Christmas Re-Post #3

Only four more days until the New Year.

Now I only have a cat that actually gives me personal space while I sleep. I don’t know how I’ll survive.

Christmas Re-Post #2

Happy post-Christmas Come Down. Anyone else had a TON of candy?

One of my favorites of her.

Christmas Re-Post #1

AKA it’s the last full week of the year and I’m too lazy to do real posts. I’m not ashamed of this.

And just like with the last holiday, this week is going to be about Veronica, since I will always miss her.

She was always so loud… like an engine.

A Bit Late

Wow, I forgot about this one. While not the very first stick figure comic I did, this was the first one I think was actually funny, from September 6, 2014. Enjoy!

This is an honest to god actual account of something that happened over my vacation, when my mom asked me to help her get the music she downloaded onto her iPad.

I'm not even kidding, two frigging hours.

Going Postal, Part 3

Last day of reposts! Time to think up original content again. Dammit. Anyway, this isn’t really a stick figure comic, which is Saturday’s usual fare, but it was my first attempt to do something humorous using Paint. Um, I’m not sure it succeeded.

Happy Thanksgiving! Or November 25th. Whichever. [First posted 11/25/2015]

Updating super early because I’m probably not going to get a chance to see the precious internet until super late tonight, and only if I’m not too tired. Spending time with my relatives is exhausting.  

Anyway, here’s what I’ve been working on: The Flowchart of What Writer’s Do All Day Now Stop Asking. Subtitle: Why I never get anything done. 

I just find flowcharts hilarious. Click to embiggen.

Edit: I increased the font size in the boxes to be easier to read. I hope it works!

Looking at these old posts is so embarrassing. I remember how hard it was to get the stupid thing large enough so that people could actually read it. Not that reading it made it any funnier…Look, I’ll make up for it next week, okay?

Going Postal, Part 2

Yay, more reposts! This one is my very first Language of Confusion post, back when I didn’t think it would be a weekly thing (just count yourself lucky that it doesn’t have a ridiculous title after it, which I kept up for a while for some reason). Anyway, here’s desert and desert!

The Language of Confusion [First posted 10/17/2010]

It’s a good thing we have context. How else would you tell what I mean when I write tear? There’s a tear in my eye right now. Yeah, a stick poked into my cornea. It didn’t rip, but now it’s been crying a little (just kidding by the way ;))

But the English language (I can’t really speak for other languages) is full of words like that. Is it wind or wind? Wound or wound? Desert or desert?

It’s part of the magic of words. What’s interesting is the etymology surrounding the words.

First, let’s take desert. In the abandon sense, it comes from the Old French (twelfth century) deserter. No, that isn’t very far. But that word specifically meant to abandon one’s duty. And no, that isn’t the end. Deserter comes from the late Latin desertare or desertum, which is a verb-izing (okay, aside: my word verbizing is essentially doing the same thing as what I’m describing; it takes one word and makes it a different tense to describe something) of the Latin deserere, which also means abandon. Parsing the word gives us de (undo), and serere, which the word series also stems from. So deserere means undoing a series or repetition, stopping an act that is supposed to keep going on.

But what about the desert wasteland? Thank the Old French again, although instead of deserter, this one is exactly the same: desert. It, not surprisingly, means wilderness, destruction, ruin. And like the first, it also stems from the late Latin desertum and Latin deserere. So how did the two different meanings get to be the same thing? That’s the fault of Middle English, who decided it was appropriate for a waterless, treeless region.

So the reason these two words are spelled the same is because two different languages (Middle English and Old French) used the same derivation to mean different things, and as they evolved, they became the same. If you check French, the word is désert, although as you can see it has a tilde over the e. That’s more of a French thing.

All this may not be correct (although they are precise as two sources corroborated it), but if you have anything to add, or any more dual words, let me know. Words are fun.

Okay, the humor is painful and I was really way too fond of parentheses, like even more than I am now. Plus, no sources?! Frigging hell, four years of college! Source your material! This isn’t Wikipedia, dammit!

Going Postal, Part 1

Oh, ha ha, I just realized that today is my blogiversary and I can use this as an excuse to put up old posts under the guise of reminiscing when I really just don’t want to think up new posts! Awesome, right? Anyway, here’s the very first post I did, which I had to copy directly from my blog because apparently I don’t have a copy of it in Word. Man, I did not know what I was doing back then.

Day One [First posted 9/15/2010!]

I suppose I’m not quite sure what to say, perhaps because nothing I say hasn’t been said before. A thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years might reproduce the works of Shakespeare, but a single writer most definitely will. Not on purpose, not even consciously. But it does happen. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. Not if the writer is good.

Back in high school, I was taught there were only five types of stories: man vs. man, man vs. himself (or woman versus herself…I’m a terrible sexist! and a bit lazy), man vs. society, man vs. the natural, and man vs. the supernatural. If I’ve forgotten one or more, forgive me. It doesn’t matter anyway as my point is that reducing stories to man vs. anything is a gross oversimplification. You can say The Scarlet Letter is a person versus society and miss the point entirely, because it isn’t about Hester bearing the punishment for adultery. It’s about Hester. It’s about morality. It’s about love. And it’s about a million other things.

There are other stories that are man/woman versus society. Are they The Scarlet Letter? No! Are they even in the same genre? Nope! Because the real story, the real writing, is in the details, not the one sentence summation. That’s the reason why John Steinbeck could write the story of Cain and Abel and have it come out a book completely different from the book of Genesis.

So, how was this for the first post? Maybe once I get some followers, it will be a bit more impressive. Maybe.

Well, I can answer that question now: it was dumb, but luckily no one saw it. I have no idea what even prompted this line of thought. And how weird that I actually used to post about books and writing. It’s almost like this used to be a writer’s blog or something.

Going Postal II, Part 2

Yep, still doing this. And since it’s Thursday, I’m going to repost an etymology post from January, which somehow got 151 views (there’s another one from last November where I got over 800 views, but that has to be a glitch of some sort). Anyway, let’s learn about the word ply! Again!

Language of Confusion: Ply-ers (Originally posted January 30, 2014)

Yes, I’m doing the word ply this week. I like what I did with the title, because not only is plyers a homophone for pliers, a real word, the suffix -er means a person/thing that has to do with something, like laborer to labor. Get it? Funny, right? Hello? Guys?

Ply

Ply has three main definitions, work with or at (ply a trade), bend or fold, and a layer of something. The first two showed up in the late fourteenth century and are closely related, although in kind of a weird way. “Work with” ply is actually short for another word, applien, which was really used in English at one time. And yes, it sounds a lot like apply, but applien doesn’t come from apply, except in the sense that they both come from the classical Latin plicare, fold, and also where the other ply comes from. The third ply showed up in the mid sixteenth century, coming from the Middle French pli, a fold, and Old French ploi, layer. It also comes from plicare because of that whole fold/bend thing.

Apply

Note that this is not something that seems like apples. That would be appley. Apply showed up in the latefourteenth century, coming from the Old French aploiier, same meaning, and the classical Latin applicare, to connect. Plicare, fold, is the root word here, with the prefix a- (or ad-), meaning to or towards. Apply has a lot of different meanings today. You apply for a job. You apply ointment to the affected area. But originally, it meant to put yourself at work towards a task, and a figurative definition of being in contact (i.e. ointment to skin). Interestingly enough, job apply only showed up in the eighteen fifties, although it’s quite similar to the original definition of apply. Well, I think it’s interesting.

Imply

Showed up in the late fourteenth century, where it meant enfold or entangle. Seriously. It comes from the Old French emplier and classical Latin implicare, involve. The enfold definition makes sense since plicare means fold and in- means, well, in. Like apply, it just went off in a completely new direction. Latin meant enfolding in the figurative sense, so enfolding in an event (or whatever) would be involving. English kind of took it from there.

Reply

Reply showed up in the late fourteenth century with the same definition. It comes from the Old French replier, and Late Latin replicare. The re- prefix means back, and with plicare, to fold, it means to fold back again. Like all the other words here, its meaning comes from the figurative use of the word.

Comply

Comply showed up in the early fourteenth century, where it meant fulfill or carry out, like one would an order (at least getting to the definition of agreement makes sense from there). Comply was compli in Old French (same definition) and in Vulgar Latin it was complire and classical Latin complere. Notice there’s not a plicare in there? That’s because although comply may have been influenced by ply, it actually comes from complete. Despite what it looks like, it’s not a ply word! It’s actually made up by the prefix com-, with or together, and plere, fulfill.

Supply

Supply just happens to be in the same boat as comply. It’s not from plicare but plere, being a combination of sub- (from below) and plere, fulfill. To fulfill from below. I’m going to guess that’s figurative. Oh, and it showed up in the fourteenth century.

TL;DR: There are two origin words for -ply words because we dropped the c from one of them.

Sources

Online Etymology Dictionary

Dictionary.com

Google Translate

Orbis Latinus

I really wonder what it was that made this post so popular. It’s not that it’s bad, but its view count is certainly much higher than average. Any guesses as to why? Or is this another weird glitch?

Going Postal II, Part 1

Today’s my blogiversary! I think. I’m like ninety percent sure. Anyway, I’m going to celebrate like I did last year: by reposting! Because there’s no better way to celebrate your blog’s longevity than by not blogging. And first up is the post that I think was my best one from the past year, even if it doesn’t have a terrible amount of views or comments. It’s actually from last September, after I did the repost thing for the first time.

The Z is for Zombie (Originally posted 9/24/2013 [http://jeoneil.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-z-is-for-zombie.html])

Well, I finally got around to watching World War Z last weekend, so spoilers ahoy if you haven’t seen it yet but still want to. It has already been reviewed by more articulate people than I (who also saw the movie when it actually came out, thus making the reviews actually useful), so I’m not going to go into much depth about it. Suffice to say it was a very standard action film with characters that weren’t realized enough to be compelling and despite being a zombie movie, wasn’t really scary. Honestly, reading the news about its troubled production was way more entertaining than the resulting film.

The real point I want to get into is how it was a very poor adaptation of the book, like adaptation in name only. The book is about societal collapse and eventually, its reconstruction. It’s accepted that the zombie plague can’t be cured, can’t be prevented, and is always fatal. Conventional methods of warfare are ineffective. Ruthless, amoral methods end up being the only way to survive, from cannibalism to using humans as zombie bait.

The movie shows none of that, except maybe the plague being incurable. Zombies are unstoppable excepting headshots, like in the book, but there is never any modification of tactics beyond that “infect yourself with a curable disease and then the zombies won’t want you” thing. Even though I would think that the rotting undead wouldn’t be that picky. Seeing as they’re dead.

But that’s beside the point. The movie is weak. The societal upheaval is replaced with a man searching for clues about the disease so he can reunite with his family. Granted, the original framing of WORLD WAR Z had no main character (except maybe the guy conducting the interviews), but still. They could have come up with something better than the weaksauce every-action-movie-ever plot they had. They didn’t try to make a WORLD WAR Z movie (or they tried and failed…miserably). They made a zombie movie with World War Z as its title.

Finally, I would like to point out that just because this movie of a book was bad doesn’t mean all book-movies are bad, even the ones that are bad adaptations. The original version of Blade Runner is hardly the adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? but most consider it a good movie in its own right. So if you’re not going to make a good adaptation, at least try to make a good movie.

Why is this my best? I’m not sure. I just think I nailed it on the head here. Not that World War Z was particularly difficult to find fault in. My only regret is that I could have gone into more detail about what made it fail as a movie, which I think is the greater sin than it simply being a poor adaptation. So what do you think about bad movies and bad adaptations of books?

Going Postal 3

And here’s my third and last repost to celebrate my third blogiversary, which will actually occur on Monday the 16^th. As I already did my most viewed post and what I think was the best one, I’m now going to repost my overall favorite…

Why You Should Use Bags [Originally posted Saturday, December 24, 2011]

Have a very merry Christmas. Or, if you prefer, holiday. Whatever you do, have fun and be safe. Here’s my gift to you. I worked very hard on it.

Okay, I worked on it.

…it’s filler so I don’t have to think up a new post.

Click to embiggen.

Let this be a lesson to all of you. Don’t wrap presents. Use bags. Because wrapping is really, really annoying. Oh, and the environment or something.

It may just be something I scribbled in Paint, but I still find it hilarious. And also accurate. Cats do not make good helpers when it comes to wrapping presents. A close second in my favorites, perhaps only skipped because it was so recent, is my post about giant candy buttons. Further proof that the world doesn't love us.

Going Postal 2

Okay, so I did my most “popular” post, now I’m going repost the one that I think is the best. And the winner is…

You’re Welcome [Originally posted Friday, June 24, 2011]

I was reading the newspaper’s letters to the editor when one person complained about receiving a “No problem” from a teenaged server rather than “You’re welcome.” The writer did not explicitly state annoyance at the response, but he implied he was insulted with the response.

This boggles me. When someone tells me “Thank you” I usually say “No problem” or some variant. I’m not sure why this would insult anyone since it’s an acknowledgement of the thanks just like “You’re welcome” is. “But ‘No problem’ is slang,” one might say. “The proper response is ‘You’re welcome.’”

Proper? Not slang? Do you realize who you’re dealing with?

There’s a reason I put this post on etymology day. “You’re welcome” was not always the proper reply for “Thank you.” When someone says welcome, usually they’re referring to an invited guest they’re glad to see. The word itself is from the Old English wilcuma, a—no surprise here—welcome guest. Wilcuma is a combination of willa—pleasure or desire—and cuma—guest. Those are also the origin words for will (not well) and come.

“Will come” is like saying “invited” and that’s the meaning wilcuma had when it was first recorded in the 1530’s. It wasn’t a polite reply until 1907. “No problem” is linguistic evolution, just like “you’re welcome” was last century.

The issue seems to be that “No problem” turns the focus from the thanker to the thankee by saying “It’s no problem for me to do what you asked” rather than “I’m glad I could help you.” I’m not sure why this would be. Why can’t “No problem” mean the same as “You’re welcome”? The latter certainly did not have that meaning two hundred years ago—saying it in reply to “Thank you” would be nonsensical.

I’m honestly not sure why I say “No problem” rather than “You’re welcome.” It just sounds right to my ears. See, I’m someone who worries about bothering people. I hate to ask for things. So when someone asks me for something, I tell them it’s no trouble for me because that’s what I’d like to hear in the same situation.

The problem is that you may not think the same way I do. It may come off as rude, but in terms of acknowledgment of thanks, “No problem” is no less steeped in meaning or response than “You’re welcome,” “No worries,” “Don’t mention it” or “It’s nothing”.

There’s no call for insulted replies, either. What if someone says “No problem” and others retort with “Well, it shouldn’t be a problem!” Is that any different if someone says “You’re welcome” and the reply is, “Well, I’m glad I’m welcome here or I can’t do my job!”?

What do you think? Is “no problem” really a problem? Should this even be a point of contention among people?

Big surprise, I think an etymology post is my best one : ). It’s good because it’s a mix of my two favorite kinds of posts: rants and word origins. It manages to be informative as well as interesting. Or maybe I’m just kidding myself with that.

Going Postal 1

As it is the week of my blogiversary, I decided the laziest best way to celebrate would be to have some reposts. Today we’ll have the post with the most page views, according to my stats page. And the winner is…

There is nothing to fear but fear itself. Also spiders. [originally posted Monday, December 20, 2010]

I read an interesting article the other day. It seems this woman (only identified as SM) isn’t afraid of anything. I mean that when she’s exposed to things that normally scare people (spiders, threats) she barely feels anything. She has been in violent situations, scary situations (domestic violence, held up at knifepoint), but still isn’t afraid. The question is why.

Part 1: The Disease

SM fascinates the doctors studying her. Due to Urbach-Wiethe, an extremely rare genetic disorder (there are only three hundred known cases in medical literature), her amygdala is damaged. The disease causes physical symptoms like thickening of the skin and mucous membranes, and can cause epilepsy, attacks of rage and mental retardation. There are other neurological symptoms, too, including schizophrenia and mood disorders. I think it’s safe to say that the neurological phenomena occur based on where the UW affects the brain.

Urbach-Weithe disease is caused by (according to this article) “a defect in the metabolism of basement membrane collagen.” For everyone who isn’t a doctor, the basement membrane according to Medterms.com is “A thin membrane upon which is posed a single layer of cells…made up of proteins held together by type IV collagen.” It’s located directly under the epidermis, hence the reason it’s called “basement.” In UW disease, the basement membrane doesn’t regenerate (metabolize) properly, resulting in lipids (fats) being created throughout the basement membrane. This results in a lot of problems in the skin, mucous membranes, eyes and even the brain. The disease is usually detected in children because of reports that their voice is hoarse and cuts and scrapes don’t heal properly. The disease causes both; the hoarseness is caused by the calcification of the vocal cords among other things, while the scars are caused by improper healing.

The calcification builds up and affects other parts of the body: the eyes, scalp, and of course, the brain.

So now we know how the brain is altered. Tune in tomorrow as we continue to probe the mystery of the fearless woman.

I don't think I did a very good job writing the article (forgive me! It was only my third month in my blog) but it was still an interesting subject. If you check the old post, you'll see that there are only four comments, (I love that two of them are from William and Kathy, who I'm still blogging buddies with). But this is indeed my most viewed page. If you just have to see the rest of what I wrote about fear, here are links to parts two and three.