wednesday
thinkings from today (plus one recycled from the other day cuz i ain't figured it out yet):
1. turbonegro: if turbonegro is norwegian, why are their fans called turbojugend ("jugend" being a german word)? so from now on, i will call all turbonegro fans "turbo-ungdom", unless someone informs me that my crappy online dictionary resources are wrong about that norwegian word for "youth".
but if i want everything to be linguistically homogeneous, i should call turbonegro "hurtigsvart" ("fast black"?), "forstyrresvart" ("black disturbance" ... or that could be "urosvart"; i'm not sure; i know nothing about the grammar, either, so i could have the order all wrong), or ... um ... i can't find the norwegian word for "whirlwind" or "tornado", so i'm not sure what else. and i'm not sure exactly what they're going for with "turbonegro" - dj says it's supposed to have something to do with an expression of solidarity with the black man, but i got no original source material on that.
2. -ist: also, i would like you guys to contribute to a list of violent criminals who are given the suffix "ist". the word "rapist" has been irritating me lately. it's the "ist", which makes it sound like the person who rapes is some kind of artisan, one who has worked to become adept at the fine craft of raping (that's how it sounds to me, anyway; and i could just be nutso). i don't think we should be encouraging this behavior with soft-sounding suffixes. this is probably just me too, but the "ist" suffix feels much less active than the "er" suffix, as if, instead of acting, you just are something. (i could go on a gigantic rant re: responsibility and the patriarchy oppressing us from within through our common vocabulary, but that would just be irritating and cliche. make up your own rant here: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________)
so i was thinking "well, maybe it's just a douchebag word thing, and there are other violent criminals or other sorts of violating persons that get an ‘ist'". so far, all i've got is "bigamist" and "polygamist" - and that's not really in the same criminal category, if it's even a crime anymore. um ... and ... "sodomist"? but that word doesn't imply lack of consent, and is also less of a crime these days than it used to be. we've got "murderer"; why not "raper"? unless we were trying to avoid confusion with "rapier", but i don't see how you could get them mixed up within their respective contexts. if you can think of some other reason for all this, please let me know.
3. halloween: i will dress as princess saara of saardonia. or maybe zombie princess saara of saardonia.
4. kitties: KITTIES!
1. turbonegro: if turbonegro is norwegian, why are their fans called turbojugend ("jugend" being a german word)? so from now on, i will call all turbonegro fans "turbo-ungdom", unless someone informs me that my crappy online dictionary resources are wrong about that norwegian word for "youth".
but if i want everything to be linguistically homogeneous, i should call turbonegro "hurtigsvart" ("fast black"?), "forstyrresvart" ("black disturbance" ... or that could be "urosvart"; i'm not sure; i know nothing about the grammar, either, so i could have the order all wrong), or ... um ... i can't find the norwegian word for "whirlwind" or "tornado", so i'm not sure what else. and i'm not sure exactly what they're going for with "turbonegro" - dj says it's supposed to have something to do with an expression of solidarity with the black man, but i got no original source material on that.
2. -ist: also, i would like you guys to contribute to a list of violent criminals who are given the suffix "ist". the word "rapist" has been irritating me lately. it's the "ist", which makes it sound like the person who rapes is some kind of artisan, one who has worked to become adept at the fine craft of raping (that's how it sounds to me, anyway; and i could just be nutso). i don't think we should be encouraging this behavior with soft-sounding suffixes. this is probably just me too, but the "ist" suffix feels much less active than the "er" suffix, as if, instead of acting, you just are something. (i could go on a gigantic rant re: responsibility and the patriarchy oppressing us from within through our common vocabulary, but that would just be irritating and cliche. make up your own rant here: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________)
so i was thinking "well, maybe it's just a douchebag word thing, and there are other violent criminals or other sorts of violating persons that get an ‘ist'". so far, all i've got is "bigamist" and "polygamist" - and that's not really in the same criminal category, if it's even a crime anymore. um ... and ... "sodomist"? but that word doesn't imply lack of consent, and is also less of a crime these days than it used to be. we've got "murderer"; why not "raper"? unless we were trying to avoid confusion with "rapier", but i don't see how you could get them mixed up within their respective contexts. if you can think of some other reason for all this, please let me know.
3. halloween: i will dress as princess saara of saardonia. or maybe zombie princess saara of saardonia.
4. kitties: KITTIES!