Finding Movie Quotations

5 July 2015

Ever get a line from a movie stuck in your head but you can’t remember the film it’s from? Or you’ve got a twenty riding on a bar-bet about the accuracy of a TV quote?

Despair no more. The site QuoDB.com has the answers.

The site is a huge database of movie and television scripts, and it will pinpoint down to the second where in the film the quote appears. For instance, I looked up the word multi-pass:

01:09:24 Multi-pass.
The Fifth Element (1997)
01:09:18 - And this is?
01:09:21 - Leeloo Dallas. Multi-pass.
01:09:24 - Multi-pass.
01:09:25 - She knows it’s a multi-pass.
01:09:27 - My wife. We’re newlyweds. Just met.

The site tells me the word appears five other times in the film, and details on those are only a mouse-click away.

Definitely a site worth bookmarking.

[Tip o’ the hat to Languagehat]

Kryptonite in the OED

25 June 2015

The latest additions to the OED Online includes an entry for kryptonite. Definition:

In the fictional world of the comic book hero Superman: a substance that renders Superman weak and powerless. Hence in figurative or allusive use: something that can weaken or damage a particular person or thing; an Achilles heel.

And the dictionary includes the following note:

Kryptonite is most commonly depicted as a green mineral that came to earth from Krypton, Superman’s home planet, following its destruction. Other types have appeared in various comic books, films, etc., each having different properties.

Kryptonite first appears on the Superman radio program in 1943. It’s comic book appearance dates from 1949. The earliest figurative use cited by the OED is from 1965.

The Word The Internet Didn’t Know

25 June 2015

Not really.

The word parbunkells got a flurry of press coverage starting a few days ago, such as this piece from Popular Mechanics. Artist Julia Weist rented a billboard in Queens to feature the word, claiming that it was a forgotten seventeenth-century word that did not appear on the internet. Gizmodo declared the word to be “dead to the digital world—and to almost every living person.” Weist was trying to make a point about how information is shared over the internet, telling Gizmodo:

The word has also become a shortcut to a portrait of meaning making and content production on the Internet, both human and non-human, in the sense that you can search for it and see spools of information, reaction, conversation, re-context- ualization and response. In that sense it’s all or nothing, and now that word has been used, the more usage the better.

But she chose a bad example to make her point, and the mainstream media covering the story got a lot wrong. 

The story is kind of an object lesson in not making claims until you’ve done some research or at least spoken to experts in the field. Parbunkells, or parbuckle as it is more usually spelled now, is not a forgotten word. It does have a life of its own on the internet and in meatspace. It’s even in the OED. And if you Google parbunkell, the search engine offers help by asking, “Did you mean parbuckle?” So the word, while rare, wasn’t exactly hiding. Two minutes of poking about would have turned it up.

The OED defines the word as, “a rope, cable, etc., arranged like a sling, used to raise or lower heavy objects vertically.” Popular Mechanics and many of the mainstream outlets that reported the story gave its definition as the vague, “coming together through the binding of two ropes,” proof that writing a good definition is an acquired skill. The word, used mainly in naval and maritime jargon, is attested to as early as 1625, and the early spellings are parbunkel or parbuncle. The word’s origin is uncertain. It may be a borrowing of a Scandinavian term. The par- element is related to pair. The -bunkel is the uncertain bit. In the seventeenth century the spelling parbuckle began to appear, a folk etymology or eggcorn created out of confusion with buckle. The parbuckle spelling quickly became the standard.

The word is first recorded in 1625 in Henry Mainwaring’s Nomenclator Navalis:

A Parbuncle is a rape which is used in ye nature of a paire of Slings.

It also appears in John Smith’s 1627 A Sea Grammar, which is evidently where Wiest found it. Mainwaring’s book exists as a manuscript in the British Library, but has been reprinted at various times over the centuries. Smith’s book is available via Early English Books Online.

The word is still in use. The OED has a citation from as late as 1997 in the Daily Telegraph.

Gizmodo asks, “It’s easy to fall into the trapping of thinking the internet knows everything, but it doesn’t. Oddities like this makes you wonder how much other knowledge is lying on dusty shelves, waiting to be rediscovered.” To which I respond, does Gizmodo know how to use the internet?

Teaching Registers

23 June 2015

The Economist’s Prospero blog has a post on the necessity of teaching different registers of speech. It uses Portuguese as an example, which I can’t speak to, not knowing the language, but the fundamental point the article makes is a good one: “Instead of a rigid right-wrong approach, with the written form always being taught as right, it would be better to teach the idea of register: that certain forms are used in casual speech, other forms in formal speech, others still in writing.”

It’s a good point. Students are smart, and they instinctively know how to switch registers—they do it all the time in their own speech. The only thing that needs to be done is make them aware that they do it. It’s not a difficult concept.

Depicting World Languages

19 June 2015

Language visualization created by Alberto Lucas Lopéz for the South China Morning Post

Language visualization created by Alberto Lucas Lopéz for the South China Morning Post

A neat visualization of the twenty-three most popular languages, depicted proportionally by the number of speakers.

The graphic was created by Alberto Lucas Lopéz for the South China Morning Post.

Data like this is always a bit suspect, but this chart is based on the information at Ethnologue.com, which is generally pretty good. The biggest problem is that it represents only the top twenty-three languages, leaving out the other six thousand or so. It also only captures L1, or first-language users. The total number of English speakers, for example, is much larger. It also fails to capture dialectal differences; for example Chinese is not as unified as the chart makes it out to be. Still, it’s a useful visualization in many ways.

For me, the most surprising thing in the image is the realization that French has relatively few speakers. There are some 87 million additional L2 speakers, but that’s still not a lot compared to the other languages on the chart. I would have guessed that it would have been much higher. Still, in the rankings of all world languages, French is in the top one percent.