On Friday morning, there were only five. Mike then spent an hour or so with a crow-bar, pulling off the panelling around the walls of their house, and finding two somewhat eaten bodies in the process.
Our best guess is that a rat was going behind the panelling outside their house and then coming out again inside. After we'd headed off to Eastercon, the sitter stuffed various bits of wood into the gap, and we crossed our fingers. Another one vanished on Sunday night, after which some bricks were added to the mix, and so we came home to ducklings reduced in number but significantly increased in size:
A job for tomorrow is going to be a more sturdy fix, which will hopefully make sure we don't have anything similar again.
(There are many jobs for tomorrow. Those tomatoes are going to have to go out to the polytunnel, for a start.)
Eastercon went well, but we are now very very tired.
More than a few times, I had my sexuality questioned from my lack of commitment to regular femininity. I am not gay, just physically active and lazy in my grooming habits. (I never wear anything more than lipstick.)
I met my boyfriend's family for the first time. I thought I had packed to impress: sparkly earrings and a pink cardigan. But it wasn't enough. My boyfriend's mother was aghast that I wore nice dress pants to church rather than a skirt. She also made comments that I must have been a tomboy growing up or had a lot of brothers. (I have all sisters and was addicted to romance novels as a teen). Since then, my boyfriend's mother has emailed me a few times about getting together for other family events, and we exchanged recipes.
But she always adds little details like “We should go shopping together and get you looking ladylike" or sends me pictures of dresses and telling me I would “look darling” in them. I know she means well and she has not been anything other than sweet to me, but all the sartorial advice is getting under my skin. It feels petty to tell my boyfriend his mother wants to redo my wardrobe, I just need a script on how to deflect her. Help me!
You can stress that it’s not, you know, emotionally destructive, but that it’s getting to be tiresome and that you’re going to politely tell her to stop. For a lot of this, I think cheerfully disagreeing up to the point of playing a little bit dumb is just fine: “No, I don’t have any brothers.” “Funny, no one’s ever considered me a tomboy before.” “What a great color! I don’t wear dresses myself, and it’s not to my taste, but I’m sure someone else would look lovely in it.” “That’s sweet of you to suggest, but I look exactly as ladylike as I want to.”
If that doesn’t register with her, and she keeps it up, I think you can be a bit more direct: “You often mention wanting to change my wardrobe, but I wish you wouldn’t. While I certainly want to dress appropriately for something like church, I’m not a fan of dresses and skirts, and I don’t plan on changing what I wear to seem more ladylike.
I hope you get to dress exactly the way you want and enjoy it immensely, and I’ll do the same.” (Also, for what it’s worth, I think having short hair/wearing lipstick/owning sparkly earrings and cardigans is hardly “lazy,” and you don’t have to apologize for it just because some other women groom themselves differently!)
However, the Korean course has...issues. For one, early on it's weirdly emphatic about denoting plurals. There is a way to pluralize nouns in Korean, but it's completely optional and it frankly sounds kind of weird if you're going to use plurals the way you would in English.
But the hilarious part is that whoever linked up the audio with the text...made an error.
The practice sentence 남자가 멋있습니다 (namja-ga meos-isseumnida), or "The man is cool"
남자가 맛있습니다 (namja-ga masisseumnida), or "Man is delicious." (Korean has no articles, and does not generally mark for number.)
It's not even ambiguous--the pronunciation is completely wrong...
Q. Fun without him: I am a woman in my early-30s, and I have been married for 10 years this summer. My husband is incredible—kind, generous, funny, supportive of my career, has a wonderful family, loves my family, and, in the inimitable words of Zoolander, is “really, really ridiculously good-looking.” I want to write apology cards to everyone who can’t be married to him because I am.
My miracle of a husband does not enjoy socializing. I like seeing friends outside work (dinner, brunch, a show, etc.) two or three times a month; he’s wholly satisfied with perhaps half that frequency. This isn’t an introvert-extrovert issue. (For what it’s worth, I test and identify as an ambivert, and he’s more clearly an introvert.) He just has lower need for an interest in social interaction beyond the two of us, even when it’s one on one or in a very small group. He’s pretty cerebral, and over the course of his life, he’s always had a handful of close, deep friendships, and he spends most of his time working, with his family, or occasionally that handful of people. He’s charming and wonderful when we do go out with others, but he’s clear about the fact that he’s not interested in doing any more of it than we currently do. I think this is totally reasonable—he has reflected on what’s meaningful and satisfying to him, it’s OK that his answer is different from mine, and we both feel like we talk and compromise about this in a healthy way.
My questions regard interactions about this with my friends who are in relationships. I can’t seem to communicate my husband’s preferences about this in a way that isn’t confusing or hurtful to them. I will very happily individually make plans to hang out with a couple, but when I make an invitation just from myself or reply to their invites with something along the lines of “[My husband] unfortunately isn’t able to make it, but if it’s OK if there are just three of us, I’d love to join you,” they want to know where he is, insist we reschedule when he can join, and generally have a lot of follow-up questions to anything general and warm I try to relay. My friends have all met him, but managing a rotation with the frequency he prefers, they would only see him a couple of times a year. It’s easy to get out of this in the short term by claiming a work obligation (his job has unpredictable and nontraditional hours), but that isn’t believable forever. I’ve had a friend say in exasperation, “I know other detectives, and I know they all eat dinner!”
On the other hand, a more honest “He likes you very much and is happy to see you as often as he sees other friends, but he prefers not to go out regularly” sounds like we’re hiding something. This isn’t an issue with my single friends, and I don’t think it would be an issue with his male friends—said more specifically, I don’t think a partnered man would be miffed if my husband said, “Sure, but [my wife] can’t make it.” Part of my frustration is admittedly that I think this problem is gendered and rooted in expectations specifically about how a married woman of a certain social class is expected to behave. (I grew up proudly working-class in rural middle America and now have a comfortable finance career in the Bay Area. I don’t remember this couples-have-to-go-out-with-couples thing being a problem in the former setting.) There also seems to be a miasma of “Is he not a good husband to you because he doesn’t want to do this?” That’s something I don’t appreciate. How can I explain this to friends I otherwise care about very much? And more philosophically, am I crazy to think it shouldn’t be a big deal if my husband and I don’t take every social engagement together?
A: I wonder, if you were to show your husband this letter and talk to him about just how much time and energy you have to spend making excuses for him to your friends, if he might reconsider going on an additional outing or two a month, even if it’s only for an hour and he begs off early to go be an introvert. Not in a punishing sense, as in “Look what you’ve reduced me to with your selfishness,” but in the sense of “Sometimes, when you prioritize your alone time, I’m hit with some unfair, maybe-unintentionally sexist expectations. It takes a lot out of me. I’m not asking you to go out with me and our friends every week, but I wanted to share with you how difficult it can be sometimes, because you haven’t seen it before. Do you think we could occasionally revisit our going-out policy? What would you need in order to feel comfortable going out to, say, one more dinner a month? If you could leave early, would that help? If we invited people over here? Let’s discuss all our options.”
In addition to that, I think you can push back a little bit with some of your friends: “Lt. Stabler takes a lot of downtime, and sometimes that means I want to go out when he doesn’t. I sometimes feel like I’m being called upon to account for him or to reassure other people that our relationships is OK, and it feels like a lot of pressure. I want to see you, I’m very happily married, and it would mean a lot to me if I could sometimes show up to dinner without him and without inviting comment.”
Fandoms: Penny Dreadful and Granada Sherlock Holmes.
Characters: Ethan Chandler, Vanessa Ives, John Clare, Victor Frankenstein, Sir Malcolm Murray, Kaetenay, Dracula, Dr. John H. Watson, Sherlock Holmes
Chapters: 14/14 (complete)
Spoilers: Contains S3 spoilers.
Rating / Warnings: Mature - For 18+ only. This chapter contains graphic depictions of death, violence, and gore. There's also strong language and attempted assault + major character death. Some of this may be triggering.
Summary: The emotional conclusion to "Of Wings Shining in Darkness.
Posted at A03: archiveofourown.org/works/7413997/
2 cups rolled oats (200 g)
1/2 cup oat flour (50 g)
1/2 tsp salt
1 1/2 tsp baking powder
2 tsps cinnamon
1 1/4 cups unsweetened applesauce (200 g)
1 cup water or milk product
1/4 cup honey or maple syrup
2 1/2 tablespoons oil
2 tsp vanilla extract
( recipe )
Questions? Ask 'em!
The family time was also nice. My sister's boyfriend's mum was in the UK, so she came up for the family dinner - none of us except my sister have met her before, so everyone was a little bit nervous, but she was great and it seemed like it went well. I feel like the dynamics are shifting again, a bit, as the children get older - so we can actually sit and have adult conversations now, because they don't need constant supervision in the way they did a few years ago, but they are also more, hm, intentionally disruptive? now than they were - they come demanding attention deliberately, rather than just, you know, falling over and screaming because that's what toddlers tend to do.
My not-favourite nibling (because we don't have favourites, OK) was being particularly annoying; he is just not good at consequences, and gets very upset when you e.g. raise your voice because he is in the process of forcing himself bodily into the lap of someone only five weeks post-hip-replacement, or has just lent on my arm for the forty-seventh time in the last half-hour despite the previous six or seven times I told him not to because it was hot and I was uncomfortable and up to that point of skin sensitivity where you're going to scream if anything touches you ONE MORE TIME ("I WASN'T touching you it was my CLOTHES" *teary face*). It upsets me, too, because I don't like it when he's sad, and I do like spending time with him. But. At this stage they don't really get that we're also fallible humans with good and bad days the same as them, and sometimes that's just hard all round!
But honestly it was much more good than it was bad, and I had good conversations with everyone, individually and collectively. The siblings WhatsApp group is really working for us, too; there's a steady trickle of discussion and random crap and it's just such a nice way of keeping in casual contact without any major investment by anyone. I hope it keeps going.
My biggest ding on it is some first person sections from Xate Yawa that I don't think served the story well.
- In Pursuit of White: Porcelain in the Joseon Dynasty, 1392-1910
- Indian Textiles: Trade and Production [Interesting stuff on dyes and mordants here.]
- Interiors Imagined: Folding Screens, Garments, and Clothing Stands [Japanese screens. Note to self, the Portal talks about Korean folding screens and their conventions/social significance.]
- Internationalism in the Tang Dynasty (618 to 907) [Ha, they mention tributes of Korean hawks, which the Portal mentioned too from the other end.]
- Introduction to Prehistoric Art, 20,000 to 8000 B.C. [Very brief overview, given the scope of the topic!]
- The Japanese Blade: Technology and Manufacture [Could have sworn I had a book that touched on this in more depth, unless the flood took it.]
- Japanese Illustrated Handscrolls [cf. Korean handscrolls discussed in Portal]
- Japanese Incense
- The Japanese Tea Ceremony [Although once again I have a quasi-Asian character who is meh about tea because I'm so sick of the Asians = tea stereotype. BTW, did you know that my mom, in Korea, sends me Lipton tea?]
- Japanese Weddings in the Edo Period (1615-1868)
- Japanese Writing Boxes [Useful information on inksticks and inkstones.]
- Jane Portal. Korea: Art and Archaeology, report here.
- Michael D. Shin, ed. Korean History in Maps: From Prehistory to the Twenty-First Century.
- Jae-sik Suh. Korean Patterns.
I am getting so homesick looking at the food/노리개 (norigae)/etc. photos. The food photos are sumptuous.
Hand's all scraped up. Water all over the basement floor. Giant blister on my index finger; no idea how that happened while feeding a smooth plastic tube around a corner.
Particularly for men’s dress shirts? It’s been my experience with those types of stores in the past is that when they’ve first opened pickins are pretty slim, my hunch is they’re getting all the stuff that didn’t sell at their other locations.
Edit: I’m an idiot, walked by the other week and it looked open, I just assumed it was so. It is not.
Serious problem here.
Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish, p. 507b:
F tümen properly ‘ten thousand’, but often used for ‘an indefinitely large number’; immediately borrowed from Tokharian, where the forms are A tmān; B tmane, tumane, but Prof. Pulleyblank has told me orally that he thinks this word may have been borrowed in its turn fr. a Proto-Chinese form *tman, or the like, of wan ‘ten thousand’ (Giles 12,486).
[VHM: the "F" at the beginning of the entry means "Foreign loanword"]
Many years ago, I studied Tocharian with Donald Ringe here at Penn, and once read through the whole of Clauson looking at all the "F" words, so I have been aware of this alleged connection regarding 萬 for about a quarter of a century.
This gives rise to two questions:
- Do Toch. A tmān; B tmane, tumane have an etymology within IE?
- Is *tman "or the like" a legitimate reconstruction for Sinitic 萬 (MSM wàn)? Cf. Schuessler mans, Baxter-Sagart /*C.ma[n]-s/, Zhengzhang /*mlans/.
Question 1 is for IE specialists to work on, question 2 is for Sinologists to work on.
The Chinese side of things is very tricky. I follow Schuessler, not Baxter and Sagart, in not seeing any evidence for that initial "t". But let's see what the experts say.
If P said this to Clauson face to face, that must have been back in Pleistocene times. God knows what he would say today if he were still alive.
- “Scorpion”: See 蠆 (OC *m̥ʰraːds);
- “Religious dance; sorcery”: Perhaps from Proto-Sino-Tibetan *s-man (“medicine”). Compare Tibetan སྨན (sman, “medicine; she-demons worshipped by common folk”), Burmese မန်း (man:, “utter mystic words to heal or ward off evil”);
- “Myriad” (10000): Schuessler (2007) considers the etymology of this sense Sino-Tibetan, and compares it with Tibetan འབུམ ('bum, “hundred thousand; complete; entire; multifarious”). Similar words are found in branches of Altaic and Tocharian; here they are treated as very old loanwords from Chinese, per Pulleyblank (apud Clauson, 1972), Beckwith (2009), Adams (2013) and Tremblay (2005).
It seems to me that Schuessler's Tibetan འབུམ ('bum, “hundred thousand; complete; entire; multifarious”) is much more convincing and less speculative. Ever the cautious historical linguist that he is, Schuessler himself says (in a personal communication) that "The vowels do not agree completely, though. In short, the etymology of wàn is uncertain."
Alexander Lubotsky and Sergei Starostin:
Toch. A tmäm[underdot], Toch. B t(u)mäne 'ten thousand, a myriad' < PToch. *t(ə)mäne :: Proto−Turkic *Tümen 'ten thousand; very many' (OUygh. tümen, Turkm. tümen) < Proto-Altaic *ci[c hacek i breve under] ùmi 'a large number' (e.g. Proto−Korean *c[c hacek]ímɨín 'thousand').
Tocharian may have borrowed this Turkic word through a Middle Iranian intermediary (cf. Modern Persian tumän `ten thousand'), which would better account for the vocalism.
Source: from p. 4 (261), no. 7 of "Turkic and Chinese loan words in Tocharian", in Brigitte L.M. Bauer and Georges-Jean Pinault, eds., Language in time and space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday (Berlin / New York: De Gruyter, 2003), pp. 257-269.
No IE etymology for the Tocharian words. We can't even securely reconstruct 'thousand' all the way back: Greek and Indo-Iranian clearly share a word, and Latin *might* share it (there are problems); Germanic and Balto-Slavic share a word, but it's a different word; that's all.
I don't think there is a good IE etymology for the Tocharian forms. Bailey said that it was a loan from from a Middle Iranian source going back to an old Iranian *tu-ma:na- 'great-measure', but the u in TB is rare (2x vs. 14 for tm-) and late and probably an epenthetic vowel (so Winter in IE Numerals). tm- is not otherwise attested as a word-initial onset in Tocharian B. The word is all over Central Asia: Pers. tuma:n '10 rials' is borrowed from Turkish. Cf. Uigh. tümäne Tungus tuman, Mongol tuma:n. Further Bailey's etymology is just bad for a lot of reasons.
So without a lot of investigation I'd say it's not implausible that the Tocharian words could have been borrowed from Chinese and passed it on to Turkic or that it could have been borrowed into both independently. The integration into the Tocharian -e class is not surprising since 100 has the same inflection.
I do think that Old Chinese should be reconstructed as *t.ma[n]-s. And I believe that Proto-Tocharian borrowed this word from Old Chinese. The Tocharian B forms with –u– are very rare and cannot reflect something original. So, there is no relation to words for 'thousand' in Balto-Slavic and Germanic (and also very likely none to an Iranian form akin to Old Persian tauman- 'strength').
My first response is, no, the Tch words do not have a great PIE etymology. Some, myself included at times, have thought the t(u)- part might have some connection with the thou- of English thousand. But that seems pretty unlikely now as any etymological equivalence with Germanic thousand (and its Baltic cognates) should show up with Tch **tuu- (long vowel) or **to-. By any account –maan/mane does not match Germanic –and (or its Baltic equivalent), which, disguised, is the word for '100' (*'great 100' or the like). And, of course, thousand is 1,000, not 10,000.
If the Chinese etymology is supportable (and that's a thicket mere mortals, let alone, angels, fear to tread), then it would look very attractive to me. Of course if *tman or the like has no Sino-Tibetan support outside Chinese itself, we might have to look westward again.
Tocharian '10,000' not only does not have an IE etymology, but its shape makes a native origin unlikely. The same goes for Old Russian тьма, universally considered a borrowing from Mongolian (cf. тумен for an army unit, presumably in origin of 10,000 men).
By sheer coincidence, Prof. Baxter dropped by ECIEC last June when it was at U. of Michigan and was chatting with me and Tao Pan (a student of Tocharian and Buddhist philology now at LMU München) about Old Chinese '10,000'. As I recall, he was arguing that the Vietnamese evidence in particular suggests specifically an initial /t-/ for the Old Chinese form. [VHM: I'd love to know what that Vietnamese evidence is.] That reminds me: you might be interested in a recent paper by Michaël Peyrot and Kristin Meier that argues for the traditional derivation of Old Chinese *mit ["honey"] from (pre-)Proto-Tocharian, based in part on the Sino-Vietnamese evidence.
I would state that Clauson's notice is obsolete. Toch. B tumâne, A tmân are most probably borrowed from Chinese. The same word has been also independently borrowed in Jurchen, Old Turkic, etc. In any case, the Old Turkic word cannot be directly borrowed from Tocharian, because of the vocalism; I may add that Toch. B tumâne, A tmân does not have any meaningful IE etymology. The final -e of Toch. B is analogical from kante 'hundred' and yaltse 'thousand'.
This is complex. As far as I understand, the explanation by Adams (2013:318) apud Winter 1991: the Tocharian word is ultimately borrowed from Middle Iranian, is possibly problematic due to the fact that it is attested in Modern Iranian only, indicating that the Iranian words may be borrowed from Turkic, which in turn is likely borrowed from Chinese (or, alternatively Tocharian, which possibly borrowed from Chinese).
I think the safest is to say that this is an early migration word, which possibly has Chinese as its ultimate origin. There is no reliable IE etymology for the Tocharian word.
There is no merit to *tman. Schuessler "mans" is what I would reconstruct.
Baxter-Sagart and Zhengzhang are totally speculative. B & S *C.mans has a *C, which is a bad idea Baxter inherited from Bodman. Bodman has C floating around in his OC “reconstruction”. It is a place-holder. But neither Bodman nor Baxter ever tell us what this “C” is.
- In philosophy of science, we know if a hypothesis is not falsifiable, then it is not much of a theory. We had caloric substance which explains heat and ether which is supposed to be the medium through which electro-magnetic waves travel (Nature abhors a vacuum). The B & S system with its brackets and tightly connected prefix and loosely connected pre-consonants is an unfalsifiable system, and therefore not a serious theory. B & S try to cover all the bases and produced a totally unmanageable and unintelligible system.
- What is the origin of the ubiquitous C. in B & S ? Jerry Norman in the 70s proposed Proto-Min, and the initial consonant system of the Proto-Min (PM) reconstructed comprises six manner groups, i.e., voiceless unaspirated (p-), voiceless aspirated (ph-), voiced plain (b-), voiced aspirated (bh-), voiceless softened (-p- ), and voiced softened (-b-). It was on the basis of Norman’s PM that B & S developed their complicated system of pre-consonants. But Jerry Norman in the last decade of his life totally changed his view. South Coblin 2018 “Convergence as a Factor in the Formation of a controversial Common Min phonological configuration” reports at length Norman’s unpublished papers and his later view. In Common Min, there are only three manner distinctions; voiceless unaspirated (p-), voiceless aspirated (ph-) and voiced plain (b-), just like Middle Chinese and Karlgren’s reconstruction of Old Chinese. So neither B nor S did any field work on Min, did not follow the development in Proto-Min reconstruction, and picked up an outdated version of Proto-Min reconstruction as the basis of their grand theory.
- J. Tharsen came to the Cornell Classical Chinese seminar in Sept. 2017 to talk about his thesis on 梁其钟。 All went well until it came to Tharsen’s Old Chinese transcription into the B & S system. The graduate students and faculty members were naturally interested how these OC transcription sounded and Tharsen had no answer. He was persuaded by me to adopt instead Baxter 1992 Handbook system. Schuessler in his review of B & S came to the same conclusion.
B & S thought this C could be N, m, p, t, k, G etc. Name your pick.
I do believe that Old Turkic tümen ("ten thousand", but often used for "an indefinitely large number"), Tocharian A tmān; B tmane, tumane ("ten thousand"), and Sinitic 萬 (MSM wàn; Old Sinitic Schuessler /*mans/, Baxter-Sagart /*C.ma[n]-s/, Zhengzhang /*mlans/) ("ten thousand") are somehow related, but it is not clear to me what that relationship is. Above all, I do not find any evidence within Sinitic or hypothetical Sino-Tibetan of an initial "t" at any stage of their development.
- Cantonese (Guangzhou, Jyutping): maan6 (Taishan, Wiktionary): man5
- Hakka (Sixian, PFS): van (Meixian, Guangdong): van4
- Min Bei (KCR): uāing
- Min Dong (BUC): uâng
- Min Nan (Hokkien, POJ): bān (Teochew, Peng'im): bhuêng7 / bhuang7
- Wu (Wiktionary): me (T3); ve (T3)
- Dungan: (Cyrillic): ван (van, III)
- → Altaic:
- → Chinese: 頭曼 (OC *doː moːn, “Touman, the first leader (chanyu) of the Xiongnu”)
- Proto-Turkic: *Tümen (“ten thousand; an infinitely large number”)
- Turkish: tümen (“ten thousand”)
- Middle Mongolian: ᠲᠦᠮᠡᠨ (tümen, “ten thousand”)
- Korean: 즈믄 (jeumeun, “(obsolete) thousand”)
- → Tocharian:
- → Japanese: 萬 (まん) (man), 萬 (ばん) (ban, “ten thousand”)
- → English: banzai (“Japanese battle cry; cry of enthusiasm”)
- → Korean: 만 (萬, man, “ten thousand”)
- → Vietnamese: muôn (“ten thousand; all, many”)
- → Vietnamese: vạn (萬, “ten thousand; myriad”)
- → Khmer: ម៉ឺន (məɨn), ហ្មឺន (məɨn, “ten thousand; official rank”)
- → Shan: မိုၼ်ႇ (mùen, “ten thousand”)
- → Lao: ໝື່ນ (mư̄n), ຫມື່ນ (mư̄n, “ten thousand; official rank”)
- → Thai: หมื่น (mʉ̀ʉn, “ten thousand; official rank”)
- "An early fourth century AD historical puzzle involving a Caucasian people in North China" (1/25/19)
- "Of jackal and hide and Old Sinitic reconstructions" (12/16/18)
- "Of honey, bee, mead, and Old Sinitic reconstructions" (11/1/18)
- "China and Rome" (2/24/19)
- "Of reindeer and Old Sinitic reconstructions" (12/23/18)
- "Dung Times" (3/14/18)
- "Eurasian eureka" (9/12/16)
- “Of precious swords and Old Sinitic reconstructions” (3/8/16)
- “Of precious swords and Old Sinitic reconstructions, part 2” (3/12/16)
- “Of precious swords and Old Sinitic reconstructions, part 3” (3/16/16)
- “Of precious swords and Old Sinitic reconstructions, part 4” (3/24/16)
- "Of precious swords and Old Sinitic reconstructions, part 5" (3/28/16)
- "Of armaments and Old Sinitic reconstructions, part 6" (12/23/17)
- "Of shumai and Old Sinitic reconstructions" (7/19/16)
- "Of felt hats, feathers, macaroni, and weasels" (3/13/16)
- "Of dogs and Old Sinitic reconstructions" (3/7/18)
- "Ur-etyma: how many are there?" (7/6/14)
- "Tocharian C: its discovery and implications" ()4/2/19
- "Sinitic for "iron" in Balto-Slavic" (2/15/19)
[Thanks to Chris Button]