Philologists "Do" Do it better

The OED, i.e., The Oxford English Dictionary has occupied, for a very good reason, a solid number three in my Top Books List.
It's not only the etymologies that I find superbly relevant to my own field or research, which as luck would have it, is also congruous with my basic hobby for, well, word origins. I've always considered philologists to be like the artists par excellence of the language business. They always have a good word up their sleeve to get things going and entertain those not so lexically inclined.

The OED also lists wonderful literary examples that come out of, say, medieval works as well as such hypermodern texts as stuff people write in the 21-st century.
In sum, the OED can never let a neophile and philology enthusiast down.
Having said that, there's a new book out which word lovers are bound to react well to.


Here's a bit of fun:

Charientism (n.) A rhetorical term to describe saying a disagreeable thing in an
agreeable way

Compotation (n.) An episode of drinking or carousing together

Constult (v.) To act stupidly together

The book is called Reading the OED: One Man, One Year, 21,730 Pages and it is by Ammon Shea. The Amazon specs are here.

And a favorite question of mine would have to be: "So, what letter are you on now?"
It's a most relevant book, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks, Ammon Shea!

(Tip of the hat to MR for the pointer)
graph per amazon

R U Reading Online?

Today's NY Times features an article on online reading and how it relates to the literacy debate.
Not till a few years ago the most common sight in random coffeeshops across the country was people reading books or the paper while sipping their java. Now, people typing away on their notebooks, while hooked to their iPods in their self-created technology islands, are as ubiquitous as Miley Cyrus fans camping out on city streets days before her concerts.
Some questions that beg to be asked are, 'Well, are people reading enough now that most of their visual time seems to be spent online?' 'Are books being checked out from local libraries or are comments written on Myspace and Facebook profiles deemed more relevant?'
Today's article addresses these very questions. A bit says:

"Some traditionalists warn that digital reading is the intellectual equivalent of empty calories. Often, they argue, writers on the Internet employ a cryptic argot that vexes teachers and parents. Zigzagging through a cornucopia of words, pictures, video and sounds, they say, distracts more than strengthens readers. And many youths spend most of their time on the Internet playing games or sending instant messages, activities that involve minimal reading at best.

Last fall the National Endowment for the Arts issued a sobering report linking flat or declining national reading test scores among teenagers with the slump in the proportion of adolescents who said they read for fun.

According to Department of Education data cited in the report, just over a fifth of 17-year-olds said they read almost every day for fun in 2004, down from nearly a third in 1984. Nineteen percent of 17-year-olds said they never or hardly ever read for fun in 2004, up from 9 percent in 1984. (It was unclear whether they thought of what they did on the Internet as “reading.”)"
Read more here.
graph per ny times
P.S. And while I'm at it, I just noticed something genderable about this NY Times pictures. The boy is on a MacPro, or as it known among some bona fide Apple fans: 'the serious model' whereas the girl is typing away on her fragile (but oh-so-fun) black MacBook. Hm.

Clothing as Test

Just another day about town?
This is Sartorialist's most recent contribution.
How might one go about gendering this combo?
graph per sartorialist
P.S.
The title of this post was supposed to be 'Clothing as Text', however, I'm finding 'Test' quite apropos. Thanks, Mary.