July 2002
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Jun   Aug


pages I visit regularly

The Aardvark Speaks

Aquinas

The Bleat

boing boing

Caveat Lector

Clark Hornbell

Crazy Apple Rumors

The Disseminary

Eeksy-Peeksy

Fragments

Fury

A Girl Named Bob

harrumph! still crazy!

Jonathon Delacour

Oblivio

ordinary morning

Pax Nortona

rabbit blog

reverend jim

runs with scissors

Russell Beattie

Ruzz

sour mash with a twist

Sainteros

Samurai Panda

Seb's Open Research

Time's Shadow

The Universal Church of Cosmic Uncertainty

Visible Darkness


Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.  Write to me!


more posts

Thursday, July 18, 2002    permalink
You don't have to be a member of PETA...

...to feel like there's something wrong with this picture.

Sure, tweak their brains and then "sacrifice" (the scientific euphemism) them. That's nice. As boingboing noted, time to order more Flowers for Algernon (a brilliant short story by Daniel Keyes that everyone should read, which was made into an okay movie called "Charly").

7:23:37 PM    please comment []

Another question for the language-watchers...

I touched off a little debate with my question about "w00t!" a couple of days ago in I realize this damages my geek cred... (check out the comments).

So, from you language mavens: I'd like to know: when did "SO" become a common all-purpose intensifier? How far back? Was it originally valley-girl speak?

I ask because I just came inside and announced to my colleagues "It's SO going to pour any minute now." Needless to say, this is not quite standard English, but I realized that I say this sort of thing all the time. It used to be that "so" only modified adjectives. Now any gerund phrase is fair game.

What's up with THAT?

7:04:41 PM    please comment []



© Copyright 2002 Pascale Soleil.
Last updated: 11/10/02; 3:06:16 PM.
Comments by: YACCS
Click to see the XML version of this web page.