dramity: the fondness one has for a freshly poured pint of beer, wine, or other potent potable

This is a particularly intimate moment, as any drinker knows, and I’m shocked as to why it has eluded the honor of its own word for so long.

You’re welcome, English language.

-c

-c

-c

YAY FOR ME!

-c

Ok, ok, ok, I have been startled out of a hectic-ness driven blog recession lately, but tonight instead of cutting new kitchen shelves or watching that extra episode of The Office, I decided to get a few random tasks out of the way. Having now upgraded roundcube and wordpress, I turn my attentions to a new word that a bonne amie turned me onto a bit ago. Whilst I didn’t have a specific quote in mind, or at least one didn’t come attached to the word, I did trip upon a blog called Didactic Discursive Diatribe
whose alliterative title is endearing, and many, many examples of people using it incorrectly. Which is actually quite an amazing feat for a word which is seemingly its own antonym:

discursive

1. Covering a wide field of subjects; rambling.
2. Proceeding to a conclusion through reason rather than intuition.

Ok, while I think it is natural to latch on to “rambling” and “reasoning” as opposites, there is indeed a distinction between the two. But man, is it ever natural to throw up your arms and spout “make up your damn mind!” when you read those definitions. Despite such natural mis-shaping of meaning, digging into the etymology of discursive led me to this post by an author with a rather prodigal vocabulary:

In a recent essay I wrote, I used the word ‘discoursive’ to suggest a communicative relationship between rhetorical entities who were serious about equitable, sustainable, and transparent discussion, or discourse. A reader of my essay disapproved of my usage, saying that discoursive is an antiquated and unnecessary replacement of the more common ‘discursive,’ the word generally used in contexts similar to the ones where I’m using discoursive.

According to the OED, it is true that discoursive’s usage pattern ranges between late sixteenth and early eighteenth century, with nothing noted after roughly 1750. Moreover, discursive is noted as an etymological and lexical synonym to discoursive, both denotating the use of ratiocinative logic. I’m willing to accept and act on my reader’s disapproval, then, but I cannot shake this nagging feeling that discursive fails to connotate as accurately as I want the conversational aspects between rhetor and audience. By conversational I mean that audience involvement in public illocutionary acts is more intimate and influential than generally recognized. Audiences affect rhetors, often in convoluted ways. Conversational suggests, I think, that sort of perdurable and coiled discourse. Discursive suggests something much more deductive, much more linear than I want it to. Discursiveness, to my ear, fits conventional conceptions of rhetors offering, one way, a rhetorical performance to audiences, who, in most public situations, have little opportunity to react. But discoursiveness calls attention to the two-way.

I’m unsure, then, precisely what I would need to do to make discoursive salient, short of a historical contextualizing that will likely prove tangential to the project proper.

Jump back jack! I think I was reaching for my dictionary more frequently than when reading Le Monde online! Ok, I formally proffer that this dude should send me his copy of the OED, as he obviously doesn’t need it. Well done sir, well done. Of course, one might suggest that the distinction between “discoursive” and “discursive” is that the silly English spell everything with an extra u in it.

-c

ps- I read some of their other posts, and yup, that’s just the way they swing a word. Damn.

pps- pardon me for the discursive postscripts, but I finally broke down and listened to Jason Mraz. Damn take 2. Listen people, and get beyond the poppy-sounding mixing, and hear some really fantastic songwriting.

I am the grammarian about whom your mother warned you.

-c

September 26, 2008

New Rule: A candidate for president should not be judged by the color of his skin. And to – and to anyone who thinks differently, I say, please do not reject John McCain just because he’s white. I think the recent news from Wall Street has made us all less tolerant, and only reinforced the stereotype that white people are shiftless, thieving welfare queens.

Now, take a look at these pictures. Here are the CEO’s of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and the Lehman Brothers. I know the first thing that jumps out about these faces is they all happen to be white, and they all happen to be responsible for stealing. But, what you have to understand is that these whites are a product of a society that made them that way. It was the neighborhoods and the schools they went to: Harvard, Yale, the Wharton School of Business.

They never learned the value of doing real, actual work. And the first step to fixing that is better role models so kids growing up white today don’t think the only way out of Westchester is corporate crime. Or a government handout. Or sailing.

So, I get it. The temptation is to look at McCain and vote against him because you don’t see an individual; you just see another typical welfare “whitey.” And it’s true. He spent his entire life shuffling from one low-paying government job to another. Well, except those years he spent in prison. Typical. And, between you and me, he’s not very articulate. Oh, he may have some street smarts, but he’s not what you’d call an “educated” man. He freely admits he’s ignorant about the economy. And apparently the only thing his white running mate knows how to do is crank out one baby after another. And now, of course, her teenage is pregnant out of wedlock, because she learns it at home!

But, that doesn’t mean we should assume all white people are like that just because so many of them are. I believe there is hope. I believe even the stupidest, greediest, laziest whites can break the cycle of dependence, like this November when we finally move George Bush out of public housing.