Whom!

It's a bummer that when I learn a rule, I can't let it go.  One example is the usage of whom.  For a long time, I had no idea when I was s'posed to use it, and when who would be more appropriate. Then I learned about noun declension in German and Latin, and badabing!; since then I've corrected every who/whom mistake I have seen; sometimes in my head, sometimes out of it, always with a pang of embarrassment that I can't let go.

By the way, if you ever have a question as to which you should use, just ask yourself: "Is who/whom referring to the subject of the sentence?" If so, use who; otherwise, use whom.

I don't know where whom /hūm/ came from. I know that in German, the Dative form of wer (which means "who") is wem (which means "to whom"). Wikipedia will tell you more, I'm sure.

Pronunciation Guide

I recently realized that I have been throwing characters like ä, ū, and ə at you without ever explaining what I mean by them. So that's what this is.

Character	Examples
ă	apple
ā	ate
ä	all*
ĕ	egg
ē	even
ə	about, taken, pencil, eloquent, supply, sibyl
ĭ	igloo
ī	item
ō	omen
ŏ	on*
ö	foot
ŭ	undo
ū	zoom, dune
ch	chore
dh	there
kh	Juárez, lechaim†
ŋ	hung
sh	shirt
th	thin

*/ä/ sounds almost the same as /ŏ/, but I'm going to keep them both.
†I'm considering representing the /kh/ sound as /x/ instead. Which is less confusing?

Today is Cool

Hey, guess what. Today is Monday 23!

What?, you don't get it.

Well, then, here's it —--—›


Also:

I've not done a Word of the Day for a lot of days. Enclosed, please find one.

The word today is revolution /rĕ,və·lū'shən/. It's three parts: re- + volu + -tion. re- = again (and has since Latin); volu <= volvere = latin for "to roll"; -tion = a suffix that makes a noun from a verb.

Interestingly, the verb with which revolution is related is revolve. This is interesting because of the U›V transformation. I think this probably is a result of certain things the Romans did. Many old Roman texts are written in ALL CAPS. ADDITIONALLY, THEY WOULDN'T ADDANYSPACESANDVERYLITTLEPUNCTUATION·IFTHEYGOTTOTHEENDOFTHELINETHEYDJUSTKEEPGOINGONTHENEXTONE. Look here. Anyway, here's the important bit: Because they wrote with a chisel or stylus (stylus is Latin for "A special-shaped stick used for writing"), the letters were often rather rectilinear. The Us, consequently, would all look like Vs.

Also, the Romans never really had J until late-later. Like, the first emperor probably wrote IULIUSCEASAR on his homework as a kid.

MAYBEITWASIVSTATYPOGRAPHICREVOLVTION.

Take vs. Have

It's interesting, I think, that there are some things that we have by default, other things we have to take, and a few things can go either way.

For instance,

Patience is a good example of something we start out having.  It's like in video games, you have a life meter; as things happen that are irksome or frustrating, the patience level decreases, until you don't have any.

Naps, however, are things we must take in order to have them.  We start with no nap, then we take it and we have it after that.  Or had it, I guess.

The most intriguing part is what this shows about how we think about different things.  Those in the Have category are modified or altered passively.  By that I mean, we tend to outsource the responsibility of those things.  In the case of patience, we don't generally decide when something happens, "Oh, wow, that was rather frustrating; I think my patience just lost 10 points."  No, instead, we lose our patience.  In the Take category, on the other hand, we tend to assume that we aren't going to get it any other way.  If we don't take it, we'll never have it.  This is often true, although it is somewhat pessimistic.

This raises the question of time.  Where does it fit?  There is an unlimited supply, but we only have so much warehouse space (our warehouses being plans, goals, hopes, and dreams), so it's a finite quantity for each individual, y'know?  For most of us, I think it's generally a Have commodity.  I don't believe it should be, though, because what we do is our choice.  We need to take time to do things, because it will most likely not fall in our laps.

The word of the day today is intriguing /ĭn·trēg'·ĭŋ/.  I like it because it has three Is (responsibility does, too, and the echo of the B's vertical line in the L is pretty cool, but intriguing is both more useful and more fun).  It's intrigu- + -ing: intrigu- <= intricare = Latin for "to entangle" (also the root of intricate); -ing = the gerund indicator.

Wow, this post got a ton longer than I had expected it to be.

Vegetarianism?

I don't get it.

But that's beside the point.  I posted 'cause I want to know, If you are a vegetarian, what's your reason?

Also, the word today is vegetarian /vĕg·ĭ·tĕr'·ē·ən, vĕg·ĕ·, vĕg·ə·/. Easily enough, it's veget + -arian; veget <= vegetable, -arian = suffix meaning "believer or advocate of something". Interesting tid-bit: Although the word has been in use since the 1830's and probably earlier, the Vegetarian Society claims to have created the word (here) "from the latin 'vegetus' meaning 'lively' (which is how these early vegetarians claimed their diet made them feel) in 1847".

Literally.

The word literally is oft used improperly; This is a problem that literally eats me up inside.  That last sentence is a great example of what I mean.  What does literally really mean?  

literally: /lĭ'·tər·ə·lē/ (liter + -al + -ly.  liter <= littera = Latin for “letter of the alphabet" or "epistle”; -al = a suffix indicating an adjective meaning "of or pertaining to"; -ly = a suffix indicating an adverb based on an adjective).  Translated word-for-word, then, the definition would be:

   "In a manner of or pertaining to letters; by the letter."

Roughly synonymous phrases may include "to the T", "word-for-word", "by the book", "I kid you not", and "not metaphorically or exaggeratedly".

What I'm trying to say is, Please, please, please! stop using literally as an intensifier!  It's not one.  If you say that something "literally eats me up inside", there'd better be something actually consuming some part of the interior of your body!  If not, then you have misused literally.  Literally.

The Introduction.

New blog.  It may happen this time.  Or it won't.  Suspense is fun.

Speaking of things and stuff, the word of the day today is introduction /ĭn,·trə·dŭk'·shən/. Cool word, eh?  Intro- + duc + -tion.  Intro- <= inter = Latin for "into, within"; duc <= ducere = Latin for "to lead"; -tion = a suffix indicating the word's a noun formed from a verb (defined in dictionaries as "The act of..." or "The result of...").

So, quite literally, introduction = lead-in.