Language War - Part 3

After not having heard from Aunty I in a while, I arrived at the conclusion that she was recovering from the last devastating exchange, and so I decided to launch what I thought would be my final assault.

(Here are the links for part 1 and part 2.)

------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:05 PM
To: Aunty I
Subject: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

Your prolonged silence has led me to believe that you have been humbled by my superior language skills. This is understandable.

I would like to make two amendments to two previous emails. I feel that I am entitled to make such changes as the Law of Language War, Article 17 stipulates that amendments to a previous email are permitted only if the recipient of such email has yet to respond. As such, my amendments are as follows:

1. Email sent to Ms. Aunty I dated September 19, 2007 at 11:53.

"As to you first comment," will be amended to "As to your first comment,"

2. Email sent to Ms. Aunty I dated September 19, 2007 at 15:57.

"After having reviewed the substance" will be amended to "After reviewing the substance"

That is all. I await your surrender.

Kallun

------------------------------------

From: Aunty I
Sent: 12 November 2007 18:38
To: Kallun
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Mr. Kallun "You Are Not Worthy" [Insert surname here],

I am not familiar with the Law of Language War, Article 17. I strongly suspect that the reason for this unfamiliarity is that said Article either does not in fact exist, or exists only because you created it arbitrarily and without mandate or consent from any recognized legislative authority (and far worse, without damn well asking me first!)

I do not accept your purported revisions to glaring mistakes you previously made, which have been carefully saved for posterity in my Outlook folders, and therefore should be considered set in stone. What is done is done, and you shall bear the consequences.

At this point, I have no intention of surrendering, except in disgust.

Yours sincerely,

Aunty I

Worthy Opponent

Language War - Part 2

Here is part 2 of the Language War (part 1 is here). I should point out that Aunty I is not an actual relative, but a friend from university.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: 19 September 2007 15:57
To: Aunty I
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

Pitying you as I do, I made a concerted attempt to 'infect' my email with certain, intentional failings for two reasons:

(1) to test you; and

(2) to give something to comment on, lest you collapse into a crying pile of self-doubt.

As to you first comment, I consulted my copy of the the Macquarie Dictionary to ascertain whether you were correct or woefully, hopelessly incorrect in your assertion that "Ms." was a stylistic practice unique to the United States of America. Sadly, again, you are mistaken. In fact, "Ms." is an honorific employed in Australia.

Unfortunately, you did not 'find' all of the 'Easter eggs' I left for you. This saddens me. It really does.

Additional comments on the erroneous usage of punctuation and grammar in the pigswill of an email you wrote (dated 18 September, 2007) are forthcoming.

This list is too long for me to deal with at this time.

Yours sincerely,

Kallun

P.S. Please note that "Nahni nahni nah nah" is actually spelt "narni narni nar nar". That is all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: 19 September 2007 15:57
To: Aunty I
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

After having reviewed the substance of your invective-filled email, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to address certain elements raised by you that are inexcusably incorrect.

First, I would like to direct your attention to the 'em-dash' point in which you stated "dashes were used incorrectly in place of em-dashes." This statement is inherently self-conflicting. Were I to perform the mental contortions necessary to understand the flawed logic of this statement, I would have no choice but to conclude that 'dashes' and 'em-dashes' are mutually exclusive concepts. This, I'm sure you'll agree after considered reflection, is not the case. What I suspect you meant to say was that "en-dashes were used incorrectly in place of em-dashes." I reach this conclusion because it is obvious that the em-dash is a type of dash, as is the en-dash.

The basic premise of your argument, however, is incorrect. Please refer to the following website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em-dash#Em_dash

Of particular note is the following passage:

"The Elements of Typographic Style recommends the more concise spaced en dash – like so – and argues that the length and visual magnitude of an em dash "belongs to the padded and corseted aesthetic of Victorian typography". The spaced en dash is also the house style for certain major publishers (Penguin and Routledge among them). However, some longstanding typographical guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes for this purpose. In practice, there is little consensus, and it is a matter of personal or house taste; the important thing is that usage should be consistent." (sic)

One could thus conclude that the en-dash is preferable to those of us who choose to converse in British English. Given your particular situation in life, I suppose you may be forgiven in your misguided belief that the em-dash should prevail in any and all circumstances.

What is particularly striking, however, is the unrestrained glee with which you articulated your disdain. Were I to diagnose this, I would assume that you suffer from 'premature elation'. I suspect that there may be an ointment to remedy this affliction, and I wish you well in your treatment.

Finally, you inappropriately indicted me as a "pedant who does not appreciate the intricacies of modern English language usage, including the appropriate use of relaxed grammatical standards in informal e-mail correspondence." This is unwarranted, as you were well aware that a formal declaration of language war had been issued prior to the offending e-mails. Accordingly, any "relaxed grammatical standards in informal e-mail correspondence" constitutes a poor tactical move on your part. Needless to say, Napoléon Bonaparte would be appalled.

I await your surrender.

That is all.

Yours sincerely,

Kallun

Language War - Part 1

On September 18, 2007, I declared Language War on Aunty I. I was compelled to do this as a preemptive measure to what I was sure was going to be an imminent syntactic assault on the grammar contained in an email I had written her.

Two and a half months have since passed, and it's a merciless and bloody battlefield out there in the digital ether! The serenity of Tokyo proper has been scathed and scarred with the malicious mêlée of missives back and forth across the broadband spectrum. A multitude of violent verbs and nouns and adjectives have been volleyed at yours truly, and all I've had to defend myself with from Aunty I's attacks is my copy of the Australian Macquarie dictionary and the confidence I have in my (some would say "superior") English language abilities.

I submit, as Exhibit A, round 1 of this semantic scrum!
(I've used pseudonyms for the email exchange. Also, my comments on her previous emails are the ones in red, unless it isn't already obvious.)

-------------------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:00 PM
To: Aunty I
Subject: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

Please be informed that as per the email exchange dated August 24, 2007, I have compiled the following emails, and will now proceed to highlight what I believe to be failings, flaws, and other offensive foibles in the language contained therein.

That is all.

Thank you.

Kallun

---

From: Aunty I
Sent: 14 September 2007 17:06
To: Kallun
Subject: RE: The silence is deafening...

jesus. this is really very bad!!

[Comment] Ignoring the blasphemy, both sentences violate capitalisation protocols. Additionally, "really very bad" is either a redundant (ie: double) hyperbole, or it is missing a comma.

---

From: Aunty I
Sent: 13 September 2007 16:42
To: Kallun
CC: Aunty M
Subject: RE: The silence is deafening...

I am lost in the world of paperwork. Good times!

Actually, going quite OK.

Sorry for the long silence.

How are those housewarming party plans coming, you two?!

[Comment] The sentence - "Actually, going quite OK" - lacks a subject. Please rectify this at your earliest convenience, as I am still quiet unsure as to 'what' is "going quite OK" (sic).

Finally, "you two?!" can be either a question, or an exclamation. It cannot be both.

-------------------------------------------------

Aunty I responded with the following: (I've replace my surname with my first name.)

-------------------------------------------------

From: Aunty I
Sent: 18 September 2007 21:44
To: Kallun
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Mr Kallun,

You are a pedant who does not appreciate the intricacies of modern English language usage, including the appropriate use of relaxed grammatical standards in informal e-mail correspondence.

I would, however, have been able to accept your comments with good grace, had it not been for the sad lack of attention to basic rules of spelling, grammar and consistency in your message below.

First, in your e-mail below, you referred to me initially as "Ms. Aunty I", suggesting that you proposed to adopt the spelling and stylistic practices of the United States of America. If this was your intention, then in your first comment in red, "capitalisation" should have been spelt "capitalization", and "ie" should have been spelt "i.e.".

Second, please re-acquaint yourself with the use of colons, as "(ie[sic]: double)" demonstrates incorrect use of the colon, you ignorant loon.

Third, in the comment, "[Comment] The sentence - "Actually, going quite OK" - lacks a subject.", dashes were used incorrectly in place of em-dashes. If you are, at this moment, asking yourself, "What the hell are em-dashes?", then perhaps, you young whippersnapper, you will find it necessary to admit that you have chosen to declare Language War on a formidable opponent.

Finally, please clarify the meaning of "quiet unsure", as used in the sentence below:

Please rectify this at your earliest convenience, as I am still quiet unsure as to 'what' is "going quite OK" (sic).

In short, Mr Kallun, your scathing comments on others' alleged failings would be better received, and far more persuasive, if delivered in a manner free from basic errors. Your pitiful effort below begs the inference that the writer is patently unqualified to form judgments on the correct use of the English language.

Nahni nahni nah nah.

Yours sincerely,

Aunty I

-------------------------------------------------

Stay tuned for further developments... Victory is in sight!

What? Me? An idiot?

Anyone who knows me in any capacity will readily attest to the fact that I never admit to having done something stupid. Today, here on this blog, I am going to make history.

I am sitting at Sydney international airport right now, all alone in the departure terminal, looking suspiciously at the janitor who is looking suspiciously back at me. It's almost like we're in the O.K. Corral, staring each other down, about to quickdraw our guns, or mobile phones, or whatever... I'm waiting for a tumbleweed to casually bounce past. I suddenly see a flash of movement! ...Phew, it's only the barista popping his head up from behind the coffee cart. Deep breathes.

I'm waiting here at 4am, amongst broom-weilding, detergent-slinging cowboy-janitors, a mere 6 hours before my scheduled departure for Japan. One might be forgiven for thinking that I'm an overly eager, excessively anal traveler. Not so.

As I was packing yesterday, my mum asked me what time the flight for Japan would be leaving. I glanced at my e-ticket and thought my flight was leaving at 7:05am. As such, I made arrangements for my parents to wake themselves up at 4am for no other reason than to call my mobile phone (I was staying at a hotel in Sydney) and make sure that I was awake.

As it turned out, I didn't need them to because between checking into the hotel at 11pm, and checking out at 4am, I was fortunate enough to have been an audience to an (almost) half-hourly performance by La Orchestra de McDonald's Carpark Hooligans with their rousing rendition of "Honk-Honk-Fully sic, bro-Honk-Honk-Get out of his car, ya f$#king slut-Honk-Honk" in G-Minor. Needless to say, I was in no danger of falling asleep and missing my scheduled check-in and departure time.

So I finally get to the airport, and discover that my flight does not leave at 7:05am, but 10:25am. In fact, the 705 number was the flight number...

And so it is, without further ado, that I hereby announce that I am an idiot.

That is all, thank you.