From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #185 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, August 3 2005 Volume 14 : Number 185 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: perhaps the new soft boys? [Tom Clark ] RE: perhaps the new soft boys? ["Brian Nupp" ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? [Eb ] RE: perhaps the new soft boys? [Benjamin Lukoff ] new mouse dealie [Christopher Hintz ] Anyone heard this album? [Eb ] RE: Anyone heard this album? ["Brian Nupp" ] RE: perhaps the new soft boys? [Capuchin ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? [Jeff ] RE: perhaps the new soft boys? [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? [Capuchin ] RE: perhaps the new soft boys? [Capuchin ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? [Jeff ] RE: perhaps the new soft boys? ["Marc Alberts" ] from Billboard [Eb ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? ["Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? On Aug 2, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > May I recommend The Flaming Stars? Their 2004 album Named & Shamed > is quite something. Doesn't harm it any that the vocallist sounds > exactly like Robyn. > > (They're on Alternative Tentacles, so you may have to go to your > local punnk store to find 'em.) They're all over eMusic and iTMS also. I like the "Lloyd Cole fronting the Bad Seeds" comparison, and I'll throw in Hugh Cornwell also. Thanks for the recommendation - it's downloading from eMusic right now. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:18:58 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? >May I recommend The Flaming Stars? Their 2004 album Named & Shamed is > >quite something. Doesn't harm it any that the vocallist sounds >exactly >like Robyn. > >(They're on Alternative Tentacles, so you may have to go to your >local >punnk store to find 'em.) > >cheers, > Stewart Hmm. I'll let you know what I think. I hope it's as good as your other suggestions...I just ordered it... I've been listening to a lot of Roxy Music "Siren" lately. I got it for a dollar on vinyl a few months back. "She Sells" won't leave the ears in my head, but I keep hearing the lyrics wrong: -Autoerotic invites, smashing to the floor...- dunno why my mind is playing it this way. Here's an interesting site for those of you who like to nit pick the english langauge: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:45:52 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? > I've been listening to a lot of Roxy Music "Siren" lately. I got it > for a dollar on vinyl a few months back. "She Sells" won't leave the > ears in my head That one's a lotta fun to play on pi-nano. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:53:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Brian Nupp wrote: > Here's an interesting site for those of you who like to nit pick the > english langauge: > http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors Fascinating...but not the best design... My favorite page is this one: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:54:39 -0400 From: Christopher Hintz Subject: new mouse dealie well, it's certainly click-o. i'd get one if i had a desktop computer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:56:08 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Anyone heard this album? http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0ukmikksbb19 Sounds kinda interesting. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:57:31 -0400 From: "Brian Nupp" Subject: RE: Anyone heard this album? >http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0ukmikksbb19 > >Sounds kinda interesting. > >Eb I haven't, but it does sound like a lost classic. Dammit amazon doesn't have any sound clips! - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Brian Nupp wrote: >> Here's an interesting site for those of you who like to nit pick the >> english langauge: >> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors > > Fascinating...but not the best design... Agreed. The layout stinks. And he leaves out the one that bothers me most: complex/complicated. A single thing, in and of itself, cannot be complicated though it might be complex. If a second or third thing shows effects that increase the level of complexity, then it is complicated by those things. When someone says, "This puzzle is complicated." I'll often ask, "By what?" assuming that there is some information not part of the puzzle's description that needs to be considered. Good to see that he includes "nauseous/nauseated". > My favorite page is this one: > http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html I take exception with some of his non-errors. While it is strictly true that one can end a sentence with a preposition and remain grammatically correct (especially if one -- rightly, in my opinion -- shuns prescriptive grammar), like the word usage above, many of these "rules" exist to help a writer avoid ambiguity. The "that/who" distinction also helps avoid ambiguity. Consider "the man now sitting in the chair who/that had moved across the room." If we have a rule that distinguishes people from objects with who/that usage, that clumsy phrase is nonambiguous. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:52:10 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? On 8/2/05, Capuchin wrote: > > My favorite page is this one: > > http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html > > ...many of these "rules" exist to help a > writer avoid ambiguity. The "that/who" distinction also helps avoid > ambiguity. Consider "the man now sitting in the chair who/that had moved > across the room." If we have a rule that distinguishes people from > objects with who/that usage, that clumsy phrase is nonambiguous. The problem is that people do not - and have not - been consistent, and so there's no grounds to *specify* such a rule...since language is based on usage and not (perhaps alas) on mere logic. In other words, I'd agree with you if it were possibly to engineer the language - but since it's not, and since such a distinction wouldn't be heard as a distinction by probably 90% of the people hearing it, its utility is all but dissolved. Also, your example isn't the best: the chair can't move by itself (!), so that should be "had been moved" if it's the chair moving. I'd just rephrase: "the man who's now sitting in the chair used to be across the room" or "the man is now sitting in the chair that had been moved across the room." (Note that my *preference* is to retain the who/that distinction, but...having taught for a number of years, I've realized it's utterly fruitless to try and enforce it. There are many more important linguistic errors to be dealt with - like being able to form coherent sentences, or to think logically at all.) Unless you meant Chair-Bot, the self-relocating chair. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:11:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Capuchin wrote: > And he leaves out the one that bothers me most: complex/complicated. > A single thing, in and of itself, cannot be complicated though it might be > complex. If a second or third thing shows effects that increase the level > of complexity, then it is complicated by those things. > When someone says, "This puzzle is complicated." I'll often ask, "By > what?" assuming that there is some information not part of the puzzle's > description that needs to be considered. Is that really your first assumption, not that they mean "complex"? This sounds like one of those distinctions that is falling by the wayside.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:46:23 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? The cited website is flat out wrong about biweekly/bimonthly. It means both "twice a" and "once every two". Seems like an attempt to simplify language for the writer's own ends. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 23:46:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > The cited website is flat out wrong about biweekly/bimonthly. It means > both "twice a" and "once every two". Seems like an attempt to simplify > language for the writer's own ends. Who uses "biweekly" to mean eight times a month instead of twice? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 01:14:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Stewart C. Russell wrote: >> The cited website is flat out wrong about biweekly/bimonthly. It means >> both "twice a" and "once every two". Seems like an attempt to simplify >> language for the writer's own ends. > > Who uses "biweekly" to mean eight times a month instead of twice? One of our local papers has a Wednesday/Friday publishing schedule. Pretty much everyone refers to that paper as a "biweekly publication". Could be Wednesday/Saturday, now that I think about it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 01:34:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Capuchin wrote: >> And he leaves out the one that bothers me most: complex/complicated. A >> single thing, in and of itself, cannot be complicated though it might >> be complex. If a second or third thing shows effects that increase the >> level of complexity, then it is complicated by those things. When >> someone says, "This puzzle is complicated." I'll often ask, "By what?" >> assuming that there is some information not part of the puzzle's >> description that needs to be considered. > > Is that really your first assumption, not that they mean "complex"? Yeah, it is. To me, "complicated" is a past tense verb and "complex" is an adjective. If something is homogeneous, it wasn't necessarily homogenized. So homogenized milk had something done to it to make it that way while the air in my bedroom is just a homogeneous mixture naturally. As for "complex/complicated", I should probably note that I encounter these words most frequently while doing my work in mathematics. Of course, mathematics is really nothing but precise language and careful expressions, so subtle distinctions can change meaning drastically. Interestingly, the best example I can write of the distinction is as follows: Pure mathematics is complex. Applied mathematics is complicated. I'm more irritated than misled when folks say or write "made complex by" when they should be saying or writing "complicated". But I definitely hear and see the confusion in both directions. > This sounds like one of those distinctions that is falling by the > wayside.. We shouldn't let it. We have different words for a very good reason. As important distinctions "fall by the wayside" language becomes limited and it becomes harder for a person to express exactly what they mean succinctly. As a result, subtle or complex notions are either difficult to write or read and so only those already interested in expending the effort will share or take the time to understand those things. I consider such loss to the language a kind of illiteracy and our culture suffers from it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 06:54:01 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? On 8/3/05, Capuchin wrote: > > This sounds like one of those distinctions that is falling by the > > wayside.. > > We shouldn't let it. We have different words for a very good reason. As > important distinctions "fall by the wayside" language becomes limited and > it becomes harder for a person to express exactly what they mean > succinctly. As a result, subtle or complex notions are either difficult > to write or read and so only those already interested in expending the > effort will share or take the time to understand those things. At the same time, though, new terms enter the language that allow more precision in other areas. It's a question of what the culture values. > I consider such loss to the language a kind of illiteracy and our culture > suffers from it. Well, I don't think any culture has ever valued precision to such an extent: language has always been a bit slippery, except in specialized realms like the sciences or even law (whose complex language arises from an effort to say only one thing, and not the other 79 that might be implied by yr everyday usages). - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 05:53:47 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? Jeme wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Capuchin wrote: > >> And he leaves out the one that bothers me most: complex/complicated. A > >> single thing, in and of itself, cannot be complicated though it might > >> be complex. If a second or third thing shows effects that increase the > >> level of complexity, then it is complicated by those things. When > >> someone says, "This puzzle is complicated." I'll often ask, "By what?" > >> assuming that there is some information not part of the puzzle's > >> description that needs to be considered. > > > > Is that really your first assumption, not that they mean "complex"? > > Yeah, it is. To me, "complicated" is a past tense verb and "complex" is > an adjective. com.pli.cat.ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmpl-ktd) adj. 1. Containing intricately combined or involved parts. 2. Not easy to understand or analyze. See Synonyms at complex. See Synonyms at complex. See Synonyms at elaborate. So what's wrong with using it as an adjective again? > If something is homogeneous, it wasn't necessarily homogenized. So > homogenized milk had something done to it to make it that way while the > air in my bedroom is just a homogeneous mixture naturally. Homogeneous is an adjective, homogenized is a past tense form of a verb meaning "to make homogeneous." > As for "complex/complicated", I should probably note that I encounter > these words most frequently while doing my work in mathematics. Of > course, mathematics is really nothing but precise language and careful > expressions, so subtle distinctions can change meaning drastically. > > Interestingly, the best example I can write of the distinction is as > follows: Pure mathematics is complex. Applied mathematics is > complicated. In what sense are you referring to pure mathematics as complex here? I don't think this example is illuminating much here. Maybe add some parenthetical comments after each word or something. I guess I don't know the differences between pure and applied mathematics well enough to be able to see the fine distinction you are making. I always thought that pure mathematics were equations where you were solving for a value just for kicks and grins (y=mx+b kind of stuff) where applied mathematics involved actually trying to take a problem and extract the algebraic means to a solution and then solving it. In either case they, couldn't you say that they both were complex and complicated (if you want to make a distinction between the synonyms)? Marc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:36:49 -0700 From: Eb Subject: from Billboard Neutral Milk Hotel Leader Makes Rare Appearance By Troy Carpenter, N.Y. Neutral Milk Hotel mastermind Jeff Mangum made his first live appearance in years last night (Aug. 2) in New York, guesting with Olivia Tremor Control during the first of two performances at New York's Bowery Ballroom. The artist bounded on stage about an hour into the show to sing "I Have Been Floated," from OTC's 1999 album "Black Foliage: Animation Music." Mangum appeared to be wiping back tears and hugged OTC members at the song's end, which was met with stunned, thunderous applause. Decked out in a blue button down shirt and green ball cap, Mangum came on stage again during a jubilant encore to handle lead vocals on a song of unknown origin. At its conclusion, he pulled OTC member Julian Koster to the floor and was then jumped upon by other members. In the late '90s, members of Olivia Tremor Control and Neutral Milk Hotel were frequent collaborators with each other under the umbrella of the Athens, Ga.-based Elephant 6 collective. But Mangum has rarely been heard from since the tour in support of Neutral Milk Hotel's 1998 album "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea," a cult classic that has come to be thought of as a touchstone of late '90s indie rock. "Aeroplane" is due to be reissued by Domino Records in the U.K., although no specific date has been confirmed. In addition, Fire Records is planning an expanded reissue of Neutral Milk Hotel's 1996 debut, "On Avery Island," with the band's approval. As for Olivia Tremor Control, its ongoing tour is an outgrowth of a reunion inspired by an appearance earlier this year at the All Tomorrow's Parties festival in England. Co-frontman Bill Doss split from the group in 1999; he then released two albums with the group the Sunshine Fix, while remaining OTC members issued a project as Circulatory System. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:26:06 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Who uses "biweekly" to mean eight times a month instead of twice? at least Cambridge, M-W and Chambers. Blue Peter was always described as a biweekly magazine programme for children. It aired on Monday and Thursday. cheers, Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:25:25 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? On 8/3/05, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > > Who uses "biweekly" to mean eight times a month instead of twice? > > at least Cambridge, M-W and Chambers. > > Blue Peter was always described as a biweekly magazine programme for > children. It aired on Monday and Thursday. Both "biweekly" and "bimonthly" can mean either twice-per or every-other. That is, in some senses they can be near-synonyms. Weird, but there it is. There's this thing called a dictionary: you may consult it and discover that what I say is true. We Americans don't say "fortnightly" (do you Brits etc.?) but perhaps we should. Then we can say "twice-weekly" as well. As for "every other month" - well, there's that, and there's "six times a year." But now *I'm* trying to engineer the language. Ironic, doncha think. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:59:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? Jeff wrote: > Both "biweekly" and "bimonthly" can mean either twice-per > or every-other. That is, in some senses they can be > near-synonyms. > > Weird, but there it is. There's this thing called a > dictionary: you may consult it and discover that what I > say is true. > > We Americans don't say "fortnightly" (do you Brits etc.?) > but perhaps we should. Then we can say "twice-weekly" as > well. As for "every other month" - well, there's that, > and there's "six times a year." > > But now *I'm* trying to engineer the language. Ironic, > doncha think. A little too ironic...and yeah I really do think... "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:29:34 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? Jeff wrote: > > Weird, but there it is. There's this thing called a dictionary: you > may consult it and discover that what I say is true. Um, my "at least Cambridge, M[erriam]-W[ebster] and Chambers" was a reference to the three major dictionary publishers I'd checked. And there's enough of a difference between biweekly and bimonthly to make a difference to my mortgage payments. I was on one, now I'm on the other. Which one of which one is up to you. cheers, Stewart ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #185 ********************************