OFF-uhn? Or OFF-tuhn?

Here’s Paul Brians:

People striving for sophistication often pronounce the T in this word, but true sophisticates know that the masses are correct in saying “offen.”

But here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (fourth edition) has to say about it:

In the 15th century, English experienced a widespread loss of certain consonant sounds within consonant clusters, as the (d) in handsome and handkerchief, the (p) in consumption and raspberry, and the (t) in chestnut and often. In this way the consonant clusters were simplified and made easier to articulate. With the rise of public education and literacy and, consequently, people’s awareness of spelling in the 19th century, sounds that had become silent sometimes were restored, as is the case with the t in often, which is now frequently pronounced. In other similar words, such as soften and listen, the t generally remains silent.

So that’s one against the pronounced t; one for. I reckon we need a tiebreaker. Let’s see what Mr. Fowler has to say about it:

The sounding of the t, which as the OED says is ‘not recognized by the dictionaries’, is practised by two oddly consorted classes—the academic speakers who affect a more precise pronunciation than their neighbours’…& the uneasy half-literates who like to prove that they can spell….

Case closed. Offen it is, then.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  make a comment

Remember Richard Dean Anderson? He starred in MacGyver, the 1980s TV show that chronicled “the adventures of a secret agent armed with almost infinite scientific resourcefulness.” No, really. It’s all here.

How about Kent McCord? He played dreamy Officer Jim Reed on Adam-12, the police procedural that ran on NBC from 1968 to 1975.

And of course you’re all familiar with CK Anderson, man about town and helveticka head honcho. Sure, he’s perhaps not as well known, but I’m told he’s huge in Chewelah.

“And…?” you ask.

Couple of reasons. First, I find it peculiar that no one has ever seen these three men in the same place at the same time. (Seriously. I’ve asked around.)

Coincidence? Maybe. But coincidence, as Einstein purportedly said, is “God’s way of remaining anonymous.” I mean, what are the odds? Kent McCord disappears from public life around the time MacGyver becomes a Sunday night fixture; MacGyver is cancelled just as CK Anderson’s career takes off.

Still not convinced? Take a look at the photo below.

Go ahead. Say their names. Charles, Kent, and Anderson. Charles. Kent. Anderson. CK Anderson (gasp!).

That’s it, folks. The seventh seal has been opened. “[A]nd there were peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake.…Then I looked, and I heard an eagle crying with a loud voice as it flew directly overhead, ‘Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth.'”

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  comments(2)

This is a delightful trip down the unlikeliest of rabbit holes: the contranymic nature of the word “no.”

Occasionally, however, a contranym arises through a process called amelioration, whereby a normally negative word develops a secondary, positive meaning. This phenomenon is particularly common in slang: “bad” becomes good, “wicked” becomes awesome, and “sick” and “ill” become wonderful. (They have been ameliorated: made better.) The use of “no” to mean “yes” appears to be an example of amelioration, but with one important distinction: “no” can’t mean “yes” on its own.

Okay, so “delightful” might be something of a stretch for most of you. Still, it’s an interesting read.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  make a comment

Went for a stroll the other day and happened to pick up a copy of Clive James’s Poetry Notebook: Reflections on the Intensity of Language. Returning to my office, I opened the book to a random page to see what I’d just purchased. Here’s what I read: “Early in the twentieth century, E. E. Cummings was as hot against materialist society as only a poet living on a trust fund can be.” That alone is worth the $25.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  make a comment

Today is National Beer Day. Not that any of us needs an excuse to celebrate, but the backstory is here.

If you’re anywhere around the Spokane area tonight, check out one of the local brews, lift a pint in honor of FDR, and remember the wisdom of our elders:

“You can’t be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer.”
(The Real Frank Zappa Book, 1989.)

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

I somehow missed the news that Gary Dahl, inventor of the Pet Rock, died a couple of days ago. The Spokesman-Review’s Doug Clark is on the case—because it turns out that Dahl was a Rogers High School graduate. Who knew?

In 1975, at the height of the craze, my best friend owned a Pet Rock. My feelings about it at the time can best be described as ambivalent: even as an eight-year-old, I understood how unbelievably dumb it was, yet I couldn’t deny that I really, really wanted one. Probably my first lesson in marketing.

Dahl, a “down-at-the-heels advertising copywriter” when he came up with the Pet Rock idea, was no one-trick pony. He published Advertising for Dummies in 2001. And a year earlier he was the grand prize winner in the 18th annual Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, a competition that “challenges entrants to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels.” Here’s his winning entry:

“The heather-encrusted Headlands, veiled in fog as thick as smoke in a crowded pub, hunched precariously over the moors, their rocky elbows slipping off land’s end, their bulbous, craggy noses thrust into the thick foam of the North Sea like bearded old men falling asleep in their pints.”

RIP, Mr. Dahl. You done your hometown proud.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

posted by: CK Anderson  |  category: the design life  |  comments(1)