Yonder Lies It

Qué escribir cuando las ganas se le vienen a uno encima por rayar sin tópicos a mano a pintarrajear.

Lección # 3479-ZNP.4T

Primer paso:

Primero hay que animarse a agarrar una pluma y luego sobreponerla en un papel. Los movimientos de la pluma tendrán que ser diestramente delicados, dándole leves empujones en una dirección hacia la derecha del papel, dejando que la tinta de la pluma se escurra lentamente y sin el mayor esfuerzo. La muñeca de la mano deberá ser el mejor amigo de la pluma en cuestión ya que este acto debe de ejercer el poder de transmitir los pensamientos que el cerebro dirige.

Cómo se debe de cojer una pluma:

La pluma debe de descansar en el músculo aductor del pulgar, ser sujetada ligeramente con las yemas del dedo pulgar y el í­ndice mientras ésta se recarga en el dedo medio. Las yemas de los dedos pulgar y í­ndice deberán de ejercer una leve presión y amacizar bien por la punta de la pluma para así­ facilitar el movimiento de subir y bajar al fin de cada uso de tinta.

Cómo se debe de utilizar una pluma:

Dependiendo de la agilidad rotatoria de la punta de la pluma, la presión ejercida al papel en el que se escribe deberá de ser ligera y suave sin dejar marcado el papel. La tinta deberá deslizarse y estar en sintoniza con los pensamientos que se anoten en el papel con la ayuda de la pluma. La tinta idealmente deberá de escurrirse sin menores contratiempos más allá de los que el cerebro imponga al uso de tinta para delinear los pensamientos en el papel. Esto contribuye a que los pensamientos puedan fluir sin el menor problema y sin que nada interrumpa la concentración de escribir pensamientos en papeles.

Segundo paso:

Ponerte a leer un buen libro para inspirarte a escribir.

Well, suffice to say my spanish blog has sucked a lot of time out of me and it’s because my blog community is so responsive to the text I write and I believe I have developed a sort of friedship with some of them. Well, after all they are from my native city and we have lots of common, I just can believe how great this blogger thing can be! I know, I sound so cliché but it’s true! I just love it.

Anyways, our good friend Logovo answered an observation on a blog post in Spanish [ Tijuana en el Exilio : Thursday, April 17, 2003 ] I made regarding the direct translation of a well known phrase in English ( I can’t believe I just did that ) to Spanish. It sounded foreign in Spanish, because it is not lexicalized (yet) in Spanish, so I pointed it out to her and she so kindly said:

” Direct translation… yep, it’s just in my system. This is what happens when I’m trying to say something but my brain will provide me with only one way of saying it. It knows that it’s given an answer and refuses to make an effort to search any further. ” (my italics)

Now, bear in mind that the following text am about to write here is in response to the text and as my Creative Writing teacher Jon Buscall says: you are attacking the text, not the person in question.

I refuse to believe the above mentioned assertion because I know how a bilingual brain works, I had one for 36 years.

I believe in incubation, I think that if you leave the problem in your head long enough, it will provide a solution to the translation issue in question.

However, this is the tricky thing about being bilingual: you must do maintenance work. If you do not balance how you feed your languages it will turn into a lopsided affair.

This happened to me not long ago. The thing is that I only took care of English, you see, I only read and developed my ideas in English. I left Spanish to its own devices, and that’s why many point out that Spanish is the language of the house.

That’s why you can relate when I say that English is more of an ”intellectual” issue for me, since I have overdone the idea department to an English only area.

Are casseroles flying yet?

Yet more exciting information at hand from the Lexicography dept:

Dictionaries: Collins English Dictionary Fourth Edition updated 2000 according to the blurb: 21st Century Edition

The New Britannica-Webster Dictionary and Reference Guide 1981

The query at hand: Compare the macrostructure of the two dictionaries:

“A dictionary’s macrostructure refers to what constitutes an entry in a dictionary and how the entries are arranged.” Lexicography: An Introduction – Howard Jackson (2002)

I took a common prefix: im- for the investigation of this quest.

The Britannica-Webster refers me to seek in- in the dictionary. So I did and at first we get a definition of the prefix. Then, a three small column of a list of words beginning with in-. In fact, the prefix in- enjoys a set of entries in the dictionary at hand, and every sense of it has a full headword status. Aside the above-mentioned list, which has 69 words that have a correlation to in-, there is a plethora of words with the prefix in- in alphabetical order. Words that have morphological bending are treated in the same headword but the dictionary only provides the abbreviated suffix of said morphis.

Collins, on the other hand does not redirect me but instead tells me that im- is a variant of in- ¹ and in-² with superscript indicating sense status. Although there is no redirection indicated, I believe one is to assume that if we are to look for the ‘real’ definition of im- we are to understand by the word variant, that this prefix is nothing more than another form of in- hence I ought to look in the direction of said prefix. So I did. In- has two full headword status in the dictionary and thereafter a host of words with that prefix are shown although intermingled with other words that have no relation to the prefix in question. So that while you can find inappropriate in the list following the definition of the prefix, you will also find a definition for inasmuch as. Words that have a morphological bending are shown in boldface type along the whole spelled word and not just the suffix. So that if you look for inarticulate, you will also find within that same headword, inarticulately and inarticulateness.

While our current reference book for this course indicates that words that enjoy full headword status in a dictionary are more easily accessible, it is of the opinion of this student that it really does not make much difference whether a word has full headword status or not.

The reason for this statement is because it is in the understanding of the student that the approach to words is according to the next of kin method, and as we scan the headword in question, scanning is done in a vertical manner.

When we find that which approaches our search we scurrily take a quick glance to the next headword to seek for a potential similarity but in the event that said word is not there our eyes takes a horizontal turn and down the headword that most resembles that which we seek until we find it.

Vertical descension take that! You downward spiral, your days are over! jejejeje, over dramatized it a little, didn’t I???

Rolling in laughter yet?

La cita del dí­a se la lleva – Sinaloa in Sarkozyland –

Check out su post fechado: 3/25/2003 06:03:44 PM

You just gotta love someone like that …

:::::::::::::

En respuesta al english comment de Border Blogger 2 – [the tj bible of poetics] – titulado: GRANTS, GRANTS, GRANTS.

Please allow me la cortesí­a de hablar en mi idioma más común, spanglish.

I don’t purport to vivir en México, mucho less in my ciudad natal, TJ. So I beg un poco de comprensión if my comments seem fuera de proportion to a comment done by teacher and writer, known in the blog communidad, as Hyepez.

The citations que causarón y dan origen a ésta response, because am a teacher también, es la following:

”… Two proffesions we do even though they are badly paid. They are badly paid because the State knows people who do these jobs are going to do them regardless of the salary. …”

Es a favor de Hyepez que a dab of solidarity thinking permea la last sentence, ” …people who do these jobs,” dice our buen amigo Hyepez, ”… are going to do them regardless …”.

I may not live in TJ pero si he sido educado there and know by fact la cultura de los teachers en our schools.

Hence, I don’t know what Hyepez means by ” regardless”, does it mean que lo harán aún a sabiendas de las lí­mitaciones económicas o ¿a sabiendas que no hay de otra?

Existe una difference.

Existen teachers que even though they call themselves eso no ejercen la profesión. They are there por the money que de otra manera don’t get porque el mercado laboral no da para more. Y hay de esos, como seems con el caso de nuestro good friend Hyepez, dedicados a la profesión.

Hay many teachers en Tijuana, para que decir México, que se dicen eso, más sólo están ahí­ para sostener a una culture basada en a decadent exercise de union politics. They do great damage to the nations future by enseñando a medias y desganadamente a huevo because they know que Esther protects them and the salary no rinde para más so anyways why exert oneself?

And then hay good teachers que ejercen el jale, como dice notre bon ami ”… regardless of the salary.” which I suspect se cuenta entre uno de ellos.

Pero I couldn’t help but detectar un dash de defeatism in the words que leí­. ” …They are badly paid because the State knows people who do these jobs are going to do them regardless of the salary. …” ( my italics) Sounds like we have given up the fight. Como si our hands estuvieran tied up. Are they? Espero que not, because the fight for just salarios para los profesores, is not a local issue, es internacional.

We must do away with that kind of thinking, dejar esa cultura que amedrenta la diferencia, stunts growth of the self.

Easier said than done, lo sé, pero we must adopt también strategias, de attack and run, a los grandes honchos who control the little guys and gals como nosotros. Harrass them in anonimity, we know the language, sabemos que hacer con ella y los effects que estos causan. Ese es our tool, nuestro advantage.

Our jobs as individuals in any union is solidarizarnos con los demás pero when the union entra en colusión con the very institución que paga nuestros salaries, then we must question that institution which we are unionized with.

Bueno that’s my two daimes …

::::::::::::::

Lo curioso.

En Tijuana yo nunca sufrí­ racismo.

Sabí­a de una cierta envidia que me daba, es más presentí­a algo más cuando miraba en las clásicas novelas de la tarde que la raza blanca era mucho más favorecida.

Ya en la calle la cosa era distinta, en retrospectiva, me doy cuenta que si practicábamos el racismo, el peor insulto que se le podí­a dar a alguien: ¡pinche indio! partió de mis labios más de una vez.

También me acuerdo que no jalábamos en ciertos jales, como vendedor de agua, ni mucho menos vender tamales o paletas, esos jales eran para ’indios’.

Ya en California sufrí­ en carne propia el racismo que por años, por ser mayorí­a, nunca sentí­, tardé rato en darme cuenta, pero a los años de no ser promovido en mi jale y varias veces negados ciertos servicios por el color de mi piel o prestamos de banco por mi nombre y apellido, husmeaba algo ya.

aquí­ en Suecia es diferente.

Aquí­ me discriminan por algo que hasta me dio risa cuando lo supe.

El objeto de preferencia a discriminar: el color de mi pelo.

Tener cabello negro en Suecia te relega a un estatus de minorí­a casi cómico; lo curioso es que mis ojos color marrón se les hace una cosa exótica. Y es que aquí­ la ’mayorí­a’ son rubios de pelo y gíüeros de ojos azules, pero para este verano ya tengo planes, pienso ponerme más prieto que un pinche frijol negro de Guerrero para que se agíüiten de a verdad los cabrones ….

Go figure out humanity.

Further jolly good fun from the folks at the lexicography Dept.

The dictionaries chosen at will:

Collins English Dictionary Fourth Edition updated 2000. According to the blurb: 21st Century Edition and The New Britannica-Webster Dictionary and Reference Guide 1981

The query at hand: Compare the prefaces of said dictionaries:

The dictionaries in question do not have a section called preface in their books, but according to the etymology of the word from the Britannica-Webster its origins are : [Middle French, from Latin prefatio “foreword”, from praefari “to say beforehand” from prae– “pre-” + “fari” “to say”] and according to Collins preface comes from [C14: from medieval Latin praefatia, from Latin praefatio a saying beforehand, from praefari to utter in advance from prae– before + “fari” to say] hence I will use the Foreword, indicated in both dictionaries, to mean ‘preface’.

Collins seems to address its audience with much more in mind to say since there are far more wordy compared to Britannica-Webster who has less than a half page dedicated to their foreword. Collins has one and a half pages addressed to its readers. The information presented in the Britannica-Webster is placed smack in the middle with three short paragraphs and the one presented in Collins has one full page of information in two column rows and a second page half full also in a two column row formation.

Britannica-Webster has a near childish approach to its reader, and the emphasis on the didactical aspects are way over done. More oft than not it sounded like a blurb, highlighting much of the contents and what it had. It is a mere self-laudatory foreword to the dictionary as if the selling pitch has to continue to convince the reader that said dictionary is a sound investment. A few recommendations as to what to do first with the dictionary were dished out by the Editors. Collins also has the tendency to hype up its foreword by lauding its efforts in bringing about said dictionary, much of the information, if you bypass the sales pitch that seems to permeate every other labor that was done in an effort to bring the dictionary about, is handy and I guess that credit must be given were credit is due.

Bloody good review if you ask me!

Having fun yet?

A mi lo habitual me viene gíüango.

Y es que cuando quiero hacer algo que acostumbro hacer no lo hago por costumbre, si no porque se me pega en gana hacerlo.

Por eso mismo nunca serví­ como alcohólico o drogadicto ya que eso require empeño, dedicación y no se hable de concentración.

Hay veces que caigo en lo lúdico, pues cuando el antojo de una cerveza me cunde y decido ir por una, ya cuando menos acuerdo ando haciendo otros menesteres a los cuales mi pobre concentración le da por sucumbir y mi pobre antojo por sufrir.

Tomo, pero no con ese persistente ritmo que un organismo biológico ya adicto demanda.

Pero hay una cosa donde a veces si quisiera tener ese don de poder hacer algo por hábito.

Como cuando se me vienen pensamientos a la cabeza.

Y es que mi me gusta escribir tanto que siempre ando pensando en escribir por donde quiera que ande, lo malo es que nunca me preparo para ello, o sea nunca cargo pluma o lápiz ni papel ni mucho menos una portatil. Lo peor es que me nacen justo cuando menos lo pienso.

Hay veces que intento mandarme un sms para luego acordarme pero ya para cuando voy en la segunda palabra en el sms, el pensamiento se me fue.

Hay veces que mi afán por escribir lo que pensé es tanto que se mira realmente patético. Ando como loco buscando cualquier pedazo de papel para apuntar los mentados e iluminados pensares que después de encontrar el papel con alegrí­a me carga una bilis de los mil demonios descubrir que me hace falta una puta pluma para poder embarcarme en el acto de hacer lo que queria hacer con el papel.

Me saca una rabia encabronada no tener el hábito de tener papel a la mano siendo que soy creatura dada a la escritura ….

Por eso lo habitual a mi me viene gíüango …

::::::::::::::::

Esta mañana, detrás de un cartón de leche, leí­ algo que me hizo morirme de la risa.

Se comentaba sobre la popularidad de los nombres y el tí­tulo indicaba que: ’Los nombres para recién nacidos no son tan modernos como se piensa’

Los nombres, como la ropa, tienen moda, dice la letra del cartoncito para gente mañanera como yo ….

Lo que pasa es que cada generación tiene sus especí­ficas preferencias. Oscar (en Suecia) es inmensamente popular hoy pero hace también que cien años atrás lo era por igual.

Los nombres bí­blicos, dice el cartón de leche atrás de su espalda, (¿espaldas? ¿cómo puede un cartón de leche tener espalda?) están gozando de una popularidad de nuevo, Simon, Jacobo, Samuel y Marcos son algunos por mencionar unos cuantos.

Otros nombres no son tan modernos, bueno, por lo menos no son tan populares.

Y esto es lo que me hizo reí­r …

Por ejemplo, Judas a sufrido un buen descenso de popularidad por más de dos mil años ya …

Jejejeje, pinche gente mamona …

I was recently told to compare the microstructure of two dictionaries in my very exciting lexicography class which makes me question WHY is it that I like lexicography so much, specially etymology.

The dictionaries chosen at will:

Collins English Dictionary Fourth Edition updated 2000. According to the blurb: 21st Century Edition

and The New Britannica-Webster Dictionary and Reference Guide 1981

The query: Compare the microstructure of the two dictionaries:

I took the entry: rest

The results:

Collins:

· This word has a superscript number for the headword to the right of the word. The dictionary indicates that all homographs are so treated.

· Word class is marked by italized abbreviation and if a word has more than one part of speech it is separated from others by a lozenge

· Pronunciation transcription according to the IPA is provided

· Senses are numbered and if there is more than one sense within the same number an alphabetical order is attached to the number.

· Fixed noun phrases are given full headword status

· Etymology comes at the last of the definition of the word which is indicated by bold brackets [ ] and according to the Guide to the Use of the Dictionary, ‘ The Etymologies show the history of the word both in English … and in its pre-English source languages.’

Britannica-Webster

· This word has a superscript number for the headword to the left of the word. The dictionary indicates in its section titled Using The Dictionary that ‘The order of homographs is historical.’

· Pronunciation transcription is provided right after the boldface entry word is shown.

· Word class is marked by italized abbreviation. If the word has another part of speech it is given a separate entry.

· Following the word, pronunciation and word class, the Britannica-Webster offers synonym paragraphs because according to the dictionary ‘[they] help the reader discriminate among a number of similar and often confused words.’

· Senses are numbered and if there is more than one sense within the same number an alphabetical order is attached although the number does not follow and the alphabetical letter stands alone. Every definition in the Britannica-Webster is set off by a boldface colon whether or not there is a number before it. When a meaning has multiple variations, the meanings are given according to their historical status with the oldest recorded meaning having first status and newest ones last status.

· What Collins refers to as idioms the Britannica-Webster refers to as run-on entries and they do not have headword status in this dictionary, nor much by way of distinguishing them either, they are ‘ … the last element of many entries.’

· Etymology is in square brackets following the definition. In the etymology, the entry’s history is in italics and its definition in quotations marks.

Exhilarated yet?