More adventures in commenting

Over the last couple of weeks, I (Acilius) have posted some comments on two sites I read daily.  At “Dykes to Watch Out For,”  I quoted the opening of the “Periodicals Note” about Chronicles magazine that triggered so much discussion here a few weeks ago.  

At Language Log, I posted a comment which confused the author of the original post.  That comment kicked off a discussion in which I felt constrained to post several followup comments (here, here, here, and here), and which spilled over onto The Volokh Conspiracy.


  1. cymast

     /  March 20, 2009

    Language changes. Any words which end in “ize” don’t bother me- I find them poetic. “-ize” has kind of an electric charge to it . . “-ize” may differentiatize words to the users’ specifications.

  2. acilius

     /  March 20, 2009

    “Language changes.”

    I would say it differently: “People change language.” Ask who the people were who made a particular change, why they chose to make it, and what effects that change has had on relations among people, and you’ll find yourself with a serious question on your hands.

  3. cymast

     /  March 20, 2009

    Well, yes, it’s people who are changing language. Language doesn’t change itself.

    I recall a Timothy Leary lecture I attended at BSU . .

    I remember 2 things- Leary was all for people changing language, it really excited him, it was “Progress,” and “The Future.” He spoke at length about how new words and new ways of using words are good, regardless of the circumstances. I thought he was a bit carried away. I other thing I remember was Leary, early on in the lecture, making fun of Christians by making sheep noises. Several people got up and left the auditorium at that point. Mock baa-ing is disappointing.

  4. cymast

     /  March 20, 2009

    Oh I remember something else- Leary apologizing profusely to an audience member who knew someone who was killed by an LSD-crazed user.

%d bloggers like this: