Page 138 of 141 FirstFirst ... 3888128136137138139140 ... LastLast
Results 4,111 to 4,140 of 4224

Thread: What are you watching?

  1. #4111
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    I was working on a website that did such things. The developer found that simply picking two or more randomly selected items by hand was preferable to letting a machine do it. My boss hated the idea until someone pointed out that the only thing you could buy were toys from a single company. The difference between the two or more offerings was very slight. Like doggies, offer kitties. Like toy computers, offer toy phones. So long as you used real numbers you thankfully didn't end up with suggestions for both toy computers and doggies or toy phones and kitty dolls. It does make a bit of sense given the limited selection.
    The label "frequently bought together" is an odd one. I guess what Amazon are trying to communicate is "frequently bought with this item", given that what they show you is [the item you're looking at] + [one or two other items]. Whereas "frequently bought together" suggests that they should be showing the most common pairings and trios they sell, across the whole store. Which would be even less useful than their current attempts to sucker me into buying extra stuff.

    Grant Hutchison

  2. #4112
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,990
    Meanwhile, there's a new season of Zenimation on Disney+. I like this show; it's a bunch of clips from Disney movies with the dialogue and score stripped out, chosen to fit a common theme. I don't guarantee all the ambient sound they're playing is original to the clips, honestly, but I like that the new season seems to have a lot more from the older movies. The current episode is "Simple Pleasures," and it went from Tramp waking up to the dwarfs washing to Ariel taking a bath to Dumbo being given a bath.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  3. #4113
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    ... the dwarfs washing ...
    You don't see that plural much these days.
    I suspect Tolkien would be quietly pleased that his "dwarves" has penetrated wider English in the way it has. And I guess Snow White and the Seven Dwarves would be an interesting mash-up that I'd pay to see. But I still give a small cry of anguish when I see multiple red dwarf stars being referred to as "red dwarves".

    Grant Hutchison

  4. #4114
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,990
    I used the plural that Disney did in that moment because, well, it makes the most sense. In general, I use "dwarves." Though I'd note that my computer puts the red squiggly line under it. Sondheim did a fun little play with it in Into the Woods.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  5. #4115
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,868
    I forget who said, "Dwarves are magical beings from mythology who live in tunnels and love gold. Dwarfs are short people."
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #4116
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    There were no dwarves until 1937. Tolkien based them on mythological dwarfs, but had philological reasons for inventing the plural dwarves in his writing. (He also despised Spenser's elfin and replaced it with elven.)

    And you need to be really careful about calling little people "dwarfs". Some are comfortable with it, some self-identify as dwarfs but don't welcome it from people outside their community, some find "person with dwarfism" preferrable to "dwarf" (that is, their condition does not define them), and some find it deeply insulting.

    Grant Hutchison

  7. #4117
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,431
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    There were no dwarves until 1937. Tolkien based them on mythological dwarfs, but had philological reasons for inventing the plural dwarves in his writing. (He also despised Spenser's elfin and replaced it with elven.)
    In a few fantasy stories, I’ve noticed authors using the word “elve” instead of “elf” and wondered if it was a language thing, an attempt to be a litte different, or they just didn’t get the distinction for singular wording. It sure looks weird to me, though.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #4118
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,014
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    There were no dwarves until 1937. Tolkien based them on mythological dwarfs, but had philological reasons for inventing the plural dwarves in his writing. (He also despised Spenser's elfin and replaced it with elven.)
    I don't know if this is true, but in this thread (https://scifi.stackexchange.com/ques...and-not-dwarfs) someone quotes letters from Tolkien where he admits that he used dwarves by mistake. Apparently also it was (infrequently) used even before 1937. But again, I'm just reporting what I read and don't really know the true story.
    As above, so below

  9. #4119
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I don't know if this is true, but in this thread (https://scifi.stackexchange.com/ques...and-not-dwarfs) someone quotes letters from Tolkien where he admits that he used dwarves by mistake. Apparently also it was (infrequently) used even before 1937. But again, I'm just reporting what I read and don't really know the true story.
    Oooooh, that's very interesting, thanks.
    Tom Shippey, who has made a scholarly study of Tolkien over many years, doesn't mention that. In The Road To Middle-earth, he relates how Tolkien complained at great length in a letter to Puffin Books in 1951 when they "corrected" dwarves to dwarfs in their text of The Hobbit, and how he dug in his heels and refused to approve the proofs when the typesetters for the first edition of Lord of the Rings changed dwarves to dwarfs and elven to elfin throughout, insisting the originals be restored.
    His point was that even in modern English many old words ending in f can still be told from new ones by their plural forms: old words (or at least old words of one particular class in Old English) behave like 'hoof' or 'loaf' and become 'hooves', 'loaves', while new ones (unaffected by sound changes in the Old English period) simply add s, as in 'proofs', 'tiffs', 'rebuffs'. Writing 'dwarfs' was then, to Tolkien's acute and trained sensibility, the equivalent of denying the word its age and its roots.
    I don't have access to his collected letters, but reconstructing things from Shippey's commentary and the letters quoted in stackexchange, it seems he perhaps made a philologist's error (assigning dwarf the plural it "should" have), and then dug in and stuck with it because it was a defensible construction that characterized his original text.

    Google Ngram does indeed show "dwarves" flickering along in usage up to the 1960s, but spiking thereafter. However, I think sporadic usage of "incorrect" versions is just a characteristic of words of a form that can be regular or irregular--people have to learn the "correct" version by rote, and you can always find both forms in use. There's a steady trickle of people writing rooves, for instance.

    Grant Hutchison

  10. #4120
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,868
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Google Ngram does indeed show "dwarves" flickering along in usage up to the 1960s, but spiking thereafter. However, I think sporadic usage of "incorrect" versions is just a characteristic of words of a form that can be regular or irregular--people have to learn the "correct" version by rote, and you can always find both forms in use. There's a steady trickle of people writing rooves, for instance.
    So it's like a mutation... it keeps occurring "by accident", but it's not conserved and propagated until the environment supports it.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  11. #4121
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon
    Posts
    6,441
    Watching Kevin Can F ... Himself (the actual title includes an asterisked word that the forum's nanny software might object to) on AMC+. Stars Annie Murphy, who played Alexis on Schitt's Creek. The show's format is quite unusual in that it switches mid-stream from standard multi-camera, color sit-com with a laugh track to a much darker, single camera, black & white - sort of two shows juxtaposed. During the former, Murphy portrays a typical sit-com housewife who is the butt of a lot of joking from her husband and other family/friends. But in the latter, her character is dead serious and quite troubled by her life. The switching sometimes occurs immediately. For example, in the sit-com, you have all the other characters laughing while they leave Murphy in the living room alone and the scene abruptly goes B&W with a troubled, almost horrified expression on her face. I've watched just two episodes but it's caught my interest.

  12. #4122
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,763
    Wandering around on YouTube last night I fell across and 1956 West German film called "Die Trapp-Familie" (The Trapp Family) that I never knew existed. As far as I can see it was the first 'dramatisation' of Maria Trapp's memoir. It was apparently the catalyst for the Stage Musical and eventual film of "The Sound of Music". This version was in German with sub-titles but there is apparently a rather doubtful dubbed version floating around. It is not a 'musical' but there is plenty of singing of folk and sacred songs by the children and Maria, never the Baron. These children, whether dubbed or not, are much better singers than in the Hollywood version.

    The first part of the film sets the pattern for the later film - feisty Nun sent off to help out with the unruly children of the war hero Baron. There are the same incidents of the children in 'Sailor Suits"' marching to the whistle of their stern, but loving father. Maria then makes play clothes for them, some of them apparently out of the same curtains as in the 1965 film, and hijinks occur. There is also the scene of the children going to Maria's room during a thunderstorm and her singing to calm them. The father tries to put a stop to all this and then falls in love with Maria and they are married. In this version instead of the Baroness being Maria's rival it is a Princess.

    There are a number of differences in the story line. For some reason all the children's names are different and they are younger. The Baron loses his money helping out a friend and they turn the Schloss into a hotel. Then the Nazi's arrive and they are forced to flee but no climbing over mountains is required They then turn up in immigration detention in New York before becoming smash hits on the US stage. No Hitler Youth boyfriends are involved but an aged retainer does turn out to have been a secret Nazi but he helps his old master to escape. I gather that while it is a bit more faithful to the original book there are still plenty of inventions in this film. But I also gather that the original memoir also had some inventions itself.

    It was a pleasant 'family' film shot in nice colour but not like a travelogue as some of the "Sound of Music" appeared to be. It also moves at a lightning pace compared to the Hollywood construct, being around 100 minutes long compared to the sometimes glacial 174 minutes of the later film. Certainly not a classic but a gently amusing and colourful diversion.

  13. #4123
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Florida.
    Posts
    6,163
    I remember that the dubbed version played in US theaters (at least in Chicago) shortly after the play The Sound of Music opened in road productions.
    Yes, they sung authentic folk music. Hammerstein and Rodgers were missed.

  14. #4124
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,868
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And you need to be really careful about calling little people "dwarfs". Some are comfortable with it, some self-identify as dwarfs but don't welcome it from people outside their community, some find "person with dwarfism" preferrable to "dwarf" (that is, their condition does not define them), and some find it deeply insulting.
    In the US, at least, the popularly preferred term is "little people". Which to my ears at least sounds even more like a magical being, but to each their own.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #4125
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,693
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    There's a steady trickle of people writing rooves, for instance.
    I've never heard of "roofs" until now. I though that was wrong.
    Solfe

  16. #4126
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,693
    Scratch that. Double post somehow.

    Anyway, I am rewatching Dark Matter. I find it odd that a four issue comic book got three season TV treatment. I wish there had been more. I really liked the characters and actors.
    Solfe

  17. #4127
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    I've never heard of "roofs" until now. I though that was wrong.
    No, roofs and proofs are standard in both American and British English. Rooves is now strictly archaic.

    Grant Hutchison

  18. #4128
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And you need to be really careful about calling little people "dwarfs". Some are comfortable with it, some self-identify as dwarfs but don't welcome it from people outside their community, some find "person with dwarfism" preferrable to "dwarf" (that is, their condition does not define them), and some find it deeply insulting.
    In the US, at least, the popularly preferred term is "little people". Which to my ears at least sounds even more like a magical being, but to each their own.
    Yes, you'll see I used "little people" in the section of my post you quoted.
    But I worked one summer with a man who had extremely short stature due to achondroplasia. He hated the label "little people" with a passion, and used to address anyone who used it as "Darby O'Gill".

    Grant Hutchison

  19. #4129
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    No, roofs and proofs are standard in both American and British English. Rooves is now strictly archaic.
    BTW, someone recently petitioned the UK government to change the plural of roof from roofs to rooves. With entirely predictable results.

    Grant Hutchison

  20. #4130
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,693
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    No, roofs and proofs are standard in both American and British English. Rooves is now strictly archaic.

    Grant Hutchison
    I know my pronunciation would linger on "proofs" and it would rhyme with"rooves". Personally, I would try to avoid constructions that would result either using "proofs" or "proves" because I feel like I would always sound wrong. When I'm sending an email full of "proofs" or photographs, I tend to name the file types rather than use that word.

    I do read a lot of old texts, so I encounter rooves far more often than roofs.
    Solfe

  21. #4131
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,693
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, you'll see I used "little people" in the section of my post you quoted.
    But I worked one summer with a man who had extremely short stature due to achondroplasia. He hated the label "little people" with a passion, and used to address anyone who used it as "Darby O'Gill".

    Grant Hutchison
    That is too funny.

    Of course, I'd also try to avoid any construction or the descriptor with the phrase "little people/person/etc". The "guy with the tie" or "the woman in blue" works just as well. I've never experienced a time where it was critical. I'm well below average height myself. I can also see how my flippant and impulsive tendencies would turn a faux pas turn into out and out hostility. Sometimes, I can be silent even if I don't like it.
    Solfe

  22. #4132
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    I know my pronunciation would linger on "proofs" and it would rhyme with"rooves". Personally, I would try to avoid constructions that would result either using "proofs" or "proves" because I feel like I would always sound wrong. When I'm sending an email full of "proofs" or photographs, I tend to name the file types rather than use that word.

    I do read a lot of old texts, so I encounter rooves far more often than roofs.
    Oddly, no-one ever seems to complain about spoofs and goofs. They're modern words (nineteenth and twentieth century, respectively) so don't take the old irregular plural form, but I'd guess that most people don't really think about the history of the words.

    Grant Hutchison

  23. #4133
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    17,305
    Roof, roofs.
    Proof, proofs.
    Hoof, hooves....

    Also, dwarf, dwarfs; but elf; elves!
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  24. #4134
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post

    Also, dwarf, dwarfs; but elf; elves!
    I’ve seen some authors use “elve” for singular and others use “elfs” for plural.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  25. #4135
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    5,692

    What are you watching?

    Half, halves.
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  26. #4136
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    Any road up.
    I'm rewatching the first season of 24. As with the first time around, I'm finding it repellent, laughable and engrossing simultaneously. It was a remarkable thing, back in the day.

    Interleaving that with the first season of Northern Exposure, which I'm finding a great deal more irritating, and a great deal less charming, than I seem to recall.

    Grant Hutchison

  27. #4137
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,014
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, you'll see I used "little people" in the section of my post you quoted.
    But I worked one summer with a man who had extremely short stature due to achondroplasia. He hated the label "little people" with a passion, and used to address anyone who used it as "Darby O'Gill".

    Grant Hutchison
    I can understand that feeling. I think there are few situations now where we describe a person by a medical condition. We usually say they have something rather that they are something. It would seem better to say they have achondroplasia or whatever condition they have.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  28. #4138
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I can understand that feeling. I think there are few situations now where we describe a person by a medical condition. We usually say they have something rather that they are something. It would seem better to say they have achondroplasia or whatever condition they have.
    He's a haemophiliac, she's a diabetic, he's an albino, she's an asthmatic. I think the indefinite article still sometimes slips in, unconsidered, and often not welcome. (But my erstwhile colleague self-identified as "a dwarf". People are complicated.)

    Grant Hutchison

  29. #4139
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,693
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    He's a haemophiliac, she's a diabetic, he's an albino, she's an asthmatic. I think the indefinite article still sometimes slips in, unconsidered, and often not welcome. (But my erstwhile colleague self-identified as "a dwarf". People are complicated.)

    Grant Hutchison
    I was surprised by the concept of deafness as a culture as opposed to a disability. That situation is vastly more complicated that I can pretend to understand. The language aspect of it is fascinating. When I think to myself, "Do I know how to make that sign?" the answer is either silent affirmative or negative feeling. That's kind of weird, because it isn't a word or a sensation like moving your hands.

    A couple of times, people asked me if I was teaching using sign language and I had to deny it. I was using sign to indicate (repeatedly), "No, play after math. Yes, after math. No, not now. Yes, you may go to the bathroom,,," Math in sign language is tedious when the student can't read. I found it was easier to break that student out to use tangibles after the lesson was given. However, I always seemed to have observations where that wasn't permissible because the rest of the students were being weaned off of tangibles for math.

    Back to What am I watching... I managed to watch the latest Loki, Bad Batch and a few more episodes of Dark Matter. Of the three, I like Loki best. I just love Loki's demeanor. He's a trickster who always believes no one believes him. It's hard to distinguish is he is playing people, being honest to manipulate people or maybe he forgot what he was doing and he'll recover in a moment. He is a very weird character.
    Solfe

  30. #4140
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,868
    I have encountered others on the autism spectrum or Asperger's syndrome, some seem to embrace the "Aspies" culture as neuro-diversity, others like me have only experienced it as a handicap to social skills. I guess people can adjust to anything.

    Right now (fodder for the other thread) I've started reading a book by John Elder Robison, about autism and differences, called appropriately Be Different. It describes things from an ASD child's point of view and experiences which I identified with immediately. We were both undiagnosed until adulthood.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

Similar Threads

  1. What are you NOT watching?
    By Fazor in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 2014-May-05, 11:35 AM
  2. What are you watching on TV?
    By Disinfo Agent in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-09, 07:41 PM
  3. Who is watching who?
    By peteshimmon in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-11, 12:54 PM
  4. TV watching
    By xbck1 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-08, 02:01 PM
  5. Satellite watching
    By Skyfox 56 in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2003-Jul-30, 05:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •