WoW: 2/28/05

Well, this week doesn't look to be as busy as last week. Which is good, because I'm starting to get sick. Nothing major (just a sore throat and some congested airways), but enough to make life uncomfortable. I'm just glad I wasn't sick during Hell Week last week.

Anyway, you're not here to listen to my whining, you're here to find out what this week's Word is. Or maybe because you're bored. Either way, here's the last WoW of February 2005.

Word of the Week for 2/28/05:
eidolon, noun (I-duh-lahn)
1. phantom, apparition
2. image of an ideal

Jabberwockety Goodness

This site has some awesome stuff.

I particularly recommend "Chemowocky."

WoW: 2/21/05

For the record, I am rather upset by the increased temperatures we've had today. And it doesn't look like it's going to get much cooler. Just one more thing to make this week not much fun for me. This week promises to be a busy one, but I'll try to have some kind of entertaining post up later. Until then, revel in the skeletal goodness of the WoW.


Word of the Week for 2/21/05:
ossify, verb /AH-sih-fi/
1. (trans.) to convert into bone
2. (intrans.) to become converted to bone
3. (figuratively; trans.) to make emotionally callous
4. (figuratively; intrans.) to become emotionally callous
n: ossification

Pigeonholing

So, a couple more quizzes that seem to be making the rounds:

You Have A Type A- Personality

A- You are one of the most balanced people around Motivated and focused, you are good at getting what you want You rule at success, but success doesn't rule you. When it's playtime, you really know how to kick back Whether it's hanging out with friends or doing something you love! You live life to the fullest - encorporating the best of both worlds

Do You Have a Type A Personality?

I took the "Mixed Hogwarts House" quiz twice, because there were several questions where two choices applied equally to me. Those few changes made quite a difference, it seems:

You're a Ravenpuff!: You are a very analytical and
ingenius person, someone that likes to invent
new things. The way you look at life is with
wonder, and sometimes you're even a little
naive. But people love you for that trait and
they feel the need to protect you from the
harsh facts of life so that you can retain your
innocence. You are very capable person and when
there is trouble people turn to you because
you're able to stay calm and collected. You
like balance in your life and you try not to
make many waves. Even still, if there is
something that you believe strongly in, you
will commit yourself totally to that cause.
Your weakness is that sometimes you can be
indecisive and perfectionist, especially about
little details and you drive people crazy
sometimes with these traits. With the
innocence of a Hufflepuff and the calm of a
Ravenclaw you will be loved in life!


Which Mix of the Hogwarts Houses are You?
brought to you by Quizilla




You're a Slytherpuff!: This is a rare combination
but those that are true Slytherpuffs are not
people you want to make your enemy. You take
loyalty very seriously and if someone gives you
their word you expect them to keep it. You
either project a cold exterior and have a heart
of gold inside or you seem all cuddly and nice
on the outside and you are ruthless on the
inside. People frequently underestimate you but
this usually suits your purpose. Whoever has
your loyalty is a very lucky person because you
will fight tooth and nail to protect them. You
have a protective streak and you like to
champion the underdog. In life, experience has
taught you that it's better not to be too
idealistic or expect to much of other people.
Still, deep inside you, you still have hope
that everything will always turn out for the
best. Your weakness is that sometimes you trust
blindly, follow without question and this can
lead you into trouble. With the loyalty of a
Hufflepuff and the ruthlessness of a Slytherin
you are a formidable person!


Which Mix of the Hogwarts Houses are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

The Day of Many Names

A friend from back home sent me a link to this quiz, and it seemed fairly appropriate for SAD [Singles Awareness Day] (which is today, of course).

You Are A Romantic Realist

You are more romantic than 30% of the population. You tend to be grounded when it comes to romance. Sure, you can fall hard... but only for someone you've gotten to know. And once you're in love, you can be a total romantic goofball... But you'd never admit it to your friends!

Are You Romantic or Realistic?

Frankly, I was a bit surprised by the result; I didn't expect to be that "romantic." The second sentence seems to be fairly accurate, but I haven't "fallen" for anyone yet, so I can't speak to the accuracy of the latter statements.

And I don't know what "a total romantic goofball" is, but if I ever start to act like one, I think I'll be grateful to any bystanders for giving me a sound thwack on the head.

Happy Massacre Day/SAD/Schmoopy Day to all.

WoW: 2/14/05

Another Week, another Word.

Word of the Week for 2/14/05:
specious, adjective (SPEE-shuhs)
1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious (as in "a specious argument")
2. deceptively attractive
adv: speciously

Linguistic Knowledge Through Experience

Well, looks like I made it: two posts in one week. This one has a considerably different tone (and subject matter) than Tuesday's, so you even get some variety.

Some random thoughts about linguistics and the philosophy of language:

Most "well-educated" people are familiar with the two primary categories of nouns. There are the "concrete" nouns, which represent objects with which we can physically interact in some way; examples include cloud, wood, fire, electricity, and car. Then there are the "abstract" nouns, which represent intangible "ideas;" examples include justice, love, strength, and futility. So this system essentially categorizes nouns based on whether they are material or ethereal.

I was thinking about a different way to categorize nouns. In fact, it could be used to describe all kinds of words, but it seems most applicable to nouns. This system probably exists somewhere already, but I don't recall seeing it. So, to help me think through it (and to give you something to read), I shall present it here.

This "new" system categorizes words based on how they are defined. Can the concept expressed by the word be explained solely with language, or must it be experienced? The former I shall call "explainable" words, and the latter I shall call "experience" words.

An example of a explainable word could be book. A book can be described (both quantitatively and qualitatively): "a book is a collection of sheets of paper, bound together along one common edge, with words printed on the pages, which is created so that people may read the words for information, enjoyment, or communication." Another example would be mercy: "mercy is compassionate treatment; it involves treating others well in spite of having them in one's power." Some of the words in these definitions might require further explanation ("paper," "compassion"), but the ideas can be expressed and understood purely through speech.

Now consider the word red. Can you define red using only language? You could take the route of the physicist, and say that red is light of a certain wavelength (between 630 and 750 nanometers, I believe) (or you could say that an object that reflects only this wavelength of light is red), but that doesn't tell you much about the color of these words. Another possible route is to say that red is the color of blood and hot metal, but that doesn't really work, either. People who have been blind all their lives can never truly know what red is. Sweet is another "experience" word. To someone who has no sense of taste, saying "Sweet is the tase of sugar" is meaningless. And a person with no sense of touch cannot really understand what hot, cold, soft, and coarse mean, and is likely to be confused about the concept of texture. These "experience" words cannot truly be understood in the absence of personal experience with the ideas they represent.

To give further examples: If you defined beauty as "a visual image which is pleasing to look at," a blind person could probably understand the concept, even if quem couldn't actually visualize something pleasant. On the other hand, the word pleasure itself is very difficult to define accurately without (for example) feeding someone a bar of chocolate and saying, "What you are feeling as a result of eating this chocolate is 'pleasure'."

The common thread that runs through the "experience" words seems to be their inherently sensuous natures. In general, the more closely a concept is related to the senses, the harder it is to define without providing an actual experience of that concept.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with anything, but perhaps at some point down the line some linguist/logician/computer programmer will find this kind of idea useful in developing Artificial Intelligence. Or maybe I'm completely off my rocker and don't know what I'm talking about. That's always a possibility. :-p

Discuss?

Strength in Numbers

Despite my workload, it looks like I might get two blog posts up this week. I know this because the second one is already written and awaiting only polishing and publishing. Look for it on Thursday (I hope).

A story is told about a young boy and his father who came across a very large tree branch blocking a forest path. The boy boasted, "I bet I can move that branch." His dad answered, "I`m sure you can, but you'll have to use all your strength." So the boy tackled the task with enthusiasm; but after struggling and straining he was only able to move it a few inches. Exhausted, he concluded, "Dad, I guess we were wrong. I can't move the branch."

His dad said, "I'm not so sure. Try again, but this time use all your strength." So the boy tried again, but to no avail. In frustration, he turned to his father and said, "Dad, I can't do it by myself. I need help."

"That's all you had to say, son. I am part of your strength." And together, they moved the branch.

You might say that this story is trite and simplistic. Perhaps so. But the message is still true and important: there are many situations that we can't deal with alone. Of course, Christians believe that they can always turn to God for comfort and strength, and I'm not saying that's not sufficient. But sometimes it's nice to have a physical person who's easier to relate with. Friends are important and friendship is a powerful force. Sure, some people manage to get by without meaningful (not necessarily romantic) relationships, but they never seem to be as happy as those who do have relationships.

And they have more trouble navigating life's forests.

To my friends out there: I know I'm not always (if ever) as good a friend as I could be, and the only excuse I have is that I am human (and therefore flawed). I deeply appreciate your friendship, and I continually strive to be worthy of it.

WoW: 2/7/05

This week's Word is a short word whose synonyms are longer than it is. But you'll know that in a few moments when you read further. :-p

Word of the Week for 2/7/05:
brio, noun /BREE-o/
vigor, liveliness, vivacity, spirit.

Music, to My Ears [*updated*]

So, I'm trying to settle into a One-Post-Per-Week routine; that is, I'll try to make one substantive or entertaining post each week (not counting WoW). Most posts will probably come on Wednesday or Thursday, but there's always the chance that something will come up or I'll think of something extra and do more than one post.

*(The Internet doesn't hate me anymore! Yay!)*

I love classical music. I really do. I enjoy many other kinds of music, too: jazz, bluegrass, techno, and even oldies. But classical music is my first and truest auditory love.

I am particularly fond of what I call "dark" music (I've also heard them called "anthems"). Music in minor keys. Pieces like Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries," Mussorgsky's "Night on Bald Mountain," and Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor." Songs that alternately stir and chill the blood; songs that ring with grandeur and majesty; songs that, when I listen to them, make me shudder and say "Wow."

I have two playlists devoted to such "grand" music. The longer one (about 150 songs) is for "anthems" in general. The shorter (about 17 songs) is devoted primarily to songs with lyrics (mostly in Latin). I present to you the shorter list, just to give you an idea of the kind of music I listen to when I need a "rush." Songs are presented in the following format:
Composer: "Piece," Larger Work (further description as needed)

1) Nobuo Uematsu: "Liberi Fatali," Final Fantasy VIII (lyrics; video game soundtrack)
2) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: "Dies Irae," Requiem Mass (lyrics)
3) Carl Orff: "Fortune Plango Vulnera," Carmina Burana (lyrics)
4) Yoko Kanno: "Dance of Curse," Visions of Escaflowne soundtrack (lyrics) (yea, it's from an anime, but this song is awesome!)
5) Carl Orff: "O Fortuna," Carmina Burana (lyrics)
6) [Unknown song 1] (lyrics)
7) Jerry Goldsmith: "The Fire Dragon," The 13th Warrior soundtrack
8) Nobuo Uematsu: "One Winged Angel," Final Fantasy VII (lyrics; video game soundtrack)
9) Carl Orff: "Estuans Interius," Carmina Burana (lyrics)
10) Carl Orff: "Circa Mea Pectora," Carmina Burana (lyrics)
11) Mozart: "Confutatis," Requiem Mass (lyrics)
12) Giuseppe Verdi: "Dies Irae," Requiem Mass (lyrics)
13) [Unknown song 2] (lyrics)
14) J. S. Bach: "Toccata and Fugue in D minor"
15) J. S. Bach: "Fugue in G minor"
16) [Unknown song 3] (lyrics)
*17) Yoko Kanno: "Epistle," Visions of Escaflowne soundtrack (lyrics)*

Other pieces of note:
*Most of the songs from the The 13th Warrior soundtrack
* Most of the works of Midnight Syndicate
* Various organ works by J. S. Bach
* Copland, "Fanfare for the Common Man"
* Britten, "The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra"
* Bizet, "Farandole #2"
* Handel, "Fireworks Music"
* Holst, "Mars: Bringer of War" from The Planets
* and many, many others

For any music lovers who are interested^, "concerts" could probably be arranged.

^and geographically local or willing to spend lots of money to get that way