[video]
The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that the long-running Marmite advertising campaign Love it or hate it is the best marketing concept EVER.
It’s been so successful that these days, whenever something polarising is discussed, people will describe it as being “like marmite”.
And the reason this is so bloody brilliant is that, actually, if I think about it, although a lot of people do hate Marmite, almost everyone that doesn’t hate it is indifferent about it. They have a jar knocking about somewhere, for sure1, and maybe every now and again they’ll fancy putting some on a slice of toast.
I guess that doesn’t yield such a catchy slogan, though:
Marmite: Hate it, or kinda like it every now and again I guess?
Actually I think we can tighten that up a little:
Marmite: I can take it or leave it.
Marmite lasts literally forever. My parents recently polished off a jar they bought just after they got married. ↩
[video]
Brent Simmons recently published a critique of the words used in the tab labels of Twitter’s new iPhone app. It’s a fine piece, but one part of it doesn’t ring true.
In a section titled “What we know about people and words”, Simmons writes, “English speakers respond best to non-Latinate words.” He then goes on to criticise Twitter’s use of the words connect and discover for being Latin in origin, as well as for sounding like they were selected by “a murder of marketing executives perched around a big table.”
But he is wrong that connect and discover are bad words per se1. And it’s certainly not true that the words “mean almost nothing.” When describing the action of attaching a cable to a socket, connect would be a perfectly good word. And when discussing Bjarni Herjólfsson, I’m pretty sure you’re going to want to use the word “discover”. The problem is the context. In the Twitter app, the words aren’t good choices because they don’t describe what they’re labelling. Simmons does understand this, and—previously mentioned quotes notwithstanding—he does a great job of explaining it in his article. But then he throws in the stuff about Latin words somehow inherently turning off readers, and my head starts to hurt.
So where does Simmon’s stated dislike for Latin words come from? I asked him directly, but he didn’t respond, and I couldn’t find a source for the rule. My best guess is that he is misremembering George Orwell’s famous essay, Politics and the English Language. But Orwell doesn’t actually claim that all Latin words are bad. Instead, he protests against people who deliberately use long Latin words in an attempt to sound more impressive:
“Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers.”
Indeed, later on in the essay Orwell writes: “Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one”. No, Orwell merely wanted people to use clear, straightforward language.2 I don’t think, for example, Orwell would have had any problem with the use of the word car3.
In fact, I don’t believe Simmons would have any problem with that, either. I was tempted to go through his entire article marking all the words that had a Latin origin, but it would have taken aaages and would have been belabouring the point. Instead, let’s just look at his suggestions for better words for Twitter’s UI. He himself notes that his preference for the name of the Me tab, Profile, is Latin, but he doesn’t mention that his suggestion of Mentions instead of Connect is also Latin in origin. And although Tweets and Timeline are both fairly new words, line comes from Latin, too. So if two-and-a-bit of the four words Simmons prefers for the interface are Latin in origin, can he really believe that Latin words should generally be avoided?4
As I said, it’s a good piece5, but strike out all the parts about Latin and it would be even better.
Do you see what I have done there? ↩
Whether or not Orwell’s advice is something one should attempt to follow is a whole other kettle full of delicious, wriggling, fishies. Orwell was certainly a superb writer, but his status as an analyst of language is somewhat less clear. Take, for example, his stance on the passive voice. In the very same essay that Orwell writes: “Never use the passive where you can use the active,” over 20% of the verb forms that he uses are passive in construction. That’s considerably higher than the highest rate (13%) found in various periodicals in three statistical studies. See also this further analysis of Orwell’s essay, from the good people of Language Log. ↩
Tip of the hat to James Harbeck for the tip-off, who also has sensible things to say about Latin words on his Sesquiotica blog. ↩
Not enough evidence for you? Okay, try this. Simmons writes: “When asking your significant other to pick up some milk on the way home, you don’t ask, ‘Will you attend the purveyors and retrieve a dairy beverage?’ You ask, ‘Will you stop at the store and pick up some milk?’”. But stop, store, and milk all come from Latin. Correction: reagank points out in the comments below that milk didn’t actually come into English via Latin, although it is related to a Latin word. However, as it turns out that neither purveyor nor dairy come from Latin, I think the point stands. ↩
Special bonus footnote. Sean Sperte has written an interesting rebuttal to the rest of Simmons’s post, which is worth a read. ↩
Goodjob, Google translate. Gold star.
That just sounds unhygienic.
FUNK Manufacturing.
I wish I worked here.
You cannot deny: that is one hell of a DJ line-up.
How to Write Better Female Characters -
You know you’re doing something wrong when you have to ask people who make porn1 how you could improve your portrayal of women.
Note that all of the interviewees say exactly the same thing. It’s not rocket science, people!
(via Jess Fink)
Admittedly, the porn in question probably isn’t the sort of porn you’re thinking of. But still. ↩
The group stages are over! And Wales made it through! Splendid. And as long as Wales are still in the tournament, WYWG will keep watching the matches and then, several days later, posting commentary about them, [ably assisted by friend-of-WYWG, Tom.]
Today’s commentary team: Simon Ward, Michael Owen, and Alan Quinlan. Ref: Craig Joubert. [I feel sick to the pit of my stomach. I’ve been lucky enough to see Wales win two grand slams in the last six years, but this is I think the biggest Wales match of my life.]
Wales start the match by forcing a turnover. They kick an up-and-under, which Jamie Roberts wins from the Irish back line. Wales march up the pitch and Shane Williams scores in the corner! Priestland makes the difficult kick. That is a good start. If they can just keep scoring at that rate, Wales will win 186 - 0!
Ireland 0 - 7 Wales
This is the fourth instalment in WYWG’s series of liveblogs of the Welsh campaign at the 2011 Rugby World Cup. WYWG is aware of the irony involved in calling something posted over a week after the match a “live” blog. As always, these words are written by WYWG, [and these words are written by WYWG-collaborator, Tom.]
The strangely muffled ITV announcer is talking as though this game is a mere formality. If I hadn’t already inadvertently seen the result that would worry me immensely.
Fiji’s national anthem is a pretty good tune! Not as good as Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, of course. The Fijian war dance—the Cibi—isn’t very long.
Your friend and mine, Wayne Barnes, is reffing. Commentating are Simon Ward and Michael Owen. [Unless, that is, you have taken matters into your own hands and are listening to Talksport (John Taylor and Brian Moore) on the laptop via headphones, whilst watching on the (muted) telly. In the dark, at 6am, in your dressing gown. Like a boss. But also watch the ITV highlights later on to catch a flavour of the commentary for these here blogging purposes, of course.]
Wales start the game by giving away a penalty. Fiji win a lineout, but then make a bad handling error in the backs, and then throw the ball back to the Welsh. They win another lineout, but again a handling error gives Wales the ball. Wales’s attack comes to nothing, though.
Wales win a lineout and Warburton streaks [not naked] down the pitch, but he loses the ball forwards in the tackle.
Due to circumstances outside our control, our increasingly inaccurately named “liveblog” series on the Welsh campaign at the Rugby World Cup is now running over a game behind schedule. IT IS STILL, AWESOME, THOUGH. As always, these words are mine, and [these words are Tom’s].
Wales seem to be playing Shane Williams at inside centre. That’s… interesting. Oh, it’s some other S. Williams. Never mind then. [No two ways about it, Wales are expected to Haskell-DOMINATE Namibia today. Even with the B team. So, points, performance, poise, and no injuries—no pressure boys!]
Commentating are Martin Gillingham and a Welshman! (Michael Owen, no, not that one.) Ref is Steve Walsh, “formerly of New Zealand, now of Australia.”
From the kick-off, Wales are awarded a scrum. The Namibian facing The Best Rugby Player in the World™, Gethin Jenkins, collapses the scrum immediately, and Jones pops over the ensuing penalty:
Wales 3 - 0 Namibia
Good ’tache Namibia No 5. [With a ginger handlebar like that, you may well make it into the Hair XV my good man. Sterling effort.]
Whilst we’re on the subject of dance, Ze Franks’s Star.me site has a “Mission of the day”. Today’s challenge is to “Paste a link to the best dancing you’ve seen on YouTube!”
By far the most frequently posted clip is the Evolution of Dance routine by comedian Judson Laipply. As someone who spends way more time than is healthy watching dance on YouTube, I find that tremendously depressing. Really? There’s people that think that’s the best dancing on YouTube?
It’s better than Gene Kelly tap dancing on roller skates? Better than Machine and Ata’s exhibition at Over the Top 2? Better than the finalists at the World Tango Championships? Better than Carlos Acosta and Tamara Rojo dancing in Swan Lake? Better than this routine by former mixed martial artist Genki Sudo? Better than this showcase by Monster Woo? Better than the Twinz Criminalz?
Yes, Evolution of Dance is an interesting routine, but, to be honest, you are out of your freaking mind if you even try to argue that it’s better dancing than Turk busting out some new jack swing in Scrubs. Ugh.
[video]
Having had a little time to think about it, I’m now a little more bullish about the Welsh performance against South Africa. At times, it really was like watching a completely different team from recent Six Nations tournaments. The level of competence and, dare I say it, professionalism was a cut above. Let’s just hope that they can carry it over into today’s game against their World Cup bête noire, Samoa. [An opening point of irrelevance: of the two Samoan wingers today, one has a brother who plays for Fiji and one has a brother who plays for England. It’s a crazy mixed-up world out there kids. The old joke comes to mind—good job we’re not playing the whole of Samoa… Wales, for their part, have a No. 8 whose Dad played for Tonga, and even someone from North Wales. Diversity!]