How I Met My Wife (1994)(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
How I Met My Wife (1994)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/07/25/how-i-met-my-wife
130 comments
A particularly useful one from that list:
prepone - to reschedule to an earlier time
The page on defective verbs is also interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_verb
prepone - to reschedule to an earlier time
The page on defective verbs is also interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_verb
Is it really useful if many / most people will need to look it up in a dictionary?
How do words come into existence at all?
Fun fact, prepone is used commonly in Indian English
It’s so hard to read, it hurts. But so clever all the same!
It’s a true test of “Can you deal with the double negative?”
It’s a true test of “Can you deal with the double negative?”
My English teacher used to tell us that double negatives were a no-no.
Nice. Reminds me of Sidney Morgenbesser's famous "yeah, yeah": https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/sid...
Or the more recent - hopefully only Australian fad to spare suffering - of "Yeah Nah" or "Nah Yeah".
https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/07/difference-between-yea...
https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/07/difference-between-yea...
According to my niece, "Yeah, no" is popular now w/ zennials. Also the laughing crying emoji is OUT, to be replaced with the hipper skull emoji to show amusement. As in, this is so funny it killed me.
"Yeah, no" was definitely a thing when I was in high school, and that was 10 years ago at this point. Maybe it's one of those all modern youth culture flows from the US West Coast things.
was a thing when I was in high school in the 1980s in socal
In Swedish we have the wonderful"nja".
"Ja" is yes. "Nej" is no. "Nja" is neither. It's used to express uncertainty or that it's not as simple as yes or no.
"Ja" is yes. "Nej" is no. "Nja" is neither. It's used to express uncertainty or that it's not as simple as yes or no.
Nice, we have Jein in German, which is a Portmanteau of Ja and Nein (yes and no).
Yeah same in Norway.
For example if someone asks me if I want to go somewhere with them at a specific time, and I would like to go with them but I already plan to do something else at that time, then I would say “nja” and while I say that think out an alternative suggestion for when we might go.
Another example is if I talk with someone and they say something that I agree with but then say something I disagree with. Then I would say “nja”. In this case it would be similar to English where you might say “yes and no”. And then state what I agree with and what I don’t agree with and why.
For example if someone asks me if I want to go somewhere with them at a specific time, and I would like to go with them but I already plan to do something else at that time, then I would say “nja” and while I say that think out an alternative suggestion for when we might go.
Another example is if I talk with someone and they say something that I agree with but then say something I disagree with. Then I would say “nja”. In this case it would be similar to English where you might say “yes and no”. And then state what I agree with and what I don’t agree with and why.
I sometimes use it at work when asked if something can be done and the answer is yes but it's unlikely to be worth the effort
I would say /care, I don't care, either way, both fine with me, or "its nuanced" or "its complicated". The latter two invite curiosity and discussion, whereas the former one and its, ehh.., relatives (for lack of a better word) are more firm in the carelessness aspect therefore being more passive from my part. You can also say no and nod yes, as Torvalds famously did in response to a question concerning NSA.
I like the "yeah nah" expression! (It's best when accompanied with a head nod and shake when it's said.)
It's saying "I hear what you are saying, but I don't agree" with typical Aussie friendly honesty, with the implication that the proposition was unreasonable (often laughable).
Example, "Willing to swap late model Honda Civic for Ferrari or Lamborghini, must be road worthy and registered, cash my way if needed." Yeah, nah.
It's saying "I hear what you are saying, but I don't agree" with typical Aussie friendly honesty, with the implication that the proposition was unreasonable (often laughable).
Example, "Willing to swap late model Honda Civic for Ferrari or Lamborghini, must be road worthy and registered, cash my way if needed." Yeah, nah.
Like a lot of communication, it's in the delivery. :-)
But a lack of intonation or performance delivery (that head nod or shake) leads to a lot of confusion.
Furthermore, in text form it can be downright ambiguous.
But I do smile when I hear:"Yeah nah, thanks tho' aay."
But a lack of intonation or performance delivery (that head nod or shake) leads to a lot of confusion.
Furthermore, in text form it can be downright ambiguous.
But I do smile when I hear:"Yeah nah, thanks tho' aay."
Something apparently similar has been present in American English for many years now. See: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005523.h...
You should have taken a Spanish class....
For some reason this sentence jumps out as being easier to read than the rest; maybe it's the self-deprecation?
> I was, after all, something to sneeze at, someone you could easily hold a candle to, someone who usually aroused bridled passion.
> I was, after all, something to sneeze at, someone you could easily hold a candle to, someone who usually aroused bridled passion.
There's only one unpaired word antonym in that sentence, the second to last.
Rest are regular words, but "negated unpaired idioms", which seem to be easier to read.
Rest are regular words, but "negated unpaired idioms", which seem to be easier to read.
I had trouble overstanding it
What about double positives?
Anecdote:
An MIT linguistics professor was lecturing his class the other day. "In English," he said, "a double negative forms a positive. However, in some languages, such as Russian, a double negative remains a negative. But there isn't a single language, not one, in which a double positive can express a negative."
A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, right."
Anecdote:
An MIT linguistics professor was lecturing his class the other day. "In English," he said, "a double negative forms a positive. However, in some languages, such as Russian, a double negative remains a negative. But there isn't a single language, not one, in which a double positive can express a negative."
A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, right."
Some year ago, the obit for a CCNY philosophy professor attributed the counter-example to him.
This may be one of those quips that is simply untraceable.
This may be one of those quips that is simply untraceable.
As a non-native speaker this just reads a bit strange. Somewhat like trying to read 1600's english.
I have to ask: what is so special about it?
I have to ask: what is so special about it?
It’s comedy.
Most of the phrases are used in a way where it makes sense what’s being said, but most native speakers only use the phrases slightly modified to mean the opposite of how they’re being used in the writing.
Kempt vs unkempt for example.
Most of the phrases are used in a way where it makes sense what’s being said, but most native speakers only use the phrases slightly modified to mean the opposite of how they’re being used in the writing.
Kempt vs unkempt for example.
I've seen well-kempt used though.
Kempt is also used in isolation.
To clarify, I wasn’t trying to say these words can’t be used in isolation.
I just meant that the frequency of occurrence is usually used in ways that mean the opposite of.
Kempt I would say has a rare occurrence in most speech.
Unkempt is much more common.
I just meant that the frequency of occurrence is usually used in ways that mean the opposite of.
Kempt I would say has a rare occurrence in most speech.
Unkempt is much more common.
Many of the words used are rarely seen without a prefix.
Disgruntled, for example is a common word; gruntled is not.
Disgruntled, for example is a common word; gruntled is not.
It’s doing something called back-formation, to create new words and phrases by removing parts of other words and phrases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-formation
Examples from the article:
- Disgruntled -> gruntled.
- Nonchalant -> chalant.
- Make no bones about it -> make bones about it.
- Traveling incognito -> traveling cognito.
- There were no two ways about it -> there were two ways about it.
- Inadvertently -> advertently.
- Misnomer -> nomer.
- Unrequited -> requited.
In general, these words and phrases formed by back-formation are not recognized as standard English. A native English speaker will see “gruntled”, have to pause for a moment, and consider that it must mean the opposite of “disgruntled”. Native English speakers will not use the world “gruntled” in conversation or writing unless they are doing it for comedic effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-formation
Examples from the article:
- Disgruntled -> gruntled.
- Nonchalant -> chalant.
- Make no bones about it -> make bones about it.
- Traveling incognito -> traveling cognito.
- There were no two ways about it -> there were two ways about it.
- Inadvertently -> advertently.
- Misnomer -> nomer.
- Unrequited -> requited.
In general, these words and phrases formed by back-formation are not recognized as standard English. A native English speaker will see “gruntled”, have to pause for a moment, and consider that it must mean the opposite of “disgruntled”. Native English speakers will not use the world “gruntled” in conversation or writing unless they are doing it for comedic effect.
These aren't (at least for the most part) back-formations but resurrections of obsolete words, though not necessarily in English. This may not be the caee for multi-word idiomatic phrases (e.g., "make no bones about").
https://www.etymonline.com/word/disgruntle (from English)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nonchalant (from Latin)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/incognito (from Latin)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/inadvertence (from Latin)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/misnomer (from French)
Requite is a currently recognised English word: https://www.etymonline.com/word/requite
https://www.etymonline.com/word/disgruntle (from English)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nonchalant (from Latin)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/incognito (from Latin)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/inadvertence (from Latin)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/misnomer (from French)
Requite is a currently recognised English word: https://www.etymonline.com/word/requite
With one exception (requited) I disagree. These are back-formations. Back-formation describes the process, if the results (coincidentally) match some plausible alternative etymology then that’s not evidence that the alternative etymology is correct! If you turn to the OED as a reference, you’ll see that it has an entry for gruntled—and it is listed as a back-formation from disgruntled; I believe it was coined by PG Wodehouse in the 1930s. The prefix dis- in gruntled is an intensifier anyway, so by constructing “gruntled” as an antonym of “disgruntled” you are not getting the original meaning back (the same dis- appears in discombobulate).
Back-formation is just a process. If a language has a word that sounds like “prefix-X”, then back-formation is the process of creating the word “X” from it. Dis- is often a Latinate prefix meaning “apart”, “removal”, or “negation”, but in the case of dis-gruntled and dis-combobulate means “completely”, so the process of adding dis- and then removing dis- has changed the meaning of “gruntled”. It is therefore a new word (if it were the same word, it would have the same meaning).
Another problem is that the imported word may have changed in meaning. “Nonchalant” may have Latinate origin if you dig deep enough, but we really took it from the French nonchaloir to disregard and French indeed has the (uncommon) chaloir to regard. However, the English word “nonchalant” does not have the same meaning as the French word “chalant”—in English it is a feeling or attitude—so when you rip the non- prefix off you are not in any sense getting something that approximates the French “chaloir” that “nonchalant” was created from in the first place.
A final problem is that the affix may not exist in the first place. “Choate” is simply nonsense, “inchoate” comes from the Latin “incohare” which means to begin and there’s simply no affix to remove.
If you have a mathematical mind, think of it as non-commutative. You can add a affix, and you can remove an affix, and you can borrow the word into another language, but these are not commutative operations and the order in which you do things changes them.
Back-formation is just a process. If a language has a word that sounds like “prefix-X”, then back-formation is the process of creating the word “X” from it. Dis- is often a Latinate prefix meaning “apart”, “removal”, or “negation”, but in the case of dis-gruntled and dis-combobulate means “completely”, so the process of adding dis- and then removing dis- has changed the meaning of “gruntled”. It is therefore a new word (if it were the same word, it would have the same meaning).
Another problem is that the imported word may have changed in meaning. “Nonchalant” may have Latinate origin if you dig deep enough, but we really took it from the French nonchaloir to disregard and French indeed has the (uncommon) chaloir to regard. However, the English word “nonchalant” does not have the same meaning as the French word “chalant”—in English it is a feeling or attitude—so when you rip the non- prefix off you are not in any sense getting something that approximates the French “chaloir” that “nonchalant” was created from in the first place.
A final problem is that the affix may not exist in the first place. “Choate” is simply nonsense, “inchoate” comes from the Latin “incohare” which means to begin and there’s simply no affix to remove.
If you have a mathematical mind, think of it as non-commutative. You can add a affix, and you can remove an affix, and you can borrow the word into another language, but these are not commutative operations and the order in which you do things changes them.
I looked up the Wodehouse quote:
“I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.”
I think he uses it, not just in one of his books, but in several, maybe in slightly different forms.
“I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.”
I think he uses it, not just in one of his books, but in several, maybe in slightly different forms.
> - Unrequited -> requited.
The verb “requite” and the adjective “requited” are quite normal English words, and “unrequited” is derived from them in the normal way.
“Unrequited” may be the form most commonly encountered (“mutual” is most common in many places “requited” would naturally fit), but the other forms are not neologisms created by backformation.
The verb “requite” and the adjective “requited” are quite normal English words, and “unrequited” is derived from them in the normal way.
“Unrequited” may be the form most commonly encountered (“mutual” is most common in many places “requited” would naturally fit), but the other forms are not neologisms created by backformation.
- Pronunciation -> Pronunciate
Ha! Exactly my thought! My uneducated guess is that because we are (or at least I am) lacking a lot of vocabulary compared to native speakers, we have to do every time we read something written in a rather lyrical way or that has unusually complex words.
Regarding the 1600's English, for me this is definitely easier to understand than Shakespeare.
Regarding the 1600's English, for me this is definitely easier to understand than Shakespeare.
Consider me absolutely plussed.
This reminds me of hanging out with friends when someone wondered, "what is the opposite of nonchalant? Is 'chalant' its own thing?!"
This reminds me of hanging out with friends when someone wondered, "what is the opposite of nonchalant? Is 'chalant' its own thing?!"
chalan translates from french as "hot" apparently
Chalant is the present participle of the (disused) verb "chaloir", which means "to matter to someone", "to be important (to someone)".
It's only used anymore in the words "nonchalant" (someone to which things don't matter much) and the expression "peu me chaut" (it matters little to me).
But although "nonchalant" has a clear meaning, the meaning of "chalant" wouldn't be as obvious, since while it's easy to not care about things generally, "generally caring about things" is just the normal state of a person. It's the same reason you don't often hear about a stoppable force or a wieldy tool.
It's only used anymore in the words "nonchalant" (someone to which things don't matter much) and the expression "peu me chaut" (it matters little to me).
But although "nonchalant" has a clear meaning, the meaning of "chalant" wouldn't be as obvious, since while it's easy to not care about things generally, "generally caring about things" is just the normal state of a person. It's the same reason you don't often hear about a stoppable force or a wieldy tool.
Bien achalandé ?
Chaland is something unrelated, it's a slow delivery barge from which derive two meanings, one for a shop being well-stocked (bien achalandé, because it's well served by the barge) and the other for visiting things at a leisurely pace (because the barge is slow and makes many stops).
Nonplussed is a particularly weird case as it means surprised but many people (particularly in North America) think it means not surprised, and so they might think plussed means surprised when through this backformation it ought to mean non-surprised.
Explanation for non-native English speakers:
Guvf fgbel vf jevggra hfvat n frevrf bs Ratyvfu jbeqf naq svkrq cuenfrf gung abeznyyl bayl bpphe va n artngvir sbez, arire va n cbfvgvir sbez. Ubjrire, gur nhgube gerngf nyy bs gurz nf univat cbfvgvir sbezf gung jbhyq zrna gur bccbfvgr bs gur artngvir sbez. Guvf vf fhecevfvat naq shaal, ng yrnfg sbe angvir fcrnxref jub unir arire frra gur cbfvgvir sbezf orsber naq znl unir gb fgbc naq guvax nobhg jung gurl jbhyq gurbergvpnyyl zrna.
Rknzcyr: abaqrfpevcg (glcvpny, trarevp, beqvanel), qvfneenl (pbashfvba, punbf) → qrfpevcg (erznexnoyr, rkgenbeqvanel), neenl (beqre). Gur ynggre gjb jbeqf ner abeznyyl arire hfrq guvf jnl va cenpgvpr.
Guvf fgbel vf jevggra hfvat n frevrf bs Ratyvfu jbeqf naq svkrq cuenfrf gung abeznyyl bayl bpphe va n artngvir sbez, arire va n cbfvgvir sbez. Ubjrire, gur nhgube gerngf nyy bs gurz nf univat cbfvgvir sbezf gung jbhyq zrna gur bccbfvgr bs gur artngvir sbez. Guvf vf fhecevfvat naq shaal, ng yrnfg sbe angvir fcrnxref jub unir arire frra gur cbfvgvir sbezf orsber naq znl unir gb fgbc naq guvax nobhg jung gurl jbhyq gurbergvpnyyl zrna.
Rknzcyr: abaqrfpevcg (glcvpny, trarevp, beqvanel), qvfneenl (pbashfvba, punbf) → qrfpevcg (erznexnoyr, rkgenbeqvanel), neenl (beqre). Gur ynggre gjb jbeqf ner abeznyyl arire hfrq guvf jnl va cenpgvpr.
Thank you so much. I had troubles understanding the original but this makes it perfectly clear bar couple of errors.
Rarely have I see ROT13 in the wild. A surprisingly sipid and not at all nocuous way of earthing spoilers.
Unfortunately, it only makes sense to use with this type of crowd. I can't imagine it'd be that useful for spoilers in other groups that don't have easy access to a ROT13 encoder.
EDIT: BTW, is there another ROT13 encoder in a typical linux installation besides vim's g? command or emacs's rot13* commands?
EDIT2: Looks like the most practical one is:
EDIT: BTW, is there another ROT13 encoder in a typical linux installation besides vim's g? command or emacs's rot13* commands?
EDIT2: Looks like the most practical one is:
tr 'A-Za-z' 'N-ZA-Mn-za-m'What good is a ROT13 encoder? They would need a ROT13 decoder.
Same exact thing...
To the people downvoting: 13 is half 26. If you Rot13 "encode" something twice it ends up with the cleartext.
Try it here if you don't believe me: https://rot13.com/
Try it here if you don't believe me: https://rot13.com/
I think the downvotes are because that's the joke.
If they're joking. I'm still on the fence on that.
The thing with text is that you can't really hear the sarcastic tone of voice, and people are so varied, it's believable that one isn't aware, as at least one user has mentioned here[1]. It's always best to just append an /s or a :P or something.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25461026
The thing with text is that you can't really hear the sarcastic tone of voice, and people are so varied, it's believable that one isn't aware, as at least one user has mentioned here[1]. It's always best to just append an /s or a :P or something.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25461026
I see a lot more ROT13 text on Twitter when people want to make comments about recently released media.
There's plenty of online dencoders (i just abbreviated de+encoding as its the same when shifting by 13 either to the left or right with an alphabet of 26 characters). Not everyone recognizes rot-xx though.
⏵ rot13
Command 'rot13' not found, but can be installed with:
sudo apt install bsdgames # version 2.17-28build1, or
sudo apt install hxtools # version 20200126-1build1[deleted]
rot13 executables not available in all distros apparently. In Archlinux, bsd-games has caesar to which you can pass 13 as an argument, though.
More common with HTML is to set the text to the same color as the background which allows you to see it when you highlight. (Which is probably easier in general.)
There's lots of bookmarklets. I just tried the one from https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/pagedata.html in Firefox, worked fine.
I'd think pretty much everyone has access to https://rot13.com/
On Ubuntu or Debian I make a habit of installing the bsdgames package, which includes rot13 among other things.
Also caesar, which is quite good at decrypting arbitrary transposition ciphers.
[deleted]
Put this stine state into https://rot13.com/
BTW Never noticed before, but because 13*2 = 26, rot13 is both encoder and decoder.
BTW Never noticed before, but because 13*2 = 26, rot13 is both encoder and decoder.
> rot13 is both encoder and decoder
Hence its popularity for very light obfuscation!
Hence its popularity for very light obfuscation!
Works with my 'rot18' decoder too.
'rot13' only works with the alphabet. 'rot18' can do the same thing with numbers too, so rot13 + rot5 = rot18.
Pointless trying to obfuscate info if you can still see the numbers part 'en clair' to give the game away. (bank PINs, phone numbers, etc) Need to obfuscate the digits too.
'rot13' only works with the alphabet. 'rot18' can do the same thing with numbers too, so rot13 + rot5 = rot18.
Pointless trying to obfuscate info if you can still see the numbers part 'en clair' to give the game away. (bank PINs, phone numbers, etc) Need to obfuscate the digits too.
This comment is much funnier if you pretend it's not rot13.
This article is very relatable. I also usually arouse bridled passion.
I don't know whether it's a hug or a slap. It's enormously hard to read but great fun! Do yourself a favor and read this article if you looked immediately at the comments.
Seriously, it's one page long, go read it. I was very whelmed.
It took two or three reads for it to become telligable.
I think you mean intelligible? It’s the opposite of unintelligible.
I can’t read it because I have the New Yorker app installed, and they use universal links to launch the app whenever you click a link to their domain, and this article isn’t on their app.
Edit: nevermind. Long click gave me more options!
Edit: nevermind. Long click gave me more options!
Related... words that are their own opposites: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/57032/25-words-are-their...
(I always wondered what people mean that something was sanctioned. It is so ambiguous!)
(I always wondered what people mean that something was sanctioned. It is so ambiguous!)
That's an autoantonym! Like cleave, or impregnable. They're literally my favourite.
http://www.fun-with-words.com/nym_autoantonyms.html
http://www.fun-with-words.com/nym_autoantonyms.html
My favourite example is the word "deceptively". "The pool was deceptively shallow" could mean the pool was shallower than it looks, or it could mean the pool was not as shallow as it looks, depending on who you ask.
When we have certain friends around and have had a few drinks and some food, someone will ask if everyone is now "gruntled" as in we were previously disgruntled but that has now been resolved.
«State of total array» sounds like some serious CS shit.
Weirdly, I kind of like it. I wish some of these words were actually used.
Shouldn't it logically be "make heads and tails of"?
There are a few superfluous expressions, that make me think I'm missing something (but it's hard enough to read as it is, the reader needs something familiar to hang on to). e.g.
There are a few superfluous expressions, that make me think I'm missing something (but it's hard enough to read as it is, the reader needs something familiar to hang on to). e.g.
So I decided not to rush it.
But then, all at once,
I was, after allIt’s the opposite of “couldn't make heads or/nor tails of”, and the logical opposite of NOR is is OR.
“But then, all at once, for some apparent reason…” might be the opposite of “little by little, for no apparent reason…”
“But then, all at once, for some apparent reason…” might be the opposite of “little by little, for no apparent reason…”
I agree with gp. The opposite of "neither this NOR that" is "both this AND that".
Truth table shows you that the opposite of NOR is OR:
this that | this or that | neither this nor that
----------+--------------+----------------------
T T | T | F
F T | T | F
T F | T | F
F F | F | T[deleted]
The more I fret about keeping up with the latest and greatest tech, the more I need to come back to stuff like this. Words are fun too, and creativity isn't limited to building startups.
-Someone who majored in neither comp sci nor literature.
-Someone who majored in neither comp sci nor literature.
For people unfamiliar with it, Shouts & Murmurs are, from the html code, '<meta name="description" content="Weekly humor and satire about politics and daily life, from The New Yorker's writers and humorists.">'
Very cool! I have never actually seen many of these words in their root forms-- so the author has managed to present something fresh. Also makes me think that the English language is overly abundant in negativity sigh.
> never actually seen many of these words in their root forms
The humor of this is that they generally don't occur that way in English. That's why you haven't seen them!
(This is discussed in much greater detail elsewhere in the comments.)
The humor of this is that they generally don't occur that way in English. That's why you haven't seen them!
(This is discussed in much greater detail elsewhere in the comments.)
Yes its fabulous. I looked up many of these "new" words and was surprised and delighted to find out they're in fact valid words, but never used in speech or writing.
An unexpectedly good read.
[deleted]
Fantastic challenge for AI sense-making software, no?
I mean despite not understanding many of the words you definitely understand what's going on. It's weird.
I used an unpaired word the other day in conversation .. souciant.
Quite proud of myself :-)
Like many unpaired, it derives from French.
Quite proud of myself :-)
Like many unpaired, it derives from French.
for a non-native english speaker, there's a lot of new words in this article. very rich vocabulary
Most of them are not recognized as standard English, so be careful…
My english is not good enough to translate this. Even with dictionary I have no chance. What is meaning of this - for example?
"She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array."
I understand every word, but don't get meaning at all.
Understand firstly that it’s a joke.
The common English expressions are:
“Nondescript” -> not memorable, doesn’t stand out
“disarray” -> messed up, disorganised
This is just changing those to the positive version, but those words are not usually used in English. So it sounds amusing to an English speaker.
You might translate the sentence to normal English as: “She was a striking and very composed person.”
The common English expressions are:
“Nondescript” -> not memorable, doesn’t stand out
“disarray” -> messed up, disorganised
This is just changing those to the positive version, but those words are not usually used in English. So it sounds amusing to an English speaker.
You might translate the sentence to normal English as: “She was a striking and very composed person.”
Its like in school when you copied an article and replaced every second word to avoid plagiarism.
Two other unusual and clever language constructions are xkcd's Up Goer Five a description of a Saturn 5 rocket using only words contained in the 1000 words of basic English, see [1], and
Gadsby by Ernest Vincent Wright, a novel of 50,000 words without using the letter e, see [2].
[1] https://xkcd.com/1133/
[2] https://www.abebooks.com/books/gadsby-lipogram/
[1] https://xkcd.com/1133/
[2] https://www.abebooks.com/books/gadsby-lipogram/
How fantastic, wonderful brain food.
It did nothing to me.
Ah nice, today's reminder of why I hate English (my native language) so much.
Thanks, I hate it.
Got any more?
Thanks, I hate it.
Got any more?
I guess I'll be that guy, since everyone else in the comments is praising the post.
This feels twee and goofy, at best. Not sure why it's on the front page.
This feels twee and goofy, at best. Not sure why it's on the front page.
Because it's hacking. It's hacking the English language to do things that are outside the "normal" usage, but that still work.
I'm not sure either, but I don't object -- and I think it's actually related to topics that folks here care about, like cognition, language, and interpretation.
Personally, I find it fascinating that this is spectacularly harder to read than I think anyone would reasonably expect it to be.
Personally, I find it fascinating that this is spectacularly harder to read than I think anyone would reasonably expect it to be.
> This feels twee and goofy, at best. Not sure why it's on the front page.
Because it's twee and goofy.
Because it's twee and goofy.
I would add quality and novel to the twee and goofy.
It isn't often I come across something that is well executed and novel while existing simply for fun.
I feel as though I need more of that in my life.
It isn't often I come across something that is well executed and novel while existing simply for fun.
I feel as though I need more of that in my life.
I think it's because it's so well executed. If it were a fraction less than perfect the bottom would fall out.
Now it hang like sleeve of wizard
I know it's satire, but the writing style of every New Yorker magazine makes me toss the magazine away immediately. It's a shame because there are good topics in the magazine, yet the unnecessarily bloated writing style makes it painful to read.
(Edited for substance)
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaired_word