Depressingly Cobalt

The thing about the Bluest Eye is that the narrator is not the protagonist. While Pecola Breedlove is the protagonist of the story, a lot of the narration was done in the perspective of Claudia, which makes me wonder why.

While we're on the topic of characters, let's... well, talk about characters. While Claudia's actions have mostly been active, such as when she destroyed the white baby doll, Pecola is quite the opposite. She is, I suppose, passive, and she isn't as brave as Claudia is in terms of her actions. In fact, while Claudia represents the black community's courage and hope, Pecola represents its ignorance and cowardice. Or something like that. Pecola truly believes that white is beautiful and black is ugly, such as when said "Yes, you are right," when told that "you are ugly people".

Pecola is the physical manifestation of the opposite of black pride, and she wishes, "Please make me disappear." She wonders if things were different and if she were beautiful, people would treat her differently.

"Pretty eyes. Pretty blue eyes. Big blue pretty eyes."

Each night, Pecola wishes for blue eyes. She hears a song about a happy brown boy that makes the "dirt leap for joy" and doubts whether it's real. She isn't treated the best way by both the white community and the black community. She's a joke. She is "ugly". These situations and looks into Pecola's mind imply the way black people are treated, Pecola's mindset, the pressure, the sorrow, the whatnots. That's just sad.

I really like seeing humor in my books, and this doesn't seem lighthearted. When it is, it implies something even more depressing.

The book is excellently written, but I have to say that I prefer books that make me happy when I go to bed, books that don't make anything that is blue seem like something I should be ashamed about.

Being Wrong, I Corrected Them

A dangling modifier is a modifier in a sentence that modifies the wrong thing. For example, in the sentence "Walking to school, the trees were beautiful," the "walking to school incorrectly modifies the trees, making it sound like a couple attractive teenage trees were walking to school, when the writer meant to say that as HE was walking to school, he saw a couple trees, which were beautiful.

"The trees, which I saw as I was walking to school, were beautiful."
"As I walked to the school, I saw trees, which were beautiful."
"Walking to school, I saw beautiful trees."

Or something.

Funnily enough, a lot of these dangling modifiers and other grammatical errors presented in this article are tested in the writing section of the SAT. After having some SAT prep and SAT practice, not only have I found out that SAT prep courses are money-munching, but also that I have been making a lot of these mistakes.

Something interesting is that a lot of these mistakes are commonly spoken and acceptable in a verbal context, but not so much in a written form. I literally (yes, literally, not the fake literally you see littered throughout the internet) hear the phrases "the reason why" or "the reason is... because" everyday, and generally they aren't frowned upon (though I tend to cringe a little every time the phrases are uttered... oh, SAT prep, what hast thou doneth to me?). As the aforementioned article makes it clear, it's a grammatical error, but hey, it's not like you can change the way everyone speaks.

Physicists... You should know better.

Conclusion?
There are so many grammatical mistakes out there.
Written English isn't the same as spoken English.
SAT prep makes you a grammar Nazi.

Beautifully Dark

Something about the way the book is narrated is unsettling, and I have no idea how this mood was embedded into the text. I might be making this up, but the book manages to keep stuff dark and stuff. If I am making this up, it's probably because I read this at night, when human beings are most emotional and susceptible to stuff.

There's this part when Claudia is given a "beautiful" doll, a white doll with blue eyes and blonde hair. Claudia starts breaking it apart, attempting to "examine it to see what it was that all the world said was lovable." Then the narration goes on to say that she would have rather wanted to be asked what she would have wanted for Christmas, at which she would have answered that she would have wanted to hear her father play the violin among other things. Pretty heavy. It's the true beauty that Claudia wanted to find, not the false one found in the doll, which when taken apart, revealed the "mere metal roundness" within.

Fun Fact: This is the roundest object on earth. It is an exactly 1kg silicon sphere.

Along with this, we see a lot of violence, ignorance, and the likes (both explicitly and implicitly) as we're constantly given descriptions of beatings and blatant English mistakes (that I assume, in the character's standpoint, was not meant to be one) such as referring to that one thing women do once a month (shopping spree, obviously) as "ministratin'".

How better to end this segment of the book by asking "how do you get somebody to love you?" and not getting an answer back.

A Description

Innocently Azure

As we start the story of The Bluest Eye, we are introduced to the protagonist (or whom I believe to be the protagonist), Claudia. It seems apparent that she is an adult, looking back and narrating the story in the perspective of her younger self and stuff like that. Her perspective is unique, as I mentioned and predicted in the previous post, as our narrator seems to be a simultaneously mature and young lady with a possibly (probably) disturbed past.

As a child, Claudia is prone to crying, afraid of being beaten and stuff. It's clear she doesn't understand everything, and the innocence of a little girl is portrayed well. For example, when Claudia's mother is angry, Claudia thinks that her mom is angry at her, when in actuality she is angry at her sickness. As the narrator shifts from past to present, Claudia wonders whether everything was as she remembered. She concludes that there was a lot of love involved.

The discrimination is quite apparent in the following situations, where harsh (or raw? What is this) language makes a stark contrast between the innocent eyes perceiving it. A lot of the text seems to show innocence and purity, all the while having an underlying darker tone.

Then the innocence crumbles away...

Distressingly Blue

I've started reading Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye, and it is with the most disappointment that I state that the cover of the book is purple. That aside, let's start with the title.

The Bluest Eye.

Why blue? Is it to show sadness?

I'm going to say that the blue eye is there either to show uniqueness or to demonstrate a usually white trait, which would make sense in a book with a black protagonist. The eye is THE human organ that everyone will use to appear "deep" and all that stuff. But really, I think it's perspective that the eye is supposed to symbolize. In short, I think this will be a story from someone with a unique or black (or both) perspective. This directly relates to...

The first part of the book is a short thingy in the viewpoint of a little girl, Jane. It's a childish diary-esque narration about how no one plays with Jane, until a friend comes. then the same passage is repeated without any punctuation or capitalization giving off an entirely different feel and finally thewholethingisrepeatedagainwithoutanyspacesinbetweenthewordsmakingitabigbunchofwhatthehellisgoingon

When I first read this, it was rather disturbing and uncomfortable. As the apparently naive narration about a little girl was distorted to the point that it was chaotic and almost unreadable, a strong feeling came through the book. In a way, I think this might be setting the tone for the beginning of the book, if not the whole of it.

Pretty nice.

Except the purple bit.

Really Not Real

Out of all the statements we could have started with, it's going to be "this statement is a lie." It's one of the better known paradoxes, and it's one of those that makes Pinocchio's nose go crazy. Also, if I were a computer, I would be forced to shut down, spending the rest of my days remembering that one time I was dumb enough to even start processing an infinite loop.

It is a human's ability to not do any of that crap, to not think in one set way, to have "doubt". And because of this simultaneous perfectness and imperfectness, anything we see or tell isn't reality. Reality simply IS reality, but the moment we try to mimic it, tell it, interpret it, or even show it, it's not quite reality. Or, as the author or some other guy put it, "the real story isn't the official story; the real story is my version (wrong, too, but aware that it's wrong) of the official story." In fact, I guess you could say that any sentence with "story" and "reality" in the same line is antithetical. Don't quote me on that.

So, the author asks a very good question: "The world exists. Why re-create it?"
This kept me thinking in front of my computer for about two minutes, which is more than a lot of people can say. Well, people are emotional thingies, so we strive for emotion (or perhaps lack thereof), entertainment, and some other word that starts with e. I don't know the exact logic behind it, but I believe it was inevitable that complex lifeforms seek to do this kind of stuff. As it's stated again and again, reality simply is.

Anything I've written isn't reality. Reality Hunger isn't reality.
If there's anything I learned, it's that nothing is reality.
Except reality. That's the real deal.

Reality Reality Reality Reality

Take a drink every time I say "reality".

Reality TV has become somewhat a part of our culture. I wouldn't know much since I don't really watch TV, but I think the author of Reality Hunger has made it clear so far that reality TV is not real at all. The audience would want to watch the "most interesting reality," disregarding the fact that this reality isn't reality enough. Everything has to be interesting, and that has become reality, despite not being reality. According to the author, there is "no fiction nor nonfiction" because we don't know what's real anymore. Everything is reality, and yet, nothing is reality. Think about it: both fiction and nonfiction have "devices" that makes the story a more interesting reality, and that just turns it away from reality.

Reality, reality, reality, reality.

So, are essays real. If reality TV is not reality, are essays reality? Apparently, an essay is a "theater of the brain" where "ideas are protagonists". Does that make it more real or closer to reality? I will stop bombarding you with questions as I spoil it for you: essays aren't real, at least according to David Shields. The essay is personal.

Apparently, nothing's real.

So what about memoirs, the other genre he mentions? Nope, not real. Not reality. Chances are that the memoirs are biased towards the authors. Also, memoirs are forms of nonfiction in a way (I guess) so there's that.

There was apparently a guy back in 2008 that started writing people's life stories on the back of their postcards. The guy said that it was hard to portray the lives in a way that does their stories justice. The guy writes about them, no matter how unreal the stories are. He just asks questions and stuff gets written. We can clearly see that reality isn't really a concern, it's the "reality" of each individual that matters. The guy states that "everybody's life story is interesting if you ask the right questions," which, in accordance to some stuff I've mentioned before, mean that it's not reality. If you try to find the interesting, it won't be real.

Reality, reality, reality, reality.

I'm at a very sensitive point in my life, so I shall stop here.

Reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality, reality.

If you're not dead, be thankful.

Dead, But Not Quite

Real or "Real"

Reality Hunger is definitely an interesting book. It is even more so since, as a project, I now have to create something that seems real, but actually isn't. Not that you care about it, really. If you do, send me an email, and I'd be glad to attempt to read it.

In quote 216, the author (well, someone else, I guess) says that "by eluding definitive observation, he remains perpetually real and perpetually imaginary." This caught my eye because it references to the Schrodinger's Cat experiment, which stated that according to quantum mechanics, a cat that may be dead but cannot be observed is dead and alive at the same time. Of course, here he's talking about writing: if we can't verify how legit it is, it's real and imaginary at the same time. This makes a lot of sense in my brain for some reason. Maybe it's because I like cats.

Quote 242 states that "our culture is obsessed with real events because we experience hardly any." I don't know how to feel about this one. What's more real than reality? *cue dramatic soundtrack* I don't know if it's trying to say that we, as humans, have created the concept of "real" or something like that. What I do know is that the quote is referring to the "now" and... yeah. No, but really. Documentaries aren't "real", reality TV isn't "real", and the news isn't "real". I now feel like a homeless man carrying around cardboard messages. Elvis was a woman. The end is nigh. The Queen of England doesn't exist.

Seems legit.

Quote 255 is short and to the point: "Facts now seem important." One, this implies that facts only seem important but is not necessarily actually so. Relating to the previous quote, these facts create an illusion of reality, something that makes us believe that it is real. Is it real? What is real?

It's true! I read it in a book!

Unfortunately, if I continued, I'm afraid my brain would leak out through the various pores located across my face. Of course, this isn't actually possible, unless the government has actually invented a top-secret potent device that can [REDACTED]

Hungry for Birds

Let's attempt to kill two birds with one stone, although it's most likely that I'll accidentally hit myself and lose both birds. I don't even know why I want the birds dead in the first place, but whatever.

So first, Reality Hunger. I didn't really find any allusions that caught my eye a lot, so you could say I cheated a bit in that I looked at the appendix, which happened to be a pool of very interesting stuff. Anyway, quote 82 is as follows, "Art is not truth; art is a lie that enables us to recognize truth."

It's a Picasso quote. Yay. Other than the use of the semicolon, there's not that much that's different from other stuff that the author of the book has said so far. He's made the point that art is a lie, that "art is theft." That last quote is also Picasso's quote, so we can see some recurring themes here. I didn't know that was how Picasso thought about art.

Even I wouldn't call this "real".

Here comes the second bird. Now, concerning the feedback I received for the comic I drew, which you probably haven't seen if you're a random high-schooler browsing the web for some potentially enlightening material (Ha.). I'd like to first state how interesting it was to hear my teacher talk to himself. It was also quite interesting to imagine said teacher mumbling stuff to himself awkwardly in a dark, small room. Something, something. Maybe I should draw comics more often, but it does take a lot of time.

I was going to include a third bird before I realized that I don't have to kill it by tomorrow. So yeah, there's that. Also, including a third bird would have made this blog post altogether chaotic and possibly disorienting. Not that it would have been a bad blog post at all, since it would have reflected the same chaotic and disorienting form of writing (or copying?) that Reality Hunger has.

Sorry about that.

What am I even talking about.

Somewhere Over the Soul

Way up high, there's a land that I've heard of once in a lullaby. As in, it doesn't exist. Get over it.

Also, this picture is the creepiest thing I've seen in three days. Seriously, what the-

A. According to Emerson, the mind ultimately under the soul, which happens to be under the oversoul. The soul is our natural beauty-thingy with some actual understanding and pureness while the mind is what's a bit more on the outside. Savvy?

B. Beatitude in the context means "a blessing" or happiness. Or that's what Dictionary.com told me. Don't judge!

C. Not only does this emphasize the ideas, but also these separate sentences are presented as one entity, a single idea. Pretty neat if you ask me.

D. "Revelation is the disclosure of the soul," the freedom of the pureness of "creation," the answer to the questions of life. It's so deep that I can't see it anymore.

F. God's role is apparently to just be there in case someone needs him. He's always there. He's in our souls and can provide a "shoulder to cry on". It should be noted that this isn't the God you're thinking of; it's the inner God we all have inside.

It's complicated.

Manifestos, Lies, and Pizza

Where better to start than with a dictionary definition, eh? manifesto (noun) a public declaration of intent, policy, aims, etc, as issued by a political party, government, or movement Honestly, there are infinitely many ways to start on a better note, but hey, such is life. Anyway, let us start with Reality Hunger by David Shields. I noted that the cover of the book of orange-red with yellow text, keeping it simplistic; yet, there is a dumpload of text on top of that (mostly positive reviews about the book) making it rather chaotic. We can probably infer that the author is narcissistic. Well, at least I'm sure he doesn't have OCD. Anyway, it seems at the moment that this is about art a lot of the time. Even the opening quote is "Art is theft," by Picasso. Simplistic, yet chaotic enough to turn your brain into mush once it is amplified by a factor of five-hundred. Apparently, everything's trying to portray reality, and in the process of doing anything, you are plagiarizing. Or at least they are. This is all delivered through numbered bullet-point-like-quotes-like-things. Simple. Each quote-thingy has a different style, possibly from different sources/authors. Chaotic. It's pretty obvious this is intentional at this point. I like it. For once, it's like as if EVERYTHING is a lie. EVERYTHING. Now let's all snap out heads to the other direction to see the Futurist Manifesto by Marinetti, a moderately Italian name. A bit more direct, this one is, as the author straight out says, "art can only be violence, cruelty, injustice." These guys, the "Futurists," are basically opposing the new forms of art, and apparently new forms of anything, including pizza. Also, they're rejecting old forms of pizza at the same time, so I'm assuming these guys had brains the shape of cubes. In a way, this is similar to the other manifesto we discussed only a couple paragraphs ago, in that it seems to be criticizing art, especially the new ones, but for apparently different reasons (although I'm not yet sure if that's what Reality Hunger is trying to say. I've only read the first chapter, spare me the verdict.). Really, I don't know.  Summary: I've found Reality Hunger more interesting so far, Futurists were weird, and Bob's your uncle. Also, I wonder if pizza as we know it existed in 1909. That's my manifesto.

The Power of English

Let's start here: What is an empire? Let us assume that it's a superior form of power that condescendingly looks down at the "inferiors".

Throughout history, these empires have shaped languages. No doubt, languages have been formed, while others destroyed, although I'd probably say that there was more of the latter. As an empire takes control of the "inferior" people, the culture of these people are more likely to die.

Why?

Take this example from the documentary series The Adventures of English: When the British empire ruled over India, the power the British exerted on India was enormous. Not only was India taken over as a source for profit, but also the English language came into play in this country. Because the English language in a way demonstrated power, Indians eventually adapted themselves to it, at least more than the British adapted themselves to the native Indian language.

That was the power of the language.

English, as the language of a dominant force, is definitely more than just a language. It has the power to change a culture, shape a culture, and destroy a culture. In a way it could be seen as the "survival of the fittest," as the "strongest" language would survive while others may possibly disappear over time.

Have you ever heard of the expression "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? You probably have, in one form or the other, but the truth is that words can hurt you. Sort of. In fact, it can do much more than just that.

Anyways, all bow down before the power of English.

Changes We Encounter

Do you want to be here?
I'm not sure if I do, so we'll make this quick.

There were a bunch of thinkers/writers throughout history. "No ship, Sherlock," you might say, and I would retort by saying "touche."

Swift didn't like the changes in the English language. Ha. If he were alive now, he wouldn't be, considering all the LOLs, ROFLs, TTYLs, and PBYOBOBs.

Samuel Johnson liked dictionaries, and I guess he wasn't too much here nor there. He put all kinds of words in them dictionaries.

William Cobbett thought English was key to moving up the social ranks.

Wordsworth thought a language widely in use (English!) should be used. This is reflected in his poetry, which unsurprisingly, are in English.

Finally, Jane Austen used "proper English" and tried very hard to not sprinkle her writings with supposed "vulgar" words and such.

The problem here, as I see, is that many were not happy with the changes, the changes that were inevitable, especially in a language such as English. I'm fine with the use of "proper English," although not allowing for the use of nonstandard or informal English would not be right. Today, if people who have ever used an "informal" English term in their entire lives were to be executed, we'd be left with a smaller population consisting of non-English speakers and babies.

I guess we are more liberal with these things now...
But who are "we"?

American English

"America."
"I'm from America."

Whenever someone says that, we are to understand that they are from the United States, despite America being a continent rather than a country. You're still American if you're Colombian, Brazilian, Mexican, or any of that jazz.

You know what else is in America?

Canada.

Canada is one of those countries in America in which English is spoken, and no doubt, there are connections between its English with the English in the United States. For starters, they're both English.

Now, Canada is a constant source of jokes and stuff, firstly due to the accent, and secondly (and usually) due to the people who head out of their houses casually on a cold day with just a pair of boxers and a t-shirt on. This is comparable to the Russians who wear nothing but a swimsuit on a day with temperatures close to absolute zero, but that's irrelevant, considering the Russians don't speak English.

This is Canada, by the way.

As English came and was sort of separated through the creation of the border between Canada and "America", things started to differ in these two countries, such as the about (or aboot in Canada, apparently) as well as the "ey" at the end of every independent clause.

So is Canadian English a dialect? Is American English a dialect of British English?
Bla bla bla.

This really made me want to explore Australian English.

"Pioneers! O Pioneers!." The Story of English. Writ. Robert McCrum and Robert MacNeil. Dir. Vivian Ducat, Howard Reid, William Cran. BBC MCML XXXVI. YouTube. 

Black to Gray

I googled "black accent" and this car came out. I guess I'm going with it.


This time, The Story of English will be talking about the influences and roots of Black English. I'm not quite sure if the title "Black on White" is a good title, but whatever. Anyways, back then, black people spoke quite differently from what white people did. The dialects rose, and surprisingly enough, it can still be glimpsed at through some of the remaining traditions and stuff.

Someone in the comments states that "This is all being wiped off the face of the land. Instead of hearing and experiencing unique culture you can party with the wealthy who have built their resorts and golf courses." I'm going to say that this is mostly true, since I'm assuming these "odd" versions of English was discouraged in an age of increasing globalization and standardized English tests. Seeing that this documentary was made at least twenty years ago, I'm almost sure that a lot of this older-root-diversity stuff has disappeared and gone away. This is even more so since most of these people with odd accents were some of the older people, and the younger would have probably grown up in an environment with more of the "real" English.

Now, there was one specific comment that really got me thinking. A dude said, "Even though I'm Nigerian, I can understand the pidgin. It sounds so much like Nigerian pidgin." Not only was this interesting due to the use of the word "pidgin", which I have only discovered recently through the discussions about earlier episodes of the same series, but this shows that stuff have come from Nigeria and actually impacted the form of language in the United States. If this is how languages are formed, by having many different influences coming together and merging together, then it may be hard to trace the one and only root and "story" of English.

According to the narrator, black people have taken there rightful place in society now. This has contributed to the disappearance of the "black English" since the way you speak can affect the way you live. However, we must ask: should the "black English" be preserved? You decide.

"Black on White." The Story of English. Writ. Robert McCrum and Robert MacNeil. Dir. Vivian Ducat, Howard Reid. BBC MCML XXXVI. YouTube.

Ah Gab Pure Weird

Ah gab loch a scottish chiel.

Somethin' abit listenin' tae th' scottish bark gart me hink abit whit other a bampot accents an' dialects ay sassenach thaur ur it thaur. oan a huir uv a similar note, Ah woods loch tae ken hoo these sentences ur gonnae be translated. hopefully, they will be left relatively untooched sic' 'at Ah can still kin it. 

I'm nae in quite th' reit situation tae laugh at th' odd scottish vocabulary, since Ah can still kin it, unlike in most ay th' cases in korea. at leest Ah can sort ay teel whit these troaps ur sayin', althoogh 'at main be purely due tae th' generoos addition ay subtitles. 

So sassenach can be traced back a wee tae scootlund, whaur it is still recognizable as a f'rm ay sassenach. if we gang a bit mair back, we'd arrife at a leid 'at is recognizably similar tae th' scottish sassenach, an' if we gang e'en further, a body 'at is similar tae said leid. whaur woods we end up? Ah main be jist havin' a mid-necht deep thooght abit languages, but hink abit it: if we keep gonnae back, thaur woods hae probably bin a point at which aw languages merged, whaur thaur was but a body f'rm ay verbal communication, th' most primitife f'rm ay sassenach. we coods technically trace th' origins ay sassenach back tae africa ur th' babel tower ur somethin' bla bla bla. 


Yoo main hae noticed 'at Ah am wabbit. 

accordin' tae sairrr daniel (a random bodie Ah foond in th' comment section ay th' foorth episode ay th' story ay sassenach fa happened tae be huggin' a huir uv a attractife piece ay cubical metal wi' a cardiac organ embedded intae its center), sassenach becam sae accessible coz th' leid has "elements frae selic, germanic (dutch), an' norman (french)."

However, thes isnae aw poaps an' giggles, as natife cultures ur disappearin'. jist as we discussed in class an' jist as th' documentary brushed upon, a lot ay th' auld scottish cultures hae disappeared, mostly left only as folk songs. 

The loch ness monster woods be disappointed.




Something about listening to the Scottish news made me think about what other crazy accents and dialects of English (or pre-English) there are out there. On a very similar note, I would like to know how these sentences are going to be translated. Hopefully, they will be left relatively untouched such that I can still understand it.

I'm not in quite the right situation to laugh at the odd Scottish vocabulary, since I can still understand it, unlike in most of the cases in Korea. At least I can sort of tell what these guys are saying, although that may be purely due to the generous addition of subtitles.

So English can be traced back a little to Scotland, where it is still recognizable as a form of English. If we go a bit more back, we'd arrive at a language that is recognizably similar to the Scottish English, and if we go even further, one that is similar to said language. Where would we end up? I may be just having a mid-night deep thought about languages, but think about it: if we keep going back, there would have probably been a point at which all languages merged, where there was but one form of verbal communication, the most primitive form of English. We could technically trace the origins of English back to Africa or the Babel Tower or something bla bla bla.

You may have noticed that I am tired.

According to Sir Daniel (a random person I found in the comment section of the fourth episode of the Story of English who happened to be hugging a very attractive piece of cubical metal with a cardiac organ embedded into its center), English became so accessible because the language has "elements from Celtic, Germanic (Dutch), and Norman (French)."

However, this isn't all poops and giggles, as native cultures are disappearing. Just as we discussed in class and just as the documentary brushed upon, a lot of the old Scottish cultures have disappeared, mostly left only as folk songs.

The Loch Ness Monster would be disappointed.

"The Guid Scots Tongue." The Story of English. Writ. Robert McCrum and Robert MacNeil. Dir. Vivian Ducat, Howard Reid. BBC MCML XXXVI. YouTube.

The Journey of a Language

I'm not much of a documentary person, so it wasn't easy to get to watch the second episode of The Story of English after having watched the first. It didn't help that my internet connection was horrible and had speed comparable to a snail accelerating backwards at a constant rate of I-don't-give-a-crap. This resulted in frequent buffering, turning the video into more of an elaborate game of Snake rather than a full-fledged documentary. Moreover, Morgan Freeman isn't narrating it.

However, that's neither here nor there.

"Where did the English language come from?" is the obvious question to ask, as the title of this episode is called The Mother Tongue. Now, I've always wondered why a lot of words were similar all across the world, no matter how weird it seemed. Using this, people were able to track back the history of the language. Or something.

Anglo-Saxons. Freesians. Celts.
India. Denmark. Ireland.

As far as I can tell, English has been around in a bunch of places and not just the British Isles. This is pretty interesting, since languages keep changing. Through these different places English has come through, we can sometimes see glimpses of how English used to be and how it came to be. If I were to go back a couple hundred years and talk to various people, I would probably be made fun of for talking like their standard exotic dancers. I'm thinking so much has changed since then, and I'm pretty sure the language will continue to change. That's another thing. At what point in the past was English not English?

Anyway, seeing all the plastic wrappers English has scattered and littered all around the world, it isn't surprising to see all the different influences all over and the bacteria the candy itself has collected. I'm not saying that the bacteria is bad though. I just couldn't think of a better metaphor. Don't judge.

Oh, and just as a random thought, I found a reason for which English shouldn't become de-globalized:

The Story of English. Dir. Robert MacNeil, Robert McCrum, and William Cran. BBC, 1986. 27 Aug. 2009. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.

English Everywhere

English has been widely popularized, mostly through the influence of the United States. Or, at least, so I believe. Despite this, the English language was mostly developed in England and its vicinity (or so I believe), which makes it British and automatically some of the greatest things to happen to mankind.

But seriously, what's up with English? Everything's in English these days. The first episode of the documentary The Story of English starts by showing how some Russian music has English "boogie-woogie." Similarly, it's hard to see any Korean songs these days without any English stuff, though the language skills vary among "never say goodbye", "every day I shock", and "you know what I'm saying?"

Now, the documentary mentions some of the words or phrases that have been adapted into other languages such as "rock music". This is impressive considering the documentary was made, like, 30 years ago. Again, I'll bring up Korea because nowadays, everything is in English. EVERYTHING. They think it makes them look cool and more modern, which I suppose isn't completely untrue (although it makes me cringe when doors say "full" instead of "pull").

Seeing that the title of the first episode is An English Speaking World, we can see how what I've said so far relates to the documentary. Sort of. Everything was becoming English back then, and it's more so now. As it got easy for people to communicate with other people in other countries with other cultures, English rose naturally as the main way to communicate. So far in my life, I've used English well (although I'm not entirely sure if this blogpost is an example of good usage) and love the language. I'm just bugged a bit about its relative lack of onomatopoeias compared with Korea.

I guess this is just an introduction to the other episodes. This episode mostly boasts the universality of the English language. Something about English going out to space.


The Story of English. Dir. Robert MacNeil, Robert McCrum, and William Cran. BBC, 1986. 27 Aug. 2009. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.