English language, grammar, and cultural devices.

[Knygathin]

Why in heavens name is "gnome" spelled with a "g", when it is pronounced "noum"? You don't hear the "g". Why is it there? Do you find that the "g" enriches the word, or does it hamper it?

Another thing I never can get used to, is the talk of "centuries". For example, when someone says, or writes in a text, the "eighteenth century" (or pick any other you like), EVERY TIME I have to stop and think, "Now, I know, because I have learned by now, that they DO NOT mean the "eighteen hundreds". That is settled. But how was it now again, what was the logic behind this strange convention, that they defend as being perfectly logical? ... Did I have to subtract one digit? Or add one? Do they mean the "seventeen hundreds"? Or the "nineteen hundreds"? Every time this happens in a text, I waste a few moments in mental acrobatics, sorting this out. It is REALLY annoying. Does anyone agree with me?

[Swampirella]

Dec 20, 2019 1:16:32 GMT Knygathin said:

Why in heavens name is "gnome" spelled with a "g", when it is pronounced "noum"? You don't hear the "g". Why is it there? Do you find that the "g" enriches the word, or does it hamper it?

Another thing I never can get used to, is the talk of "centuries". For example, when someone says, or writes in a text, the "eighteenth century" (or pick any other you like), EVERY TIME I have to stop and think, "Now, I know, because I have learned by now, that they DO NOT mean the "eighteen hundreds". That is settled. But how was it now again, what was the logic behind this strange convention, that they defend as being perfectly logical? ... Did I have to subtract one digit? Or add one? Do they mean the "seventeen hundreds"? Or the "nineteen hundreds"? Every time this happens in a text, I waste a few moments in mental acrobatics, sorting this out. It is REALLY annoying. Does anyone agree with me?

I agree with you! In fact I think I was "older than I should have been" before I even knew that ex. "the 18th century" actually meant "Jan. 1st, 1701-Dec.31, 1800". That I only found out just now by trying to confirm that it meant 1700-1799 so I was still off the mark.

As for "gnome" I gather the "g" used to be pronounced in Old English, but even after it became silent we kept the "g". Personally I think the "g" enriches the spelling. Speaking of silent letters, is the "K" in "Knygathin" pronounced or silent? I've always wondered

[Knygathin]

Thank you very much Swampirella! It is very good that someone shares my concerns here, ... so I don't risk falling down all alone into the Abysses of intellectual madness.

I would agree with you about the "g" in "gnome". It enriches, gives added depth and mystique. A "gnome" is a real gnome. A "noum" could never be a real gnome. My feeling. But I would be hard put explaining and defending this from purely rational thinking. English seems a mystical language, spoken and written through intuition and imprinted conditioning, accepted without much rational logic around the sound of the actual letters. The deeper spelling history of words, no longer sounding the same, are accepted by children without any intellectual objection.

I strongly believe the "K" in Knygathin is pronounced. As eccentric sounding and straight forward as possible it should be! By the way, the name stems from Clark Ashton Smith's story "The Testament of Athammaus".

[Swampirella]

I was going to say that the "g" in gnome adds mystique, but then changed my mind for some reason. Thanks for explaining your name's origin; I've read a few C.A. Smith stories, all pretty darn good, but not yet that story. I must try to get a hold of it. 

[ramseycampbell]

Centuries - surely straightforward enough. The first century runs from 1 A. D. to 999 A. D., and so the second century must start at 1000 (though strictly speaking it begins at 1001). The only way to avoid this would be to name the first century as zero or nought, or something similar.

[Jojo Lapin X]

Dec 24, 2019 10:42:51 GMT ramseycampbell said:

Centuries - surely straightforward enough. The first century runs from 1 A. D. to 999 A. D., and so the second century must start at 1000 (though strictly speaking it begins at 1001). The only way to avoid this would be to name the first century as zero or nought, or something similar.

It is also worth noting that this has nothing to do with the English language. The definition of a century is obviously the same in all languages.

[Knygathin]

Dec 24, 2019 10:42:51 GMT ramseycampbell said:

Centuries - surely straightforward enough. ...

But it is still confusing. I follow the mathematical logic of it, when counting from year "0", although mathematics don't use the term "centuries". Only historians do, to describe how many hundreds of years in a historic timespan. But it is unfortunate to be talking of which century in succession in relation to some 0 starting point, that doesn't really exist, other than in the imagination.
Listen, one century and one hundred years are both the same amount of years. And yet the 18th century and the eighteen hundreds (or 1800s) are not the same thing. The 18th century means the 1700s. It is just a very unclear and confusing way of using language. I much prefer when writers use the term the seventeen hundreds (or the 1700s).

A similar argument for clarity can be used when mentioning other cultural devices. When comparing Celsius temperature and metric length measurement (which are both logically structured, easy to overview, and exact) with Fahrenheit temperature, and inches, feet, miles (which are all confusing, arbitrary in structure, approximate, and difficult to grasp mentally because not based on relatable real life reference points).

[Knygathin]

... 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, 21st century, blah blah blah ... I think it's rubbish. Another reason for not using this pretentious, fancy, convoluted form of expression, is that the first year of any century (I am not even semantically allowed to express it like that, because it negates itself, so I must try to rephrase it) or rather the first year following after the past century, DOES NOT belong to ANY century. The period from January 1, 1800 to December 31, 1800 belongs neither to the 18th century, nor to the 19th century! A whole year lost, that falls in-between the centuries, it is in no-man's land! It is 0, zero, nada! In vacuum! I mean, come on, what is that?! It is absurd. Something gone horribly wrong here. This stuffy old, illogical, and senseless expression, of the nth century, is redundant. For several reasons, as I have empirically presented.

[Jojo Lapin X]

Since nobody seems entirely clear on this, let me just point out that by, e.g., the 18th century, is conventionally meant the period starting with January 1, 1701, and ending with December 31, 1800.

[Knygathin]

Dec 28, 2019 20:06:37 GMT Jojo Lapin X said:

Since nobody seems entirely clear on this, let me just point out that by, e.g., the 18th century, is conventionally meant the period starting with January 1, 1701, and ending with December 31, 1800.

Thanks. I missed that detail. So my latest post argument doesn't hold in that particular. But I still had a lot of fun writing it.

And yet, think about it! It's New Year's Eve, December 31, 1799. People are feasting! Fireworks! Big Party! They are celebrating the end of the old century and the beginning of the new! But the next day they are not allowed to say it is a new century. They are still stuck in the 18th century. So they will have to prepare a new, even Bigger Party, with doubled amounts of champagne and fireworks, for December 31, 1800, when they will finally leave the old century behind. And ecstatically enter the 19th century! On January 1, 1801.

It is weird! Just ain't right. Not in line with the common sense. I hold my ground.

[Knygathin]

I wonder what methods and devices authors use to enhance their descriptions and to create mood and atmosphere, and deeper accord. Allegorical or symbolical devices. Are there any good (instructive) books on this topic?

When Lovecraft describes the houses in Kingsport seen from the hill, being outspread "like a child's disordered blocks"; why do we find that appealing? What is the psychology behind that, ... and in what sense is it fitting into a horror story?

[PeterC]

Why in heavens name is "gnome" spelled with a “g"?

I have gno idea.

[Knygathin]

Mar 30, 2020 20:20:02 GMT PeterC said:

Why in heavens name is "gnome" spelled with a “g"?

I have gno idea.

I gnov, I gnov. Dad's awgrite. No probgrem!

[Knygathin]

I never get quite used to it. Whenever hearing or reading "the Xth century", I have to stop for a few seconds, and think, "Now, when was that?". For example, the 18th century, when was that? Now, I know from experience it has nothing to do with the actual number "18", "1800s", not anywhere near 1820, 1850, or 1870, etc. Let's see ... oh, yes, I subtract One ... or ... not add, do I?..., no, I subtract One .... Yes! It was the 1700s! The 17 hundreds. Not the 18 hundreds, in spite of it being called the 18 century. Weird, and linguistically delusive. Trips me every time. I wish people would simply say the 1700s. It would be so much clearer, for there is that whole era immediately in front of my eyes! ... Bach, Carl Linnaeus, Rococo, Mozart, knee-length roquelaire, wigs, William Beckford, and Lovecraft's own favorite imaginary century.

[Jojo Lapin X]

I am reminded of the idiot (memorably described in a eulogy by his younger brother as "the most pompous ass I have ever known") on the Eldritch Dark Forum who thought he was entering his "7th decade" when he turned 71.