Tag Archives: words

In the Interim…

December 6, 2009

I do have big plans for my two- (or perhaps three-) part blog on my selfishness theorem, but have not been able to devote a reasonable block of time to its completion for a number of reasons, most of which include (but are not limited to) working long hours, the theft of my laptop (I do not enjoy writing by hand), and my excessive amount of traveling of late to and from Boise. I was in Boise so frequently in November, I almost began to feel like I lived there again.

For those who are unaware, I am currently employed as an administrative assistant for a medium-ish sized company (I don’t know what constitutes a medium-sized company, I just know that the company I work for is larger than small and smaller than large. Precision is not my forte). My job description includes office management, administrative work, special projects, personal assistant to the CEO and “other duties” (a phrase the CEO is ALWAYS happy to remind me encompasses whatever the hell he wants at any given moment). It’s a good job, but it’s frequently overwhelming (I won’t go into detail of the amount of time I have spent sobbing in the bathroom).

The net result of this exagerrated work load is that I am forced to prioritize my work in such a way that some of the more basic tasks (such as ordering office supplies and fulfilling my coworkers’ menial requests) are put off in favour of more pressing issues. Most of my coworkers understand the level of pressure I am under, and docilely accept my inability to immediately cater to their requests. We have a process: coworker submits request verbally. Megan says, “send me an email”. Coworker submits request via email. Megan flags said email for follow-up within the next two weeks and gets to it when she has time.

Generally speaking, we have had no major issues with this routine. Until now. We recently had several new hires and several transfers from other offices come to our building. Most of these people have adapted rapidly to My Way (”Hit the road, Bucko” being the only other option presented), and as such we can maintain a cordial relationship. One particular creature, however, seems to have trouble adapting, so I have adopted a full-scale behavioural modification plan.

The offender frequently loiters by my desk, creepily rifling his bacteria-ridden hands through the bowl of candy I keep on my desk. He never says anything to me until I address him. (He displays extreme passive-aggressiveness - little does he realise that he is dealing with someone who is not at all passive, just aggressive). At first, I attempted to be polite. “How may I help you?” I would ask, in my least sarcastic and most officious* tone.

Him: “Yes. [Insert unnecessarily long pause while he continues to stare at me and violate my candy dish**]. I need.[Pause]. You. [Pause]. To order me. [Pause]. A/an [insert random office supply]“.

Me: “No problem! I’m sure you’ll need more than just that one item, why don’t you make me a list and then send me an email.”

A few hours later, this same conversation would be repeated, except I would become increasingly rude. I do not enjoy being stared at, particularly by someone who displays significant anti-social behaviours, and every time he would come stand at my desk I would ignore him for as long as possible, then, finally, snap.

“What?!”

“Yes. [Significant pause]. I would like [pause] [insert some other inane office supply]”

“Send. [Pause]. Me. [Pause]. An. [Pause]. Email.”

He NEVER sent a fucking email.

This was repeated about four times the first day, and probably the same amount of time the second day. Once, he even had the gall to ask me if his stuff had been ordered, to which I replied, “Oh, what stuff? I have not received an email requesting any supplies.”

He has yet to send an email, but HE WILL COMPLY. I shall prevail. Or else he’ll spend the rest of his time at our office without such simple amenities as power supplies and staplers.

Notes:

* I’m using the word in the archaic sense, since I did not realise until I just now lookied it up that it has taken the connotation of being meddlesome. I prefer the Jane Austen meaning.

** For the record, that is not a euphemism. Thank God.

Also tagged , , , – 1 Comment

Wherein Megsie Engages in Narcissistic Explication

August 20, 2009

Don’t look so surprised. It’s a blog.

My aunt reminded me tonight that July 23rd was quite a long time ago and hinted, not terribly subtly, that I ought to write another blog. I have decided NOT to simply recount the events of the past month (MONTH? Christ, I’m so far behind) by waxing eloquent on my recent heroics, or delving into the inevitable narcissism of my supremely unstable emotional life, or regaling you with tales of my kitten’s antics (he caught and ate a moth the other day), or telling you about my brother, his wife, and her relatives coming to visit me, or how work is stressful and exhausting but good all at once, because you could just follow me on Twitter for all of that.

Instead, I’m going to tell you about the various creative projects I have undertaken in the limited time between working, sleeping, and maintaining my busy and enthralling social calendar (i.e., refreshing facebook every five minutes). I’m somewhat hesitant to even discuss this, since, inevitably, some well-meaning person will make an attempt to hold me accountable for the completion of these projects, and I will, inevitably, be inclined to chuck things in their direction. I will complete, or not complete, these projects at my leisure. Do not question me. Much like the indomitable deity of Christian mythology, I move in mysterious ways.

Very generally, these creative projects fall into a category that I have affectionately termed “Nihilistic Children’s Books”. It’s a bit of a misnomer, in the sense that most people take the term “nihilistic” to mean hopeless, which is not my intention. Of course, most people are idiots and also think that atheists are necessarily amoral and that “irregardless” is a real word.

Much of the children’s literature I have encountered is disgustingly cheerful, clean, wholesome, and inevitably, inane. I don’t mean that I’m intending to write smut for children (although it would put a whole new spin on the term “child pornography” wouldn’t it?), but rather that I believe children are far more capable of understanding complex ideas than we give them credit for. Anyone who has taken a 100-level Social Sciences class can tell you that the idealistic view of childhood we now hold was invented in the Victorian Era, and anyone who has watched a Disney movie can tell you that childhood is rainbows and ponies and one-dimensional villains. Children’s lit. is and always has been propaganda, and really, I just want to disseminate my evil, atheist-satanist-lesbian-liberal-pro-choice views to your children. I WILL DESTROY THEIR MINDS.

My three projects are as follows:

Nightmare Waking - A Picture Book
The title is subject to change because it’s a fucking stupid title and sounds really emo. The inspiration for this story came from the concept of a Möbius strip, where, when you reach the end, the story repeats itself, creating a sense of perpetuity. Of course, my story will not be nearly as awesome as simply taking a strip of paper, twisting it, and taping the ends together. However, once it is in book form, it will be a compilation of pages which could easily be made into many, many Möbius strips, making it not altogether a loss. Also, there are bunny rabbits featured prominently in the story.

These Four Winds - A Novel
Anyone who considers herself* a writer inevitably begins writing a novel and never finishes it. It’s disgusting. Starting a novel is quite possibly one of the most narcissistic things a would-be writer can do, superseded only by said writer’s perpetual references to “the novel I am writing” WHICH WILL NEVER BE FINISHED. That said, I have been writing this novel for nearly four years now. I have maybe ten pages. Partially because every time I start to write something I become frustrated because I have a beginning and a middle, but no end. However, I believe I have conclusively solved my endless issue. And not by being adorably punny, either. This book will be a post-modern re-telling/re-working of Dante’s Divine Comedy, in the sense that I am borrowing many of the master’s plot devices, if not his subject matter.

Eggs - A Novel About Rape and Abortion
A classic fairytale. And I do NOT refer to the Disney concept of the fairytale. I really don’t know what to say about this story without giving it away. My main goal is to avoid being excessively heavy-handed and/or cynical.

I frequently find myself wishing that I had hours of free time to devote to these projects, but I am wise enough to know that I am no more likely now to actually utilise that time than I was a few months ago, when I had days upon endless days of free time. That said, being cooped-up in an office all day has it’s benefits: my creativity, thirsting and desperate for attention, has spurred me to set aside time daily to write and ponder my projects. Creative expression keeps me sane. Well, saner than I would be without it.

*Ooh! Look at my subtle undermining of patriarchal pronouns! I’m such a liberal whore.

Also tagged , , – 3 Comments

Pondering: Irregardless

March 30, 2009

Edit: Upon waking up this morning I realised that I had forgotten perhaps the most important point regarding “irregardless”: its failure to fit within the structure of the English language. I have inserted the necessary corrections in italics so they are easier to find.

A couple of people pointed out on my last blog that because “irregardless” is now used frequently (so frequently, in fact, that it even appears in the dictionary, albeit with the denotation “nonstandard”) it is a legitimate word. The argument for this (which at its base is inherently valid), is that language evolves, and our language has evolved to include “irregardless”.

I disagree with the conclusion that “irregardless” should be accepted as standard because it adds nothing to our communication. The purpose of language is communication with other speakers of that language, and also with oneself; it is a way to gather, parlay, and disseminate knowledge. Towards that goal of communication, language evolves within the confines of grammatical structure for two reasons: physiological imprecision and precision of meaning.

The first reason language evolves (physiological imprecision) is essentially laziness: the desire to maximise communication while minimising energy expended. Thus, among speakers of the same language, language use becomes shortened and minimised and dialects are developed. Why say “you are” when “you’re” communicates the same idea? Etc.

The second reason for linguistic evolution is precision of meaning. This is similar in concept to the previous point, in that the goal is to improve communication, but it differs from it in that instead of deleting phonemes, we actually add in more sounds, sometimes creating whole new words in order to more precisely communicate a concept.

“Irregardless” is a recently invented word, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. If you use it in conversation with another American English speaker, chances are they will understand you (just don’t be surprised if they start twitching uncontrollably). In that sense, “irregardless” fulfills the goal of language (that is, communication) so why is its colloquial usage and eventual acceptance into standard English such a big deal? Well, first off, it isn’t really. There are many other more important things to worry about, like nuclear fallout, global warming, and WHO ATE THE LAST COOKIE.

That said, this is why I am opposed to the adoption of “irregardless” into standard usage:

1. It does not enable us to precisely communicate a new concept, or allow us to better communicate an established concept.
2. There is another word that is used to communicate PRECISELY the same thing: “regardless” means “without regard”.
3. The prefix “ir-” negates whatever follows it, thus something that is “irretrievable” is something that cannot be retrieved (like the hours of my life spent trying to correct basic grammatical errors). “Irregardless” literally means “not without regard,” which is the opposite of the way it is used.
4. “Irregardless” is not a physiologically lazy change to language, it is cognitively lazy. It is therefore devolution, NOT evolution, of language.

Words are tools, and if one of those tools is imprecise or unnecessary, we should throw it out.

Any thoughts/criticisms are welcome.

Also tagged – 4 Comments

Pondering: You Have Such a Dirty Mind

March 14, 2009

7 Words I Have Used Innocently (and Literally) That Make Boys Think They Should Put My Number on Speed-Dial in Lieu of the Phone Sex Hotline

(Or, “Seven Perfectly Good Words I Can’t Use Anymore. Thanks So Much.”)

1. Quivering
I say: “I was so angry I was quivering”
You hear (albeit somewhat less literately): “A shudder in the loins engenders there/the broken wall” and you’re NOT thinking about the fall of Troy.

2. Engorged/Swollen
I say: “The river was engorged from the spring rain”
You hear: “Come here, baby, let me engorge your river”

3. Blow
I say: “I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down” (while telling a story to a child, you pervert)
You hear: “I’ll give you a blow job”

4. Swallow
I say: “I saw a swallow the other day”
You hear: “I swallow!”

5. Erect
I say: “…And so they erected a statue in his honour”
You hear: “I’ll erect your statue”

6. Aroused
I say: “My interest was aroused”
You hear: “I’m hot and bothered, please, sexually harass me!”

7. Moan
I say: “the wind moaned in the willow trees” (Yeah, I’m super poetical like that)
You hear: “Mmm, baby, oh yeah…”

Bonus words from my partner in crime, Quintilian: Banana, yank, wood, poke, snake, puckered, come, milkshake, long, put out, thing, lube.

Also tagged – 4 Comments

Pondering: Peevishness

March 12, 2009

No one understands me when I use the word “sans” in conversation. I understand that it’s a rarely used word, and a lot of people don’t even know what it means, especially when it’s spoken, not written, but having to explain to you that it means “without” (as in, I love the early Star Wars films, sans Yoda) makes me feel like I’ve reached new heights of pedantic snobbery. I mean, I know I can be a pedantic snob, but I really don’t want to feel like I am. Okays?

Also tagged – 4 Comments