Shakespeare posed the question: "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Perhaps in many cases, but not all. If where you are raised has something to do with your destiny--and some people believe it does--then there are some places in the US that I'd rather not have deciding that destiny. To say the least, the place names are strange, or maybe weird or just plain nuts, in some cases.
Herewith some of those strange city names. I know they are real places, but why would anyone name a city like these?
Alabama: Burnt Corn, Muck City
Alaska: Dead Horse, Nightmute
Arizona: Bumble Bee, Chloride, Show Low, Two Guns, Why
Arkansas: Experiment, Greasy Corner, Possum Grape, Toad Suck, Turkey Scratch
California: Badwater, Bivalve, Clapper Gap, Doghouse Junction, Frying Pan, Hellhole Palms, Sucker Flat, Yreka Zzyzx
Colorado: Hygiene, Parachute
Connecticut: Moosup, Delaware Blue Ball
Florida: Sopchoppy, Two Egg
Georgia: Between, Snapfinger, Hawaii Papa, Idaho Beer Bottle Crossing
Illinois: Normal, Roachtown
Indiana: French Lick, Gnaw Bone, Spraytown, Toad Hop
Iowa: Diagonal, Gravity, What Cheer
Kansas: Admire, Buttermilk, Gas
Kentucky: Bugtussle, Crummies, Hand Shoe, Monkey's Eyebrow, Possum Trot, Typo
Louisiana: Belcher, Dry Prong, Tickfaw, Waterproof
Maine: Bald Head, Beans Corner Bingo
Maryland: Accident, Boring, Secretary
Massachusetts: Belchertown, Cow Yard, Sandwich
Michigan: Bad Axe, Hell, Pigeon, Podunk, Slapneck
Minnesota: Embarrass, Fertile, Nowthen
Mississippi: Askew, Hot Coffee, Possumneck, Tie Plant
Missouri: Humansville, Licking, Peculiar, Roach, Tightwad
Montana: Hungry Horse, Square Butt, Two-dot
Nebraska: Colon, Roach, Worms (heck of a combo there)
Nevada: New Hampshire Berlin, Grape Corner, Pahrump, Sandwich Landing
New Jersey: Bivalve, Cheesequake, Good Intent, Little Egg Harbor
New Mexico: Tingle, Truth or Consequences
New York: Cat Elbow Corners, Result, Yaphank Yonkers
North Carolina: Bat Cave, Bunlevel, Gum Neck, Tick Bite, Whynot
North Dakota: Concrete, Zap
Ohio: Blue Ball, Climax, Knockemstiff, Three Legs Town
Oklahoma: Bowlegs, Happy Land, Kremlin, Pumpkin Center
Oregon: Boring, Drain, Half.com, Idiotville, Sodaville, Zig Zag
Pennsylvania: Bath Addition, Corner Store, Fear Not, Intercourse, Loyalsockville, Panic
Rhode Island: Mooseup Valley, Quidnick, Woonsocket
South Carolina: Due West, North, South of the Border, (someone get them a compass please!)
South Dakota: Igloo, Parade, Potato Creek, Red Shirt
Tennessee: Nameless, Only, Static
Texas: Cut -n- Shoot, Ding Dong, Dime Box, Looneyville, Oatmeal, Uncertain
Utah: Plain City, Vermont Bread Loaf, Mosquitoville,Notown,Moscow,Satans Kingdom
Virginia: Croaker, Cuckoo, Fourway (2 of them), Fries,Frogtown,Goochland, Lick Skillet
Washington: Humptulips, Index
West Virginia: Big Chimney, Big Ugly, Left Hand,
Wisconsin: Embarrass, Footville, Imalone, Spread Eagle, Ubet, Wanderoos
Wyoming: Muddy Gap, Point of Rocks
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Liber Gallus Domesticus
One of the sub-species of fowl is known as chicken, Gallus domesticus in Latin. But, as is common for all living species, chickens are also known by two names which indicate their sex: a female chicken is a hen, and a male chicken is called a rooster or cock. Also common when discussing a species is a name for the young of that species. Young chickens are called a chick (male or female), pullet (young hen), or cockerel (young rooster).
A slang idiom in common usage is "chick lit." Now, idioms should not be read literally. "Chick lit" is not books written for baby chickens. What the idiom vaguely refers to is literature with some relationship to females. According to The Dictionary of Slang, a chick is "a female. The term is considered offensive by many females." (Note on the offensive: Yes, I find it offensive. If you're going to categorize a female as some type of chicken could you at least make that an adult chicken?!!!) In common usage the term is not used to describe an infant, nor to describe a clearly older/elderly woman. It is reserved for those in the late teen through 30s group.
In actual usage, "chick lit" is applied to a specific type of literature as well as being used as a derogatory term for literature that is not mainstream or literature that is sub-standard. When used as referring to a specific type of literature it "denotes genre fiction written for and marketed to young women, especially single, working women in their twenties and thirties. Chick lit features hip, stylish female protagonists, usually in their twenties and thirties, in urban settings (usually London or Manhattan), and follows their love lives and struggles in business (often in the publishing, advertising, public relations or fashion industry). The books usually feature an airy, irreverent tone and frank sexual themes." A NY Times reviewer gave an example of "chick lit," although he referenced a television show as the example. He said that the show "Sex and the City," had it been a novel instead of a tv show, would be the perfect example of "chick lit."
A while back, on one of the shidduch blogs, a posting and subsequent comments were centered around the idea of "chick lit." And what was primarily thrown around as an example of a book that is "chick lit"? Anything and everything written by Jane Austen and the Brontes. Aaaargh!!!! Since none of these works fit the straight definition of what "chick lit" is as far as content and style goes, I can only assume that the term was being used to denigrate the works as being sub-standard literature, literature fit only for "hens," as opposed to "real" people. You know, "girly" books. What is more macabre is that the author of the post and some of the commenters were and are English majors, female English majors.
It is hard enough today to get people to read anything at all, never mind good literature. The cause is not helped by tossing around the slang term "chick lit." What's logically next? A type of literature known as "Cockerel Crowings"? Or maybe "Testosterone Tomes"?
A slang idiom in common usage is "chick lit." Now, idioms should not be read literally. "Chick lit" is not books written for baby chickens. What the idiom vaguely refers to is literature with some relationship to females. According to The Dictionary of Slang, a chick is "a female. The term is considered offensive by many females." (Note on the offensive: Yes, I find it offensive. If you're going to categorize a female as some type of chicken could you at least make that an adult chicken?!!!) In common usage the term is not used to describe an infant, nor to describe a clearly older/elderly woman. It is reserved for those in the late teen through 30s group.
In actual usage, "chick lit" is applied to a specific type of literature as well as being used as a derogatory term for literature that is not mainstream or literature that is sub-standard. When used as referring to a specific type of literature it "denotes genre fiction written for and marketed to young women, especially single, working women in their twenties and thirties. Chick lit features hip, stylish female protagonists, usually in their twenties and thirties, in urban settings (usually London or Manhattan), and follows their love lives and struggles in business (often in the publishing, advertising, public relations or fashion industry). The books usually feature an airy, irreverent tone and frank sexual themes." A NY Times reviewer gave an example of "chick lit," although he referenced a television show as the example. He said that the show "Sex and the City," had it been a novel instead of a tv show, would be the perfect example of "chick lit."
A while back, on one of the shidduch blogs, a posting and subsequent comments were centered around the idea of "chick lit." And what was primarily thrown around as an example of a book that is "chick lit"? Anything and everything written by Jane Austen and the Brontes. Aaaargh!!!! Since none of these works fit the straight definition of what "chick lit" is as far as content and style goes, I can only assume that the term was being used to denigrate the works as being sub-standard literature, literature fit only for "hens," as opposed to "real" people. You know, "girly" books. What is more macabre is that the author of the post and some of the commenters were and are English majors, female English majors.
It is hard enough today to get people to read anything at all, never mind good literature. The cause is not helped by tossing around the slang term "chick lit." What's logically next? A type of literature known as "Cockerel Crowings"? Or maybe "Testosterone Tomes"?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
On Being a Name, Not a Number
Long ago someone made a comment on a blog (not even sure if it was here or not) about how it was so much easier and so much more logical the way Brooklyn, Queens and most Manhattan streets mostly use numbers in straight numerical order to name the streets with (and the alphabet as well in Brooklyn). Well, yes and no. Anyone who has had to drive in Queens may wonder about 69th Street, 69th Road, 69th Avenue, 69th Place, not necessarily parallel, intersecting each other here and there and interspersed with named streets in addition. But here is the thing about those numbered streets--they are boring. Yes, B-O-R-I-N-G!
Staten Island gives names to its streets. The residents here seem to find where they have to go just fine. Mostly it is "auslanders" who have trouble initially. For them, may I recommend a good GPS. I like that the streets have names. They give a flavor to the neighborhood that plain "14th Street" just can't match.
Over my years of teaching I have given many an assignment dealing with place names. For one fourth grade, where the introduction to US geography was taking place, the students researched and found out why each state has the name it does. For a unit on "What's our neighborhood?" we researched and learned about the local place names.
There is one location here in SI whose name is pronounced "toad hill," "tote hill," "tot hill," "toe dill" and other variations on these. The actual place is spelled Todt Hill. So, who or what is it named for? I got some obvious, top of the head answers, based on the pronunciation. "It must have had a lot of toads on it." "It must be a place where children (tots) play."
What's the answer? "Todt Hill is a small mountain ridge. At 410 feet in height, it is the highest natural point in the five boroughs of New York City.In addition, it is the highest point on the eastern seaboard of the United States south of Maine. The name Todt comes from the Dutch word for "dead" and refers to the cemetery (the present Moravian Cemetery) on the southwestern foot of the ridge near the village of New Dorp that has been in use since colonial days." Yup, nowhere near as boring as "Avenue J."
But there's more. SI lays claim to two more elevated areas. There's Emerson Hill as well. And where did it's name come from? "The hill is named for Judge William Emerson--oldest brother of Ralph Waldo Emerson--who lived with his wife, Susan, and children William, Haven and Charles in a long brown shingle house known as The Snuggery. Willie and Haven were tutored in 1843 by Henry David Thoreau, who lived with the Emersons from May through October. It was the only time in his adult life that Thoreau lived anywhere but Concord, Massachusetts....In 1971, two large Tudor homes at the end of Longfellow Avenue served as Casa Corleone for the filming of Francis Ford Coppola's classic movie The Godfather."
And then we have Grymes Hill. Grymes Hill is the second highest point on SI, being 310 feet in height. " The hill is named after Suzette Bosque Grymes, the widow of Louisiana's first governor, William Charles Cole Claiborne, who settled on Staten Island in 1836 (she had remarried a prominent New Orleans lawyer, John R. Grymes, after Governor Claiborne died in 1817.)" The tip top of the hill also happens to be the home of the Staten Island campus of St. John's University, and gave me an experience I would so much rather have never had. The view from the campus is normally breath taking, offering a panoramic view of NY Harbor and of lower Manhattan. And on 9/11 it gave those of us on campus a full view of the second plane hitting the Twin Towers.
Staten Island gives names to its streets. The residents here seem to find where they have to go just fine. Mostly it is "auslanders" who have trouble initially. For them, may I recommend a good GPS. I like that the streets have names. They give a flavor to the neighborhood that plain "14th Street" just can't match.
Over my years of teaching I have given many an assignment dealing with place names. For one fourth grade, where the introduction to US geography was taking place, the students researched and found out why each state has the name it does. For a unit on "What's our neighborhood?" we researched and learned about the local place names.
There is one location here in SI whose name is pronounced "toad hill," "tote hill," "tot hill," "toe dill" and other variations on these. The actual place is spelled Todt Hill. So, who or what is it named for? I got some obvious, top of the head answers, based on the pronunciation. "It must have had a lot of toads on it." "It must be a place where children (tots) play."
What's the answer? "Todt Hill is a small mountain ridge. At 410 feet in height, it is the highest natural point in the five boroughs of New York City.In addition, it is the highest point on the eastern seaboard of the United States south of Maine. The name Todt comes from the Dutch word for "dead" and refers to the cemetery (the present Moravian Cemetery) on the southwestern foot of the ridge near the village of New Dorp that has been in use since colonial days." Yup, nowhere near as boring as "Avenue J."
But there's more. SI lays claim to two more elevated areas. There's Emerson Hill as well. And where did it's name come from? "The hill is named for Judge William Emerson--oldest brother of Ralph Waldo Emerson--who lived with his wife, Susan, and children William, Haven and Charles in a long brown shingle house known as The Snuggery. Willie and Haven were tutored in 1843 by Henry David Thoreau, who lived with the Emersons from May through October. It was the only time in his adult life that Thoreau lived anywhere but Concord, Massachusetts....In 1971, two large Tudor homes at the end of Longfellow Avenue served as Casa Corleone for the filming of Francis Ford Coppola's classic movie The Godfather."
And then we have Grymes Hill. Grymes Hill is the second highest point on SI, being 310 feet in height. " The hill is named after Suzette Bosque Grymes, the widow of Louisiana's first governor, William Charles Cole Claiborne, who settled on Staten Island in 1836 (she had remarried a prominent New Orleans lawyer, John R. Grymes, after Governor Claiborne died in 1817.)" The tip top of the hill also happens to be the home of the Staten Island campus of St. John's University, and gave me an experience I would so much rather have never had. The view from the campus is normally breath taking, offering a panoramic view of NY Harbor and of lower Manhattan. And on 9/11 it gave those of us on campus a full view of the second plane hitting the Twin Towers.
So go ahead, talk about the utility of a numbered street system--we'll keep ours, thank you.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Did You Just Say What I Think You Said?
I love the English language, even if there are times that I can't understand why parts of it are the way they are. Thanks to Stanford for posting this from one of my favorite authors. (http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu/Archives/Sesquipedalian/1996-97/msg00023.html
ENGLISH IS A CRAZY LANGUAGE (PART IV)
Richard Lederer
English is weird.
In the rigid expressions that wear tonal grooves in the record of our
language, beck can appear only with call, cranny with nook, hue with
cry, main with might, fettle only with fine, aback with taken,
caboodle with kit, and spic and span only with each other. Why must
all shrifts be short, all lucre filthy, all bystanders innocent, and
all bedfellows strange? I'm convinced that some shrifts are lengthy
and that some lucre is squeaky clean, and I've certainly met guilty
bystanders and perfectly normal bedfellows.
Why is it that only swoops are fell? Sure, the verbivorous William
Shakespeare invented the expression "one fell swoop," but why can't
strokes, swings, acts, and the like also be fell? Why are we allowed
to vent our spleens but never our kidneys or livers? Why must it be
only our minds that are boggled and never our eyes or our hearts? Why
can't eyes and jars be ajar, as well as doors? Why must aspersions
always be cast and never hurled or lobbed?
Doesn't it seem just a little wifty that we can make amends but never
just one amend; that no matter how carefully we comb through the
annals of history, we can never discover just one annal; that we can
never pull a shenanigan, be in a doldrum, eat an egg Benedict, or get
a jitter, a willy, a delirium tremen, or a heebie-jeebie; and that,
sifting through the wreckage of a disaster, we can never find just one
smithereen?
Indeed, this whole business of plurals that don't have matching
singulars reminds me to ask this burning question, one that has
puzzled scholars for decades: If you have a bunch of odds and ends and
you get rid of or sell off all but one of them, what do you call that
doohickey with which you're left?
What do you make of the fact that we can talk about certain things and
ideas only when they are absent? Once they appear, our blessed English
doesn't allow us to describe them. Have you ever seen a horseful
carriage or a strapful gown? Have you ever run into someone who was
combobulated, sheveled, gruntled, chalant, plussed, ruly, gainly,
maculate, pecunious, or peccable? Have you ever met a sung hero or
experienced requited love? I know people who are no spring chickens,
but where, pray tell, are the people who are spring chickens? Where
are the people who actually would hurt a fly? All the time I meet
people who are great shakes, who can cut the mustard, who can fight
City Hall, who are my cup of tea, and whom I would touch with a
ten-foot pole, but I can't talk about them in English -- and that is a
laughing matter.
If the truth be told, all languages are a little crazy. As Walt
Whitman might proclaim, they contradict themselves. That's because
language is invented, not discovered, by boys and girls and men and
women, not computers. As such, language reflects the creative and
fearful asymmetry of the human race, which, of course, isn't really a
race at all. That's why six, seven, eight, and nine change to sixty,
seventy, eighty, and ninety, but two, three, four, and five do not
become twoty, threety, fourty, and fivety. That's why first degree
murder is more serious than third degree murder but a third degree
burn is more serious than a first degree burn. That's why we can turn
lights off and on but not out and in. That's why we wear a pair of
pants but, except on ery cold days, not a pair of shirts. That's why
we can open up the floor, climb the walls, raise the roof, pick up the
house, and bring down the house.
In his essay "The Awful German Language," Mark Twain spoofs the
confusion engendered by German gender by translating literally from a
conversation in a German Sunday school book: "Gretchen. Wilhelm, where
is the turnip? Wilhelm. She has gone to the kitchen. Gretchen. Where
is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden? Wilhelm. It has gone
to the opera." Twain continues: "A tree is male, its buds are female,
its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are
female -- tomcats included."
Still, you have to marvel at the unique lunacy of the English
language, in which your house can simultaneously burn up and burn
down, in which you fill in a form by filling out a form, in which you
add up a column of figures by adding them down, in which your alarm
clock goes off by going on, in which you are inoculated for measles by
being inoculated against measles, and in which you first chop a tree
down -- and then you chop it up.
[(c) 1996 Richard Lederer]
ENGLISH IS A CRAZY LANGUAGE (PART IV)
Richard Lederer
English is weird.
In the rigid expressions that wear tonal grooves in the record of our
language, beck can appear only with call, cranny with nook, hue with
cry, main with might, fettle only with fine, aback with taken,
caboodle with kit, and spic and span only with each other. Why must
all shrifts be short, all lucre filthy, all bystanders innocent, and
all bedfellows strange? I'm convinced that some shrifts are lengthy
and that some lucre is squeaky clean, and I've certainly met guilty
bystanders and perfectly normal bedfellows.
Why is it that only swoops are fell? Sure, the verbivorous William
Shakespeare invented the expression "one fell swoop," but why can't
strokes, swings, acts, and the like also be fell? Why are we allowed
to vent our spleens but never our kidneys or livers? Why must it be
only our minds that are boggled and never our eyes or our hearts? Why
can't eyes and jars be ajar, as well as doors? Why must aspersions
always be cast and never hurled or lobbed?
Doesn't it seem just a little wifty that we can make amends but never
just one amend; that no matter how carefully we comb through the
annals of history, we can never discover just one annal; that we can
never pull a shenanigan, be in a doldrum, eat an egg Benedict, or get
a jitter, a willy, a delirium tremen, or a heebie-jeebie; and that,
sifting through the wreckage of a disaster, we can never find just one
smithereen?
Indeed, this whole business of plurals that don't have matching
singulars reminds me to ask this burning question, one that has
puzzled scholars for decades: If you have a bunch of odds and ends and
you get rid of or sell off all but one of them, what do you call that
doohickey with which you're left?
What do you make of the fact that we can talk about certain things and
ideas only when they are absent? Once they appear, our blessed English
doesn't allow us to describe them. Have you ever seen a horseful
carriage or a strapful gown? Have you ever run into someone who was
combobulated, sheveled, gruntled, chalant, plussed, ruly, gainly,
maculate, pecunious, or peccable? Have you ever met a sung hero or
experienced requited love? I know people who are no spring chickens,
but where, pray tell, are the people who are spring chickens? Where
are the people who actually would hurt a fly? All the time I meet
people who are great shakes, who can cut the mustard, who can fight
City Hall, who are my cup of tea, and whom I would touch with a
ten-foot pole, but I can't talk about them in English -- and that is a
laughing matter.
If the truth be told, all languages are a little crazy. As Walt
Whitman might proclaim, they contradict themselves. That's because
language is invented, not discovered, by boys and girls and men and
women, not computers. As such, language reflects the creative and
fearful asymmetry of the human race, which, of course, isn't really a
race at all. That's why six, seven, eight, and nine change to sixty,
seventy, eighty, and ninety, but two, three, four, and five do not
become twoty, threety, fourty, and fivety. That's why first degree
murder is more serious than third degree murder but a third degree
burn is more serious than a first degree burn. That's why we can turn
lights off and on but not out and in. That's why we wear a pair of
pants but, except on ery cold days, not a pair of shirts. That's why
we can open up the floor, climb the walls, raise the roof, pick up the
house, and bring down the house.
In his essay "The Awful German Language," Mark Twain spoofs the
confusion engendered by German gender by translating literally from a
conversation in a German Sunday school book: "Gretchen. Wilhelm, where
is the turnip? Wilhelm. She has gone to the kitchen. Gretchen. Where
is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden? Wilhelm. It has gone
to the opera." Twain continues: "A tree is male, its buds are female,
its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are
female -- tomcats included."
Still, you have to marvel at the unique lunacy of the English
language, in which your house can simultaneously burn up and burn
down, in which you fill in a form by filling out a form, in which you
add up a column of figures by adding them down, in which your alarm
clock goes off by going on, in which you are inoculated for measles by
being inoculated against measles, and in which you first chop a tree
down -- and then you chop it up.
[(c) 1996 Richard Lederer]
Monday, August 3, 2009
And Then There Was Conversation
Bad4Shidduchim has a post up about the problems of dating someone who does not speak during a date or resorts to one word answers.
http://badforshidduchim.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/one-word-shy-of-mute/#comments
My mother likes to say that I didn't come out of the womb crying; I came out talking. Being a talker and having observed a lot of other people as regards speaking, I'd like to offer the following, which might clarify a bit some of the puzzlement expressed on the bad4 comments.
Almost all people are born with the ability to produce speech, that is, the physical ability. However, not all people are particularly partial to exercise this ability in all situations at all times.
I believe that we can divide people into six basic categories as regards speaking.
#1: Will talk to anyone, anywhere, on any topic, at any time. This person so loves talking that he/she mostly does not require that a partner in a "conversation" do more than nod their head or say "uhhmmm" occasionally. This person may not even realize that the conversation going on is very lopsided, nor do they particularly mind. They are looking for a good listener, not a conversational equal. We see those people often in a classroom. A question is barely out of an instructor's mouth and that person's hand is shot in the air and the answer is already being fired back. Fixing such a person up with another person who is also a level one talker is not a comfortable dating situation; both sides are talking but no one is listening.
#2: This person shares the quality with #1 of being able to talk, and talk, and talk, but unlike #1, this happens only when they can do so about a particular interest or subject. Present them with something that they care about and they can talk up a storm. Present them with something that doesn't much interest them and they flip to being listeners or one-word answerers. The key to a successful date with such a person is to know or find out what the particular, special interests are and get them talking about those. Of course, if the other person on the date doesn't particularly care for the subject, and goes to change it to something else, the first person may become mostly mute.
#3: This person is neither quiet nor talkative. He/she has pretty much mastered the art of polite social conversation, going beyond one word answers, but not all that much beyond. They know what the neutral topics are that may be discussed on a date, and they discuss them. But deep conversation is not something they are comfortable with when faced with a stranger. They are polite conversationalists rather than enthusiastic ones. In a classroom, these people will answer when called upon but do not raise their hands. It will take a while for this type of talker to feel comfortable enough with someone else to raise the level of conversation out of the banal and the mundane.
#4: This person is the born listener. He/she would far rather hear others speak than speak. These types of speakers don't like leading a conversation, nor actually being an active participant in one. This does not mean that they are not taking in everything that is said, examining it and ruminating on it. It does mean that the other person in this "conversation" is going to have to carry the ball, with little or no input from our listener.
Now we come to two broad categories, of which the first four mentioned are part.
#5: Males. Yes, your sex can determine how or when you are comfortable speaking, with whom, and on what topic. Watch a group of young men in conversation and you will notice that they tend to get physical when they talk. Greetings are accompanied by back slaps. Points may be emphasized with arm punches. Even among friends they tend to talk at each other or around each other rather than engaging in steady eye contact, in your face conversation. They tend to take verbal shortcuts, such as "you know what I mean" rather than going into deep explanations. [Keep in mind that I am talking about social situations, not learning ones.] They are not as adept at reading non-verbal cues as females are (or maybe care less about them)--things like body posture or facial expressions. Mostly they don't worry about whether their male friends are having a good time during a conversation. If they are bored they say so or they leave the conversation. They don't particularly worry about the tone of their voice; it is what it is. It is relatively rare to find a group of young men having a quiet conversation; they tend to be more on the boisterous side, on the louder side. A whole lot of these young and not-so-young males find conversation with females a difficult endeavor. They are generally aware, perhaps from seeing their sisters and their friends, that females seem to speak differently, but they haven't really grasped how. They may modify what type of speaker they actually are when faced with conversation with a female: a #1 speaker may hold back being unsure if his regular mode of speaking will be acceptable.
#6: Females are rather interesting because they have more than one style of speaking. They have the in the public eye among strangers mode, the in the public eye with a friend mode, in private among semi-strangers mode and the in private among friends mode. In all but the last mode, and sometimes even there, they are controlled speakers. They modulate their physical movement during conversation. They tend to make eye contact when speaking to all but strangers whom they will never see again. They modulate the pitch and tone of their voices. Some of this is cultural: loud, boisterous women were met with disapproval for most of history and still are in many sub-cultures today. Many frum girls would consider it un-tsniusdik to call attention to themselves through their speaking. Many females are emotive speakers: they speak of feelings, not just ideas or things. Unlike the males, females generally have an idea of how males communicate, since they are, many of them, keen observers. In addition, polite society has always relied on the female to take care of social etiquette.
Now, how does all this relate to speaking on dates? Perhaps instead of some of the real narishkeit that is asked about a prospective date what is needed is a speech assessment survey. Have someone fill out a form that delves into conversational habits in depth. The boy who loves to talk and talk is going to need a good listener, not a good talker. The girl who doesn't really like being at the forefront of a conversation is going to need a boy who, frankly, can't shut up. The girl who loves to talk and talk is also going to need a real listener. Being honest about your speaking habits could help to avoid some of the dating silences that some people find so painful.
I've seen this in real life. The first boy that one of my daughters went out with was absolutely not a talker. My daughter refused a second date. She basically talked to herself all night. The young man (with all kinds of wonderful qualities otherwise) was finally set up with the right kind of girl for him. The young woman happened to be a former classmate of said daughter's. What everyone in the class knew was that this young woman LOVED to talk, she was a level #1 talker, at the head of the group. Yes, this couple got married. He made the perfect foil for her, and she made him relax because he had no responsibility to initiate conversation.
Recognizing that there are real speech and speaking differences among people, some of which may change upon deeper, further acquaintance, some of which won't, might just help to make for better dates.
http://badforshidduchim.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/one-word-shy-of-mute/#comments
My mother likes to say that I didn't come out of the womb crying; I came out talking. Being a talker and having observed a lot of other people as regards speaking, I'd like to offer the following, which might clarify a bit some of the puzzlement expressed on the bad4 comments.
Almost all people are born with the ability to produce speech, that is, the physical ability. However, not all people are particularly partial to exercise this ability in all situations at all times.
I believe that we can divide people into six basic categories as regards speaking.
#1: Will talk to anyone, anywhere, on any topic, at any time. This person so loves talking that he/she mostly does not require that a partner in a "conversation" do more than nod their head or say "uhhmmm" occasionally. This person may not even realize that the conversation going on is very lopsided, nor do they particularly mind. They are looking for a good listener, not a conversational equal. We see those people often in a classroom. A question is barely out of an instructor's mouth and that person's hand is shot in the air and the answer is already being fired back. Fixing such a person up with another person who is also a level one talker is not a comfortable dating situation; both sides are talking but no one is listening.
#2: This person shares the quality with #1 of being able to talk, and talk, and talk, but unlike #1, this happens only when they can do so about a particular interest or subject. Present them with something that they care about and they can talk up a storm. Present them with something that doesn't much interest them and they flip to being listeners or one-word answerers. The key to a successful date with such a person is to know or find out what the particular, special interests are and get them talking about those. Of course, if the other person on the date doesn't particularly care for the subject, and goes to change it to something else, the first person may become mostly mute.
#3: This person is neither quiet nor talkative. He/she has pretty much mastered the art of polite social conversation, going beyond one word answers, but not all that much beyond. They know what the neutral topics are that may be discussed on a date, and they discuss them. But deep conversation is not something they are comfortable with when faced with a stranger. They are polite conversationalists rather than enthusiastic ones. In a classroom, these people will answer when called upon but do not raise their hands. It will take a while for this type of talker to feel comfortable enough with someone else to raise the level of conversation out of the banal and the mundane.
#4: This person is the born listener. He/she would far rather hear others speak than speak. These types of speakers don't like leading a conversation, nor actually being an active participant in one. This does not mean that they are not taking in everything that is said, examining it and ruminating on it. It does mean that the other person in this "conversation" is going to have to carry the ball, with little or no input from our listener.
Now we come to two broad categories, of which the first four mentioned are part.
#5: Males. Yes, your sex can determine how or when you are comfortable speaking, with whom, and on what topic. Watch a group of young men in conversation and you will notice that they tend to get physical when they talk. Greetings are accompanied by back slaps. Points may be emphasized with arm punches. Even among friends they tend to talk at each other or around each other rather than engaging in steady eye contact, in your face conversation. They tend to take verbal shortcuts, such as "you know what I mean" rather than going into deep explanations. [Keep in mind that I am talking about social situations, not learning ones.] They are not as adept at reading non-verbal cues as females are (or maybe care less about them)--things like body posture or facial expressions. Mostly they don't worry about whether their male friends are having a good time during a conversation. If they are bored they say so or they leave the conversation. They don't particularly worry about the tone of their voice; it is what it is. It is relatively rare to find a group of young men having a quiet conversation; they tend to be more on the boisterous side, on the louder side. A whole lot of these young and not-so-young males find conversation with females a difficult endeavor. They are generally aware, perhaps from seeing their sisters and their friends, that females seem to speak differently, but they haven't really grasped how. They may modify what type of speaker they actually are when faced with conversation with a female: a #1 speaker may hold back being unsure if his regular mode of speaking will be acceptable.
#6: Females are rather interesting because they have more than one style of speaking. They have the in the public eye among strangers mode, the in the public eye with a friend mode, in private among semi-strangers mode and the in private among friends mode. In all but the last mode, and sometimes even there, they are controlled speakers. They modulate their physical movement during conversation. They tend to make eye contact when speaking to all but strangers whom they will never see again. They modulate the pitch and tone of their voices. Some of this is cultural: loud, boisterous women were met with disapproval for most of history and still are in many sub-cultures today. Many frum girls would consider it un-tsniusdik to call attention to themselves through their speaking. Many females are emotive speakers: they speak of feelings, not just ideas or things. Unlike the males, females generally have an idea of how males communicate, since they are, many of them, keen observers. In addition, polite society has always relied on the female to take care of social etiquette.
Now, how does all this relate to speaking on dates? Perhaps instead of some of the real narishkeit that is asked about a prospective date what is needed is a speech assessment survey. Have someone fill out a form that delves into conversational habits in depth. The boy who loves to talk and talk is going to need a good listener, not a good talker. The girl who doesn't really like being at the forefront of a conversation is going to need a boy who, frankly, can't shut up. The girl who loves to talk and talk is also going to need a real listener. Being honest about your speaking habits could help to avoid some of the dating silences that some people find so painful.
I've seen this in real life. The first boy that one of my daughters went out with was absolutely not a talker. My daughter refused a second date. She basically talked to herself all night. The young man (with all kinds of wonderful qualities otherwise) was finally set up with the right kind of girl for him. The young woman happened to be a former classmate of said daughter's. What everyone in the class knew was that this young woman LOVED to talk, she was a level #1 talker, at the head of the group. Yes, this couple got married. He made the perfect foil for her, and she made him relax because he had no responsibility to initiate conversation.
Recognizing that there are real speech and speaking differences among people, some of which may change upon deeper, further acquaintance, some of which won't, might just help to make for better dates.
Off We Go...
We're leaving tomorrow out to LV for a week. Hopefully our dream house will materialize faster than our present house is selling. Stay well all, and don't do anything I wouldn't do (which leaves you all with a lot of leeway!).
I'm leaving a few postings to pop up here and there just in case anyone is desperate for reading matter. Enjoy!
I'm leaving a few postings to pop up here and there just in case anyone is desperate for reading matter. Enjoy!
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Geometric Misconfiguration
The model most in use when discussing Judaism is a linear one, literally. We tend to think of Judaism as if it were a line, with a left, middle and right. We discuss groupings of Jews according to where they fall on this line. We talk about the Ultra Right, the Centrist, the Ultra Left. So, do we really fit that linear model? Is it useful? Does it skew or help our thinking?
Let's say we have a line of two inches in length. Mathematically the center or mid point of a line divides the line into two equal halfs, with just as much line to the right as there is to the left of this mid point. Now what if our line got longer? What if we added two more inches to the right of the line? Where would the center now be? Mathematically, it doesn't matter whether you draw the two extra inches on the right or on the left or in the middle; the midpoint is going to fall exactly centered. So, in order for there to be a left and a right on that line, there must be a central dividing point. This is not, however, how things seem to be working in Klal. There have been numerous additions to the right of that original center, but those groups added keep the old center point, thus pointing out that they are more numerous than those center to left. Unfortunately, social historians can point out that the "inches" being added to the line are more numerous all the way to the left. So argument after argument takes place about where the center really is and how long the line really is on either side of that center point. And while we argue who is the center, or central, nothing gets done but arguing.
I believe it would be of more use to us to choose a different geometric figure: the circle. Points on a line can see themselves as disconnected from other points on that line; they can see themselves heading in different directions, left or right. On a circle all points are connected; they, together, form an enclosed, united figure. Yes, the circle can grow bigger or smaller, but it still remains a circle. There is no left or right. We are all members of Klal Yisroel, part of the circle. Whatever differences we have, we share a commonality: we are Jews. The world sees us all that way: it is we who have trouble doing so. There is also a fixed centrality to the center point of a circle; no matter how large or how small the circle gets, the center point remains the same. And no part of a circle's circumference, by definition, is closer to the center point than another, nor further away from it.
It's very easy in an argument to throw out "That's right wing shtuss" or "That's left wing shtuss." And what have we really said? What have we added to the argument? What facts have we presented? NONE. If we take away the terms of a line--left, center, right--we might just get a discussion going.
Let's say we have a line of two inches in length. Mathematically the center or mid point of a line divides the line into two equal halfs, with just as much line to the right as there is to the left of this mid point. Now what if our line got longer? What if we added two more inches to the right of the line? Where would the center now be? Mathematically, it doesn't matter whether you draw the two extra inches on the right or on the left or in the middle; the midpoint is going to fall exactly centered. So, in order for there to be a left and a right on that line, there must be a central dividing point. This is not, however, how things seem to be working in Klal. There have been numerous additions to the right of that original center, but those groups added keep the old center point, thus pointing out that they are more numerous than those center to left. Unfortunately, social historians can point out that the "inches" being added to the line are more numerous all the way to the left. So argument after argument takes place about where the center really is and how long the line really is on either side of that center point. And while we argue who is the center, or central, nothing gets done but arguing.
I believe it would be of more use to us to choose a different geometric figure: the circle. Points on a line can see themselves as disconnected from other points on that line; they can see themselves heading in different directions, left or right. On a circle all points are connected; they, together, form an enclosed, united figure. Yes, the circle can grow bigger or smaller, but it still remains a circle. There is no left or right. We are all members of Klal Yisroel, part of the circle. Whatever differences we have, we share a commonality: we are Jews. The world sees us all that way: it is we who have trouble doing so. There is also a fixed centrality to the center point of a circle; no matter how large or how small the circle gets, the center point remains the same. And no part of a circle's circumference, by definition, is closer to the center point than another, nor further away from it.
It's very easy in an argument to throw out "That's right wing shtuss" or "That's left wing shtuss." And what have we really said? What have we added to the argument? What facts have we presented? NONE. If we take away the terms of a line--left, center, right--we might just get a discussion going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)