~ Love at first sight is easy to understand; it’s when two people have been looking at each other for a lifetime that it becomes a miracle. ~ Amy Bloom
Posts by editor
Yo, Dude! The Origins of Common Slang Words
By: Danielle Samaniego
Slang is defined as an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech, according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.
In other words, slang can be “a dope spin on a sick word that deserves props for being mad fly, yo.”
And yet, in the age of And yet, in the age of
Coining original jargon that’s able to catch on with the masses is a feat not just accomplished through popular and hip-hop culture. There are a slew of phrases that have become so commonplace, it’s easy to forget that they’re inherently slang. Here’s a look at some of these words, new and old, that have had an impact on our vernacular.
Dude
So popular it hardly seems like slang, Merriam-Webster defines “dude” as a city dweller unfamiliar with life on the range, an Easterner in the West, and a fellow or guy—sometimes used informally as a term of address. This jargon dates back to the 1880s, according to an article in the New York Times. The article, itself dating back to 1900, states, “Considering the number of German immigrants into the United States, we naturally suspect it to have been suggested by some German dialect. It can hardly be other than an abbreviated form of duden-pop, a blockhead, a common term of depreciation in many parts.”
Bling-Bling
Initially it was little more than a written sound effect that reflected a shine. But the term was later born out of the hip-hop culture to represent garish jewelry worn in the late 1990s. Members of the Louisiana-based Cash Money Millionaires, a group of rappers from the same label known as Cash Money Records, were among the first to use the phrase in their music. Rapper B.G. used “bling-bling” in a song title as did Lil’ Wayne in the song “Millionaire Dream.” Lil’ Wayne also recorded with Cash Money Records. Since its acceptance, the term has arguably peaked in popularity. I mean, when Mitt Romney starts using “bling-bling,” it reeks of overexposure.
Yo
The phrase was made popular as a sailor or huntsman’s call circa 1420, according to dictionary.com. It gained popularity during World War II as a common response at roll calls. Today, however, it’s more likely you’ll hear it in the following examples: “Yo, what’s up for tonight?” or “Yo, just do your homework, yo!” Ah, the beauty of versatile slang.
Hipster
Currently referring to a lifestyle usually defined by skinny jeans, ironic T-shirts, and some sort of artsy or nomadic background, the term itself actually sprang out of the 1940s in reference to those into the jazz scene. Nowadays you’d likely find hipsters hanging out in coffee shops feigning aloofness (especially in places like the Mission District in San Francisco, Silver Lake, California, and/or Brooklyn), though it wouldn’t be so surprising to find them in a jazz club either, for the cool factor and all.
Gnarly
Sean Penn’s “Jeff Spicoli” said it best in the 1980s classic Fast Times at Ridgemont High, bringing the term originally stemming from the word “gnarl”—meaning contorted or twisted—from the confines of surfer culture into the mainstream of pop culture. Its slang version now refers to something that’s cool or lame, depending on the user’s preference. The online etymology dictionary dates “gnarl” back to 1814, stating that the 19th century romantic poets picked it up and brought it into currency.
Geek
Another popular term derived from German, the slang version refers to an enthusiast or expert, particularly in a technological field or activity, according to Merriam-Webster’s, but it has since expanded to everyone from your comic book aficionado to that over-informed music lover. It originated in 1914, deriving its etymology from the English dialect geek, geck (fool) and “geck,” from Middle Low German. Of course, seeking the origin of such a word is, in fact, pretty geeky in itself, which is why it had to make the list!
Phat
Back in the 1990s, this slang phrase was all the rage as a way to point out something or someone who was “Pretty Hot and Tempting.” Its origin is not entirely clear, though the online etymology dictionary says the hip-hop acronym used to express “great” or “excellent” goes back to the late 1980s, initially meaning “sexiness in a woman.” The spelling is attested as far back as 1678, as an erroneous form of fat (a classical over-correction). While it’s fallen out of favor in the new millennium, you might find yourself hearing it thrown around these days for kitsch sake, like “rad” or “fly.”
Groovy
In its heyday, groovy was the word. If it was cool, it was groovy. If it was fun, it was groovy. If it was excellent, it was groovy. Its popularity soared during the 1960s, only to lose its groove by the 1980s. Merriam-Webster’s dates it back to the 1930s. Supposedly, it came out of the Jazz culture where the word was used to describe the groove of the music.
Cheesy
Yes, the base of the word itself is derived from everyone’s favorite dairy product (sans you lactose intolerant kids), but it refers to something that’s trite, cliché, or of poor quality. Example: “That romantic comedy was so cheesy; I saw the ending coming a mile away.” Its etymology stems from the Urdu word chiz, meaning “a thing.” By 1818, the British in India picked it up and used it in the sense of “a big thing,” according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. By 1858, cheesy had evolved a slang meaning of “showy,” which led to the modern, ironic sense.
Schlock
It’s not just the hip-hop culture we tend to borrow from when it comes to our slang. There are lots of slang words that are little more than twists on Yiddish terms, and that includes schlock. Spelled “shlak” (meaning evil or nuisance) in American Yiddish, we have come to know it as meaning “of low quality.” Merriam-Webster dates it to 1916, but you’ll likely hear it these days when someone is referencing a B-movie or the latest by Quentin Tarantino, who actually strives to put schlock into his work for that cult classic effect.
Cracking into the cultural zeitgeist with the right slang word isn’t always easy, but when it hits, it can explode, as evidenced above. And if and when the sun finally sets on a favorite phrase, you can be sure there’s bound to be another “dawg” or “jiggy” right around the corner.
First published July 2009
Groovy
In its heyday, groovy was the word. If it was cool, it was groovy. If it was fun, it was groovy. If it was excellent, it was groovy. Its popularity soared during the 1960s, only to lose its groove by the 1980s. Merriam-Webster’s dates it back to the 1930s. Supposedly, it came out of the Jazz culture where the word was used to describe the groove of the music.
Cheesy
Yes, the base of the word itself is derived from everyone’s favorite dairy product (sans you lactose intolerant kids), but it refers to something that’s trite, cliché, or of poor quality. Example: “That romantic comedy was so cheesy; I saw the ending coming a mile away.” Its etymology stems from the Urdu word chiz, meaning “a thing.” By 1818, the British in India picked it up and used it in the sense of “a big thing,” according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. By 1858, cheesy had evolved a slang meaning of “showy,” which led to the modern, ironic sense.
Schlock
It’s not just the hip-hop culture we tend to borrow from when it comes to our slang. There are lots of slang words that are little more than twists on Yiddish terms, and that includes schlock. Spelled “shlak” (meaning evil or nuisance) in American Yiddish, we have come to know it as meaning “of low quality.” Merriam-Webster dates it to 1916, but you’ll likely hear it these days when someone is referencing a B-movie or the latest by Quentin Tarantino, who actually strives to put schlock into his work for that cult classic effect.
Cracking into the cultural zeitgeist with the right slang word isn’t always easy, but when it hits, it can explode, as evidenced above. And if and when the sun finally sets on a favorite phrase, you can be sure there’s bound to be another “dawg” or “jiggy” right around the corner.
First published July 2009
The octopus who loves his Mr Potato Head
Louis the octopus clearly thinks two heads are better than one when it comes to toys.
The 1.8m-wide (6ft) creature is so attached to Mr Potato Head that he turns aggressive when aquarium staff try to remove it from his tank.
The giant Pacific octopus was given the toy for Christmas and has even learned to dig out food hidden in a secret box at the back of it.
‘He’s fascinated by it,’ said Matt Slater, of the Blue Reef Aquarium in Newquay, Cornwall. ‘He attacks the net we use to fish the toy out every time we try to take it away.’
Mr Slater added: ‘Octopuses are very intelligent and they like to be stimulated and busy.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3328480/Otto-the-octopus-wrecks-havoc.html
Otto the octopus wreaks havoc
A octopus has caused havoc in his aquarium by performing juggling tricks using his fellow occupants, smashing rocks against the glass and turning off the power by short circuiting a lamp.
Last Updated: 12:22PM GMT 03 Nov 2008
Staff believe that the octopus called Otto had been annoyed by the bright light shining into his aquarium and had discovered he could extinguish it by climbing onto the rim of his tank and squirting a jet of water in its direction.
The short-circuit had baffled electricians as well as staff at the Sea Star Aquarium in Coburg, Germany, who decided to take shifts sleeping on the floor to find out what caused the mysterious blackouts.
A spokesman said: “It was a serious matter because it shorted the electricity supply to the whole aquarium that threatened the lives of the other animals when water pumps ceased to work.
“It was on the third night that we found out that the octopus Otto was responsible for the chaos.
“We knew that he was bored as the aquarium is closed for winter, and at two feet, seven inches Otto had discovered he was big enough to swing onto the edge of his tank and shoot out the 2000 Watt spot light above him with a carefully directed jet of water.”
Director Elfriede Kummer who witnessed the act said: “We’ve put the light a bit higher now so he shouldn’t be able to reach it. But Otto is constantly craving for attention and always comes up with new stunts so we have realised we will have to keep more careful eye on him – and also perhaps give him a few more toys to play with.
“Once we saw him juggling the hermit crabs in his tank, another time he threw stones against the glass damaging it. And from time to time he completely re-arranges his tank to make it suit his own taste better – much to the distress of his fellow tank inhabitants.”
This is my final bit on The Exodus Decoded on the History Channel. One of the frequent comments left on Chris Heard’s website was that because he was pointing out Simcha’s errors/oversights/manipulations he has no faith and he was making the blog and the program all about the science. Actally Chris was just dealing with Simcha’s stated beliefs/observations that the 10 plagues could be proven be science. Simcha took God out of the Biblical 10 plagues, not Chris.
My question is why can’t we come up with a scientific explanations for God’s creations? If God uses the Earth to send us a message… should we take that message less seriously? No, of course not. Think back to a place and time when you could have been in the middle of a great tragedy, but weren’t because you decided to go the other way. Or even missed a huge traffic jam because you went home a way that you is normally off your route. Why did these things happen? A subtle push by a Divine hand of which you aren’t aware? But just because it’s scientific doesn’t mean it’s not divine. But then again on the other hand… just because it’s a big earth quake or tsunami doesn’t mean there’s a reason behind it. It could just be the earth stretching. It a fine line to be sure. Science isn’t always the answer. It may, in time, be able to explain many things in the Bible, but I don’t think it will ever explain everything. Which is ok in my opinion. The Bible is about faith, not science.
Will we ever find the reasons behind the 10 plagues? Maybe, but we probably won’t. Which, in my opinion, is fine. The Bible is about faith, not science. I think the Bible is a collection of stories that teach us to be better people. Are they real? It’s hard to imagine a 900 year old man doing anything but being a mummy. In a time when the average lifespan was 25, even a person 75 would have out lived 2 generations! So maybe… just maybe… some things are exaggerated. Slowly the archeology is catching up with the Bible. That’s science, isn’t it?
Not all things in life should be explained, even if it’s just a simple card trick. It’s about keeping a sense of wonder at the glories we have given to us every day. Look at a sunrise or a sunset or a rainbow. We can explain them with science. Does that make them any less amazing or beautiful? Not to me. It’s God taking his paint brush and painting us a daily reminder of how good life is.
Never mind that slowly we are able to define miracles in scientific terms. Does the knowledge of how a baby is formed make the actual delivery of a living breathing moving human (or animal) any less miraculous? I don’t think so. Here are some of the things that I am questioning about Simcha Jacobovici’s conclusions that Chris Heard didn’t touch on.
Plague 1 – Water to Blood. Simcha uses Lake Nyos, Cameroon as his example of this. “geophysicist George Kling explains the Cameroon phenomenon as high concentrations of iron in the deep waters at the bottom of the Lake Nyos bubbling up to the surface and reacting with oxygen in the air to form iron hydroxide. To put it crudely, the waters of Lake Nyos ‘rusted.'” Ok. Here’s my main problem with this… the movement of the water. Rivers flow, lakes eddy. I’m not geophysicist or a enviromentalist or any such person that studies water and it movement. But to my untrained brain it just doesn’t fly. Wouldn’t the ENTIRE Nile have to pass gas in order for it to turn “rust” long enough for the 2nd plague to happen? Wouldn’t the flow of the river take the containated water away? In order for this to happen, wouldn’t the gas release have to be like a very large oil spill contaminating 100’s and 100’s of miles of river? We’re not talking about a little body of water here. It just doesn’t make that much sence to me.
Ok. Someone goes over this point in the comments. And I am following the same logic. Ok. that was the only thing Chris missed that I saw as important. He covered everything else. I found his critiques helpful in forming complete conclusions. Or as complete as possible. Simcha would present a point, gloss over the supporting evidence, call it fact and use this conclusion to support the next point. Chris took these point by point, looked at the supporting evidence, when he could find it, did his own research as necessary and gave the bits that Simcha glossed over or completely ignored because they didn’t support his conclusions.
I’m not one to mind the refudiation of traditional scientific theories. I think new ideas are good. But if you present new ideas as fact, as Simcha does, with flimsy and cobbled together “evidence” I do have a problem.
Initially watching ED I was ready to believe. I was thrilled that maybe there was a link between Thera and the Biblical Plagues. But then “evidence started dropping into place to quickly and too neatly. And I was disappointed to find that Simcha’s own expert could only find 40 grains of ash in his much larger sample – thus nullifing Simcha’s argument that Thera was the cause of the darkness plague. Simcha’s own expert refudiated one of Simcha’s claims. I will admit disappointment. I really wanted Thera to be the root if the 10 plagues.
One of my main concerns, which Dr. Heard does not address, probably because Simcha doesn’t as well, are the 2 cities mentioned in Exodus 1:11 (my verse may be off just slightly). They are Pithom and Ramses. Why does Simcha ignore these 2 very obvious clues? Because, if my history is correct, these 2 cities date to the wrong Pharoh. They date to the generally accepted Exodus Pharoh … d’uh, it’s pretty obvious … Rameses. Thus blowing Simcha assertion that the time line needs to be revamped. I found that if the given clues or facts didn’t fit with his theory, Simcha glossed over them, ignored them, or took snippets from them to support his conclusions.
Take the time to read Chris Heard’s blog. Take the time to read TheExodusDecoded.com – if you can get it to come up (I’ve been trying for 2 days and I keeping getting the same error). Make your own conclusions. But make sure your conclusions are based on the facts available (the Bible, the historical evidence, and the archeological evidence) not just the hype of a good story and a slick (and very well done) presentation.
Also one other thing that I have to say something about, even though Chris does a great job of debunking the theory. It’s Joseph’s seal. There is no way on God’s green earth (be it Pharoh’s gods or Joseph’s (and my) God) Pharoh would allow Joseph to use his father’s name as Pharoh’s seal of authority. It would be Pharoh’s name or symbol. And maybe, and this is a long shot, it would have been Joseph’s name or symbol. I work for a local government, and I know how “weird” our officials can get about signatures and the seal. It’s all about the power these thing represent, and this is a democracy. I can only image what Pharoh would have been like, when his ability to control the power was all that kept him in “office” a times. Total control – which leads back to Joseph and the seal. There is no was it could have been anything other than Pharoh’s name or symbol.
Let me repeat. Watch with a skeptical eye, read with a skeptical eye, and most of all learn as much as possible from the experts and the ameutur’s. Learn, learn, learn. Use you brain. If something seems too good to be true, maybe it is.
Ok… I’ll admit it. I love Lego’s. I guess I should have been an architect or something… Here is a really neat Lego site. The Brick Testament
I just finished watching the Exodus Decoded, on the History Channel by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici. I didn’t realize it was originally aired in 2006. I thought it was a new program. But since switching to Verizon from DirecTV (I loved DirecTV and will most likely go back at some point) I’ve lost the ability to know what the original air dates are of programs. It’s one of my major complaints… but I digress. I was going to write up my thoughts on Exodus Decoded, but a professor Dr. Chris Heard did it for me. I haven’t finished reading his take … it’s long … but here’s the link. http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?page_id=119
He’s basic reason for doing this is sound. Simcha is a journalist, not a scholar. He’s actually quite an accomplished film maker. Chris is a scholar, not a journalist. In presenting the show the way he did Simcha took liberties and stretched things where he needed to – a common activity for journalist. Anyway. I’m going to finish reading the blog and get a bit of biblical lesson along the way. More later.
Oh, and what I thought was kind of interesting is Simcha’s rebuttal’s to Chris critiques. I find it very interesting that Chris included Simcha’s comments on his blog and actually encouraged reads to go to the comments and read them. It’s up to us the reader to decide who has the more persuasive argument.