Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Olympic Fever
Well, it's now been decided that London will host the 2012 Olympics. Rather than ranting about its expense and lack of value to me as an individual (or cheering the regeneration of a massively deprived area), I've decided to focus instead upon my own Olympic dream. After all, it'd be a shame if I didn't participate, since it'll be practically right around the corner; I could probably even walk there, although I'm sure athletes will have special transport opportunities (the Olympics will be held in the future, so athletes will probably get there by jet-packs or matter transporters). But first I need to decide upon an event! The list of sports can be found here on the Olympic site. I can rule out team sports as I have neither the time, nor the energy (nor, some would argue, the interpersonal skills) to assemble a suitable team. That eliminates baseball, basketball, football, handball, hockey, softball and volleyball. I'm also not much of a violent person and haven't been involved in a fight since my little brother stopped beating up on me (and I don't want to start again just for the sake of winning another gold for the U!!S!!A!!), so that's a big no for boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling (and I should probably avoid fencing as well). I don't especially like horses (and am about at the limits of my abilities as a provider to deal with the demands of a lone house cat), so I'd better not take up equestrian or modern pentathlon. The remaining sports, however, all seem possible (especially since I have plenty of time to prepare). I could rule out the boating sports (canoe/kayak, rowing, sailing) on the grounds of equipment, but I have previously achieved waterborne success (2nd place, Father & Son canoe race, Wildcat Creek). Therefore I have decided to let chance determine the category of sport I will pursue in the hope of winning gold in 2012. Here are the categories:

1. Aquatics
2. Archery
3. Athletics
4. Badminton
5. Canoe / kayak
6. Cycling
7. Gymnastics
8. Rowing
9. Sailing
10.Shooting
11.Table Tennis
12.Tennis
13.Triathlon
14.Weightlifting

In order to choose my sporting category I went to random.org which generates numbers using atmospheric noise. I selected a single random integer from the range 1:14 (corresponding to the digits above) (I realize this may give unfair weight to those classifications with fewer individual events). As it turns out, random.org gave me #4, so I will be chasing gold in BADMINTON. Men's singles to be precise, as this is the only individual event for which I qualify in this category. I have even played badminton before, although perhaps a more leisurely version than is played in international competition.

So who is my competition? Badminton has been an Olympic sport since 1992, Indonesia has 7 medals (two gold), China has two (one gold), Denmark one gold, South Korea one silver, and Malaysia one bronze. And that's it. In 2004 the gold and bronze were both won by Indonesia, and Korea took silver. The winner, Taufik Hidayat, is often described as temperamental and called the "bad boy of badminton" (and for good reason as he has had his Eric Cantona moment, maybe even more than one). But he's only listed as being 5'9 and 141 pounds, so I'm sure I could take him. Besides, he'll be really old in 2012 (31!) so I'm sure he'll be past his prime, while I instead will be right at the peak of my badminton career.

Now I just need to decide whether I should participate for the U!!S!!A!! or take on British citizenship and win my medal for the Queen. I think there's only one way to go, really. If the Olympics were in New York it might be different.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005 2:29:42 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Monday, July 04, 2005
Of nerds, spazzes, wonks and dweebs
A brief question ("Where does the word ‘nerd’ come from?") on Arcite's Day (a blog tenuously linked to mine, in that we both contain Diamond Geezer on our blogrolls) led me to wonder about the origins of the vocabulary of insult. There's an interesting discussion on the typology of social misfits at the cul de sac and this discussion thread [among many others], but as these terms are extremely flexible in use (one man's geek may be another man's nerd; exactly what distinguishes a swot from a boffin may simply reflect local preferences rather than universals, and who uses terms "egghead" and "sissy" to refer to nerds these days?), I decided instead to look at the origins of some of these terms (there are just too many of them to cover the entire spectrum of them, so I just picked some that seemed interesting). Unless specified otherwise my references are taken from the Oxford English dictionary (the definitions may reflect UK use, but the etymological information is quite well-documented).

NERD:
"An insignificant, foolish, or socially inept person; a person who is boringly conventional or studious. Now also: spec. a person who pursues an unfashionable or highly technical interest with obsessive or exclusive dedication." The origin of "nerd", as it turns out, is a matter of some contention. In fact, "nerd" is one of the target words on the BBC Word Hunt list (a "major forthcoming BBC2 series"... intended to involve the public in helping to "rewrite 'the greatest book in the English language'."). The OED suggests that the origins of "nerd" may lie with Dr. Seuss: "nerd, a fictional animal in the children's story If I ran the Zoo (1950) by ‘Dr. Seuss’, depicted as a small, unkempt, humanoid creature with a large head and a comically disapproving expression. Alternatively, sometimes explained as a euphemistic alteration of TURD ... , although given the predominance of early spellings in -e-, this seems unlikely. The suggestion that the word is back-slang for DRUNK n. is also unsupported by the spellings, as is derivation from the name of Mortimer Snerd, a dummy used by the U.S. ventriloquist Edgar Bergen in the 1930s."
So we start with a bit of a dead end. Perhaps the BBC series will discover a use of "nerd" predating the publication of Dr. Suess's original text, otherwise we'll have to stick with the possibility that Seuss may have invented nerds.

GEEK:
Most everyone knows the US slang term referring to sideshow performers (especially those who bite the heads off animals), but oddly it appears that this use of "geek" may be a "recent" development. OED suggests that "geek" may originate from the English regional term "geck" (although the origin is uncertain). "Geck" is defined as A fool, simpleton; one who is befooled or derided, a dupe, and has been documented as far back as the 16th century. It seems closely related to the verb "geck", to mock, deceive or cheat (derived in turn from the Germanic verb "gecken").

DWEEB:
Like many terms of nerddom, has a rather atypical spelling/sound pattern. Again the OED's etymology is uncertain (described as North American slang, with origin Probably from -dw (arbitrarily, or as in DWARF), + FEEB, c.f. WEED [feeb being of course short for feeble-minded, though I'm not sure about weed {except in the compound "dickweed", who knows if it's related}]). This seems fairly recent: OED's first quote is 1982, although Etymonline says 1968.

SPAZ:
For once no surprise, and no doubt as to the origin: abbreviation of SPASTIC. One of the OED's reference quotes is amusing (and brings in "square", another term I'm not able to cover): The term that American teen-agers now use as the opposite of ‘tough’ is ‘spaz’. A spaz is a person who is courteous to teachers, plans for a career..and believes in official values. A spaz is something like what adults still call a square. (1965). This term has a special place for me, as during my formative years (age 10) I had a very unfortunate resemblance to the film character Spaz (played by Jack Blum in Meatballs (1979)). Fortunately the nickname didn't stick. As far as I know.

DORK:
And back we go to the realm of the (somewhat) unknown. Dork is not only a foolish or stupid person but also a Midwestern term for penis. Described as "Of uncertain origin: perhaps a variant of DIRK, influenced by DICK" (and the term "dirk" in this sense originates from the bladed weapon of the same name [the origin of this term is also not known, according to the OED]). Although terms of this nature are also freely used to describe nerds and their ilk, I'm going to step slowly and gingerly away from the topic of male genitals. After all I am talking about nerds.

WIMP:
Another instance of US slang, with early use in 1920 according to the OED. Again the origin is described as uncertain: perhaps from whimper (c.f. English dialect wimp (of a dog): to whine). I've seen it spelled as "whimp" but this is not listed in the OED. Etymonline cites the role of J. Wellington Wimpy, "a comparatively unaggressive character in "Popeye" comics", in increased subsequent use of this term.

SWOT:
I wasn't especially familiar with this one until I started looking for information on nerds. This is an English term with fairly straightforward origins: a dialectal variation of SWEAT, and used to refer to someone who works or studies hard (c.f. grind). I suspect it's not in such current use, people might think of me as a nerd if I start calling people swots.

BOFFIN:
Another term of UK origin, specifically referring to scientific or technical researchers, "boffin" is especially common in news articles deriding the work of scientists (Boffins create zombie dogs, Seaweed boffins seek local Vanuatu samples and many more). This one is also in the list for the BBC Word Hunt (see above), as the OED simply has no answer for its origin (Etymology unknown. Numerous conjectures have been made about the origin of the word but all lack foundation) but only suggests it has its origins somehow in World War II ("The term seems to have been first applied by members of the Royal Air Force to scientists working on radar"). I am not aware of the various conjectures, but the etymological guessing game is one that anyone can play, whether with or without evidence of any sort. The OED's frequent "unknowns" really highlight the difficulty of finding accurate source information for linguistic origins, even for terms that have come into use quite recently (relatively speaking).

TWIT:
As referring to "a fool, a stupid or ineffectual person" (which perhaps moves a bit far from "nerd" which implies some sort of intelligence along with the absence of other desirable traits), its origin is from the verb "twit" (light censure, reproach, scold, taunt) which seems to have been a popular term in the 1500s (and in much older sources as "atwite"). So a twit is someone you twit (or atwite), not to be confused with its extremely close lexical neighbor (described as "low slang" and "of obscure origin", and again I will edge carefully away from the gutter).

NINNY:
Like a twit, a ninny is a nerd without the intelligence. It also goes back to the 16th century. OED gives the now very familiar "origin uncertain" plus speculation. In this case the OED suggests that the origin may lie in the term "innocent" plus the diminutive -y, and points out its relation to the slightly-earlier-documented term "ninnyhammer" (a blockhead, fool, or braggart) (a nice instance of usage from 1712: "That Clod-pated, Numskull'd Ninny-hammer of yours....").

Given current trends in usage, I think I'd rather be a geek than a nerd, a spaz than a dweeb, a swot or boffin rather than a twit or a ninny, and definitely not a dork. Please feel free to comment on any important ones I've left out.
language
Monday, July 04, 2005 2:01:37 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Friday, July 01, 2005
Traffic calming
Numerous different techniques are being used to manage (or mismanage) the flow of traffic around London; I pass so many different varieties on my (~5.5 mile) bike commute I thought I'd take a few minutes to describe the different varieties. Most common is the speed bump. Although I haven't counted them (mainly because I haven't exactly settled upon a regular route) my previous commute included about 70 speed bumps of various types. As it turns out the different types are explained in great detail on sites like this one (where speed bumps are within the "vertical deflection" category), and ranted against on sites like this and this.

Speed humps are the most common sort I encounter (distributed across just about all of the back roads I follow wherever possible), distinguished from other sorts by extending all the way across the road. For motorized traffic, the spacing between them seems to be the biggest issue: the closer they are together, the greater the reduction in vehicle speed (and the greater the impact on larger vehicles that bounce over them -- especially ambulances [one of the big arguments against humps of this sort is that ambulances are forced to slow down, thus increasing response times {and transit-to-hospital times}]). As a cyclist my biggest concern is instead the angle of impact: a sinusoidal hump is much smoother to ride over than a "standard" hump (i.e., one which rises at a sudden angle). The latter can be incredibly jarring to run into (just like hitting a small curb/kerb), especially when the adjoining road surface has sunk or deteriorated. This depends on the neighborhood, and the amount of heavy traffic.


One solution to the concerns for large motor vehicles is the plateau. In its simplest form the plateau is just a longer-than-normal (wider-than-normal?) speed hump with a flat surface on the top (also known as a "speed table"). This apparently prevents some of the "bounce effect" on motor vehicles; the issues for cyclists are the same as for speed humps (it all depends on the quality of the transition from the road surface to the edge of the plateau). These are especially common in intersections: most intersections in our neighborhood has recently been converted into fairly elaborate brick plateaus, although they've already been scarred by fast-moving cars (which hit the not-at-all sinusoidal edge of the raised brick section with a loud kerthump, and many of which seem to spew oil as a result).


Yes another alternative is the speed cushion. This is like a speed hump but with gaps to allow cycles (or the wheels of ambulances) to zoom right by without any vertical deflection whatsoever. Sounds like a great solution to emergency vehicles and cyclists alike, but in practice, this seems to provide even more danger, as car drivers tend to swerve so as to place at least one set of wheels in the "no vertical deflection" area (where there may or may not be a bicycle). Somehow I always seem to be riding over speed cushions in order to avoid being run over.


Another class of vertical deflection traffic calming measures is the "uneven road surface" like rumble strips and jiggle bars. Fortunately I don't experience any of these in my daily commute, as these can be really nasty to a cyclist. They're better suited as warning devices on high-speed roads (motorways and the like), not very well suited to any sort of residential areas as they're incredibly loud.

And that's just vertical deflections. I haven't even gotten to horizontal deflections (chicanes and half-chicanes), road narrowings, false one-way systems, islands, gates, speed cameras, pseudoroundabouts, or any of the futile attempts to keep pedestrians alive. Anyway, there are numerous official UK documents on traffic calming here, including the official traffic calming regulations, and just about anything else (PDF about traffic calming in Bird
bike
Friday, July 01, 2005 12:51:16 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Thursday, June 30, 2005
Recent speechifying
For work-related purposes I've needed to conduct a variety of text analyses, and thought I'd learn the ropes with some recent publically available texts. Why not choose recent speeches by politicans, I thought? Of course GW Bush's recent speech at Fort Bragg came to mind first.

In a first pass I simply counted the frequency of each word in his speech, then examined collocates (i.e. words occurring nearby) to unusually frequent words. Unsurprisingly the very most common words were closed-class (in decreasing order of frequency: the (442 times), and, to, of, in, our, a, is, we, are, that, their, they (76 times)). Most of those are also the most frequently occurring in the language as a whole, but the occurrence of pronouns "our", "we", "their", "they" is unusually high in Bush's speech (respectively 6th, 9th, 12th, 13th most common; in a "standard English corpus" [Kucera and Francis, 1967], those words are 136th, 41st, 40th and 30th). I then looked at the collocates of these terms to see what they co-occurred with. In decreasing order of frequency, the immediate collocates (just before or just after the target word) looked like this:

[of, and, to] OUR [troops, military, strategy, allies]
[and, that, as, if] WE [are, have, will, would, know]
[but, so, and, that] THEY [are, failed, can, have, know, need]
[lose, rebuild, defend] THEIR [own, country, lives, new]

This sort of analysis allows you to create your own speech based on generating random selections according to collocations (re-calculating at each content word, e.g. "Our troops are involved in the training to serve their leaders and 17 nations are German in Iraq.). Of course this is dependent on the corpus -- if you select only one speech, yours is likely to resemble that one quite a lot.

Next I looked at the most frequently occurring content words. Not much of a surprise that the leaders were Iraqi (64), Iraq (58), Iraqis (48), terrorists (46), freedom (40), forces (38), war (34), fight (30), military, security, troops (all 28). Combining the various forms of Iraq* gave 180 occurrences (thus falling just between "of" and "in"). Collocates look quite interesting too:

[the, of, new, train] IRAQI [security, forces, people, government, units]
[in] IRAQ [is] ("in Iraq" occurred 28 times; "Iraq is" occurred 18 times)
[help, the, as, helping] IRAQIS [build, to, will]
[of, our] FREEDOM [in, of]
[The] TERRORISTS [and insurgents, who]

It's interesting to contrast this with Tony Blair's recent speech to the European Parliament. Of course this was a speech with a very different purpose, so we wouldn't expect it to go IRAQ, TERROR, IRAQIS, FREEDOM, IRAQI, IRAQI, WAR, FIGHT, FREEDOM.... His most frequent words again include a lot of closed-class words, plus "Europe" (the [396 occurrences], of, to, in, and, it, a, is, Europe (116), that, we, be, I). A bit more "I" than George, and the content words are much different (Europe, people (44), European (36), debate (28), political (28), social (26), world (26)). Iraq and its variants didn't get a mention, and "terrorists" only twice. Here are some of Tony's preferred collocations:

I [have, want, believe, would]
[if,that] WE [have, are, should, can, need]
[the, modern] EUROPEAN [Union, defence, nations, Parliament]

And here's a Tony sentence generated in the same way: "I have to accept a Europe and to be active player in foreign policy."

I would play with this more, but now it's time to work with the tools instead.
language
Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:01:30 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Eavesdropping Heaven
When you're walking into work and hear someone shouting into her mobile phone "Do you want me to tell you the truth? Do you? Do you?", it's really hard not to slow down and listen in. I can't think of many other overheard phrases which give equally strong signals that the following exchange is going to contain something interesting, and this was no exception. Obviously the other party in the conversation wanted to hear the truth, so here it is:
You are a pathetic little man with no ambition in life.
Pathetic!
I would have preferred to hear more but even my slow pace carried me out of earshot a little too quickly (and as another pathetic little man with no ambition in life, I feared that her rage would turn toward me if I lingered too long). Still, it made up for the vast majority of overheard mobile phone conversations which are a bit less entertaining (mostly something like I'm on the bus. The bus. THE BUS! and the like). If I ever see her again, maybe I'll introduce her to a less-pathetic, larger man with at least a little bit of ambition. If I can think of anyone who fits the bill.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:43:11 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Beer Festival
As promised in a previous entry, it's time for a report of the recent beer festival at the Oakdale Arms. Friday night was just too hot and muggy to spend much time there, but we made up for it later in the weekend. Here are my tasting notes, in (approximate) order of consumption. The Dunce household uses an elaborate scoring system, summarized here (because I can't be bothered to search for suitable smiley images, and I don't want to set a precedent by using emoticons in this blog):

v = smiley face (most enjoyed)
/ = partial smiley (OK but not the best)
_ = neutral face (not good but not bad)
^ = frowny face (bad)

/ Burton Bridge - Moorish Mild. It's very light-drinking dark mild. Tasty but not exciting. One rating on ratebeer.com concurs. I would have added another but couldn't come up with 75 characters of comments (despite a nice bucket-of-words to help reviewers comment, including "Banana,Bubble gum", "Sulfur, Skunk", "Earth,Mold,Cobwebs", "Horse blanket, Barnyard, Leather", my palate is not sufficiently refined to taste any of these).

_ Nethergate - Dr John's Panacea. This was an unimpressive ale, not especially notable for any reason. Two reviewers seem to agree.

v Minchews - Stoke Red Cyder. This was a really tasty, strong (8.4% ABV) dry cider. My tastes run toward the driest of dry, and this was really refreshing with a strong bite. Mmmmmmm. My favorite from the cider/perry side of the menu.

/ Eccleshall - Slaters Shining Knight. Another one which is given an average rating by drinkers on ratebeer and I have to agree. I should note at this point that I favor a really hoppy beer, and this was not. Reminded me a lot of London Pride.

/ Orchards - Blended Perry (like cider, but made from pears). This was a fine drink, but compared to memories of Stoke Red Cyder, it just didn't stand up. It was dry but didn't have that bite of tartness which I prefer. It also didn't have much of the pear about it; overall just a little something missing. Not at all bad but nothing to write home about.

V Milton - Sparta. I was a little hesitant to go with a Milton beer as the Oakdale usually has a good number of Miltons, and to me a beer festival is an opportunity to taste things I wouldn't ordinarily find. But as it turns out, Sparta isn't so common after all -- it's not listed on Milton's website, nor on ratebeer.com. It's described as "A new beer in the ancient cities range", but that's about all I know (there is also apparently a Thebes which seems quite well-liked; I'm anxious to see more of the Ancient Cities in the future). Anyway, this was very hoppy and strong flavored with an excellent aftertaste, and the taste improved even more after a few sips (and no, this was not a product of intoxication). This is what I hope for when I drink a bitter. My pick of the festival

v Old Cannon - Gunners Daughter. This was another excellent pint, hoppy and tasty. Were it not for the pleasures of Sparta, this one would have been my top pick. Drinkers at ratebeer really seemed to like it as well, I guess that means my palate may be more refined than I thought.

/ Troggi - Siedr Penalt. And I finished it all up with another cider. Very much like the blended perry above, this was a decent, tasty drink. Rather dry, but very light in flavor. And again there was just a little something missing which made it only OK, not great.

All in all, a good festival. I didn't drink anything I didn't like (except for a taste of Mrs. Dunce's Umbel Magna [Nethergate] which had an unfortunate aroma of urine, and tasted like "tincture of something"). For the record, here are her drinks and ratings:

^ Nethergate - Umbel Magna
v Nethergate - Priory Mild
/ Pitfield - East Kent Goldings
v St. Austell - H.S.D.
_ Tipples - Longshore
/ Tipples - Redhead
v Wadworth - 6X

EDIT: fixed some of the ratebeer links; sorry I didn't check them all.
consume
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:46:41 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Friday, June 24, 2005
Disposing of your extra words
There seems to be a strange tendency in these parts to use excessive words on public signage. I always thought it was a rule (if not a law) that a sign should express its message efficiently and briefly. Like the following, for example:






On the other hand, every day I ride to work, I pass an anti-littering sign. Not the various sorts of brief, effective signs like these...

,
,

but something very much like this:



I want to know why "provided" is included on the sign. If the bins were not provided, it would be pretty difficult to place all rubbish in them. And does it really matter whether rubbish-holders place their rubbish in the provided bins, or some other bins? To me the main goal would be to stop them ("from" goes here in US English) littering near the provided bins, not filling the provided bins with as much rubbish as possible (ideally, all of it). What really concerns me is that the aforementioned sign (and the image itself) is listed by "The Sign Factory-Falkirk" under the "Mandatory Signs" category. I don't have such a sign up, but perhaps I should. The category also includes some other overly-wordy signs (Lock This Door #1, Lock This Door #2, Lock This Door #3,, Shut This Door). If only every sign were as clear, efficient and effective as NO SPECTACLE WRANGLING.
language
Friday, June 24, 2005 9:50:56 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Thursday, June 23, 2005
Dinner plans
Mrs. Dunce's aunt and uncle are coming for dinner this evening, so we've been thinking a little about what to serve1. Last night after another highly enjoyable trip to Asakusa (the restaurant, not the place, already reviewed here from our trip just last week [Really, we're not obsessed with it. It was someone else's suggestion, and she's leaving the country quite soon. {Of course we may have influenced her decision processes, but that's another story}]) we stopped by to pick up a few remaining groceries. We shouldn't have bothered, though. Another member of our household had already done the shopping. There was a lovely dead bird resting on the kitchen floor, Zosi's first ever contribution to our larder (I'll not say much about the feathers; fortunately nothing else was scattered around). Unfortunately Epicurious.com didn't offer much help (despite various different search terms [There's ROBIN in "Superfast vegetarian pizza" ?!?!?!]) so maybe we'll just serve a starter of dead bird sashimi. Or maybe we'll stick to our original plan.

1Looks like Javanese roasted salmon with wilted spinach (recipe here [Mrs Dunce swears by Epicurious and for good reasons]) and wasabi mashed potatoes (this might be the right recipe, but there's really not much need for a recipe, just add some wasabi to mashed potatoes. Mmmm).
beasts | consume
Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:44:56 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The Local again
In a previous entry I wrote a little bit about our local pub and teased a future entry about the beer festival going on at the time. Well, the beer festival was excellent, perhaps a little too excellent as that promised entry never appeared. But now it's time for another beer festival there, and we definitely need to support our local pub as there is some chance it will be demolished, and flats built in its place ("Demolition of existing building and erection of a three storey building comprising 4 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed self contained flats and parking at basement level", from the Planning Application [EDIT: dynamic link removed]). So our plans to visit the beer festival (maybe even more than once) are a selfless act of community support rather than some sort of decadent debauch. The Oakdale's website clearly shows that the geeks are in charge (well done to the geeks!): the "drinks" link takes you to a quite up-to-date (20 minutes ago at this moment) listing of "what's on" generated from their stock control system. At the moment it's quite obvious that the beer festival stocks have arrived; all of the following are listed as being in stock:

Burton Bridge Bridge Bitter (4.2% ABV)
Burton Bridge Civvy Salvation (4.5% ABV)
Burton Bridge Golden Delicious (3.8% ABV)
Burton Bridge Moorish Mild (3.9% ABV)
Caledonian Deuchars IPA (3.8% ABV)
Eccleshall Slaters Bitter (3.6% ABV)
Eccleshall Slaters Premium (4.4% ABV)
Eccleshall Slaters Shining Knight (4.5% ABV)
Eccleshall Slaters Supreme (4.7% ABV)
Eccleshall Slaters Top Totty (4.0% ABV)
Harviestoun Dragon Fly (3.6% ABV)
Highgate Beezone Honey (3.8% ABV)
Milton Jupiter (3.5% ABV)
Milton Justinian (3.9% ABV)
Milton Neptune (3.8% ABV)
Milton Pegasus (4.1% ABV)
Milton Sparta (4.3% ABV)
Milton Vindolanda Umbra (5.5% ABV)
Nethergate Dr Johns Panacea (4.3% ABV)
Nethergate Priory Mild (3.5% ABV)
Nethergate Umbel (3.8% ABV)
Nethergate Umbel Magna (5.0% ABV)
Nottingham Bullion (4.7% ABV)
Nottingham Cock and Hoop (4.3% ABV)
Nottingham EPA (4.2% ABV)
Nottingham Rock Bitter (3.8% ABV)
Nottingham Rock Mild (3.8% ABV)
Nottingham Supreme (5.2% ABV)
Old Cannon Best Bitter (3.8% ABV)
Old Cannon Gunners Daughter (5.5% ABV)
Pitfield East Kent Goldings (4.2% ABV)
Pitfield Original Organic (3.7% ABV)
St. Austell HSD (5.0% ABV)
Thwaites Thoroughbred (4.0% ABV)
Timothy Taylor Landlord (4.3% ABV)
Tipples Longshore (3.6% ABV)
Tipples Redhead (4.2% ABV)
Wadworth 6X (4.3% ABV)
Wadworth JCB (4.7% ABV)

This is not even counting the ciders and bottled beers (also available on the same report). Hmmm, going to have to start thinking about where to begin. We'll be there on Friday for sure. Once again I'll promise a beer festival report; only time will tell whether I will deliver.
consume
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:37:33 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Cowes to Lymington and then back again
This past weekend was the warmest of the year so far, so how could we resist a friend's offer to take us sailing on his boat?! It's not exactly a small boat so it was with a small amount of trepidation that we joined in. We got up on Saturday at a reasonable hour and took an air-conditioned train to Southampton (fortunately not the fictional one), then a high-speed ferry to Cowes on the Isle of Wight, and finally a little putt-putt of a water taxi across the River Medina to East Cowes (we could have taken the chain ferry/floating bridge instead) where the fine vessel BUGLE is moored. We were joined by a few of Sea Captain's cow-orkers (something in the Money business, I don't really want to know. Fortunately they were fine company and there was a minimum of sneering in my direction), and after hardly any preparation, we were off.

We chose perhaps a less than ideal day for our sailing trip, as the Round the Island race was going on at the same time -- something like 1700 boats all heading around the island and directly toward us (at the narrowest point, no less). So we decided instead to go against the tide (but with the wind) and head west, for Yarmouth (island) or Lymington (mainland [if you can call England "mainland"]; if you follow the Lymington link let me add [sic].). Fortunately one of our fellow sailors had plenty of sailing experience, so he and Sea Captain took care of all the details related to sails and ropes and the like.... Or so I thought until I was handed the tiller and told "Steer it straight". Well, it was a little choppy from all the ferry and powerboat traffic, and I was still getting my sea legs (OK, really I was petrified with fear and holding onto something solid for dear life), so my attempts at steering were not entirely useful. But soon enough we were underway, most of us lounging around the boat in the sun, sipping cold drinks, watching the other boats and mostly just relaxing. Despite my difficulties in the early stages I was passed the tiller again, and found driving much more to my liking as we cruised along. It was really easy going, mostly about 5-5.5 knots, and after a few hours we made the decision: Lymington it was.

I gave up the driving duties as we motored into the marina. It was especially crowded and we provided a great deal of entertainment to the locals, as first we attempted to thread between parked (docked?) boats, then tie onto a buoy without a boat hook (fortunately the other experienced sailor was also a rock climber, so he hung off the front of the boat like a monkey to tie on, and a fellow boater came by with a dinghy to help out). Then do it again, moving to an entirely different buoy as our mooring was in especially shallow water and we feared that we'd be left in the mud when the tide went out. But if you think that's funny, then we had to get to shore. Sea Captain's inflatable dinghy, however, was not exactly up to the task of transporting seven (7) people, being suitable really only for one at a time (two if they are very careful, being sure not to leave the grain alone with the chicken OR the chicken alone with the fox). The first crossing saw the passenger's trousers fully soaked, and the rest of us quite unwilling to get in. Fortunately one of the amused locals took pity on us and lent us a larger dinghy which we used to cross without further incident.

We had dinner at the Bluebird Restaurant, reviewed here but that review hardly gives an impresion of just how good it was. I think all of us ordered from the "specials" board which featured loads and loads of fresh, local seafood (I am drooling as I write this [Yes, more than usual]). I had a super-healthy deep-fried Brie as a starter and then a monstrous crab thermidor; Mrs. Dunce had gravidlax and then, errrr, some sort of fresh fish. All of it was fantastic, and those of us who had desserts (unfortunately not either of the Dunces) raved about them even more. Two of our number were staying on land, so the remaining five trooped back to the dock with devious plans to "borrow" a better dinghy for the return voyage to the BUGLE. But it was not to be, as we'd left our return journey too late, and only our own bedraggled inflatable remained. Somehow we managed to do it and stay dry, ferried one at a time (first taking the chicken to the boat, then the fox, bringing the chicken back, taking the grain to the boat, and finally returning to bring the chicken across). We all slept on the boat without incident as far as I know, and got up to a bright, bright, bright early morning.

And then we were off again, sailing into the wind. For the first couple of hours, against the tide as well, which meant that we made very little headway (on our first trip across to the isle and back we gained about 200 yards). Mrs Dunce and I served largely as ballast, scrambling across the boat during the tacks, moving to the high side for balance as we were consistently leaning about 25 degrees (it's probably not much but it seemed like quite a lot). Of course I counted the number of tacks -- I'm fairly certain it took just about 16 to get back to our starting point of the previous day. When we weren't tacking there was plenty of time to lounge on the boat and enjoy it. There seemed to be a lot more boats in the water, although perhaps it was just because we were tacking against the wind and thus crossing many more potential paths. But before long it was finished, so we docked, cleaned up the boat and came back the way we had come.

It was a great way to spend a weekend but there is definitely some post-sailing suffering. Despite vigorous application of sunscreen, I have a few nasty burned spots (knees, tops of feet), and poor Mrs. Dunce has discovered that she has a very nasty sun allergy. We're both on the mend, though, and ready to do it again.
travel
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:31:10 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Thursday, June 16, 2005
Libel and defamation
Libel laws in the UK can be quite strict, so it's a good idea to know the dos and don'ts of libel and defamation. The BBC site offers a nice guide to avoiding libel and defamation. Under English law (unlike many other places) the burden of proof is mine. Therefore, when I write

"I asked my brother 'Have you stopped playing with yourself?' and he said 'no'!! HAHAHAHA he plays with himself."

I may be in a lot of trouble trouble (assuming the defamed individual pursues a libel case) as I may have some difficulty proving that the exchange actually happened. A common defense is to argue that the statement is true, but I think I would run into trouble providing evidence (either for the veracity of the quote, or for the accusation). Another defense is fair comment: the writer is stating an opinion. I could argue that my statement "he plays with himself" is an expression of my opinion rather than being presented as fact. But I'm pretty sure I won't get far with that claim either, as it has no indication of being an opinion. Why, oh why didn't I write "HAHAHAHA, I think that means he plays with himself" or something similarly qualified? I can't rely in privilege either as this statement did not come from my testimony in court (or Parliament) (and now it's too late to try to get into court or Parliament in order to have the above statement somehow read into the public record under privilege (I'm not really sure how the term "privilege" should be used here. Nay-sayers can start there perhaps). Maybe I could argue that the above statement is not damaging to the reputation of the individual in question. Hmmmmm, doesn't seem very likely either: it could potentially expose him (no pun intended) to ridicule, cause him to be shunned, discredited and "generally lowered in the eyes of right thinking members of society" (quote from BBC site linked above).

Fortunately in order for something to be considered libelous (or libellous) it needs to be published. And that could only happen if I pressed the "Post to Weblog" button.


Oops.

Maybe we can settle out of court?
Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:51:01 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [7]  | 
 Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Beer tasting
Well that didn't take long at all. In a remarkable parallel to the previous day we were back in the Lord John Russell and again ordering pints of Budvar all around. The big difference is that this time it was the elusive Budvar Dark Lager (winner of last years Great British Beer Festival "Imported Beer of the Festival" award). According to the last line of this article in the Publican, we're lucky enough to be in a test area. As for the much-awaited beer itself, it was tasty and much lighter than I expected. Good but not great in my opinion. As Mrs. Dunce is a bigger fan of dark beers (and more adept at verbal descriptions of sensory experience), and because I agree with her assessment, I'll just quote her here:
The Budvar Dark was good though not the taste thrill I hoped it would be. A nice quality dark beer with earthy notes but no lingering finish. Dragon Stout is still my choice for this class of beer. But then it would be, it has a much higher alcohol content.

There is a great deal of controversy concerning the Budvar (Budweiser) brand and the American product of the same name made by Anheuser-Busch (some articles about the battle around the world can be found here, here, here, here and here among many many others). Here is the official position of Budvar on the issue. At least in these parts it seems like Budvar is gaining an advantage; when it comes to matters of drink, I'll always side with the drinkable one if there's a choice. Another Budvar for me, thanks.
consume
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:58:26 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Asakusa
Once again I had a restaurant experience worth writing about, at Asakusa Japanese Restaurant, a place that would surely be in my list of top London restaurants (if I had such a list). After a quick drink at a pub near work1 we jumped on the bus toward Mornington Crescent. Asakusa's reviews (1, 2) all seem to reflect its shabby (or worse) decor ("cramped", "scruffy", "dilapidated surroundings", "looked like it should have been condemned") but enthusiastically recommend the food (it's even on The Economist's list of London's "best bohemian joints"). It's an izakaya-style restaurant with a wide range on the menu (and posted on the walls, but only in Japanese). After the Budvar disappointment we quickly ordered a round of dark lager (Asahi Dark) which in my opinion is far tastier than the standard range of lagers. I have absolutely no chance of remembering everything we ate, but some of the highlights were hijiki, natto, salt mackerel (still my favorite dish of all the ones I've tried there), curry potato korroke (a close second), some very nicely done shrimp tempura. I also had a really tasty serving of sake (served cold in a masu (wooden box) and accompanied by a pinch of salt). We didn't even venture onto the sushi/sashimi menu this time (although we've had excellent sushi/sashimi there on previous visits). The bill came to about £18 each (including 10% service charge). I can't complain.... except that now all I want is to go back again, the sooner the better.

1Pints of Budvar all around, thanks. Sadly it was only after our drinks had been served that Mrs. Dunce discovered that the pub had the extremely well-regarded and incredibly unavailable Budvar Dark Lager on tap. As we had to make our reservation time, we didn't manage to get a taste of the Dark (so we'll have to get back there in the very near future).
consume
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:26:58 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Monday, June 13, 2005
Eatin' vittles
Some dispute has arisen concerning my use of the term "vittles" in my previous entry, and a concerned writer suggested that the term should be spelled "victuals" rather than "vittles". It's an interesting question, especially because of the complicated etymological path. There is no doubt that it comes from the Latin victualia ("provisions") but its route from there is interesting. Etymology Online suggests it was spelled "vitaylle" (singular form, c1303) and came by way of Old French vitaille (which in turn came from the Latin origin). The Oxford English dictionary gives a similar story (The variant OF. and mod.F. form victuaille has been assimilated to the [Latin] original, and a similar change in spelling has been made in English, while the pronunciation still represents the forms vittel, vittle.) But the EO entry is far more specific: Spelling altered 1523 to conform with [Latin], but pronunciation remains "vittles." This seems like an incredibly (unbelievably?) precise date. What happened in 1523 to cause this change? The papacy of Clement VII perhaps? Or is the precise dating a little too precise in this case? Anyway, the spelling of this word has gone through quite a few variants; we're lucky to have only two.

OED examples include
1303 vytayle
13?? vitaile
1375 vittale
1375 witale
c1385 vitayle
1399 vetaile
1400 vitell
1417 vitaill
1472 wetyl
1480 wittall
1482 vettell
1487 Vetale
1494 wyttell
1500 vetayll
1500 wetale
1523 victuayle
1538 vytel
1548 vitail
1559 victuall
1573 vittle
1599 vittell
1627 Victual
1847 fittle (dial.)

Plural uses have been there from the beginning (early 1300s, anyway), and it's quite unclear to me when the singular went out of use (in fact, dictionary searches suggest that it hasn't). So feel free to use any of the above spellings; if anyone complains, tell them you're not so keen on following fads.

EDIT: It's also necessary for me to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with me. Spelling.org is one such case: Most teachers have no idea that the word victuals is only correct spelling of "vittles"... [sic].

Sometimes the jokes write themselves.
language
Monday, June 13, 2005 11:14:05 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Friday, June 10, 2005
Not so obligatory plurals
And with that it's another linguistic issue, raised on the pages of Sarmoung's secret diary. For those readers afraid to click the preceding link, he uses the phrase "SPECTACLE WRANGLING" to refer to individuals "trying to grab [his] glasses for comic routines" and subsequently wondered

I wasn't sure whether since the noun is "spectacles" it might not need to remain so. Trouser Wrangling? The plural just "sounded" wrong. But then "Glass Wrangling" doesn't sound too good either, although that's maybe for reasons of clarity. As for "Binocular Wrangling"...Hmm. Fortunately I don't have to deal with this sort of thing on an in-depth daily basis.

On the other hand, I do. Well, maybe I don't have to but perhaps I choose to. ... I think "spectacle wrangling" is the correct use. Look in analogy to the terminology one might use for wrangling other entities which are expressed in clear singular or plural forms, e.g. "cat wrangling" (not "cats wrangling", even if you're after a whole host of them). My intuition is that in this sort of form, "wrangling" is a noun and the terms like "spectacle", "trouser", "cat" are behaving more like adjectives to reflect a sort of habitual behavior. "Spectacle wrangling" is the act of wrangling spectacles (not "spectacle"), and you (surely!) wouldn't say "I had my spectacle wrangled". The same sort of thing seems to happen for other actions too ("spectacle breaking", "trouser peeling", "cat spotting"). In a strange sort of way the plural marker is removed when the spectacles (trousers, cats) are being acted upon and represented in a compound form, even in cases in which the singular form is never in common use.

The wikipedia entry for English plural has a brief discussion of these words (under the heading "Defective nouns"), using the technical term pluralia tantum to refer to those words for which a singular form does not exist (also including annals, billiards, measles, nuptials, thanks, tidings, vittles). An interesting distinction is between those which behave (syntactically) as a plural, vs. those which behave as singular:
My spectacles are filthy.
Billiards is a pursuit of vile men.

Although I don't have the time to go into a full investigation of the cause of this behavior (ie, why do even pluralia tantum words become singular in constructions of this sort), here's an interesting article dealing with related issues:
Why children sometimes say "mice-eater" (PDF)
and in A Linguistic Introduction to English Words (ch 5, PDF) Heidi Harley writes Note that the roots, pant-, scissor- or tong-, can occur without the plural suffix when part of a compound: pantleg, scissor factory, tong holder. This shows that the -s suffix on these words really is the regular plural marker. Within compounds, singular or plural is simply not relevant. We say lawn-mower, not *lawns-mower, even though any given lawn-mower could easily be intended to mow multiple lawns. So the existence of pantleg shows that the root pant- does exist independently of the suffix -s. The only strange thing in these cases is that the plural marking is required even when the meaning is singular.

Why does this happen? Who knows.
language
Friday, June 10, 2005 11:56:34 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [12]  |