June 30, 2013

Words for Nerds (part one)

Some thoughts on a few words that have different or additional meanings in the early 21st century. I have included the Macquarie Dictionary’s ‘common’ definition of these words for comparison. Where more than one definition exists I have tried to list the one that seems most appropriate to the online/digital/new/additional definition.

stalk – v. ‘to pursue or approach game, etc.’ Derived from the Old English stealcian – to move stealthily. Stalk generally has perverse AFK connotations but has become almost acceptable online in the modern era. To stalk someone (esp. on Facebook) can, these days, often be a legitimate forerunner to in-person contact. In this sense, modern usage of stalk seems to have regressed closer to the original meaning of the word: an AFK stalker often isn’t necessarily ‘stealthy’, because they make their presence known through letters, calling, following closely etc., whereas stalking online indeed retains its surreptitious element. Of course the online stalker often feels the need to make a confession of their activity to a close friend, perhaps as a way to relieve a guilty conscience.

friend – n. ‘Someone attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.’ The Macquarie lists ‘friend’ as a noun but in contemporary reality (esp. since the days of Myspace) it can also be used as a social media verb, as in: ‘I friended them’. Although English already has a verb for this (to befriend) it seems needlessly formal and unsuitable for the fleeting and/or typically nominal nature of Facebook friendship. Also note the addition of a new verb; unfriend, officially used by Facebook (and not listed by the Macq.). It’s worth mentioning that Facebook uses the terminology ‘add as friend’, that is, the ability to perform an action and add someone to the stock of your friendship pools. Friendship thus is robbed of the often gradual relationship construction that occurs in real life; there are no grey-area ‘I know of them’ acquaintances on Facebook. The distinction is binary: you’re either friends or you’re not.

follow – v. ‘to watch the movements, progress, or course of.’ Macq. doesn’t provide the online version of follow in its Twitter sense, that is, to subscribe to somebody’s feed. In terms of social media, following exists somewhere between stalking and friendship. Follow and friend have similar uses as a verb but different connotations: ‘following’ somebody is much less intimate and professes no personal relationship with that person, but to follow someone is a much more transparent act than stalking them. Also, like Facebook, Twitter has introduced ‘unfollow’ into the vocabulary.

cloud – n. ‘a visible collection of particles of water or ice suspended in the air, usually at an elevation above the earth's surface ... [or] any similar mass’. In the 21st century the word refers to the cloud, the mass of data particles accessible by users, a great cloud hovering above, at any time threatening to rain bits and bytes upon us. Just like its meteorological cousin, the cloud appears to exist and is technically definable but cannot be physically grasped. However, unlike meteorological clouds, the user (i.e. us) performs an important part of cloud formation by sending particles up instead of passively receiving precipitation. The printed Macq. doesn’t define cloud in its computer sense, but does note the phrase ‘to have one’s head in the clouds’ as being ‘divorced from reality; be in a dreamlike state’ which, when considering the 1000-yard stare of smartphone and tablet users on public transport, arguably comes close.

search – v. ‘to go or look through carefully in seeking to find something’. It’s a well-known observation that the term ‘google’ (no caps, generic trademark rules apply) is used interchangeably with ‘search’ these days, but I don’t think they are truly synonymous. To google something seems almost fleeting, an act of speed. ‘I’ll google it,’ means to find a quick answer to binary questions, such as ‘Where is the bar?’ or ‘Who is the President of Guatemala?’ To my mind, ‘searching’ implies more in-depth techniques to resolve questions which may ultimately be unanswerable or have multiple answers: one googles the address of a particular bar but searches for a place that serves half-price Martinis on a Wednesday night.

stream – n. ‘a body of water flowing in a channel or bed, as a river rivulet or brook’ or ‘a continuous flow or succession of anything.’ Part of the beauty of a natural stream is the tension of knowing that it is potentially finite; the data stream, however, seems assured, continuous, unending—there is no beauty, mystery or tension. These days online streams seem to have been replaced by deluges, e.g. check your Twitter deluge. Stream can also be used as a verb in the internet sense, as in to tap into data, to take (usually for free) and redirect it for your own personal gains, à la AFK practices of damming or redirecting natural streams for energy/moneymaking purposes.

window – n. ‘an opening in the wall or roof ... commonly fitted with a frame in which are set movable sashes containing panes of glass.’ The act of using the computer is itself looking through the window of the screen, which is then (even on a Mac) divided into further windows which can also be looked through. We are in effect looking through a window to see more windows, and while the screen is generally inert and inflexible the windows in the window are moveable, resizeableable to be opened and closed at whim to let through information/data/thoughts/feelings. These windows are easy enough to open but can be difficult to shut.

June 10, 2013

Fragment (consider revising)

I’m not very intimidating. I’m slightly underweight, bespectacled, and have a red beard which generally induces furtive giggles rather than horrified screams. But there is one sphere of my life in which people seem to be daunted by my presence, so much so that they cower before me and beg forgiveness.

Earlier this year I started an editing course at Uni, and I’ve noticed that people have become increasingly self-conscious of the things they send to me via email, text or Facebook. I’ll often receive a message and then have it followed up by apologies for bad grammar, spelling or questionable word usage.

I suppose people think that because I’m considering a career in editing that I’m ‘always on’, seeking any and all syntactical errors in order to flex my editorial muscles. It’s like when people are scared to talk to psychologists because they assume they’re constantly analysing everything they say.

I don’t mind this newfound power. I like to imagine people in front of their keyboards, trembling as they type, hoping that they don’t mess up this most important of messages. They must think that I’m sitting, eyes closed, waiting for the message tone of their ill-fated communiqué. As soon as I hear it, my eyes fling open, I brandish my (digital) red pen like a sword and annihilate their feeble attempt at the written word. Like a warrior in a B-grade gladiator movie, I yell maniacally as I cut swathes through shoddily constructed sentences. ‘Passive voice! Pronoun without antecedent! COMMA SPLIIIIIICE!’

My secret shame, which isn’t really a secret at all once you’ve received a few replies from me, is that I’m guilty of being as sloppy as anybody when it comes to constructing messages. I’m a big believer in the formula that, when it comes to online communication, the hierarchy goes something like clarity > speed > grammatical correctness. There are instances when proper grammar is necessary (even beautiful), but the majority of text messages and emails don’t fall into this category, especially if time is of the essence. If I need to meet you under the big tree in two minutes, I’ll happily bash out something like ‘meat big tree 2 min’ and assume that, despite the horrific nature of that sentence, you’ll know what I mean.

Ninety per cent of the time I don’t even notice other people’s errors until they send a follow up email two seconds later, apologising for their use of ‘toward’ when they think perhaps it should have been ‘towards’, and then implore me not to think that they’re an idiot. But once a person has drawn my attention to their poor grammar or spelling, I can’t help but judge them for it, in spite of all my own shortcomings. I’m as petty as they come in that regard, and as soon as I think I’ve got an advantage over you, I’ll exploit it. Your best bet is to proofread your messages very carefully before you send them to me, and pray that I don’t notice all your misplaced clauses, lest I lower my estimation of you.