About Politics (You're Welcome to Skip Reading This)

A few days ago I wrote a politically-charged article for this blog, but hesitated to post it because, well, it seemed a bit too harsh after reading it over a couple of times.  After last November's presidential election that made me sharply question the intelligence and integrity of the American voter, my political criticisms have alternated between calling out the gullibility and/or ugliness motivating too many people's voting trends these days and calling out the people that they placed in positions of power...the most notable one of course being Trump.  So instead of using pejorative designations like "dumbass", "fraud" or "hack", let me instead just relay that in no way do I feel any sense of trust in my elected leaders...especially the current White House occupant...nor do I think that the American electorate will, in either the immediate or long-term future, do anything to return this republic of elected representatives to a semblance of reason and comity directed toward the public good.  So, therefore, I've lived my whole life in a country that now makes me feel like a "stranger in a strange land".  I also don't think that any expressed political opinion of mine is going to make any real difference other than label myself, to the computer algorithms out there, as belonging to a particular political leaning after which they will concentrate on feeding me social media input that they "think" reinforces what they "think" I already think.  So there you go...let me just stay out of the way of all the crazies I see around me...oops, I think I just used a pejorative...

Quote of the Week...from Epictetus

If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.                      ---Epictetus

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher, living within the Roman Empire during the early Christian era.  Earlier in his life he was a slave but was later freed and then banished to Greece.  Many of his sayings form the basis for the Stoic way of life that grew during that period, to the point when a later Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius, embraced this philosophy.  I ran across the above quote of Epictetus and it struck me as being especially true and relevant to me.  Nobody likes to look clumsy and awkward in what they do, nor do they like to publicly make mistakes.  Yet if you're learning to do something new, then by necessity you're going to screw up a bit at whatever stage of it you are in, and come out of it looking a little "foolish and stupid" as the good philosopher pointed out.  Of course, the opposite is true: you're being wise and smart in stretching yourself with this new endeavor...as well as courageous and strong!  We were in a store in the Oaks Mall yesterday when we ran across an employee who I heard speak Russian...my first impulse was to keep my mouth shut, but then I thought, why not see how well she understands my speech?  I felt very silly even with the basic things I said to her, but she understood it all quite well: a good experience that would never have happened were I too afraid to step out of my comfort zone.  The truth is, though, that I probably could have been bolder about practicing my speech then, but I'm still a bit skittish about looking like the fool...which in itself is foolish...

Learning Languages and Speaking Partners

There are some projects I'm currently on that, for the most part, involve me studying on my own.  The advent of the Internet, and especially the availability of YouTube and the enormous diversity of helpful material on it, has made studying these subjects so much easier.  Yet there are times when it is also helpful to be in association with others pursuing the same areas of interest.  Right now, I'm studying five different languages...some might advise me to study just one at a time, but that's just me...and a part of learning to speak them is, well, speaking them!  And not just to a wall, either, but with others who have a native fluency in them.  Steve Kaufmann, speaker of twenty languages and consequently an expert in the area of language learning, says that it can sometimes get a little tricky finding a speaking partner.  If they're learning English, the two of us can split time speaking to each other in our native tongues by mutual arrangement...he did this to learn Japanese many years ago. Kaufmann also pointed out that when I start speaking my target language to others, then I'm going to make many, many mistakes for a long time and that my listeners need to be understanding and patient, realizing that the overriding goal in any conversation is communication and not perfection.  Yet with that in mind, the temptation may often come during a difficult section in a talk when the native speaker may resort to English to clear up the confusion, unwittingly interfering with my progress. If I'm here in the United States learning Russian, Chinese, German, French and Spanish, then those native speakers I find may not be very willing to accommodate my interests when they most probably already are well versed in English.  And if I go on the Internet to seek language interest groups, then the various notions about language learning spread among their members are liable to interfere as well with my progress. As children learning a language there is much more freedom and forbearance with their stumbling efforts, but adults tend to be judged and corrected, often to the point of them becoming hesitant to make the necessary mistakes they need to become effective speakers in the new language. So, I'm looking for laid back speaking partners in those five languages while continuing to build up my passive listening and reading ability in them. This isn't exactly comfortable for me since by nature I tend to be introverted and reclusive...

"Aught" We to Stop Referring to Decades?

Dr. Rick, the dude on the Progressive insurance commercials who has committed his efforts to helping young adults to stop acting like their parents, has one less item to work on. The tendency for baby boomers like me to group decades together from the previous century (Fifties, Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, Nineties) came to an abrupt wall with the advent of the twenty-first.  The opening decade of this century is technically called the "Aughts", but I kind of like to use "Zeros" although nobody really uses either term...or even any name at all for this crucial span of time.  Lots of neat stuff happened in my life during this period, and significant events (like the 2000 election, 9/11, the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars, the Christmas tsunami, Katrina, Obama's election) occurred...but the Good Doctor has yet to feel any need to dissuade straying young'uns from grouping it all together as a decade.  No, young and old alike seem to have a mental block about time once the calendar shifted over from "19" to "20". You might think then that once 2010 came around than at least, at that time, folks would resume with the decade talk, calling it the beginning of the "Teens"...but nothing doing.  And now, deep into the Twenties, I had yet to hear any such reference to the times we live in, with most people I imagine thinking more of the roaring 1920s when the term does come up instead with the associations of Prohibition, silent flicks and Calvin Coolidge.  Are we truly finished with the decades talk?  I've heard references made to the "2000s", but as far as I'm concerned, that term covers every year in this century, not just the first decade...

Game of the Week: Cryptograms

 

Cryptograms are encoded puzzles, often appearing in grocery store variety puzzle magazines...the above photo is of one of these.  Each letter in a message is encoded with another letter...the trick is to find certain patterns of letters and pick out the more common words like "the" and some of the two-letter words.  Then, after getting some of the more common letters like e, s, t, r, l, ....you know, the ones Wheel of Fortune automatically gives its final puzzle contestants...I should be able to piece the rest of the cryptogram together.  There is always a threshold I reach after decoding a certain number of letters beyond which I can go back to the beginning of the message and then plow right through it.  Although I enjoy the process of solving cryptograms, the resulting message is often a disappointment.  Unsolved on the page, they all look very intellectual and profound...much like how an unknown foreign language sounds...but like another language, they are in the end just transformations of things whose meanings we are already acquainted with.  The first puzzle above, for example, turned out to be a silly, corny joke while the next one was a serious, positive motivating statement from a famous figure in history.  Once I bought a book of cryptograms at a used book sale.  Unfortunately, many of the quotes therein were by Benjamin Franklin: it got too easy to pick out his name at the bottom of those cryptograms and almost instantly translate the puzzle.  The longer the cryptogram the generally easier it is to solve...the same goes to putting the name of the individual who said it at the bottom.  There are variations to cryptograms as well...one that I like has a category at the top and then lists come coded words that fit it...these also tend to be in those variety puzzle mags...

Quote of the Week...from E.T. Bell

 'Obvious' is the most dangerous word in mathematics.                E.T. Bell

I'm not sure what mathematician E.T. Bell exactly meant here by the word "obvious", but when I read this quote earlier this week on the BrainyQuote website it brought to my mind a pet peeve regarding how this field is often taught in schools.  It's more annoying than dangerous when a teacher is rambling through an obtuse presentation at the front of a class and decides to pepper his or her lesson with "of course this" and "obviously that"...if it were all so obvious, we poor students wouldn't need you up front to explain it to us!  Here's another "mathematics" quote I read from the same site, by the late economist Paul Samuelson: "My belief is that nothing can be expressed by mathematics that cannot be expressed by careful use of literary terms".  This quote seems to fly in the face of how we're accustomed to perceive mathematical concepts, in a more two-or-higher-dimensional presentation instead of with ordinary language.  Have you ever heard or read a purely verbal, literary exposition of a mathematical course or even lesson?  I haven't, but I wonder whether the capacity to accurately verbalize mathematical concepts shouldn't be a valuable, sought-after skill for mathematicians as well as mathematics teachers.  Wouldn't it be great, instead of tuning in on the radio to political hacks like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage or Mark Levin, you had a station with a talk show whose host spoke Math...has it even ever been done before?  What if society educated people to be able to speak out detailed principles in mathematics and technology in ordinary conversational language with one another...I might find the listening experience akin to discerning meaning from a foreign language I only have rudimentary knowledge of, but I also know that many of us process our thoughts out verbally and such an added component to our communications would doubtless raise the educational and reasoning levels of our general population, knowing such abilities existed and were attainable.  Maybe if some of us achieved a verbal proficiency in math we also could cockily ramble on like everything in it was "obvious", although the opposite effect may instead be the result.  I think Bell may have meant his quote to stress that every step in a mathematical progression of reasoning has to be rigorously attended to and that carelessly glossing over a point as being "obvious" could well unravel the entire solution or theory being examined.  So the upshot of all this is that when anyone is engaged in the sometimes torturous endeavor of mathematical discussion it would be better to just preemptively omit that pesky word from their vocabulary...

Quote of the Week...from Claude Debussy

Music begins where words are powerless to express. Music is made for the inexpressible. I want music to seem to rise from the shadows and indeed sometimes to return to them.
                                                           ---Claude Debussy

The French classical composer Claude Debussy (1862-1918) is one of my favorites of that genre, responsible for such great music as Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, La Mer, Nocturnes, Arabesque, Gardens in the Rain...and my favorite, Clair de Lune.  His musical skills and ability to delve deep into his own feelings to create such masterpieces are not unique in this art, but his works do tend to resonate with me in a way that those of other composers rarely approach.  I often listen to classical music radio station programs where the announcer talks about aspects of this or that piece he or she is presenting, to the point when I finally want to scream "enough talk, just play the music!"  Listening to music of any sort for me has always been an intensely personal experience...if you've been reading my weekly feature on this blog about my 500 all-time favorite songs, you know that the songs listed impacted me in that way.  Sometimes its hard for me to express exactly why I become so fervently inclined toward a particular song or classical work...that's because music in itself transcends the spoken word and works its way more deeply into my unspoken and often unspeakable feelings, be they conscious or beyond my immediate awareness.  And another brilliant classical music "superstar", Felix Mendelssohn, would emphasize that it is the extremely detailed nature of music itself that gives it this ability to speak the unspeakable.  In any event, having music throughout my life has been an enormous blessing to me...

Press and Rivals Playing Gotcha with Politicians' Comments

Did you ever see the 1970 movie Patton, starring George S. Scott as the brash World War II general?  There were scenes in it where he is allowing the press to ask him questions, and his off-the-cuff, careless answers are almost always taken out of context to paint him as a brutish villain who even sympathized with the Nazis...nothing could have been further from the truth.  I remember this film because I see something going on nowadays...not only with President Trump, whose offhand remarks have become his trademark, but also about politicians on the Democratic Party side.  Leftist freshman representative  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, already known for her flamboyant rhetoric and an outspoken critic of former vice-president Joe Biden on several issues, was recently asked in an interview a pointed question about his well-documented tendency in the past to get all touchy-feely-huggy out in public and that it disturbed some women. AOC...as she is commonly referred to...responded in what I thought was a restrained and respectful way toward Biden. Yet the later headlines made it look as if she were trying to resurrect the issue.  Biden was also criticized by rival Democratic candidate Cory Booker for having commented that even back when there were segregationist senators they were all able to get along better with each other than the broken, polarized situation in that body today...Booker failed to see the point of Biden's argument and instead accused him of praising segregationists.  Biden then angrily replied that he never had a racist bone in his body. Ocasio-Cortez then commented that it was Biden who owed Booker an apology for defending himself against his accusation.  Trump, of course, gets no respect and is even ridiculed for comments he makes that are obviously taken far out of context.  For example, he tweeted that the moon was part of Mars and the jokesters went wild with his supposedly incredible ignorance when all he was saying was that going back to the moon was to be seen as part of the plan of eventually going to Mars...to laugh at him for this reveals one's own stupidity, in my opinion.  Donald Trump may not like Bob Woodward's book Fear, which described the workings of the beginning of his presidency, but it fairly showed that he is tends to impulsively change his mind a lot, has a very short attention span, and is pretty sloppy with his speech and Twitter...all making it very easy for his critics to come up with material.  It's no secret that I dislike our current president...and I'm not all that fond of AOC or Biden, either.   But when they express themselves I try to understand the main ideas they are trying to impart and not just play "gotcha" while trying to distort their message into one that politically harms them...

Compartmentalization

Earlier today I was watching one of the C-Span channels, and an author was discussing one of his books...something I often find quite enjoyable.  He was David Pietrusza, a historian who has written a number of books on different topics in American history, and he was addressing a small audience at a New York library about his 2011 work, titled 1948: Harry Truman's Improbable Victory and the Year that Transformed America.  Pietrusza spoke in a down-to-earth, unpedantic way that made me want to pick up a copy of his book...the fact that I love history (I majored in it) was another plus.  After he had delivered his talk, there was still time left over for questions.  One of them concerned passages from 1948 that quoted Truman as having said and written some things that could only be interpreted as being anti-Semitic and racist.  These remarks stood in stark contrast to Truman's actions while president, which included quickly and stalwartly supporting the establishment of the state of Israel while at the same time advancing civil rights for blacks, including mandating the integration of the armed forces. How could these apparently conflicting expressions from Truman be reconciled?  Pietrusza gave what I believe to be a profound answer: Truman was a complex individual, as are all of us to an extent, and as such tended to compartmentalize his notions about issues and people.  His sense of justice and equal rights for all conflicted with the more prejudicial notions he acquired from his youth and social relationships.  Instead of completely eliminating the bigotry, he compartmentalized it, separating it from the causes he championed as president.  It sounds irrational...and it is...but this compartmentalization is an important and very misunderstood part of human nature.  And we all practice it in one form or another...

I wouldn't want to finish this article on compartmentalization without discussing a quite different application of the term...but which also carries great historical significance.   When the Manhattan Project was undertaken during World War II, there was a great need to employ thousands of people to manufacture the elements necessary for the development of its ultimate aim: the atomic bomb.  But with the exception of those with the highest security clearance, none of those engaged in this endeavor were given any more information that that necessary for them to accomplish their special work within the project.  This compartmentalization of information helped greatly to protect the project's security against spying, and also created a way by which any leaks that did occur could be more easily traced back to their source.  Compartmentalization in this context is a dominant element as well in subversive activities, with organized crime and terrorist cells being prime examples...

So compartmentalization can be an effective tool in a social setting to protect the group from infiltration...but it is also an aspect of an individual's personality, whereby discredited notions are not excised from the psyche but rather separated into different areas from the more "enlightened" ones.  I wonder what, if any, connections there are between these two applications of the word...

Transferring My Study of Foreign Languages to Computer

A few days ago, I wrote that I had added Cyrillic (Russian) script to my computer.  Now I've added a few more languages to it, including Chinese (I use the traditional characters).  What I'm trying to do here is continue my foreign language study, but take it from books, paper and pencil to screen and keyboard.  My resources are almost boundless on the Internet, and with the scripts now available I can begin to realistically compose my own sentences (and eventually articles) in the languages I am learning...

I am continuing with my Duolingo study of Russian (mostly a review) and have begun studying Turkish, just to get a feel about how this application teaches new concepts.  It reminds me a little of the programmed method of instruction that I experienced back in high school when I studied trigonometry.  I like learning that way...

Melissa will soon be starting her course in Biblical Greek, and I'm going to study it with her.  I will definitely be putting that script on my computer, too.  Also, besides Duolingo, Quizlet provides a great way to study lists of items and test myself on them.  And the Google (or Bing) translator option is going to be a big help, too...

用計算機學別的語言很有意思！

Added Russian Script to My Computer: Замечательно!

The other day Melissa told me about a free language-learning application, Duolingo, that she was using on her computer to study Spanish.  She set up the application for me on mine, and I began with their Russian lessons.  Only one problem: Russian uses a different script, the Cyrillic, from our Latin writing system and I had to type in the English-to-Russian translation answers using Latin transliteration.  I solved this glitch by adding Russian as a second language on my computer...and can now toggle back and forth between the Latin and Cyrillic scripts. I learned the Russian system of writing back in 1976, even to the point where I can easily write "in English" using а Latin-to-Cyrillic transliteration I devised for myself.  So the following passage "И ам студыинг руссиан анд уоулд лике то ачиеве флуенсы ин ит" is actually in English...see if you can "decode" it!

In any event, it's fun having Cyrillic on my computer...I may find myself slipping in a Russian word here or there on my blog every now and then...

Two Politically Incorrect Words

With all of the problems facing people nowadays, there are some who are obsessed with words that people use.  I don't mean the hateful epithets of the type that Norman Lear satirized coming out of the mouth of bigot Archie Bunker in that old groundbreaking series All in the Family.  No, I'm talking about words like "bossy" and "thug" that describe behaviors and are applicable across the board, regardless of race, sex, or religious beliefs.

There has been a strange movement afoot among some feminists to stigmatize the use of "bossy" because it supposedly is only aimed at women.  That's strange to me, because I have heard it used quite often to describe men's behavior as well.  "Bossy", as I have come to learn of its general usage definition, is used to describe the behavior of someone toward others that goes beyond the agreed-upon authority level that said person possesses in his or her relationships.  So perhaps a manager or supervisor in the workplace somewhere might tell a subordinate to get for him (or her) a cup of coffee or exert pressure to contribute to a personally favorite charity...or a kid in a school class small group may automatically assume the role of "leader" and assign tasks to members without any authorization from them.  Apparently, though, some women feel that "bossy" is just used at them and not at men.  To me this is a preposterous statement.  "Bossy" may not be the most diplomatic, love-inspiring thing to call someone, but it doesn't come under the heading of "hate speech" either. I've used it myself...and haven't slanted my use to make women seem more bossy than men.  To me, bossiness is something that people sometimes need calling out on...I have a right and, ultimately, a social responsibility, to assert myself against overly aggressive people who go beyond their established, specified authority over me. Maybe using the word "bossy" isn't the most diplomatic way to go about this, but it is an accurate description of the problem...

The term "thug" is another example of a term that one group...or at least one representative of that group, i.e. professional football's Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, deems inappropriate.  In his case, he thinks it is used in a racist sense against blacks...maybe he has a point here, though.  You see, I would myself employ the word "thug" to describe a bully...with weapons.  So the appellation as "thugs" of the groups of (white) armed pseudo-soldiers who occupied Crimea a few weeks ago seems fitting.  This obviously has nothing to do with race.  But I heard the word "thug" thrown around Sherman after his outspoken comments following last year's NFL championship  game...and it didn't make any sense to me either.  Sherman is brash, to be sure, but he is also a well-liked pillar of his community and is no "bully with weapons".   Maybe here we are seeing a special use of "thug" that stereotypes a certain type of cultural presentation within the African-American community that somehow tries to imply that it is inherently criminal.   

I would like everyone on Earth to get along and have sparkling personalities and never hurt one another or make mistakes.  But since none of this is true, then our language needs to have some words that serve a criticizing and corrective function to educate and guide those exceeding the norms of acceptable behavior.  And sometimes, although it may be hurtful, hearing someone call you "bossy" or that you are acting like a "thug" may be an important warning sign that there is a problem with your behavior that needs your attention. I understand the well-intentioned reasons behind those seeking to ban the use of these words, but the only thing that this will accomplish is to raise up substitute euphemistic language that conveys the same meanings. Anybody from any segment of society can be "bossy" or a "thug". If you eliminate these words, the problems won't go away...talking about them will just be made taboo...
   

Broadening (and Diluting) the Meaning of Addiction

The other night...I mean LATE night, while I was at work, I tuned in to the Coast-to-Coast AM radio talk show hosted by George Noory.  He had as a guest the famous science fiction writer David Brin.  Brin was in the middle of discussing the nature of addiction, and was about to state what he believed to be America's greatest addiction...but Noory quickly interrupted and shrewdly broke to several advertisements while keeping the listening audience (the ones who were still awake, that is) waiting in anticipation.  When Brin finally got back to the topic, he laid it out bluntly: in his opinion, the greatest addiction in our country is "self-righteous indignation".  While agreeing with Mr. Brin that this is indeed a problem in the United States, I have a couple of beefs about his statement.  For one, self-righteous indignation is something affecting humanity as a whole, not just one particular country or culture.  Also, it is timeless: just look the Bible, which is full of people who get themselves in a self-righteous huff about others (and usually end up rebuked for it).  But beyond the common assertion I hear that Americans are collectively guilty of things about which other people in the world are virtuous, the very appellation of "addiction" that Brin uses is erroneous.  It would be better to term this phenomenon as a "thinking error", "attitude problem", or "character flaw" instead of the emotionally charged word "addiction".  On the other hand, David Brin may just be following a common trend, which involves broadening the meaning of a heretofore precisely defined word to the point that it essentially becomes meaningless.  Hence we get a television series titled My Strange Addiction that groups compulsive behaviors like sleeping with a blow dryer or eating toilet paper, along with eccentric choices like living around a bunch of hairless rats, all under the umbrella designation of "addiction".  But there's more...it's becoming more acceptable to describe any kind of attachment to anything or any activity that one has a special fondness toward as an addiction.  What ever became of the narrower concept of addiction as being deeply dependent on an ingested chemical substance like nicotine, alcohol, heroin, and the like?

That having been said, I appreciate David Brin for at least bringing up self-righteous indignation as a societal problem.  I think too many folks resort to it too quickly when dealing with opinions or behavior that they see in others and with which they differ instead of trying to put themselves in the other person's position.  And why not? Look at the professionals in the opinion media and how they go about with their pious posturing, regardless of their positions on the issues, conservative or liberal.  And don't get me started with Nancy Grace.  You know, those people make me so-o-o self-righteously indignant!

Slow Down, You Talk Too Fast

I'm sitting in this Starbucks, see, huddled off in a back corner, wondering whether I'm beginning to go senile at this relatively young age of (nearly) 57.  It started on my drive down here when, literally out of the blue, it began to ran.  Sure, there were some puffy clouds to be seen around, but nothing to indicate any impending precipitation.  Still, it looked as if my original idea of sitting in the wide-open outdoors to drink my coffee and study (including writing this blog article) would be for naught.  And the prospects for finding a seat ANYWHERE inside this Starbucks likewise dimmed with the freshly falling rain, as it is a popular hangout in this part of town and is usually filled to capacity on Sunday afternoons.  I nevertheless pulled into the parking lot: who knows, I might find a spot anyway.  And as I said, I did...in an obscure corner of the java joint.

So anyway, I'm sitting here, writing out some foreign language sentences for practice, which is something I do as a daily routine.  The rest of the place is packed with customers, some of whom are studying by themselves (or pretending to do so) and some of whom are engaging in sociable conversations.  As I sit here studying OTHER languages, an eerie feeling begins to creep up on me: everyone else around me is speaking English, but at the fast rate that they are speaking, their words are almost incomprehensible to me...almost as if they were speaking an exotic tongue.

I've long had a block when it came to picking up and understanding normal conversation when I hear it in other languages...even those languages that I have studied and can comprehend when it is spoken in a more formal setting on radio and TV news broadcasts.  It's almost as if, regardless of whatever language they are speaking, the talkers are in a completely different gear of communication from anything else.  And now, today, the same troubling feeling started coming to me as others were SPEAKING ENGLISH so fast in conversation that I could scarcely make out their words.  Then a universal principle hit me...

It seems that in nervous social conversation, people regardless of their culture or language tend to talk at a breakneck pace, almost seemingly necessitating a psychic link among themselves from them to understand what each other are saying.  The speed of speech can get very, very fast...to the point sometimes that a native language can sound foreign.  That's a little scary for me...

Then again, there is possibly a more mundane, reasonable interpretation for all this.  When people are conversing in person, a great portion of the communication that is going on between them is unspoken but rather revealed through facial expressions, gestures, and body language.  As a matter of fact, I wonder sometimes if these aren't the main elements in the communication and not the actual words.  In any event, when I'm sitting there with my back to others, I'm not picking up on these integral elements of the interactions between these people and, quite possibly, this may make their spoken language less clear as a result...    

कल: A Suspicious Word

In studying some Hindi recently, I came across an intriguing word:  कल (kal), which translates into either "yesterday" or "tomorrow" depending on its context.  Initially, I thought that this was pretty strange that a word could essentially mean its own opposite according its usage.  Then, this morning I looked at the header for an article in the local section of my newspaper The Gainesville Sun: "Suspicious pawn shop owner foiled theft, officials say."  Well, it wasn't quite 6 AM when I glanced at this, so naturally I read it wrong in my bleary-eyed sleepiness.  After all, I tend to, justified or not, associate the idea of "pawn shop owners" with "suspicious people", i.e. people meriting suspicion from others.  But no, the news here was that the owner was suspicious of someone else and foiled a theft.

"Suspicious", like कल, is one of those words whose context can drastically change its meaning.  In Hindi, one needs to either read the appropriate verb tense form to determine whether "yesterday" or "tomorrow" is indicated or get a sense of the intended meaning from the surrounding text.  Likewise, I'm "suspicious" that something very similar holds true for my English example.  But I am a native speaker of English and still have a problem with "suspicious" and its ambiguity.  I wonder if native Hindi speakers feel the same about कल...

Exotic Scripts Impede My Language Study

One thing that has greatly impeded my study of certain languages has been difficult scripts. Even after mastering the writing and recognition of Arabic letters, it is still well-nigh impossible to determine how an unfamiliar word sounds just going by the writing, as short vowels are routinely omitted. Both Chinese and Japanese rely on ideographic characters (the former exclusively) that one already needs to know all about beforehand. And Japanese characters can be even more problematic, with their pronunciation varying widely depending on the context in which they appear and which words they are forming with other characters and the Japanese kana syllabary. But even beyond these seemingly insurmountable difficulties, to me it is very annoying to be slowed down in my drive to get a good sense of a language's flow and build up vocabulary and skill in its grammar while stumbling through a foreign script. For other languages like Korean and Hindi do have reasonably phonetic scripts but still impede my progress since I am so attuned to the Latin script.

So what should I do? For now, at least, I feel like continuing my painstakingly slow efforts with Chinese characters, but also focus my studies in general on texts providing romanized transliterations of the aforementioned "problem" languages. Later, I can tackle their scripts with a greater knowledge of what I expect to read.

With Russian's Cyrillic writing system (which I learned in 1976 and have used regularly ever since), this isn't a problem since I am quite adept in it on its own terms. But with the other scripts, well...the hurdles are awfully high and I'm not getting any younger.

Just keep in mind that language is intrinsically primarily oral as opposed to the written, its secondary form. Whatever helps the learner to better learn the spoken language, with its thousands of words that have to be learned to the point where they are recognizable during the ordinary flow of speech, along with unfamiliar grammatical rules (and the ever-present exceptions), is to be promoted.

About My Chinese Study and Reading of Late

I am currently adding about 2,500 Chinese characters to my personal vocabulary, doing this in a painstakingly methodical fashion. Much of this involves looking up words in dictionaries and adding them to a "grand notebook" that I have constructed, holding new words learned along with where I encountered them. I am also inserting Japanese transliterations of the characters that they have incorporated into their language.

All of this takes a lot of time, but it is interesting that, when I have free time, I do a lot of writing that involves little actual thinking. And when I am involved in something else, I can mentally multi-task and practice my newly-acquired vocabulary from memory. Hopefully, this all will lead to me being able to more fully enjoy exposure to Chinese (and eventually Japanese) by being able, as I currently already am with Spanish, to pick out, either from reading or listening, the gist of what is being expressed in that language.

One result of this increased emphasis on foreign language study has been to reduce my time in reading fiction. Usually I am working on one or two books, but lately that has slowed down. Now, at certain times I still pick up a book, concentrating now on getting through Stephenie Meyer's interesting Twilight saga. Yes, this series is primarily targeted at teenage girls, but I enjoy it, too! I am currently beginning Eclipse, the third book. By the way, I have carefully avoided the movies made from this series, preferring instead to give my own imagination a workout, thank you.

Pimsleur and Hungarian Study

In reference to my article from Friday, I have been studying the Hungarian language. I did this primarily after browsing through my local public library's on-line catalog under the topic of "Pimsleur" and, seeing a Basic Pimsleur being offered in Hungarian, decided to put it on hold and check it out. Why Pimsleur and why Hungarian?

It is very easy for me to find textbooks, phrasebooks, grammars, and dictionaries for foreign languages, both in bookstores and on the Internet (although strangely they are scarce in my library). I also have easy access to fluently spoken languages on the Net via its international radio and television programs. But what I am lacking is a gradual, step-by-step type of program that introduces me to the sounds and structure of an unfamiliar foreign language so that the part of my brain that processes audio can learn it. Pimsleur is completely audio-based (and inexpensive, compared with Rosetta Stone), so it seemed to be a good place to start. The lessons were presented in a programmed-teaching format, reinforcing concepts by continual review within the lessons as they progressed. As for Hungarian, this is a language of which I am pretty completely ignorant; it also bears little or no resemblance with any others (except for Finnish, Estonian, and a couple of minor languages in Asiatic Russia).

I followed the Pimsleur program and went through each lesson, one per day, until I had completed the final, tenth lesson, on this level (they provide higher levels,too). It worked for me as an introduction to Hungarian, enabling me to now be able to read unfamiliar Hungarian words and know how they are supposed to sound. I also learned some basic vocabulary and a smidgeon of grammar. But I'm not foolish enough to believe that I am have now mastered Hungarian with my ten lessons any more than humankind has mastered the moon just because they landed on it a few times.

I could spend some dough and go through the more advanced levels of Hungarian that Pimsleur offers (but which my library doesn't). But I think I know enough now that I recognize that the next steps to mastering Hungarian involve extensive reading, voracious vocabulary build-up, and practice in picking out familiar words and phrases from fluent speakers glinted from those radio and TV Internet stations.

I recommend Pimsleur as a good introduction to the sounds of another language and to get one's ears attuned to its flow. It's relatively cheap, and even cheaper if it is available at the public library! But I wouldn't harbor any delusions of attaining any degree of fluency just because I completed its program (or a part thereof).

Now I've been introduced to Hungarian. I bought the paperback textbook Teach Yourself Hungarian, which promises to greatly enrich my vocabulary for this pretty cool language. I have already watched television from Hungary on my computer and, yes, those casually fluent native Hungarian speakers all seem like superhuman geniuses to me. The experiment continues!

Foreign Language Geniuses

The acquisition of language is truly a remarkable phenomenon and is one of the main traits that set humanity apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. We tend to take our native language for granted, but encounter a wall of incomprehension when confronted with someone speaking a different language. When I hear someone rattling off in any other tongue than English, he or she seems like an incredible genius. The effect becomes very bizarre when I am watching a TV show and the "geniuses" are displaying behaviors that are anything but intelligent. My primary source of this on TV is my Spanish-language station Univision.

Univision has a good variety of programming on it, and I am glad that my local cable TV company chose to include it on their channel lineup. I tend to watch their morning show Despierta America and their late night news broadcast, usually still on the air when I get home from work. They also have campy comedy shows, reality/talk shows resembling Oprah Winfrey and Maury Povich, and many novelas (soap operas). It is in these genres of programming where I find the "genius bubble" frequently popping!

The final straw came recently when I was watching commercials and a Rosetta Stone ad came on, in Spanish of course. Genius after genius came on the commercial (speaking fluent native Spanish) relating what a great program of language instruction Rosetta Stone had been for them. Finally, they revealed the great product that most of those applauding this company were talking about: Rosetta Stone English! Suddenly I got real smug (for a few seconds at least) and reminded myself that to many I was the one who seemed like a genius. At least until people actually learned English and understood what I was saying!

Unions and the "S" Word

[No, I am not referring to the word "strike".]
I am very happy to be employed at a job that gives me the opportunity to join a labor union and work under a collective bargaining contract. Although nothing is certain in this world, it does add a little to my sense of security to know that, by contract at least, I cannot be laid off from my job ("no-layoff" provision for six continuous years of employment). I have excellent benefits, including low-cost health insurance for myself and my family, life insurance, a great retirement plan, and a generous paid leave benefit. My union representatives are also available on the workroom floor to insure that workers are being treated fairly, according to contractual provisions. And they are very good at keeping working conditions safe.

I joined my union back in 1987, before I had even received my first paycheck. I didn't have to do this. I could have worked for these past twenty-one years here without ever having joined the union and would have received all of the benefits of the contracts it has negotiated with management over the years. And I would have saved a tidy accumulated sum as well, not having paid union dues. But I recognized from the beginning the union's role in making this, my job, desirable in the first place. So I felt quite honored to be able to be a dues paying union member.

Of course, many of my colleagues are very happy working here as well, and they know that collective bargaining was a crucial factor in that. There are a few, though, that have chosen not to join the union. Personally, I think that they should, for the reason I have already given. My union officers and stewards, like me, also believe that everyone working under the contract and enjoying its benefits should join up. And most have an encouraging, positive attitude toward those non-members. But not all is positive.

I recently read in my union local's newspaper an article by a union steward in which he referred to non-members as "scabs". I understand that referring to workers who don't pay dues or who cross picket lines as "scabs" is a time-honored tradition in the labor movement. I agree with this steward that enjoying the labors of others without helping to pay for it is a little less than honorable, but I shudder at the use of this epithet.

The American labor movement has experienced difficult times in the past few decades, with much of this country's manufacturing base being outsourced to foreign, non-unionized companies, and with our own government's blessings. Unions also suffer a bad, only partially-deserved reputation as being heavy-handed and coercive when it comes to trying to unionize companies. We finally have a friendly congress and president who are willing to make it easier for workers to form unions in their workplaces, if that is what they desire. But tossing around hurtful words like "scab" only feeds into the perception that workers are being intimidated by unions, when it is often management that presents to them the most problems.

Because of this, I strongly wish for anyone who loves the labor movement and wants to promote it among the general population to avoid calling people scabs. This isn't self-censorship: you can express anything you want without using loaded epithets. And by "loaded", I mean this: epithets like "scab" have a strong connotation of condemnation about the one so called and strong connotations of anger, hate, and aggression about the one doing the calling. Not a very good way to practice positive persuasion, would you agree?