If you are reading this blog, it is likely you have an appreciation of our fine language and its trazillion words – both real and made up.

I’ll read almost anything I can lay my hands on – books, newspapers, lost animal posters, cereal boxes - and am always keen to digest as much as possible.

As a rule, our reading is silent – we are happy to sit quietly and let the information waft in.

But are all words meant to remain silent? Should all our reading obey the rules of the library?

Well, no.

Am I right? Abso-bleeding-lutely!

And right there is an example of a rhetorical device which shows how powerful the spoken word can be.

Tmesis, the insertion of one word into the middle of another, is a linguistic tool which positively revels in being spoken out loud, but laid bare on the page just looks a bit clumsy.

In fact, this can be said for many tricks in the box of rhetoric – of course, devices such as alliteration and assonance can be easily spotted on a page, but they need to be spoken out loud to achieve their full potential.

So why do so many words have to be both seen and heard? Well, it all comes down to persuasion – the art of argument and convincing others that your words are true.

For many hundreds of years, most people could not read for themselves and those with education could see the power of words - which is, perhaps, precisely why texts such as the Bible hold such power.

This year marks the fourth centenary of the King James Bible – a rewriting of the text designed to be read out loud. And its sheer influence is still seen today.

It is estimated there are more than 250 phrases from the King James Bible which are in common usage today.

You may be used to reading ‘salt of the earth’ and ‘giving up the ghost’ on the back pages of the tabloids, but these phrases come straight from the book commissioned by King James I, who was unhappy with other versions.

Again, in the works of Shakespeare, we are treated to great, nuggety sound bites which please the ear far more than the eye. When your English teacher told you that the Bard was better seen on stage than in a book, they were right!

And today, our wonderful politicians speak almost exclusively in rhetorical sound bites. We may criticise them for it – but it worked for Aristotle, Churchill and JFK, so why would Balls and Miliband not at least give it a try?

Next time you find yourself on your own and reading something which you think was intended to be said out loud, start talking to yourself. Don’t see it as madness; rather your own personal Jackanory!

Fan-bloody-tastic!

It’s come to my attention that I seem to write these blogs when someone has died. So, after Winehouse and Jobs, I can now add Gaddafi to the list. Or is it Gadaffi? Or perhaps even Qazzafi?

As a great lover of Twitter, I was surprised to see the freshly dead former Libyan leader not trending at the top of the hit parade, but having thought about it, I decided it may have something to do with the huge variety of spelling options from which to choose.

In 2009, ABC News listed 112 different ways to spell the name – the worrying thing is that there are probably more.

There are a number of issues affecting the spelling, not least the differences between letters in English and Arabic and also the different dialects within the Arabic itself.

Here, I hope to briefly highlight some of the issues which lead to the great number of variations.

In Arabic, the name is spelled القذافي
(At this point, I would like to add a disclaimer that I am no expert in Arabic).

For us, this is four letters.

ق (qaf) sounds like a ‘k’
This is most often written as a ‘q’ (as in Quran or Qatar), but because of its sound is still often written as ‘k’ (as in Koran). The Libyan dialect sounds more like a ‘g’ – hence our general use of that letter.

ذ (dhal) sounds like a ‘dh’
Because of the ‘dh’ sound rather than the very hard ‘d’, we often see it written as such (ie Gadhafi). However, in some dialects it sounds even softer, like a ‘z’ or a ‘th’. Just to add to the confusion, the ‘dh’, ‘z’ or ‘th’ are sometimes doubled, essentially becoming ‘dhaldhal’ and therefore ‘dhdh’, ‘zz’ or ‘thth’.

ف (fa) sounds like an ‘f’
This one is pretty simple, but again is sometimes doubled, which is why we often see the name spelled ‘Gadaffi’.

ي (ya) sounds like an ‘ee’
Simply because of its ‘ee’ pronunciation, we see it written as both ‘y’ and ‘i’.

So, by mixing up all the variations of sound and spelling, we get the 112 options.

Simply, we can write ‘Qadafi’ – which after researching this post, seems the best of all options.

Throw in all the variations, however, and we can end up with ‘Gadhdhafi’.

Confused? Yeah, me too. I’m sticking with Gaddafi! And don’t even get me started on his first name!

So there it is – one of the finest industrialists of all ages has gone to meet his own personal spinny rainbow wheel of doom in the sky.

Steve Jobs was a man for our age – the Brunel, Edison, Rockefeller or Ford of the digital age. It says a lot that most of us would have heard about his death on a device borne out of his vision.

I can’t say I’m a fan of the Apple ‘experience’ – the idea of being applauded out of the store and congratulated for buying a new product fills me with dread and a certain amount of ‘stop-being-so-up-yourselves’ disgust.

At times, Apple has seemed little more than a cult – stories of how staff were poorly treated and ostracised occasionally surfaced to great media interest, as loyalty and silence were highly prized by management. At times you could accuse this Californian firm of unwarranted secrecy and vindictiveness.

 But the Apple story lends itself to customer loyalty (in some cases devotion). Here are two Steves, Jobs and Wozniak, who sold off their most prized possessions to launch a company and build their first computer, the Apple 1, an item which was easy to use, easy to maintain and easy look at. The company’s philosophy had been set.

Then there was the ousting of Jobs from the company he founded before he returned like a knight on his white charger to rescue the firm at its lowest point and then mould it in his own image.

How do we know all this?

Well, there is no doubt that part of Apple’s phoenix-like rise from the flames in the 1990s with Jobs back at the helm was based on cutting-edge technology and a drive for the most simple and beautiful design, but what really gives this company the edge over all its rivals is the reason we all know the Apple and Steve Jobs story - a devotion to the most slick marketing – in other words, the words.

Apple has always provided inspiration. Steve jobs spoke almost exclusively in soundbites which grabbed the attention of his audience, the geeks, the nerds and the inbetweeners who found resonance in his own story.

He said things like:
“There’s nothing that makes my day more than getting an e-mail from some random person in the universe who just bought an iPad over in the UK and tells me the story about how it’s the coolest product they’ve ever brought home in their lives.”

and:
“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.”

and famously:
“Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me… Going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful… that’s what matters to me.”

He urged us all to ‘think different’.

But Jobs’ greatest achievement with words came with just one letter: i.

Now, while he may not have been the first person to suggest the use of this one letter, it would have been Jobs who saw its potential and gave sign-off to the idea.

The Macintosh was first unveiled in 1984 to great marketing hype, but it was the launch of the iMac (internet Macintosh) in 1998 which began the revolution which continues today.

Since then, we’ve had the iPod, iPhone, iPad and iTunes – all doing their part to strengthen the Apple marketing machine.

The iPod, in particular, has come to define all personal mp3 players and it joins a very elite band of products which have managed this. Who asks for a vacuum cleaner instead of a hoover and when was the last time you requested a ball-point pen instead of a biro? In fact, so common are their uses that the capital letters can now safely be dropped.

Only companies with the very best marketing can get away with something as audacious as putting a single letter at the front of its products. Another company which has pulled off something similar is McDonald’s. A chicken burger is a McChicken sandwich and chicken nuggets are McNuggets. Fancy an ice cream? Well you can only have a McFlurry.

It’s very simple, very brash and yes, very American, but when it works, it works incredibly well.

So what does i stand for now, 13 years after that first iMac?  Well, it means so much more than just internet - it stands for innovation, inspiration and perhaps most crucially, individual.

Steve Jobs is i, and in being so, he is a true iCon.

If I’m being honest, I was struggling to think of a subject for my next blog; but like most things in my life right now, inspiration came from Twitter.

In a Tweet from the wonderful book shop Foyles, (yes, there is an alternative to Watersone’s), they used the word ‘egregious’.

Anyhow, being the thickie that I am, I had to refer to a dictionary for the meaning of the word, (although in my defence, I did know its general definition, just not the exact meaning).

Egregious adj. 1. Outstandingly bad; flagrant; an egregious lie.

But wait…

Egregious adj. 2. Archaic. distinguished; eminent [C16: from Latin ēgregious outstanding (literally: standing out from the herd), from ē- out + grex flock, herd]

It seems ‘egregious’ was once good but is now bad. But why?!?!

The truth is, anomalies such as this just seem to happen over a period of time and can be seen in many different words.

Silly started out meaning ‘happy’, but over time went through ‘pious’, ‘innocent’, ‘harmless’, ‘pitiable’, ‘feeble’ and ‘feeble minded’ before becoming what we know today, ‘foolish’ or ‘stupid’.

Pretty was defined as ‘crafty’ before going through ‘clever’, ‘skilful’ and ‘fine’ to ‘beautiful’.

Changes such as these can be seen throughout the English language over centuries.

One thing that stands out in these examples is the transition in meaning from good to bad or from bad to good. It seems this is a commonplace feature of definition changes, and, as with most subtleties of the English language, has been labelled by academics.

Amelioration is when a word’s meaning improves or becomes elevated, representing something more favourable than it originally referred to.

Pejoration is when a word’s meaning worsens or degenerates, representing something less favourable than it originally did.

Take these examples: 

Artificial
Then: Full of artistic or technical skill
Now: Imitation; not occurring naturally

Nice
Then: Foolish or ignorant
Now: Pleasant or commendable

Awful
Then: Something wonderful, delightful, amazing
Now: Nasty or ugly

Brave
Then: Cowardice (from bravado)
Now: Courage or daring

Counterfeit
Then: Perfect, legitimate copy
Now: Imitation intended to deceive

Of course, all of these examples are quite archaic, but the process of definition changing is alive and well, and the extremes of amelioration and pejoration are getting wider.

The best modern example, of course, is ‘gay’. This is actually quite fascinating, as it shows a word moving from good to bad and then back to good again.

The word was originally meant merry or happy or indeed ‘characterised by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement’. This was the case right up to the 1950s and 60s.

Then things started to change.

Gay adj. Bright or lively, especially in colour
Gay adj. Given to social pleasures
Gay adj. Dissolute [lacking moral restraint]; licentious [promiscuous]

So at this point, the word had become used to focus on homosexuality as a bad thing and the word was, for a time, used in the same way as nigger or paki today.

But the tide started swinging back the other way as the word was reclaimed by homosexual men to describe themselves. ‘Gay’ became used to emphasise the cultural aspects of homosexuality (rather than the sexual) and today has shaken off its tawdry recent past.

I’ll leave you with my favourite example: Decimate – a word with a gruesome history.

In Roman times, to decimate was to ‘kill one in ten’. The Roman army, in its wisdom, would use the practice of random slaughter to inspire fear and loyalty in the troops. If something was done wrong and no single person could be blamed, lots were drawn and one out of every ten soldiers would be killed by their own comrades. This would also be the punishment meted out on captured opposition armies.

Today, decimate means simply ‘to destroy’, ignoring the prefix dec-, which denotes ten.

I quite like the idea of a maths teacher asking his pupils to ‘decimate 100’.

Many thanks for reading. If you think my blogs are ‘cool’, ‘bad’ or ‘sick’, leave a comment or come and find me on Twitter, Facebook or at my website.

As humans, we love to argue. In fact, alongside eating, sleeping and mating, arguing is a core human characteristic.

But how are we meant to argue?

Recently, I have become slightly obsessed with the art of rhetoric, or to put it another way, the art of persuading others that you are right.

But how should we do this?

Unfortunately, very few of us are blessed with the verbal skills of a Churchill, a Wilde, an Obama or even a Hague. It’s not an easy thing to come up with a pithy put-down at the drop of a hat or pull a water-tight argument out of thin air.

Luckily, we have a range of ready-made tools at our disposal - proverbs!

In fact a proverb, or maxim, is the microwave ready meal of the linguistic world - it fills a gap while giving little satisfaction.

Now, while the odd proverb is quite handy, there is one significant problem - every proverb seems to have an opposite and contradicting phrase.

Here are just a few:

It’s never too late to learn
but
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks

Two’s company, three’s a crowd
but
The more, the merrier

Actions speak louder than words
but
The pen is mightier than the sword

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
but
A stitch in time saves nine

Nothing ventured, nothing gained
but
Better safe than sorry

I feel I could go on indefinitely, but I shall spare you that.

So what’s my problem with this? Well, I’m not actually sure to be honest. I think it’s just that proverbs make us linguistically and argumentatively lazy - know a handful of proverbs and you can bluff your way out of anything.

So I am going to set myself the task of ceasing to use these tired phrases. If I want to win an argument, I either have to shout louder than the other person or come up with my own brand new maxims.

If at first I don’t succeed, I’ll try, try again! But then again, there’s no point flogging a dead horse.

Dammit!

The news events of the past few days have brought to the front of my mind something which crops up in my thoughts from time-to-time.

When sad events occur, it is genuinely interesting to see the language used to describe the emotions people feel - the rise of Twitter has only served to make this more noticeable.

Here are just a few from this weekend:

a) “I’m gut-wrenched. It’s a massive loss.”
b) “The way tears are streaming down my face. Such a loss.”
c) “Prayers go out to the families of the fallen.”
d) “I hope peace can be found on the other side.”
e) “My heart truly breaks every time I think about it.”

On the surface, all these reactions could be in response to one single event, but in fact they are from five separate headline grabbing stories from around the world.

1) The bomb and shootings in Norway (93 dead)
2) The Chinese train crash (35 dead)
3) The ice-rink shooting in Texas (5 dead)
4) The death of Amy Winehouse (1 dead)
5) The smashing of $1m of wine bottles in Australia (0 dead)

The challenge is this - can you match the quote to the event? It’s pretty difficult.

You may have noticed one word is missing from all these quotes - “tragedy”. But in fact, a quick look through Twitter reveals that word has been used thousands of times in relation to them all (well, except the Australian wine!)

But is the word ‘tragedy’ the correct one to use? Are all these events tragedies? Is one more tragic than another? Is the word used too freely?

Especially in regard to Norway and Amy Winehouse, there seems to be two schools of thought emerging. The first is that the singer’s death was totally of her own doing and it cannot compare in any way to the bloody death of almost 100 people. The second is that they are both equally tragic, but because they are of such a different nature, they cannot and should not be compared.

I have to admit, I find it difficult to think of Amy Winehouse’s passing as a tragedy, while I cannot conceive of a better word to pin to the events across the North Sea.

I do not, however, for one second, assume I am right in thinking this.

As with many things in life, I have turned to the dictionary for guidance. And I think, with the help of Google Dictionary (I don’t have my trusty old tome to hand), I have found two definitions which suit just how I feel about the two very sad situations.

The first definition of tragedy is this:
“An event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe.”

This clearly aligns itself with the events in Norway, China and America.

A second definition is this:
“A play dealing with tragic events and having an unhappy ending, esp. one concerning the downfall of the main character.”

For me, this definition is revelatory. It confirms my belief that it isn’t Amy Winehouse’s death that is tragic, but that her life since becoming addicted to drugs had been a tragedy. Although not a fan, I could see her talent, and her long downfall as the main character was played out for the whole world to witness.

Shakespeare’s 37 plays were grouped into four genres. I he were to write a 38th based on the life of Amy Winehouse, it could be seen as a tragedy, romance, comedy and history all rolled into one.

But I digress.

So what’s my conclusion to all this? Actually, I don’t really have one.

People can get on with feeling however they want to feel - I have no place dictating what words should be used. Music is a very selfish and emotional thing and reaction to an untimely passing is therefore also selfish and emotional. Rightly so.

However, I will say this. Words lose meaning if overused or used too easily. Beware ill-thought rhetoric. Beware hyperbole. Beware looking a bit silly, like a certain Tony Blair when he said: “A day like today is not a day for soundbites, really. But I feel the hand of history upon our shoulders. I really do.”

R.I.P to the 134 dead…

(1e, 2d, 3c, 4b, 5a)

Being a 21st century media type, I can’t seem to go anywhere without my iPhone (other iPhones are available).

Despite the camera being a bit crappy, I still get snap-happy at any given opportunity.  

Today, I had a bit of a clear-out and thought I’d share a few things - a mix of signs, cats and traffic!

It’s a cat, in Bermondsey. Who’d have thought?

Charles Babbage’s brain in a jar - well, half of his brain. I hope they do this to Steve Jobs!!

Pizza Express has a go at describing a menu item. Fail!

Found on my boss’s desk. From before the election last year

I won a Nobel Prize - it wasn’t that difficult!

A cleverly placed sticker on an Underground advert

My local Tesco hasn’t quite got the hang of magazine categorisation

Another cat! This one belonged to Dr Johnson and was called Hodge

Seen on London Bridge -the UK’s space programme

A house in Finsbury Park - it was like going back in time. 

Ahhhh…when science meets philosophy. Always a recipe for highly educated people to fall out.

In brief, ‘Schrödinger’s cat’ is a paradoxical experiment, or a thought experiment created by Austrian scientist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. (I know, I thought there was only one famous Austrian in the 1930s too!) Basically, Herr Schrödinger proposed that his cat, Fluffy, could be both dead and alive at the same time.

Moving forward 76 years, and this lunch time I went to the Royal Society’s Summer Exhibition – handily next door to where I work. There I found a bunch of students talking about Schrödinger’s paradox.

As well as the education, there was a chance for people to write on a Post-it note what they would do if they could be in two places at the same time, just like Fluffy when he was both alive and dead.

Here are the best of the bunch…

Schrödinger’s cat wasn’t really called Fluffy. I don’t think he even had a cat. Well, he might have had a cat. Perhaps he did and didn’t have a cat at the same time. Hmmmm…

As long as we’ve had language, we’ve had jokes.

Ok, I can’t prove this is true, but I’ll give ten of my hard-earned British Pounds to anyone who can show otherwise.

Die-hard fans of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton may not agree, but language really is the greatest medium for humour – whether it be a simple one-liner (Why did Nick Clegg cross the road? Because he said he wouldn’t); or something which harnesses language to get the laugh (Why do Communists only drink herbal tea? Because proper tea is theft).

Quirks in the English language - due in a large part to its mongrel-like evolution - have helped create a whole host of linguistic devices, which we can use to convey our messages.

Today, I want to discuss homos and heteros. Bear with me on this – it’s not at all what it sounds like, (or is it?).

I’m talking about homophones, homographs, homonyms, heteronyms and heterographs. I like these linguistic devices – the name of this blog, “The Cat’s Clause”, is both a homophone and a heterograph.

The distinction between them all is quite slight and there is a lot of overlap. Time to concentrate - me as well as you.

Homophones – words that share the same pronunciation, irrespective of their spelling
Plane – a flying vehicle
Plain – normal
Plain – a field

Homographs - words that share the same spelling, irrespective of their pronunciation
Lead – a metallic element
Lead – a top actor
Lead – a dog’s leash

Homonyms - words that share the same spelling and pronunciation
Bark – the outer layer of a tree trunk
Bark – the sound of a dog
(Homonyms, therefore, are also homophones and homographs)

Heteronyms – words that share the same spelling but are pronounced differently
Minute – a unit of time
Minute – very small
(Heteronyms, therefore are also homographs, but not homophones)

Heterographs – words that are pronounced the same, but are spelled differently
Aye – yes
Eye – an organ to see
(Heterographs, therefore are also homophones, but not homographs)

Confused? Me too!

So where am I going with this? Well, I was thinking about a very important day next week – the fourth of July - Independence Day – a celebration of our British butts being kicked out of the USofA.

But July 4^th also marks Independents’ Day here in the UK – a day for all of us to visit that little independent shop we walk past every day but never venture into.

Having previously worked for Skillsmart Retail, which has organised the day, this is something quite close to my heart, and I urge you all to shop independent on Independents’ Day, for four reasons: 

• It is great to support small British retailers
• We really shouldn’t mind hijacking a day which celebrates British defeat
• It’s quite a funny play on words
• It’s both a homophone and a heterograph - Boom!!

It’s been a long time since I wrote a blog. I realise this is unacceptable behaviour and I don’t plan to abandon you for so long again.

But you’ll be pleased to know I am back with a short polemic on one of my favourite grammatical subjects.

And if you’re a strict grammatician (not really a word, I know), you’ll already be annoyed at this post. For today’s blog is about beginning sentences with conjunctions – something I have just done three times in four sentences.

So, what’s the beef with conjunctions? (Make that four times in five sentences).

Well, conventional grammar (note how I avoid the use of the word ‘wisdom’ there), dictates that conjunctions shall not be used to begin a sentence. On the face of it, this rule seems to make sense. After all, the general definition of a conjunction is a part of speech that connects two words, sentences, phrases or clauses together – if it begins a sentence then what is it joining together?

Know your conjunctions - be FANBOYS
For
And
Nor
But
Or
Yet
So

However, this rule takes no account of the wonderful flexibility of the English language. I will argue to my grave that language is there to be shaped by its users* and is dependent on what is happening in the great wide world.

The truth is, using a conjunction to begin a sentence is a very useful tool in the writer’s armoury. Leading into a thought with ‘And’ or ‘But’ helps with flow and aids the writer to set a pace for the copy.

This is particularly relevant in journalism. By its very nature, modern news has a fast pace – a reader doesn’t want to be bogged down in an overly structured article and it is part of the journalist’s remit to introduce ideas and link different thoughts to make a complete story.

I feel a responsibility in this blog post to issue a small health warning, aimed especially at those writing essays or dissertations as part of their studies. Not everyone agrees with my stance on this subject, and those most opposed seem to be academics – the people who will mark your paper. Don’t fall into their evil grammar trap!

While conjunctions are mightily handy in modern writing, there is always a way of avoiding their use when opening a sentence. Instead of ‘But’, why not try ‘However’ or ‘Nevertheless’ – it won’t make you more clever, but some people may think you are.

If you ever get into an argument over what constitutes ‘traditional’ grammar, here is a good defence of my position.

Grammar as we know it was largely codified in the past 200 years – the days of strict schoolmasters with long canes.

But if you look at the King James Bible (400 years old), you will see that 23 of the first 31 verses in the first book of Genesis begin with ‘And’. If it’s good enough for God and the baby Jesus, then it’s good enough for me!

*’Shaping’ does not mean ‘abusing’. More on this in future posts…