Words that aren't words. Stop using them.

I have put together a list of eight words that, quite simply, aren't words. If you say/write them, you should probably stop. Some are spoken correctly but spelled horrendously, while others on paper look fine, but when spoken, make the earth cringe.

(Yes, every time you misspeak a word, somewhere, there's an earthquake).

It would be a top ten, but the highest ranking, 'yous' and 'totes', have achieved such infamy that they each have a post of their own. Links are at the bottom. As promised, here are the other eight.

Alot

Alot is not aword. Neither is apony or apoptart. Weird, right?

Aswell

It’s ‘as well’, with a gap for personal space in between.

Alright

You might not get the red underline for this one. Know why? Because it’s so disgraceful you should know better. ‘All right’ - now there’s a breath of fresh air.

Aks

As in, "Aks him for the cash."

It's entirely possible that at some point in my past, I heard this very command and thought, To what culture does this person belong? Surely killing is illegal there too, right? More importantly, why do they always axe their friends? Note to self: do not befriend this person.

Then it hit me. Oh, they meant 'ask'. Yet I folded my arms, brow creased. Note to self: do not befriend this person.

Dieing

Just look at the three vowels in the middle there and tell me that it makes even a smidgen of sense to pronounce that mutation of letters as ‘die-ing’. I’d probably go for ‘deeeng’, like a doorbell with an Australian accent. 

(The correct spelling of the word that describes someone whose health is presently waning to the point of no longer living is ‘dying’).

Ragland

When someone says "Ragland," I think of a meadow filled with old shirts and car engine-stained flannels, and then I say, “Oh, you mean Raglan. Yeah, sure, let's go.”

Some-think, any-think and every-think

A friend who needs better arguments recently uttered that words ending in ‘ing’ are sometimes pronounced with a ‘k’ stuck to the end to help conclude without having to trail off, since the ‘ng’ on its own doesn’t really 'finish'. I remained unconvinced, replying that any word ending with a vowel doesn’t ‘finish’, and therefore we should add a ‘k’ to them, too. (I was being sarcastic. Don't even think about it.)

Also, no one says 'think' when they mean 'thing'.

Some-pink

No one says this, either, except my childhood neighbour friend. He had a permanently-blocked nose and parents who didn't feel the need to correct him. He was trying to say “something”, but his ‘th’ became ‘p’, and then he added the ‘k’ like an epilogue to his verbal diarrhoea. I must have lost my note.

-------------------------

Totes

http://sanctuaryofsynonyms.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/totes.html

Yous

http://sanctuaryofsynonyms.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/the-yous-epidemic.html

Read More

Yous has babies: Yours and Yours's

It was as I exited the mall that I saw it. A double-sided blackboard detailing the specials at Esquires. Except, it didn't read 'specials', but rather... 'speciels'. Noting the prominence of foreign workers within the café, I simply donned a wry smile and carried on. Not an unkind man, I was even willing to forgive and forget, even turn my slanted smile into a cheerful one, so long as the spelling on other side of the board was no different. Yet, a deep, ugly cringe left no doubt left me unrecognisable after I turned my head. SPESHALS!

Anecdote aside, if you're going to get something wrong, then at the very least be consistent!

Deep down, we all know that the pronoun 'you' can apply to any number of people at a time. This means that 'yous' is unnecessary in every instance it gets said. But if you're going to insist on speaking poorly, then you really ought to add an 's' to every word derived from the word 'you'. For instance, after your daily jog, you might stop by your neighbours' house.

You note their car, both awesome (it can fly) and green. "That's a mint car yous of got," you say between short breaths.

"Thanks," your friendly and intelligent neighbour replies, "but we hardly use it ever since we got our teleportation device. It takes us anywhere in seconds!"
"Oh, mean. Can I see yours teleportation device?"

"Sure can. Come on in."

You step inside. It's the most amazing house you've ever seen, the descriptions irrelevant to the blog post in which you're presently featuring. "Wow, this place is real nice. Is it yours's, or are yous renting?"

Why leave 'yous' to fend for itself? Give it some friends. Since you've already turned 'you' into 'yous' in cases where two or more people are the subjects of 'you', naturally you should also do the following. 

It's consistent, it's logical, and it clearly makes your language sound aeons cooler than your everyday lingo. Look, Gollum is on the right track.

What? So, you're saying that Gollum is not your role model? But... the language and all... I just thought... Pshh, whatever.

Read More

Three pet peeves of mine that seem to be social norms

1. When someone fails to make eye contact despite their job in customer service

Some stores are better than others, but, every now and then, I approach the counter of a shop, and the man or woman at the checkout fails to look at me once, especially if there's a queue. A few days ago I bought some CDs from the Warehouse. When I took them to the counter, the woman there retrieved them to scan and mumbled something like, "Hi there." I returned the greeting, while thinking, I hope she was talking to me. She wasn't looking at me, but those CDs sure as hell don't talk back. Then she said "Eftpos?" while looking at the table with weary eyes.

I was thinking, retard?, but found myself saying, "Yes," to her hair-covered scalp, since her head was so low that I would've had to squat to see her face.

Finally, with as much energy in her voice as there was visibility of her eyes, she said, "Have a nice day." I looked at the time. It was 5:30pm.

2. When someone insists on texting during a person-to-person conversation

Why does almost everyone drop everything to reply to a text message? I'll be talking to someone when suddenly their text tone sounds, they frantically say, "Hang on," and they pause the conversation while they text, as if the text is somehow more important than you, as if it's less rude to keep the person on the other end waiting rather than you, the person they're talking to. Two minutes later, they're back at it, texting away again. Can't you just, you know, not text them?

I know there's a time and a place for it. It could be work-related, or family issue-related; but 90% of the time it's not. It's just another friend they're probably going to 'catch up' with after they're finished with you. Where's the fun in that if they're texting the whole time? Scratch that. Where's the fun in texting? Text typing has to be the most boring thing ever, that is, besides the enduring process of watching someone else finish their text.

3. When someone thinks they're cooler than you despite the fact that they're driving a bus

I was recently driving down a main road when a bus turned in from a side road. It pulled out in front of me, and I had to brake (and almost stop) to avoid hitting it. During these pivotal seconds, I stared at the driver: a middle-aged, sun glasses-wearing individual who simply stared back. I kept staring as he slowly turned and I hastily slowed, until finally we'd gone our separate ways. My thoughts during this brief period were as follows.

Pulling in front of me doesn't make you cool, buddy. You drive a freaking bus, all day, around and around, yet you fail to give way. Every time you do that, you're like a cop being pulled over. Really ironic, and it doesn't make you any less uncool.

Read More

YOLO and Idiocracy

I recently saw a film called Idiocracy, in which Joe Bauers gets cryogenically frozen for 500 years, only to reawaken to a world full of idiots. The premise makes the assumption that families who are more productive tend to be less intelligent, more intelligent couples produce less kids, and, therefore, the intelligent die out, and the stupid survive.

Makes sense, I thought; but it wasn't until the year 2505 that I was rendered fully petrified.

In this new society, Starbucks is a brothel of sorts, rubbish dumps reach higher than Everest, and plants are 'watered' with Gatorade because "it has electrolytes". When Mr Bauers asks a bunch of loiterers for directions, they get mad and one of them says, "You're starting to sound faggy." When he pleads with a stranger to help him, and promises gold for his assistance, the stranger replies, "I like moneys." And when Joe enquires where he can get water to drink, the response is, "What, like, water from the toilet?"

I can't speak much for the film's premise since, as it happens, I'm not exactly playing my part in spawning a formidable team of mini-Matts. But needless to say, this extreme decline in human intelligence (and with it, the English language) left me asking, "Could this be happening right now?" And you know what? I think it could, evidenced by the infamous term "YOLO!"

It's a shame it's white. There'll be no hope of concealing my vomit.

Aside from the fact that saying YOLO makes whatever you've just said, are saying, or are about to say contain 100% less integrity, it's also a contradiction. You only live once, yes, so why are you wasting your breath (and reputation) saying YOLO? The term destroys itself, yet no one seems to notice.

Thankfully, not one of my friends takes it seriously. For instance, when Naomi says it, she puts on an extremely pompous English accent and drags the word until you've forgotten whatever it is she was on about. And then we all laugh.

Like 'yous' and 'totes' and other mutations of language, YOLO must only be said as a joke or a jest. We must expose the mutation for what it is, for there are those who do use the term seriously, and it's these people who serve only to pave the slippery slope down which intellect itself will soon tumble and fall... from a teetering pile of junk (a metaphor for crappy words and acronyms) the size of Mount Everest.

And as for the mini-Matts, well, at least now I have a sensible reason to have kids!

Read More

The 'Yous' Epidemic

Childhood was a nightmare. School bullying; cat got run over; broadband was called something like 'dial up'; and there was the unforgettable epidemic of 'yous'. Not 'use', 'yous'. As in, "I'll give yous a gold star if yous'd learn to speak English." Eugh!

Enduring the profanities of those whose pastimes it was to pick on kids richer than them, and for whom I felt sorry because it gave them little time for videogames, was cake next to other blasphemous obscenities with which my poor ears were forced to contend. Among them, 'yous' was the worst. I had my first encounter when I was seven.

"Mrs Black gets angry when we're late! Yous better hurry up."

The word was petrifying. Even when the bell rang, the sound of which normally sets my feet into action, I stood there. The playground emptied; tumbleweed hovered; I felt like I was floating. I blinked moisture into my eyes, but instead the memories came flooding back. His face, adorned with freckles and glasses, refused to fade from my mind. The lisp made his verbal abuse indistinguishable from 'youth'. And as he spoke, saliva sprayed from between his metal-plated teeth. The word emerged like a shark trying to speak while consuming its prey. Violent, traumatising and... unnatural.

Today I still remember the culprit's face; it's been tattooed onto my memory, black and white like a wanted poster's sketch. Except before he could be detained, his sick language infiltrated the minds of every other kiwi in this country. I hear it more than ever; and each time it revives the pain. Battle scars.

Such language isn't even remotely productive. Believe me, I've fought to justify its use: 'you's' as a contraction for 'you is'; oh wait, there's no situation where that works, ever. Or 'yous' for colloquial banter, like 'lols' for old people since, you know, old people say it! But even this doesn't hold water, since 'lol' is but a poor acronym whose lowly status has long been established. 'You', on the other hand, is a perfectly crafted word, like 'Raglan' without the 'D' and 'everything' without that vulgar 'K'! It is clear that 'yous' has no place in anyone's vocabulary.

I know there are others who've seen the light, those of you similarly afflicted by the plagues which haunt the English language. It is you who ask, "What must we do?" And, with great pain, I must say that there is no known cure. But hope is not lost, for I do have one suggestion: one other than, "It's 'you', without the 's'," since that response only turns you into a pedantic nut. My advice is this: mimic and exaggerate their mistakes,

"What are yous up to today?"

"I's gots as physicses labs ats ones, ands Douglases's gots twos tutses froms elevens untils twelves fifties."

With hope they'll realise saying 'yous' makes them sound like they're simultaneously being tasered.

Immediate results are unlikely; but the more we wait, the more the curse spreads. Even those once thought immune are finding the taint to be too much to bear. Ignorance and apathy are pitfalls which we're becoming careless to avoid. Well stand up, I say. For if you're finding yourself in one of these pits, then may my advice be a torch to light your way, or a map if your pit is, in fact, a twisted and abysmal cave crawling with 'yous'-spreaders. 

If it is, then we may already be too late.

Read More

Introverts 201

Introvertedness is a complicated term. It's also not a word. Needless to say, a few paragraphs about social energy are hardly sufficient to clearly explain the complicated relationship introverts have with their given state of 'limited social capacity'. So, here are some things to consider.

There are those who think they're extroverts (and everyone else also thinks they're extroverts), but, really, they aren't - at least, not entirely. Cynthia, a friend of mine who socialises nonstop and has far too many friends, recently told me that her energy for them is limited like mine, except, until now, she's never admitted it. She's like a fish with too much food, except she hasn't died… yet. You see, next to her social energy tank is an inability to say 'no'. One too many yeses later and she's wondering why she's feeling so drained. Tsk tsk, young Cynthia. "True courage is about knowing not when to [be social], but when to [not be social]." Then I proceeded to give her a sword.

via Memecenter

There are those whose introvertedness clashes with their fear of missing out. I'm one of these. I'll be playing a game, or watching a film when some intrusive friend decides to message me, "U shld come ova 4 a bbq @ Zed's plce! We gt salad, but nd meat." Up until this point, I would be content doing next to nothing. But now that there's a social event going on, I'm torn between accepting and declining, never mind the dwindling energy bank! Something about, "I can watch this film or play that game at any time, but I can't summon barbecues quite so easily. Also, people die."

Added to all this is the issue of who to hang out with. Think of each relationship you have with someone like its own slope. Some friends are easy to get along with. You can be yourself, say whatever, embrace awkwardness rather than shy from it, and there are no lengthy good byes, which are also awkward. These are the downhill-sloped people. They don’t drain social energy. They give it. By contrast, there are those with whom you don't really relate, those who'll stop listening if you talk about anything other than panel beating, or those who will probably judge you for having an interest in biodegradable objects. It quickly becomes a chore to talk to these folk. Some of them will drive you insane! These are the uphill ones. And in between the two are those who don't really give or take energy. Perhaps they don't talk much; perhaps they're mute. In any case, they're flat, like Hamilton. Basically, some people require more social energy than others. A barbecue has more than just food. It has people, too, and those people will impact on whether or not I'll bother. Of course, this is on a bad day.

If anything, be grateful when your introvert friend shows up. More often than not, they decided that spending time with you would be more worthwhile than not spending time with you, and they went to the effort to do so. Believe you me, there's always effort involved. You know, you have to go uphill before you can go down again.

------------------------------------

Introverts 101

Read More

What makes a good movie?

The answer seems simple enough. Acting, plot, director's passion, suspense, special effects, you name it. When all of these meet at the peak of quality, a good movie dawns, does it not? Perhaps. But is not each of these qualities subject to debate? You may think the storyline of a movie superb in its execution, while I find it clichéd and overdone. In other words, each person has his or her own views; and in the end, it would appear that we viewers determine the levels of each quality, and thus the overall value of a film. Yet, when 70 percent of people dislike a film and the other 30 love it, do we simply say it's a bad film, or do we deem it 'underrated'? What if 90 percent of people love it and the rest despise it? Is it therefore a good movie, or do only 1 in every 10 people truly appreciate art when and where they see it?

So we have ourselves a dilemma, and the conundrum remains: what makes a 'good' movie? The simple solution is to back away, concluding that 'good' and 'bad', at least in terms of quality, are relative to a person's individual tastes. Perhaps, at the end of the day, that is all we can be sure of. But such a conclusion, indeed I tell you, is lame. Let us instead veer our eyes to the abyss!

Take Breaking Dawn: Part 2, the fifth and final film in the Twilight Saga, for example. On Rotten Tomatoes, it scored 48 percent from critics and 88 percent from user ratings. According to the formula above, Breaking Dawn: Part 2 is a good film, and critics don't know what they're talking about. Now look at Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. This film scored 92 percent from critics and 92 percent from user ratings. Another good film, yes? Indeed, ignoring what critics think, both films are almost equal in their level of quality. Breaking Dawn: Part 2 falls just 4 percent short. But lo! The father of modern fantasy nearly beaten by sparkly white people? This cannot be!

Fortunately, there is a distinction to be made despite these films' similar user ratings. Such a distinction eludes our first glance, but it becomes clear once the veneer of fandom has been removed. Both Breaking Dawn: Part 2 and Lord of the Rings have massive fan followings. Take them away, and what are we left with? For the former, barely the skin of its teeth. When those who love the film - those with biased opinions - are excluded, what's left is a multitude of human beings who despise shimmering vampires and ravenous werewolves (which, by the way, aren't werewolves. Read the book.) who for some unearthly reason risk everything to help an annoying, age-obsessed girl named Bella… oh, and her daughter Renesmee, who, for the record, is cute in the same way the rain maker from Looper is cute; that is, creepy. There is hardly anyone, and I mean anyone, who thinks the movie is 'adequate', or 'moderately good', or 'disappointing'. It's either amazing (if you're already a fan), or it’s really bad (if you're anyone else).

By contrast, when you strip Lord of the Rings of its fan base, there is still much substance to be found. Unlike Breaking Dawn, hardly anyone despises Lord of the Rings. If you don't love it, you still like it. Over a decade since its release, I've yet to meet a man who's watched it and didn't enjoy it, let alone someone who hated it.

Still puzzled? Here are some skilfully-crafted graphs to illustrate my point.

You can clearly see that each film has a strong fan base. However, the distinction in quality is only revealed when you look past them. With Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, there is a gradual decline tending towards 'hate', while for Breaking Dawn: Part 2 there is no such decline. Forsooth, the middle ground is an abyss where rotting vampire heads and nonexistent plot lines lie in the darkness.

In these cases, at least, where huge followings of people obsess over given movie franchises, the quality of any iteration in a franchise depends not on how big the following, but on everything else. Fans of Twilight love Twilight not because it's good but because it's Twilight. Similarly, fans of Lord of the Rings love Lord of the Rings because, well, it's Lord of the Rings. However, for those simply looking for a good film - those who aren't so much 'fans' of either - they will judge either film on its constituent qualities: Acting, plot, director's passion, suspense, special effects, you name it. The smoother decline illustrated for Lord of the Rings implies that those with unbiased views, who critique the film based solely on its filmic qualities, rate these qualities of high standard. The opposite can be concluded for Breaking Dawn, what with its abyss.

Now, I know what you're thinking. These graphs don't prove anything because, err, I made them up. True enough. But they reflect what I've heard and read from others, and they are furthermore backed up by the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. For Breaking Dawn, the difference between user ratings and critics' reviews is staggering, while there is absolutely no difference for Lord of the Rings. Critics allegedly hold unbiased views, so the consistency with regards to the latter film is undoubtedly something of which to take note.

So, in the end, what makes a good movie? I could conclude that consistency of high ratings and praise - from fans and non-fans like, but mostly non-fans - does. But I won't, for this still leaves those underrated films and those artsy shindigs that don't make it to major cinemas under scrutiny. For now, though, I think the underlying presence of the 'abyss' is a big factor in determining a film's value. Lord of the Rings doesn't have one. Twilight does. Think on literature or music, and the same distinctions apply. If anything, rest assured that not belonging to a fan club doesn't make you a poor judge of good media. On the contrary, if such a judge was ever needed, you'd probably be shortlisted.

Read More