samhengi

[samhengi]

This is wonderful, two languages I adore in one post.

The Tiger Poem in Classical Maya!

The Tiger He has destroyed his cage Yes Yes The tiger is out By Nael, Age 6

Literal translation:

he-destroyed his-captive-place the-jaguar yes-yes he-came.out the-jaguar his-writing master-Na'el man[of]-6-years

Transliteration:

ʔu-jomow ʔu-baaknal ʔu-balahm xt xt Joyoy ʔu-balahm ʔu-tz'ibaal Aj-Naʔel Aj-6-habiy

Character Transliteration (ALL CAPS are characters that stand for full words, lower case are syllabic):

ʔu-jo-mo-wa ʔu-ba-ki-NAL ʔu-BALAM-la-ma xa-ta-xa-ta jo-JOY-yi ʔu-BALAM-ma ʔu-tz'i-ba-li AJ-na-ʔe-le AJ-6-HAB-bi-ya

[Image shows the poem written in 2 columns of Maya glyph blocks. A diagram shows the reading order (which is complex). All the posts text is also included on the image.

End ID.]

[samhengi]

Lunch!

Lots of people don't know this but some planes have very strong maternal instincts and will nurse hungry offspring of other species even. Here we see a Lockheed MC130P (a subspecies of the C-130 Herc) about to do just that.

Similar behaviours can also be seen in other plane species such as the McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender (a subspecies of the DC-10), the KC-3 Voyager/A330 MRTT and the Boeing KC-135 (a common descent, ie. evolutionary sister, to the 707)

Nature is just beautiful!

[samhengi]

Flying Narwhal

Aircraft engineer 1: Where is the plane? Aircraft engineer 2: I parked it next to the unicorn stables. Aircraft engineer 1: You did what?!? Aircraft engineer 2: Relax, what is the worst thing that could happen?

9 month later, Jeff Goldblum: Ehm... Life... Eh... Finds a way...

(The "horn" is a test probe. It's quite common in testbed variants. That one here is the C17 III T1. She's a movie star. She was in Iron Man and some transformers movie (I slept through). Without the cute horn.

She had a good life for a military plane and has now retired in the USAF aviation museum. Her birthday was the 15th Sep 1991 and she served from 1993 actively til 2011, and then started her museum plane career in 2012. So if you ever make it to Dayton Ohio you can see her in person.)

[samhengi]

Med Evac

The Plague Doctor Plane. Amazing picture of a Black Plague MedEvac. Anno Domini, 1366, colourised.

(She is actually a Dash 80 with a Supersonic Transport test nose, should be around 1966. The SST government funding was withdrawn in 1971 so Boeing gave up on planes with plague doctor noses.)

[samhengi]

A newcomer

Many people don't know this, but some species of plane communicate using exhaust glands, similar to dogs and some big cats.

Look at this flock inspecting a newcomer, taken 1986. They are clearly interested in the stranger, but are keeping their distance to not scare her off.

Nature is amazing!

[samhengi]

So ein hübsches Fleuzeug

I watched a German planes documentary while at me Mam's (huge surprise right?!) and when it came to the Spitfires the narrator said something strikes me as the best description of a Spitfire I have ever heard:

"So ein hübsches Flugzeug"

He's right. That's what she is. 100%. Now translation is never 1:1, there is always connotation and context.

"Such a ... plane"

Hübsch can be beautiful, cute, attractive, pretty.

But at least for my regional version of standard German, there are slight connotation differences.

Schön (beautiful) has a hue of "elegant, perfect, refined, not for everyday". It's a cool, pointy word. If I was to pick a plane that's schön it's the Concorde.

Hübsch is the kind of beauty the girl next door has, pretty but in a warm, approachable way. Beautiful but with human imperfections, pretty but with calloused hands and will definitely climb a tree without worrying about getting her dress dirty. It's a warmer, roundish word.¹

¹Yes, I know this is synesthesia.

(A Mk IX, for your viewing pleasure)

[samhengi]

The words of Chess

Here is a random historical language thing:

I wondered why "castling the king" in chess in English is not an R word, like in other European languages. (e.g. rokade in Danish&Dutch, Rochade in German)

Turns out: because English has that same R word already: rook.

Ultimately all of them go back to French rocade < roquer (“to castle”) < roc (castle, tower) which goes back to an Old French loan from Persian rukh (castle, tower... well rook).

And that makes perfect sense because chess comes from there. Interestingly enough it seems many Germanic languages with the R words for castling have T words for the rook. Turn, Tårn, Toren. But not all. Icelandic has two R words, hrókur (rook) and hrókun (castling). (And yes, I know those start with H but trust me, they are R words originally.) So most of them translated one of the terms, either the piece's name or the process. That does not surprise me, because humans like distinctiveness. But I'm actually suspecting that it's has to do with the path the loans took.

[samhengi]

Chief of the Birds

I love that when the precursor to the RAF was set up in WWI times and they needed a rank system they went ahead and stole the navy's. Planes. That's like ships. But without water. And without ships. That said it's both navigational fluid which is why I love it.

I'm sure that wasn't their logic though. (On a more serious note, the RAF is a 1918 merger of Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service, and the RNAS, being the older partner in that merger, insisted on naming stuff)

Actually adorable is that there was a brief consideration for the rank that is now Air Commodore to be Ardian. Which is based on q-Celtic and basically translates to "Chieftain of the birds". (Ard+eun)

I'm disappointed they didn't go with that but just copied the navy's homework.

I also love that the navy was set up and went: we hate the French and we need names for our officers... Let's use French words! (again, the historical linguist in me knows that's because the officers were upper class and French=posh) You know how a lieutenant is a lootenant in the US but a leftenant in the UK? You look at that work and wonder: how the heck did you manage to insert an f here?

So a lieutenant is literally a place-holder. Lieu (place, you know that one from pay in lieu of notice) and tenant (holder). He's in command in place of the actual commander/master/captain. (Again, the RAF missed out on a rank squadron master and commander)

Lieutenant is one of the really old ranks and as ships' logs survived very long, we have a long history of how that word is spelled. We find it spelled leftenant plenty. So, clearly that pronunciation is old.

Now how did the f get in? Old French had a shallower orthography than Modern French, so lieu was ljev and in some documents it had terminal devoicing it seems as it was spelled lief.

So the modern UK lieutenant actually reserved a pronunciation that must have frozen in Old French times somehow or was a dialect variant which in turn was a survivor of Old French. Due to the French=upper class issue, only midshipman is not French, and then of course many of the lower (below OF-0) like able seaman are English. But even the petty officer isn't English though it sounds English. A Petty officer isn't petty (well some individuals might be) but petit. It's a little officer.

While I'm on this topic, here are two rank I love from the German system. Oberst (roughly a Colonel) is a superlative of oben so the highest or most above. Fine, until you realise some Southern dialect call whipped cream Schlagoberst. I cannot unsee that. Even better: Feldwebel (approx Sergeant). Now Feld = field. Easy. But Webel is a central East dialects form of Weibel (Very Southern and Swiss for usher, afaik died out outside of Switzerland). A field - usher, someone who drives people forward in the field. Okay, the funny bit: They adopted the East Central vowel in it (Feldwebel instead of Feldweibel) because the soldiers' little fragile masculinity couldn't cope with the word Weibel looking like it contains Weib (wife/woman). It has nothing to do with that. Weibel is ultimately from weibōn (to move back and forth) which must in the end be a strange -on class offspring from a root *waib- so a PIE *weyp- go back and forth, move around Weib and wife are from PG wība. The root of that is uncertain and while it is theoretically possible that the same root in PIE is behind both, that would be more than four millennia before any Feldwebel ever existed. And Webel and Weibel still have the same recent root so… Anyway, I remain very very very disappointed that Ardian was actively considered but not used. We were robbed, I tell you! They did never fully line up, either. That said, if they had lined up fully and just put flight/air/wing in front of navy ranks, I'd be less disappointed because it could have ended in some really funny words. Like a pilot midshipman. Or a flying sub lieutenant which strongly implies the existence of flying submarines.

No, I'm not fun at parties.

[samhengi]

Inner Dialogue

The joy of an AuDHD brain.

I have two brains and they are often puzzled by each other. They work together in emergencies, in hyperfocus and when training for an emergency or when I'm doing a sport. The rest of the time, they argue. So, when I have an internal monologue it's a dialogue.

Dear friend sends this picture.

Au brain: "Oh nice. It's in categories and complex and we can learn more about it and make a spreadsheet. This data can be presented better."

ADHD brain: "Awwww they are all so cute, with their little noses and their tiny tailwheels. I want one as a pet."

Au: "You want a 11.23 m wide and 9.11 m long aircraft for a pet that's inanimate?"

ADHD: "I know that's not possible! I said I want not we can or should! But it's so adorable... look at it's like twirly whiskers."

Au: "I hate that I live in the same cranium with you."

ADHD: "Uh! I wonder if you can make sugar cubes out of kerosine!"

Au: "Why would anyone want that?!"

ADHD: "As a treat, for the cute plane. You are the clever one, go figure out how."

Au: "Why in the hell would you.... I guess you can make kerosene ice cubes at -40 degrees but not sure the plane would enjoy that treat because it doesn't even run on kerosine!"

ADHD: "Ha! Made you think about it!"

[samhengi]

Missing from the Hollow Crown

Edward IV. (Henry VI 2&3, Richard III)

In my (not that) humble opinion, Edward IV is often done wrong. And I mean Shakespeare's, not the real life one. He's often portrayed as a regal figure though slightly stupid. Well, next to Richard of Gloucester everyone is stupid.

But the point that is often missing is: he's hilarious. Not in the clever sassy way Richard is. You're not meant to laugh *with* Edward, you're meant to laugh *at* Edward.

Now, the only time I've ever seen that mixture done perfectly well, is the Hollow Crown. Ed here is not really ambitious, does his best, but is hilarious.

When he becomes York, you can literally see his facial expression go from mild shock to "wait... I'm in charge now?! Oh crap...". And that fits what the Bard wrote. And the comedy scene (Edward trying to "flirt"). It's creepy, cringeworthy, clumsy and funny.

And it would have been funny for a 16th century audience. The character would not have been regal at all to them, but clownish. Thus I'm grateful they cast an actor whose very comedic talent is exactly that.

Why I'm angry with the Hollow Crown, too? They didn't do the full thing. While Edward tries to get laid, Richard gives a sassy, sarcastic commentary in the background.

They had Benedict Cumberbatch (Richard) and Geoffrey Streatfeild (Edward) and they didn't let them do that. Why?! It would have been pure gold. They had exactly the two perfect actors for it.

We've been robbed, I tell you. Robbed. And we have been robbed of the end of that scene.

KING EDWARD IV

Brothers, you muse what chat we two have had.

*Brother, I guess you wanna know what we've been chatting about*

GLOUCESTER

The widow likes it not, for she looks very sad.

*Whatever it is, she's sure not happy about it*

KING EDWARD IV

You'll think it strange if I should marry her.

*May sound strange to y'all, but I'll marry her*

CLARENCE

To whom, my lord?

*Eh? To whom?*

KING EDWARD IV

Why, Clarence, to myself.

*Myself, Clarence, D'oh*

[samhengi]

Sail-by

I'm not going to go on a long long rant about the Battle of Trafalgar etc but here are a few things that bad movies generally get wrong about naval warfare:

1. Physics are a thing: wind.

Wind usually comes from the same airt for everyone involved in the battle. D'uh!

So you have to manoeuvre in a way that gives you the weather gauge. No, I didn't make that phrase up. It means having the advantage by being upwind of the other vessel but also tides and such, the nautical gauge is that in relation to shore. In short: you can manoeuvre better, as sail boats are... wait for it... powered by wind. Bonus round: flags should go with the wind, not always point to the stern.

2. Physics are a thing: water

Ships (and planes) are vessels that move in something called the navigational fluid. For ships that's water. That means they can't turn suddenly as they have to deal with the pressure and resistance of a dense navigational fluid. So they will always move forward a great deal while turning.

And that is why coming almost alongside (side of ship to side of ship) and firing a broadside (the full canon battery on one side) is really difficult timing. Even better is your side to the other ship's stern. (the arse end of the ship) There, it is vulnerable but has no canon of its own.

What was my point? Oh right. I love sail-by and it's a word now. But that picture shows something totally normal in almost every battle in the Age of Sail. Including damage to the sails as a good crew would aim for the mast.

[samhengi]

(un-)free syntax

One of my pet hates/random rant:

"Finnish has free syntax"

It does not. Yes, a language with cases doesn't have to use syntax to tell you who does what to whom, like in English syntax. It's got cases to tell who subject and object etc are.

But if syntax does not have that job, it can do different jobs. Like topic/focus. Or emphasis. Finnish syntax deffo does that.

Kissa puri miestä. The cat bit the man, the cat is the thing we are discussing and what it has done.

Miestä puri kissa. Here we're discussing the man, and what happened to him. Specifically he was bitten by a/the cat and not something else.

Kissa miestä puri. Yes, it's the cat that bit the man, we are confirming that. The dog is innocent.

Technically, to a lesser degree, German does the same.

Die Katze hat den Mann gebissen. Neutral statement, or depending on intonation, emphasising it was the cat.

Den Mann hat die Katze gebissen. As opposed to the child being the victim.

Gebissen hat die Katze den Mann. You're shocked by the cat's action or confirm that yes, bitten not scratched.

To give you an even more flexible example for Finnish:

Minulla on koira. I have a dog.

Koira on minulla. The dog is with me, in case you're looking for it at home or something. And if you call me to ask if I have the dog:

Minulla koira on.

If you then ask me if I'm positively sure I deffo have it:

On minulla koira.

But I could say

Koira minulla on. If I wanted to say that a dog is a thing I have (at least) but it implies that there's other stuff I do not have. Like a pony.

[samhengi]

Forget famous books

Yes, they are used in literature classes to teach you certain things, tools, styles, cultural and historical context. But you don't have to like them. Or read them again.

Yes, I got a degree in that stuff. And guess what: I do not read novels, if I do, it's a huge exception.

Of course I will insist an English major has seen a few lines of Beowulf, Chaucer and read a Shakespeare play. You have to know your field.

But that's different from the notion that you have to enjoy it. Or that you're not a proper educated person if you dislike them.

I love Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales. So much I named my skeleton after one. And y'all know I love, adore and obsess over Shakespeare. But I wouldn't ever read Austen or Lord of the Flies again, hell no.

And, follow up:

Even worse than the idea that as a proper educated person you need to like all that stuff, is the idea that those writers are godlike and you need to be their zealot. Y'all know that I can't be ill or sad or in pain enough ever to not jump to the opportunity to lecture for several hours straight about Shakespeare.

But I will be the first one to admit:

-some of his plots are bad or not his (the later is the norm during his days) -his histories are Tudor propaganda and alternative facts -some of his plays and a good amount of his sonnets are not that great

So: Yes, the greatest writers of the English language have done some really deep and great stuff. Worth checking out. If it's not your cup of tea: doesn't bloody matter. Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers of the English language for a reason, but you don't have to turn that into a religion.

*Read what speaks to you.* Richard Gloucester and Victor Frankenstein speak to me, Jane Austen doesn't.

And that's okay.

The greatest writers wrote masterpieces but not exclusively. And you're allowed to like some of their stuff but not all. That's okay.

[samhengi]

I don't read

"I don't read"

As a neurodivergent kid I figured out very early that everything people say has 3 levels to it. As a fully grown linguist I know have fancy terms for that:

semantics pragmatics peer group identification/social functions

Take "It's cold in here" semantics "it's cold in here" pragmatics "close the window, please" social: informs you about the social hierarchy and relationship those two people have, by degree of politeness

Back on topic:

As a kid, when I was asked what I want for a present I stupidly said "I like books/reading".

Well, apparently neurotypical people hear: "I like novels". And thus little Claire ended up with a tons of child suitable novels. What am I supposed to do with them? There is only so many you could ever need if the table is a bit wobbly.

I read. A lot.

Textbooks. Academic Papers. Fairy tales. Comics. Plays. Poetry. Eposes. Technical manuals. Law books.

I recently read the Calculus book from uni. Not worked through it as it's meant to be used, read it.

And very very few selected novels. But generally they are naval warfare or Pratchett. I have started Slow Horses and do sorta like it so far.

Usually people look at me shocked.

"But if you just got into literature you'd enjoy it..." "I've got a degree in literature studies. Literally."

Oh, I know my main important works in English, German and Scandinavian literature. And a few in Irish, Welsh and Finnish. Been there, done that. And I see the value. I think that you should be exposed to them during your education and double so during a literature degree.

But that doesn't mean I enjoyed it or would read them for fun.

And there isn't even one that ruined it for me or something. (If so, it would have been Effi Briest). I just never liked it. As a kid one of the first novels read to me (actually the only one) was Sophie's World. And my first questions was:

"Can't you skip the boring bits?" "The bits about the history of philosophy?" "No, those are the good bits, just skip the story."

My brain makes its own stories. I've always written fiction ever since I could write.

Nowadays I'm just telling people (except close friends) "I don't read". That seems to be quicker and more efficient.

Can't we just normalise that "I like books" means...well... I like books? Read what you like. There is already a term for reading for pain, it's PhD. (The Spitfire Manual, 1940)

[samhengi]

Bond, worst spy ever

I really don't like the new Bond movies.

"But they are closer to the books." Meh maybe, didn't like the books though.

"But they are better action movies." They are more brutal for sure, and have more explosions but the Old Bond movies were pretty exciting in their time.

"But they are more realistic." Yes, that's why I don't like them.

Old Bond movies are a genre in itself.

British hyper machismo + Sci-fi + Self-parody.

Defying the laws of physics, and the laws of several countries.

Bond is more like... A superhero. It's closer to Adam West Batman than to real spies.

And that's why I like it. I like the superhero genre.

You want more realistic stuff? There's tons out there. Like Spooks.

Bond cannot be Bond if it's not hilariously over the top. A spy like him would be the worst liability ever. He keeps getting drunk, gets compromised saving all the Bond girls and blows up all the stuff in a foreign country. He's a bad spy. The worst.

A good spy has no name, no legend and just quietly does the job.

Bond is a male wish fulfilment, not a real spy. Don't we all want to be Bond a little bit?

He always wins. He's instantly good at everything. He gets all the girls (except for MP). He gets all the cars and all the toys. And he always gets out of trouble perfectly dressed. He's always the smartest man in the room and he always has a plan.

Bond cannot exist in the real world, neither can Batman. Overdo it or leave it.

[samhengi]

It's not a Shanty

People think every song about the sea and seamen is a Shanty. That's not the case.

Shanties are to help synchronise work. There are well known types of shanties: Short-haul shanties, halyard shanties, capstan shanties, and one less well known, pumping shanties

The short-haul or short-drag shanty is meant for relatively short tasks (like "Paddy Doyle's Boots")

The halyard shanty for synchronised pulling, e.g. setting large sails. ("Blow the Man Down")

The capstan shanty or windlass, as the name suggests, is synchronising stuff like moving the capstan which needs synchronised footwork.

("What Shall we do with the Drunken Sailor")

Pumping shanties synchronise the turning of the pumps, but they are not that well known. ("Santy Ano")

Some shanties can serve more than one purpose. "For All Me Grog" can be a halyard or capstan.

So... issue:

There are forecastle and whaling shanties but here I would say is where the definition of a shanties is no longer met. Those are seamen's songs. Not real shanties cos they are no working songs.

They are ballads.

But some of them almost sound like a proper shanty. Like the recently very famous "Soon may the Wellerman come".

So the definition of shanty has undergone semantic broadening. Especially nowadays where lots of people think seamen's song=shanty. The shanty is, in fact, a proper subset of the seamen's songs. It's a working song.

[samhengi]

The Masks we... are

Autistic rant: masking

At some point you learn how to mask. Either as a survival tactic or to be not so alone. You have to be one of them so they don't reject you. And you learn to hide. You learn that you are something that needs to be hidden.

At some point you find yourself wondering: whom of all these personas I have created and refined like an actor is actually me?

For years I wished I'd meet my own species. To see what it is like to be off stage. Then I found a bunch of my own species and I realised I still perform. But it's more interpretive dance. Freeform.

Once I realised that I became okay with masking. I wasn't hiding anymore I was performing. And that was a liberating epiphany.

Now that I'm old, I know the answer to the question is: all of the masks are me.

Each mask is a self portrait for a purpose. They are all me. But they are me as every dance and every performance reflect the dancer or actor.

You're not Richard III but he can't live without you performing. So this Richard III is where you and the play become one. He is the play and he is your interpretation. But yet more than the sum of both.

You're not the fairy of bravery but the moment you dance the variation you give her life. That one fairy of bravery is you.

It's really the beauty of the performing arts: The gap. The empty space.

It requires you to fill it. Not to copy exactly what someone else did, but fill the blank with all that is you. So every actor and every dancer creates a new creature.

I don't see the difference between Richard III and my teaching persona. There's all of pedagogy but it has a gap. It has room I may fill, I may slip into, I need and can and may and shall make my very own.

There's no aspect in my life where I don't see the gap. The meeting chair that needs to be filled, the case that needs to be spoken for, the lecture that needs to be performed.

I know many of my species struggle with losing their true self amongst their roles. To me it feels like an act of possession, of making the gap my own, of leaving my prints on the canvas. It's not the masks that hide me, it's me who makes the masks come to life.