finding out that almost NOTHING
> will be underwater with a 20M rise of sea level.
Global warming stories are also a dime a dozen these days. They've
become a cliche, like radiation-induced mutations in 50's horror
flicks.
Suzanne Blom
"Ben Crowell" <crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote in message
news:00b37782$0$17132$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Or vampire stories from, say, mid80s on? ;-)
James A. Donald
> parrotting try to pooh-pooh it to take people's eyes off the ball. Until
> and unless a mechanism is discovered for "the decline", and that
> mechanism can be determined from ancient data without resorting to
> circularity, there is no reason in the world to suppose that any
> correspondence between tree rings and temperature is more than a
There is excellent theoretical reason to believe that tree rings near
the tree line on flat well watered ground are good indicators of
temperature. Unfortunately, all the proxies used by the warmism
alarmists are selected on the basis of their ability to agree with
Tim's world climate data - which tree ring near the tree line do not.
Even if Tim's world climate data was entirely true and correct and
calculated according to the highest standards, it has curiously little
resemblance to observed rural temperatures in the places where they
bore these tree rings. Obviously the relevant standard for selecting
an accurate proxy is agreement with *local* temperatures. If you
select for agreement with alleged global temperatures, you are going
to data mine for proxies that agree with what you want to prove.
As a result, they always wind up selecting proxies that look
suspiciously noisy.
In the emails, we find that tree rings from near the tree line were
rejected because they show a medieval climatic optimum, and NO
TWENTIETH CENTURY WARMING
This approach is, of course, circular.
James A. Donald
> Here are recorded dates of ice-out on some New England lakes for 150 years:
> 1850-2000. They all show a turn near 1960-70 with the hockey slant from
> then on.
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/
The report is dated 2005, yet the lake ice outs ends in 1998,
indicating that these are cherry picked data. (They hid the 1998
-2005 decline.)
Within the cherry picked data, all lakes show a warming trend, but
three of the eight lakes show present day temperatures similar to the
warm period of the 1930s, 1940s
Since the periods 1998-2005, during which ice outs were coming later,
is not shown, we may conclude that lakes that showed a cooling trend
were not shown either.
James A. Donald
> Here are recorded dates of ice-out on some New England lakes for 150 years:
> 1850-2000. They all show a turn near 1960-70 with the hockey slant from
> then on.
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/
Compare with a more complete set of lake ice out data, which reveals
that your sample is cherry picked:
http://climate.umn.edu/doc/ice_out/ice_out_historical.htm
The warmest year is the year of the earliest ice out.
For most lakes the warmest year is 1996-1998-2000, indicating it has
been cooling since then.
For many lakes, however, the warmest year is 1950 or so.
Thirty six lakes indicate the warmest year is 1998 or so.
Eighteen lakes indicate the warmest year is much earlier.
Either way, does not look very hockey stickish.
James A. Donald
> Look at the graph. So the oil coating increased during WWII, fell from c.
> 1950-1960, then took a sharp turn up and has been accumulating steadily
> ever since? http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/
Rather, temperatures rose to 1950, cooled to 1970, and today are once
again at 1950 levels - consistent with the data from US rural weather
stations and tree rings from trees near the tree line in the north.
James A. Donald
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 02:44:59 -0500, "Brian M. Scott"
> <sigh> Apparently you can't ride your hobbyhorse and
> think clearly at the same time. The scientific facts
> (insofar as 'facts' is a useful term in this context)
> obviously don't change
The actual facts do not change. The facts reported in
the journals, however, are apt to reflect theology,
rather than what is in fact observed - as illustrated by
the cherry picking of climate proxies revealed by the
climategate files
In the case of the alleged black english, AAVE, the
method has been to select a black guy who can plausibly
be claimed to use words in a regular, consistent, though
non standard fashion, much as Briffa's tree rings from
thousands of trees were in fact dominated by tree rings
from one tree, and to not check very hard to see if a
reasonable proportion of black listeners are aware of
that supposed regularity and consistency.
AAVE comes from the same place as Briffa's hockey stick,
cherry picked anecdote presented as statistics.
James A. Donald
> get things going; at that point you'll get about a 200 foot rise,
The icecaps have melted completely several times before in the last
few million years, so it is plausible. You need the right ocean
currents. South Pole is at present locked down by the circumpolar
current, which protects it from warm water.
R.L.
That's what your theory would entail, to account for the dates on the
graph.
R.L.
JF
saying that didn't happen?
JF
R.L.
Maybe I should look for some gas rationing books.
R.L.
JF
>> What experimental evidence have you for
>> saying that didn't happen?
>
>
> Maybe I should look for some gas rationing books.
It could be worse: if the dissolved silica from agricultural
run-off is causing the warming*, you'll need _food_ ration books
if we need to stop it.
Much worse if it's both.
There are two secrets of the global warming science, oceanic oil
pollution, dissolved-silica-facilitated plankton changes and
carbon dioxide greenhouse... There are _three_ secrets of global
warming science...
JF
*As in: diatoms are silica limited but are very fierce
competitors; more silica delays the bloom of e. huxleyi: sea
albedo goes down; oceans warm. This theory neatly explains the
rise in CO2 and the C isotope changes. And the collapse of the
cod fisheries off Newfoundland.
> http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/tt/eh/
Bob Throllop
> Look at the graph. So the oil coating increased during WWII, fell from c.
> 1950-1960, then took a sharp turn up
Corresponding with the pedal-boat craze of the '50s, no doubt.
Gerry Quinn
d4a57d...@d4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, ju...@pascal.org says...
> On Dec 24, 7:15 pm, Daniel R. Reitman <dreit...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> > I'm in preplanning on a time travel story in which I'd like to
> > actually reflect some level of linguistic evolution. Based on this,
> > I'm thinking of having the future characters speech written in the
> > form a modern English-speaker would perceive it. Among the proposed
> > changes are:
If it's easy to read and not horribly ugly, I don't mind at all.
If it fails these tests, book hits wall.
Not because obstacles to easy reading are necessarily disastrous, but
because they are a disproportionately annoying means of making a single
point about the future society.
- Gerry Quinn
R.L.
Except in the summers, when they were using suntan lotion.
R.L.
R.L.
I hope it's clear that I was doing reducio on JF's theory.
R.L.
JF
>
> Except in the summers, when they were using suntan lotion.
Oddly enough you can actually see the smoothing from sun tan oil
once you know to look for it. We were in Ibiza a few summers ago
and the little bay we were in would, by late afternoon, suppress
smaller waves. 5 ml per 2 acres is a tiny amount.
JF
James A. Donald
> > Rather, temperatures rose to 1950, cooled to 1970, and today are once
> > again at 1950 levels - consistent with the data from US rural weather
> > stations and tree rings from trees near the tree line in the north.
"R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms>
> I hope it's clear that I was doing reducio on JF's theory.
Your reducio assumes that the only thing that could possibly alter
climate is Gaia's wrath at the sinful activities of man, but in fact
we have ample evidence of climate changing from decade to decade, and
century to century, for no special reason, long before human
activities were as large as they are now.
R.L.
flaw in his theory: to fit the pattern on the graph, the oil coating would
have to increase during WWII, fall from c. 1950-1960, quia est unlikely.
R.L.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:11:03 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
JF
> JF's theory was that oil on the waters lessened freezing. I pointed out a
> flaw in his theory: to fit the pattern on the graph, the oil coating would
> have to increase during WWII, fall from c. 1950-1960, quia est unlikely.
You will have to take this up with Tom... wassisname, err...
Wigley. he complains about a temperature blip during WWII. I'm
sure a quick and lively SFnal brain can come up with some reason
for oil spills during WWII.
I think that the exercise of creating new scientific theories has
much in common with writing fiction. SF writers ought to be good
at it.
JF
Ric Locke
s/scientific theories/hypotheses/*
There is a difference.
Regards,
Ric
JF
Pedant!
Ric Locke
Agreed.
That particular bit is a hobbyhorse, acquired when I discovered that I
didn't have the patience or persistence to convert "theory" in the
vernacular sense to "scientific theory".
Regards,
Ric
JF
>> Pedant!
>
> Agreed.
>
> That particular bit is a hobbyhorse, acquired when I discovered that I
> didn't have the patience or persistence to convert "theory" in the
> vernacular sense to "scientific theory".
Don't get me started on 'data'. Language, everyday language, fits
badly with the precision needed for science.
Who was it here who does NASA images? I'd rather like to see a
study of Emiliana huxleyi blooms for as long as records exist.
Prediction: blooms will have been becoming* smaller and later.
JF
*Take that, Adams!
JF
>> Pedant!
>
> Agreed.
>
> That particular bit is a hobbyhorse, acquired when I discovered that I
> didn't have the patience or persistence to convert "theory" in the
> vernacular sense to "scientific theory".
Don't get me started on 'data'. Language, everyday language, fits
Bob Throllop
> J.Pascal wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 9:44 pm, JF <jul...@oopsoopsfloodsclimbers.co.uk>
> > (...)
> >> To write a warming story is to be a wimp: to write a cooling
> >> story is to try on the boots of giants. To write an overarching
> >> meta-theory of the scandal (the reptile master-race people are
> >> unable to live comfortably in an atmosphere with greater than 350
> >> ppm CO2) is to _be_ a giant.
>
> > It was disheartening to check the projected flood maps before even
> > watering the germ of a story idea and finding out that almost NOTHING
> > will be underwater with a 20M rise of sea level.
>
>
> You don't need much to change things significantly. Yesterday we
> abandoned our responsibilities and went walking just above
> Southwold, splashing through the alder carrs and muddying it
> beside little streams. There beneath the mud and reeds was once a
> Viking port, a dry dock, the bustle of invasion fleets, all gone,
> with nothing left but the crackle of thin ice beneath our boots
> and the hiss of an icy wind through the dead reed stems.
>
> Sic transit.
>
> JF
> Look on Google at the area between Corton and Cove Hithe. Then
> follow the road east from Cove Hithe but do it warily. It leads
> straight over a cliff.
This only introduces new mysteries. Why are there two villages called
Covehithe in Google? Is that a roofless church on the left side of
the road in the satellite view of Cove Hithe? What are those square
items in the field between Cove Hithe and the beach? They look like
pens for some sort of animal, but I don't know what.
And why is there a rough circle of green around Sotterley? In eastern
Washington, big green circles mean the land is irrigated. Does Lord
Sotterley own all the irrigation rights in the area?
The English landscape is a mystery.
R.L.
As compared, I suppose, with "scientific fact."
R.L.
Eric Ammadon
We've been having crap weather all day today, but it seems to be
improving; I hope it doesn't get worse again.
--
arggh, is it priate day again?
Ric Locke
No. Facts are facts, scientific or otherwise; if you have to add the
qualifier it means you are either confused or lying, with bias to one or
the other explanation depending on context.
"Theory" needs the adjective because in the vernacular it means
something closer to, but even looser than, what "hypothesis" means in
science.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
We're having snow, soft fluffy flakes in (for here) hosts and bunches,
but without accompanying wind. I like it. It means I can get stuff done
because the wimps stay home.
Regards,
Ric
JF
>> Look on Google at the area between Corton and Cove Hithe. Then
>> follow the road east from Cove Hithe but do it warily. It leads
>> straight over a cliff.
>
> This only introduces new mysteries. Why are there two villages called
> Covehithe in Google?
To confuse visitors.
Is that a roofless church on the left side of
> the road in the satellite view of Cove Hithe?
It's more interesting than that. There's a big church tower and
the carcase of a great nave. Inside the nave, if you look
closely, is another nave, a tiny rebuilt oblong which is where
the church continues. I didn't read the notice outside, so I
don't know whether to blame poverty, Henry VIII or Cromwell.
What are those square
> items in the field between Cove Hithe and the beach? They look like
> pens for some sort of animal, but I don't know what.
Pigs, I think. Pork is so cheap that farmers pen the animals in
huts made of straw bales with a plastic sheet over the top.
>
> And why is there a rough circle of green around Sotterley? In eastern
> Washington, big green circles mean the land is irrigated. Does Lord
> Sotterley own all the irrigation rights in the area?
It's not the irrigation, it's the three hundred years of husbandry.
That, by the look of it, is an English country estate, cropped, owned
and nurtured differently from the fields around.
> The English landscape is a mystery.
Read Kipling's An Habitation Enforced. That should help.
JF
Bob Throllop
> >> Look on Google at the area between Corton and Cove Hithe. Then
> >> follow the road east from Cove Hithe but do it warily. It leads
> >> straight over a cliff.
>
> > This only introduces new mysteries. Why are there two villages called
> > Covehithe in Google?
>
> To confuse visitors.
>
> Is that a roofless church on the left side of
>
> > the road in the satellite view of Cove Hithe?
>
> It's more interesting than that. There's a big church tower and
> the carcase of a great nave. Inside the nave, if you look
> closely, is another nave, a tiny rebuilt oblong which is where
> the church continues. I didn't read the notice outside, so I
> don't know whether to blame poverty, Henry VIII or Cromwell.
>
I ask a foolish question when I could have found the answer myself:
http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/covehithe.htm
"This tower still survives today. The rest of the church, however, was
derelicted in 1672 by the local people. This was not out of any
malicious intent; rather, the upkeep of such a great church placed too
great a burden on such a tiny village at a time when public worship
was a low-key and rather sober affair. "
> JF
"Much better to be about in the wild shell that surrounds it. Come
here on a wild day in Autumn or Winter...Enjoy it while you can,
because in 50 years time this church will not be here. By then, the
sea will have carried it away, to join its Dunwich neighbours to the
north."
Daniel R. Reitman
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <s878j5hvjsnopdrtm...@4ax.com>,
>Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>I. . . .
>. . . .
>>2. Unvoiced th replaced by /f/. (Sorry, I can't get Agent to
>>recognize the theta symbol.)
>>3. Voiced th replaced by /d/.
>
>Note: while what you suggest isn't impossible, I would've
>*expected* either (a) /theta/ > /f/ and /edh/ > /v/, or
>(b) /theta/ > /t/ and /edh/ > /d/. Either the spirant
>(voiced or unvoiced) stays a spirant and changes its position,
>or it keeps its position and changes from a spirant into a stop.
>. . . .
Good point. I'm probably combining two trends here, and /theta/ ->
/f/ is probably more common these days than /edh/ -> /d/, so /edh/ ->
/v/ may be a better move.
>>4. All stops assimilate to following /l/ by glottalizing.
>
>Again, that's not impossible. It's not what I would expect on
>strictly phonological grounds. I would expect either (a)
>palatalization, not glottalization, (b) the operation of Pitkin's
>Law (same Pitkin), which states roughly, "In the environment
>of [r] or [l], you get metathesis all over the place" (metathesis,
>as I'm sure you know, is where two phonemes switch places) or
>(c) both.
I'll think about switching to increased metathesis instead.
>>Grammar:
>>
>>1. Loss of apostrophe in genitive. (Would only appear in written
>>form.)
>
>OK. Any other major or minor spelling reforms?
I hadn't been planning anything major, as most of the time the reader
would be confronted only with transcribed spoken forms.
>>2. Loss of third person singular present inflection in regular
>>forms.
>
>OK ... though e.g. African-American English runs the opposite way.
>I is, you is, etc.
True. I wasn't taking that one from African-American English, and I
only expected it to happen to regular verbs.
>> . . . .
>. . . .
>>5. "Tall" as positive/negative interrogative marking particle.
>>(Contracted from "at all.")
>
>Hm. Can you give an example?
This was predicted by David Crystal in one of his books. He observed
that "at all" was starting to be used at the end of polar questions in
some situations, and hypothesized both the generalization and the
contraction.
>>6. "Eh" as wh-interrogative marking particle.
>
>Again, can you give an example?
Basically, the Canadian "eh" as a tag at the end of a wh- question.
>Sounds as if you're coming from a combination of Great Lakes,
>African-American, and Canadian. :)
>>. . . .
>. . . .
Yes, I was deliberately looking at a convergence of several regional
developments, under the influence of the Net and other mass
communications, which may or may not work. I'll have to rethink this
idea after I start writing.
Dan, ad nauseam
Daniel R. Reitman
<crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote:
>. . . .
>I don't agree with your premise. Nature has been published for 140
>years. I strongly suspect that at least one true statement and at least
>one false statement have been published in Nature over that period.
Was it Nature or Science that published the homeopathy study with the
disclaimer that they thought it was an anomalous result?
Dan, ad nauseam
Daniel R. Reitman
Heydt) wrote:
>I'm thinking now maybe a better way would be to give a few
>utterances in very accurate phonetic transcription, so that the
>modern reader can't understand it at all, and the viewpoint
>character has to think hard (and apply his knowledge of
>linguistic changes which the author has thoughtfully given him)
>and translate it in his head. And everything else the future-folk
>say after that is in [translated] 21st-century English except
>maybe a couple of interesting idioms.
>. . . .
Now, that may be a good way to do it, but the character I had in mind
is not a linguist, so I think I may have the first few conversations
go along the lines of "I'm sorry, but I don't understand," followed by
"He repeated himself slowly, and eventually I got it, I think." I may
also have someone say "Cean't you speak English tall?"
Dan, ad nauseam
Dorothy J Heydt
Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 03:08:10 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>Note: while what you suggest isn't impossible, I would've
>>*expected* either (a) /theta/ > /f/ and /edh/ > /v/, or
>>(b) /theta/ > /t/ and /edh/ > /d/. Either the spirant
>>(voiced or unvoiced) stays a spirant and changes its position,
>>or it keeps its position and changes from a spirant into a stop.
>
>>. . . .
>
>Good point. I'm probably combining two trends here, and /theta/ ->
>/f/ is probably more common these days than /edh/ -> /d/, so /edh/ ->
>/v/ may be a better move.
Note that /theta/ > /f/ and /edh/ > /v/ is already known in
Cockney. I quote from a Ngaio Marsh novel set in London (_Death
of a Peer_, 1940):
A knives-to-grind returning from a profitable day in Chelsea
paused at Pleasaunce Corner and addressed himself to a newsboy.
"Wot's up in vere?" asked the knives-to-grind.
"Wot's up in where?"
"In vere. In vem Mansions."
The newsboy looked. 'Coo! P'lice."
[The newsboy goes to investigate. He is told there's been an
accident, and returns to report to the knives-to-grind.]
"*Eccident*!" said the newsboy with ineffable scorn.
"*Eccident*! Oh yeah!"
"Wiv cops and cemeras floatin' in by dozens," agreed his
friends. "Oh, yeah? Not 'alf. I *don't* fink."
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>In article <panqj5pj361va0qfe...@4ax.com>,
>Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 03:08:10 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>>Note: while what you suggest isn't impossible, I would've
>>>*expected* either (a) /theta/ > /f/ and /edh/ > /v/, or
>>>(b) /theta/ > /t/ and /edh/ > /d/. Either the spirant
>>>(voiced or unvoiced) stays a spirant and changes its position,
>>>or it keeps its position and changes from a spirant into a stop.
>>
>>>. . . .
>>
>>Good point. I'm probably combining two trends here, and /theta/ ->
>>/f/ is probably more common these days than /edh/ -> /d/, so /edh/ ->
>>/v/ may be a better move.
>
>Note that /theta/ > /f/ and /edh/ > /v/ is already known in
>Cockney. I quote from a Ngaio Marsh novel set in London (_Death
>of a Peer_, 1940):
>. . . .
Yes, that, and the continued /theta/ -> /f/ trend were my inspiration
for that idea.
Dan, ad nauseam
Citizen Jimserac
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:37:40 -0800, Ben Crowell
>
> >. . . .
> >I don't agree with your premise. Nature has been published for 140
> >years. I strongly suspect that at least one true statement and at least
> >one false statement have been published in Nature over that period.
>
> disclaimer that they thought it was an anomalous result?
>
> Dan, ad nauseam
Well that there has been some sort of politicization of Nature, once a
respected
journal, particularly in regards to Homeopathy, is obvious.
Example: In the mid 1990's, Prince Charles makes a speech openly
praising Homeopathy and Alternative Medicine in an address before the
WHO. Editors at Nature, apparently deciding for themselves that
Homeopathy was without scientific basis, hastily put together their
famous "End of Homeopathy" issue. In it, a meta analysis is published
(Shang et al) which is widely publicized as having concluded, from an
analysis of hundreds of trials that Homeopathy is not better than
placebo. This conclusion is repeated far and wide, after all,
everyone thinks, the article appeared in Nature, eh?
Only, almost immediately, even opponents of Homeopathy point out and
notice that the "conclusions" reached in the Shang analysis were based
on fairly sloppy statistical reasoning. And apparently, the authors
did indeed analyse hundreds of trials but then, after applying rather
questionable exclusionary criteria, ended up with a grand total of 8
(EIGHT!!) studies on which to base their sweeping and totally
unwarranted conclusion.
By an incredible coincidence the meta data used in the analysis was
NOT made available for some time after the article, only after
persistent requests for it from angry Homeopaths and other. No
surprise there.
A recent Journal of Clinical Epidemiology article reviewed the Shang
meta analysis and found it fundamentally flawed.
The questionable thing here is not so much the Shang article itself,
but rather the self serving and in my opinion propagandistic editorial
which appeared in the same issue which was entitled the "End of
Homeopathy"?
The authors of this editorial conveniently forgot to notice that only
several years earlier, the same publication, Nature, had published
articles with meta analyses indicative that Homeopathy functioned
above placebo level.
The Nature issue attacking Homepathy became the clarion call to, in my
opinion, every junk journalist, debunk book author, world's first
"professor of alternative and complementary medicine" (who happens to
have NO advanced degrees or training in Homeopathy) and pseudo
scientific sceptics to begin a campaign of misrepresentation,
innuendo, ridicule and totally unscientific denunciation which
continues to this day, particularly in the "Guardian" and in several
other publications.
That this ad hoc campaign involved dirty tricks, such as circulating
an anti-Homeopathy letter on a letter with an unauthorized NHS logo,
should give some idea of the level of "science" involved in the
attacks.
The NHS promptly disavowed any connection with the contents.
THAT's what happens when a formerly great science publication falls
under the control of an editor or editors who have an .... "agenda".
To this day, the real science researchers continue to see biological
effects from high dilution solutions in which all the molecules of the
stimulant are diluted away but in which the effects continue to occur
as though the missinig molecules were still there. The result is
unexplained and remains under research in journals of High Dilution
Research and Homeopathic research. I wouldn't expect an article,
that is an unbiased article, about it in Nature anytime soon.
Citizen Jimserac (James Pannozzi)
James A. Donald
> notice that the "conclusions" reached in the Shang analysis were based
> on fairly sloppy statistical reasoning. And apparently, the authors
> did indeed analyse hundreds of trials but then, after applying rather
> questionable exclusionary criteria, ended up with a grand total of 8
> (EIGHT!!) studies on which to base their sweeping and totally
> unwarranted conclusion.
> By an incredible coincidence the meta data used in the analysis was
> NOT made available for some time after the article, only after
> persistent requests for it from angry Homeopaths and other. No
> surprise there.
>
> A recent Journal of Clinical Epidemiology article reviewed the Shang
> meta analysis and found it fundamentally flawed.
>
> The questionable thing here is not so much the Shang article itself,
> but rather the self serving and in my opinion propagandistic editorial
> which appeared in the same issue which was entitled the "End of
> Homeopathy"?
It is probable that Nature's beliefs about homeopathy are correct,
but, "knowing" their beliefs to be correct, they proceeded to
manufacture the data required to prove their beliefs to be correct.
This is the same approach they apply to global warming, rising sea
levels, dying coral reefs, racial equality, recent human evolution,
and so on and so forth - the difference being that in these cases what
they "know" to be true is probably not true.
If we apply the same standards to homeopathy and parapsychology as we
apply to science that receives the official approval of the most holy
synod of official science, there is compelling evidence for homeopathy
and parapsychology - which should lead us to suspect not that
homeopathy and parapsychology are true, but that standards for science
officially approved by the most holy synod of official science are far
too low.
With two-thirds of medical studies in prestigious journals failing to
replicate, getting rid of the entire actual subject matter would
shrink the field by only 33%. We have to raise the bar high enough to
exclude the results claimed by parapsychology under classical
frequentist statistics, and then fairly and evenhandedly apply the
same bar to the rest of science.
A big problem here is that "advanced statistical methods" greatly
expand the scope of lying with statistics, and that is in practice
their main use. I think we need a lengthy rulebook that prohibits a
wide variety of "advanced" methods (about 99% of actual usages) - as
suspect.
Maximum entropy methods are in principle extremely powerful, but it is
easy to make gross errors using them, and hard to detect those errors.
Results derived by such methods are usually presented without
revealing the information that would make it possible for readers to
detect such errors - indeed when a paper confirms the official science
of the most holy synod advanced statistical methods, it is fair to say
that the necessary information is never revealed except under freedom
of information request, and rarely even then.
Daniel R. Reitman
evidence the traveler encounters is a coaster reading "Fruit Flies Be
Liking Bananas. 1716 Utopia Pkwy., Flushing NY 11357. 445-555-6557.
Be opening 24 hours."
Do people think this works?
A few minutes later, he's going to run into the person who now lives
in his home. I haven't written that yet.
Dan, ad nauseam
Eric Ammadon
>I've started writing to see if my ideas work. The first linguistic
>evidence the traveler encounters is a coaster reading "Fruit Flies Be
>Liking Bananas. 1716 Utopia Pkwy., Flushing NY 11357. 445-555-6557.
>Be opening 24 hours."
>
>Do people think this works?
Either you're portraying a rastafarian wearing a loud Hawaiian shirt
and beaded dreds (one of whose parents was frightened by an Indian
telephone support person with a terrible accent) or something is being
wrong, mon.
I have never heard any reference that I can remember to a written work
that was improved from "probable failure" to "great success" by the
clever introduction of funky language. On the other hand I have read
(and cannot remember even the titles of) a book or three that used
funkytalk to move in the opposite direction.
Unless the language is absolutely central to the storyline, you're
looking for painless ways to break your leg prior to running a
marathon, at best. I'd suggest putting down the vacuum and letting
the cat out before sitting down to work. Mileage varies, I have no
clue why some people read the things they read, but they do.
Suzanne Blom
"Daniel R. Reitman" <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:5vj2k5pcja603ngfq...@4ax.com...
statement go together.
However, my main advice is don't do this to yourself (unless you have to).
Write bunches, then come back and ask us about a bit. At least I'd be
paralyzed if every sentence was critqued immediately.