Descriptively Adequate

please, don't judge me about the inspiration for this post. the short story is "sometimes you just get bored, and who knows where you could end up on Wikipedia!" tonight it was crappy pop song articles. thence comes this quote from the "Controversy" section of the article for this summer's top hit, I Kissed a Girl.

In Malaysian radio stations, the song has been retitled 'I Kissed...' with the words 'a girl' silenced throughout the chorus in the song.

never mind the odd choice of preposition (as a native English speaker i've never heard a song in a radio station; on works fine). the fact of the matter is that this censorship is about as effective as bleeping the -hole in asshole. if you take the phrase "i kissed a girl" and eliminate "a girl", then in isolation it becomes completely open-ended. it could be "i kissed a man" or "i kissed my mother" or "i kissed a frog". too bad there are more lyrics in the song's refrain!

i kissed (削除) a girl (削除ここまで) / and i liked it / the taste of her cherry chapstick

oops! there's a gendered pronoun hanging out there, eight words later. and it needs an antecedent. and the only preceding nominals are i and it. i can't be the antecedent, because then she would have said my, and it is decidedly neuter. so it can only be...gasp! she didn't! chances are nobody's getting the wool pulled over their eyes either; Wikipedia also says that increasing numbers of Malaysians are identifying English as a first language. they can put the pieces of this not-so-tricky linguistic puzzle back together as quickly as i did. censorship falls flat again.

i think i've gotten more linguistic enjoyment out of the song than by listening to it. there's one other bit of the chorus that intrigued me. it's the other pronoun in those lines, namely it. i'm sure that the intended antecedent is "[the fact that] i kissed a girl", but i can't help but get an ambiguous interpretation where it could be topicalized and actually refer to "the taste..." is this a weird judgement? comments are always open here.

Posted by Ed Cormany at 10:39 PM 2 comments

tags: syntax, taboo avoidance

SportsCenter has taken absurd taboo avoidance to new heights.

late last week, the big linguistic scandal in the sporting world was CBS commentator Billy Packer's comment in an appearance on PBS's The Charlie Rose Show in which he used the phrase "fag out" in reference to the fact that Rose never followed through on an offer to act as a runner at the NCAA basketball tournament. people who take such things far too seriously raised a huge outcry that the remark was a slur against homosexuals. ESPN naturally jumped on the story, producing both an online article as well as a brief segment on SportsCenter.

here is where things get ridiculous.

the SportsCenter segment proceeded generally as follows. the story was introduced, mentioning that Packer had used a potential slur on Rose's program. they then play the clip including the use of "fag out" in its entirety and unedited. shortly thereafter, a later quote from Packer justifying his previous statement was put on the screen. it read:

I said he fagged out on me and it had nothing to do with sexual connotation.... I can assure you I will use that phrase again and I won't think twice about it. My meaning is genuine.

and the anchor read it off of the screen as:

Quote: I said—...the phrase in question—and it had nothing to do with sexual connotation...

what the hell!? it's ok to present video footage in which the phrase was produced; display a printed quote in which the phrase is written out; yet heaven forbid a real human being should say it live on tv, even preceded by visual and aural reinforcement that he is quoting another person's words?

congrats, ESPN. you really fagged out on this one.

Posted by Ed Cormany at 2:04 PM 0 comments

tags: taboo avoidance