Tag: language

..because there’s a f’king “H” in it…!!

Posted on by bach

Ladies & gentlemen, Eddie izzard from the “Dressed to kill”. This guy can make you ROFL, for real.

….and we do pronounce things in a different way, like you say “caterpillar” and we say “caterpillar,” and… You say “aluminum” and we say “aluminium.” You say, “centrifugal” and we say “centrifugal.” You say, “leisure” and we say “lizuray.” You say “baysil” and we say “bahsil.” You say “’erbs” and we say “herbs,” because there’s a f’king “H” in it… But you spell through THRU, and I’m with you on that, ‘cause we spell it “THRUFF,” and that’s trying to cheat at Scrabble.

“How can we get that “OU” sound?”

“Well, a “U” will work,”

“What about an “O” as well?”

“We don’t need it, we’re fine.”

“No, I think an “O” in.”

“Well, all right.”

“And a “G” as well.”

“What?!”

“Yes, a “G” would be good. We need a silent “G” in the background, in case of any accidents or something.”

“Well, all right.”

“And an “H” as well.”

“F’king ‘ell! Hang on.”

“An “H” in case some herbs come along.”

“All right…”

“And a Q, and a P, and a Z… Look it’s a word in Scrabble that’s 480 points!”

full transcript

Accentophobia!

Posted on by bach

An Indian call center
Image via Wikipedia

Onshore support translates to more expensive service, offshore works out cheaper. Both have their own advantages and drawbacks. Companies pick one of these, so that they can sell their service at feasible price.

Now, what did I miss? (scratching me head)… No, I dint. It’s so simple.

Alright, that context is this post – “Accent neutralisation and a crisis of identity in India’s call centres”, and this comment caught my eyes.

He declares :

FACT: Nobody enjoys speaking to Indian call centres, because it’s really difficult to understand what they’re saying.

FACT: Even the Indians who try to disguise their native accent are barely understandable.

FACT: Many people have switched suppliers (be it power, internet, mobile phone, etc) simply because they’re fed up with talking to Indians when they want support.

This part is very interesting..

Personally, I don’t care for Indian accents, and I refuse to speak to Indians on the phone (even if they’re British). This suits me just fine, as I have none of those frustrating calls any more.

If I do need support, and the support is via an Indian call centre, then I go straight to the Terminations department  and tell them I don’t want their services any more. When they ask why this is, I say it’s because I need help but I’m fed up with talking to Indians. They will normally put me straight onto a British person and I can deal with them.

Don’t be shy of telling them you don’t want to speak to Indians. Just because you don’t understand what somebody is saying, it doesn’t mean you’re racist

My brain’s all over the wall.

How to argue

Posted on by bach

I was looking for levels and kinds of arguments you could possibly have on internet, just to equip myself with information on how to answer “you are just stupid!” etc. I am still looking but, I found this categorisation on Paul Graham’s site about levels of disagreements. Worth bookmarking them:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We’ve all seen comments like this:
“u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!”

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators’ salaries should be increased, one could respond:

“Of course he would say that. He’s a senator.”

It’s still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there’s something wrong with the senator’s argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn’t, what difference does it make that he’s a senator?

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author’s tone. E.g.
“I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.”

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

DH4. Counterargument.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it’s common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don’t realize it.

DH5. Refutation.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a “smoking gun,” a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it’s mistaken. If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author’s main point seems to be x. As he says:

But this is wrong for the following reasons…

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author’s main point. It’s enough to refute something it depends upon.

Read complete thesis on original site.

..even in his dreams!

Posted on by bach

I recall this from high-school days. This was written a couple of millennium ago, obviously they had too many fearless lions roaming around. So, every poet dreamt of being and living like a lion. Who knew they will(going to) become extinct so soon, to make this irrelevant.

एकोहमसहायोहं क्रुषोहमपरिच्छदः
स्वप्नेप्येवम्विदाचिन्ता म्रुगेन्द्रस्य नजायते

I don’t know author, no internet presence for this bit (that’s the reason this post).

Non dEvanAgari attempt :

ekOhamasahAyOhaM kruShOhamaparichChadaH
svapnEpyevamvidAchintA mrugendrasya najaayate

Sanskrit Poets somehow like to compress whole sentences in single words, just because the can :-).  If you want me to break it down a little:

Ekah(alone) aham(I am) asahAyah(helpless) aham(I am) krushaH(weak) aham(I am) aparichChadah(orphan)

svapne(dreams) api(also) evam(such) vida(kind) chinta(worry) mruga(animal) indrasya(king’s) na(no) jayate(occur).

Phew, that pain!

To summarise what did we learn ?

A Lion never ever thinks that he is alone, helpless, weak and group less – even in his dreams, even if he is (all those)!!

Good for him .. eh ?