Untaethered

Layer upon mushy layer 
of sentiment, slowly accuming 
The cold dark depths of my
Subconchness
 Patrifying
My shells of fear, falsilized
There they lie
Until the end of the age.
Orieginally bored, accidentally ostralized.
Ghast to the fore, wends
a homeless roamadic
Untaethered to the maternial world
A shovel of this mote, recoil
I lose the slippery bounds of worth
My widening ire spun to the
Deep blue wonder

(Aug 27, 2015)

Comparison of "Soledad" with "la Historia de un Amor"

La Historia de un Amor (Carlos Eleta Almarán)

Soledad (Jah Wobble)

Ya no estás más a mi lado, corazón, en el alma sólo tengo soledad Y si ya no puedo verte porque Dios me hizo quererte para hacerme sufrir más. Siempre fuiste la razón de mi existir, adorarte para mí fue religión Y en tus besos yo encontraba el calor que me brindaba, el amor y la pasión. el amor que me brindaba, el calor de tu pasión. Es la historia de un amor como no hay/habrá otro igual, que me hizo comprender todo el bien, todo el mal. Que le dió luz a mi vida, apagándola después. ¡Ay, qué vida tan oscura! Sin tu amor no viviré. Ay, qué noche tan oscura, todo se me ha de volver.

Déjame Porque sólo tengo soledad Y los recuerdos tan perdido Un momento doloroso ¡Ay, qué vida tan oscura! Para que me sufro más Déjame Tus manos que tocan canciones Para mí fue religión Pero los recuerdos tan perdido Un momento doloroso Díme que me amarás ¡Ay, qué vida tan oscura! Sin tu amor no viviré Los recuerdos tan perdido Un momento doloroso

Epochs (origin points for counting years)

(Dates using the astronomical year numbering system or ISO 8601.)

+879	Nepal Sambat
+640	Islamic
+638	Burmese
+632	Zoroastrian 'Yazdegirdi' (mainstream)
+622	Islamic. Several calendar variants, but all use the same Epoch. e.g. the Jalali.
+592	Bengali
+284	Era of Martyrs, aka Diocletian Era
+78	Hindu: Shaka era; Indian national calendar
+8	Ethiopian; Coptic
0	Christian (mainstream) - Dionysius Exiguus
-57	Hindu/Nepali: Vikram Samvat
-248	Parthian
-312	Seleucid era
-390	Zoroastrian (birth of Zoroaster)
-544	Buddhist (Buddha attains parinirvana) +/- 1 year
-568	Zoroastrian (old)
-691	Buddhist: Anjana Sakaraj (not to be used past -544)
-753	Rome (AUC)
-776	Olympiad
-951	Berber
-1167	Discordian
-1200	Iron Age
-1710	beginning of Ovid's Golden Age, according to Jerome
-1737	Zarathustrian (Age of Aries)
-2050	Augustine's mythikon start
-2137	Varro's mythikon start
-2300	Akkad (ultra-low chronology)
-2333	Dangi (Korean)
-2376	Censorinus's mythikon start
-2200	China
-2500	Indus valley
-2600	Sumer- earliest "real" king. Earliest "coherent texts"
-2697	China: Accession of the Yellow Emperor
-2900	the actual flood, useful for dating
-3050	Menes
-3100	Egypt, unified - First Dynasty
-3102	Hindu - Kali Yuga (mainstream) - ostensibly, death of Krishna
-3113	Maya Long Count: current creation cycle, the creation of humans
-3300	Bronze Age in the Near East
-3400	Egypt (or 3000). Earliest writing systems
-3500	earliest chronologies (Sumer, Mesopotamia)
-3761	Hebrew (mainstream) - the Hillel World Era, Anno Mundi. (Maimonides; Seder Olam Rabbah)
-3952	Creation, according to Bede
-4000	Creation - Judeo-Christian - Masoretic. Many variations, from 3616 to 4192. Famous: 4004 (Ussher). Anno Lucis of the Masons.
-4339	Creation - Jewish (Seder Olam Zutta)
-4714	Julian Day Numbering. This is an Epoch commonly used in astronomy.
-4750	Assyrian
-4963	Benedictine
-5199	Creation, according to some Christian sources, particularly Jerome following Eusebius.
-5500	Creation - Judeo-Christian - Septuagint. Many variations, including the following:
-5493	Christian: Alexandrian Era
-5509	Christian: Byzantine Etos Kosmou - since Creation
-5529	Creation, according to Theophilus of Antioch
-6600	earliest writing of any kind
-6984	Creation, according to Afonso X of Castile
-8000	neolithic revolution
-8239	Maya Long Count: start of previous cycle (which was terminated early)
-9600	Creation, according to mainstream Zoroastrianism (approx)
-9700	Holocene geological epoch
-10000	Holocene Era, aka Human Era. Jericho. The most recent Heinrich Event, H0. End of the last glacial period.
-10200	The Neolithic revolution; ASPRO Period 2.
-12000	ASPRO Period 1.
-17680	Creation, according to one Egyptian source (Syncellus)
-18000	Zarzian culture
-18000	Creation, according to one Egyptian source (Diodorus Siculus) (approx)
-20000	Epipaleolithic
-28000	Creation, according to Sumerian King List, if we interpret years to be months
-28000	Creation, according to one Egyptian source (Eusebius)
-30425	Creation, according to one Egyptian source (Schwaller)
-39000	Creation, according to one Chinese source (Xu Zheng) (approx)
-39550	Creation, according to one Egyptian source (Martianus Capella) (approx)
-39575	Creation, according to one Egyptian source
-39670	Creation, according to one Egyptian source
-49219	Creation, according to one Egyptian source (Laeretius)
-50000	Upper Paleolithic
-153000	Creation, according to Theophilus of Antioch (Apollonius) (approx)
-3891102	Hindu: Start of the current Yuga cycle

Genera nominum sunt sex

Nouns come in six genders:

• Masculine (e.g. Cato)
• Feminine (e.g. song/poem)
• Neuter (e.g. necklace/collar)
• Two genders in common: a word can be either masculine or feminine (e.g. priest)
• Three genders in common: a word can be masculine, feminine, or neuter (e.g. cat)
• Epicene (Latin: "promiscuous"): a word can refer to either a male or female but has a fixed grammatical gender form (e.g. sparrow, eagle)

(This is my free translation of this paragraph.)

Full Deck Birthday Poem

Go out and snip off some snowbells in bloom
Doom, doom, doom

Untarnish my grandmother's silver-plate spoon
Doom, doom, doom

Hound the gray dust-hares from room to room
Doom, doom, doom

Unbar the front door, they'll be here soon
Doom, doom, doom

Blush to a jolly-old, croaking-good tune
Doom, doom, doom

Silver spoons tinking, wineglasses clinking,
Front doors and back doors and doggy doors banging,
Post-prandial strolling, and -- hark! -- snowbells tolling:
Doom! Doom! Doom!

Christmas (1974)

If I'm remembering accurately, I wrote the following when I was about 9 years old -- a long time ago.

What does Christmas mean to me?
Fragile glass balls on the Christmas tree;
Hot-burning lightbulbs of various hues;
Chimney fires in soot-clogged flues;
Shopping frustration in the holiday rush;
Multi-car accidents compounded by slush.
Numbing winds and frosty breath;
Homeless people freezing to death;
Deepening financial straits;
Astronomical suicide rates.

I found it rather hilarious at the time, and still do.

That vs Which: The Style Guiders Are Wrong

The which/that issue is one on which I strongly disagree with the style guide writers.

The Guardian's style guide, espousing the currently popular view, says:

This is quite easy, really: "that" defines, "which" gives extra information (often in a clause enclosed by commas)

This is literally bass-ackwards. In proper English, it is the comma -- and the comma alone -- which determines whether the clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive. In nonrestrictive clauses (those set off with commas), only "which" is correct. In restrictive clauses, either word can be used, and nowadays most people seem to prefer "that"; but I maintain that "which" is often a better choice, at least in formal writing.

I have logic on my side. 

"Which" is close grammatical kin to "who", "where", "when", and so on. When using these other words, it's obvious that only commas make the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive sense. Also, "which" can be used in prepositional phrases just as "whom" (etc.) can, but "that" cannot. So even granting that one should use "that" for a restrictive clause, one still must switch to using "which" when it follows a preposition. Example: "Websites that get hacked..." but "Websites for which no security..." "That" is a completely unnecessary word. We're better off just using "which" in all cases. 

Given that the word "that" already has two other meanings in English, why overburden it with a third, particularly when there's already another word carrying that meaning?  Let's be reasonable!

I also have history on my side.

• Abraham Lincoln -- generally considered to be a pretty literate guy -- was quite consistent in the usage I promote.
• The authors of the U.S. Constitution had no qualms about using "which" for restrictive clauses: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." and at least five other instances, not counting those where the clause is prepositional. (To be fair, there is also one instance of using "that" for a restrictive clause in the Constitution).
• Similarly, George Washington, in his First Inaugural Address, uses "which" 17 times, "that" twice.
• In the first two Federalist Papers, "which" is used eleven times, and "that" is never used.
• In the Declaration of Independence, "which" is used six times, "that" never.
• William Jennings Bryan, in his famous Cross of Gold speech, uses "which" 14 times, "that" once.
• Taft, in his Inaugural Address, uses "which" 28 times, "that" 8 times.
• Winston Churchill, in his Their Finest Hour speech, uses "which" 20 times, "that" twice.

(To reiterate: I'm only counting non-prepositional restrictive clauses, i.e. those places where "that" could reasonably substitute for "which".)

Interestingly, Strunk and White, in their classic Elements of Style (1918), do not address this issue, but they clearly believe in the validity of "which" for restrictive clauses, as can be seen in their own writing:

• "Each sentence is a combination of two statements which might have been made independently."
• "A common fault is to use as the subject of a passive construction a noun which expresses the entire action..."
• "A common violation of conciseness is the presentation of a single complex idea, step by step, in a series of sentences which might to advantage be combined into one."
• "The effectiveness of the periodic sentence arises from the prominence which it gives to the main statement."
• "... if the favor which you have requested is granted ..."

If it's good enough for Strunk and White, it's good enough for me. ;-)

A friend pointed me to this good article. It makes all the same points as I, yet it still insists on drawing the opposite (i.e. wrong) conclusion! Here's another good article with comments. I generally agree with the contrarian commenter "Warsaw Will".

Here's my big peeve: People have gotten so accustomed to using "that" for restrictive clauses... that it's now, unfortunately, increasingly common to see people using "that" with non-restrictive clauses! E.g.:

The monthly meetings, that tend to run long, ...

Even worse is the disgraceful tendency to go one step further and use a form of "that" when the sense is possessive, i.e.

The monthly meetings, that's attendance is on the decline, ...

Gag me.

And this is why I believe it is sound advice to recommend that writers entirely avoid using "that" for relative clauses, at least as a default. I would prescribe the rule of thumb thusly:

• Would you have to use "which" if the clause were prepositional? (e.g. "those with which") If so, then use "which" even if it's not prepositional.
• Would a word like "who/whom", "when", or "where" fit in the place (disregarding the semantic impropriety)? If so, then use "which", not "that".

The argument about commas -- whether the use of "which" sans commas could lead to a question in the reader's mind as to whether commas were intended but inadvertently omitted -- is a straw man. We have no such issues when dealing with "who/whom", "when", "where"; therefore, so no such issue should be imagined with "which".

And to belabor the point further:

	When would -- ?	At times when --	Whenever --
	Where could -- ?	In places where --	Wherever --
	Who should -- ?	People who --	Whoever --
	Which might -- ?	Those that -- [ugly thing]	? [no such thing]
Clearly, the only cure is more cowbell, in the form of the following:
	Which might -- ?	Those which --	Whichever --

And to be quite clear, those last two forms are restrictive, not nonrestrictive.

On "Which Hunting"

The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White, says (at least in my 3rd edition, dated 1979):

The careful writer goes which-hunting, removes the defining [i.e. restrictive] whiches, and by so doing improves his work.

But that's a steaming pile of whatsit. I don't know where S&W got the idea that restrictive clauses are bad, but no modern writer agrees with that sentiment. Anyway, eliminating restrictive clauses altogether should not be confused with choosing one word over another to begin restrictive clauses.