Elegant wordplay springs up in the most unexpected places...

Stinque posted some Selections from the London Review of Books classifieds for March 12, 2009. The list included:

Fanciable sylph, 52, seeks diversion.

Leading the ever clever TtWS to post:

Tommmcatt the Wet Sprocket
6:46 PM • TUESDAY • MARCH 24, 2009
I dunno, I think a tryst with a fanciable slyph, 52, would be kinda delightful if I were in her age range and inclined that way.

Compelling the Wrong Coast Legal Eagle to query:

SanFranLefty
6:54 PM • TUESDAY • MARCH 24, 2009
@Tommmcatt the Wet Sprocket:
Is a slyph a slutty sylph?

And here our exchange takes a turn to the wonderful, as TtWS responds, a mere 30 minutes later:

Tommmcatt the Wet Sprocket
7:32 PM • TUESDAY • MARCH 24, 2009
@SanFranLefty:
Surely a “slyph” is a slut of a sylph,
Sure as “soot” after sweeping is “toos”,
Or the sleeve of a sluice can combine to make sluve,
and the sound when a cat flees is “mewve”.

If we dun ourselves in to the spelling of words,
or dole them out only by what they might mean,
We miss out on some funderful combomakeshuns,
And our use of the language is lean.

So celebretype words of the neolodge sort!
And forgive me my lapses in art,
and if my lackodaise use of orthograpy hurts,
I apolomake stryght from my heart.

SFL, clearly smote, responds:

SanFranLefty
7:37 PM • TUESDAY • MARCH 24, 2009
@Tommmcatt the Wet Sprocket:
Wanna play Scrabble?

TtWS, recognizing genius as well as crafting it, responds:

Tommmcatt the Wet Sprocket
7:39 PM • TUESDAY • MARCH 24, 2009
@SanFranLefty:
That was a practically perfect response in every way, darling.

My day is made. It can not get better. I am going to bed.

Twitter, the humanities and fun math...

David Weinberger is one of my more favorite humans for a variety of reasons. Not least among them is the fact that he appears to share my tendency to find too many things interesting and/or a questing passion to understand the bits of random data that fly past most people. He recently used Twitter toward such purposes, in what might possibly be the most "useful" application of Twitter to date.

He asked "Challenge: Explain Fourier Transforms, w/o math, to a Humanities major (me), more clearly than http://tinyurl.com/27n3g … in 1 tweet?" Absolutely brilliant. He received some extremely clever and [forcibly] concise responses. My two favorites:

Things you don’t understand can be expressed in smaller equivalent pieces of things you don’t understand.

Smart maths breaks large constructs down into small things loosely joined.

[Admittedly, the second is funnier if you have read DW's  Small Pieces Loosely Joined.] 

I'd love to see a Twitterererer who would run with this...asking for 140 character explanations to wildly complex (or simple, as the case may be) questions. I think this would make great reading. I wish I had the time...if you run across someone doing this, let me know. 

Also, and apropos of nothing, how did "to Twitter" become "tweet" rather than "twit". It makes a great deal more sense. It also allows for such fun as, "I twitted a twit with a clever twit". 

Save the Words...Best website of the year (thus far)

I am quaeritating you all to go take a look at "Save the Words", assuming you have a succisive moment or two. Sponsored by the Oxford U. Press, the site seeks to save unusual words from a teterrimous extinction. You can adopt a word (pledge to use it in correspondence and conversation) and sign up for a "word a day" emailed to the comfort of your 'puter.

These are words that will have a locupletative effect on not just your vocabulary but on your life as a whole... While it can sometimes be a senticous matter to use words that require explanation and/or definition, I don't think I should be prescited for hoping to save idiosyncratic terminology.

I, for one, am ecstasiated that they have embarked on this program. It is neither vexatious or dilatory to add interesting words to one's vocabulary...it certainly beats molrowing.

My squiriferous nature requires I thank JG for the heads up.

Why grandfathers are cooler than dads...

So Granddaddy had a surprise for the boys when they arrived. He had, following an old Popular Mechanics for Boys instructions, built them a periscope.

This included bringing the wooden tube to the local glass shop and having them cut mirrors perfect for the tube...needless to say the guys in the shop thought it was the coolest thing *they* had seen and I wager their kids will be getting their own soon.

The boys have been looking around corners and over things. The pictures show the front and back of the periscope, the instructions and an orchid as seen through it.

They also brought it to the Parade today and had great fun with it as well.

Dad has also made the boys an "ice scooter" from plans from the turn of the [last] century...three bladed scooter and a specially strap on "pad" that had screws through it in a slight backward angle to make kicking more efficient.

Many years ago, dad I built a Snowball Thrower from a late 1800s "projects for boys" book...it was very cool...basically a small catapult for flinging snowballs (or rocks)...

Grammar wonks rejoice:

Some of you likely know that Paul Brians wrote a lovely book called, "Common Errors in English. However, did you know that pretty much the entire book is available at his website in an easy to search format? I offer the following (recently explored on one of the biblio list groups) example:

I/me/myself
In the old days when people studied traditional grammar, we could simply say, “The first person singular pronoun is “I” when it’s a subject and “me” when it’s an object,” but now few people know what that means. Let’s see if we can apply some common sense here. The misuse of “I” and “myself” for “me” is caused by nervousness about “me.” Educated people know that “Jim and me is goin’ down to slop the hogs,” is not elegant speech, not “correct.” It should be “Jim and I” because if I were slopping the hogs alone I would never say “Me is going. . . .” If you refer to yourself first, the same rule applies: It’s not “Me and Jim are going” but “I and Jim are going.”

So far so good. But the notion that there is something wrong with “me” leads people to overcorrect and avoid it where it is perfectly appropriate. People will say “The document had to be signed by both Susan and I” when the correct statement would be, “The document had to be signed by both Susan and me.” Trying even harder to avoid the lowly “me,” many people will substitute “myself,” as in “The suspect uttered epithets at Officer O’Leary and myself.”

“Myself” is no better than “I” as an object. “Myself” is not a sort of all-purpose intensive form of “me” or “I.” Use “myself” only when you have used “I” earlier in the same sentence: “I am not particularly fond of goat cheese myself.” “I kept half the loot for myself.” All this confusion can easily be avoided if you just remove the second party from the sentences where you feel tempted to use “myself” as an object or feel nervous about “me.” You wouldn’t say, “The IRS sent the refund check to I,” so you shouldn’t say “The IRS sent the refund check to my wife and I” either. And you shouldn’t say “to my wife and myself.” The only correct way to say this is, “The IRS sent the refund check to my wife and me.” Still sounds too casual? Get over it.

On a related point, those who continue to announce “It is I” have traditional grammatical correctness on their side, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who proudly boast “it’s me!” There’s not much that can be done about this now. Similarly, if a caller asks for Susan and Susan answers “This is she,” her somewhat antiquated correctness is likely to startle the questioner into confusion.

He covers pretty much all the biggies, including one of my most favorite abominations, the use of "impact" as a verb and another of my favorites, "affect vs effect". As a bonus, there is a great list of grammatically fun sites at the bottom of the page. Enjoy.