Indistinguishable from English

David Farber's hobby (in the xkcd sense): twisting common phrases. My favorite Farberisms:

• A hand in the bush is worth two anywhere else.
• Don't just stand there like a sitting duck.
• He's cornered on all sides.
• I could count it on the fingers of one thumb.
• I haven't gotten the knack down yet.
• I read the sign, but it went in one ear and out the other.
• It's burned to shreds.
• It's more than the mind can boggle.
• It's the old Paul Revere bit ... one if by two and two if by one.
• Just remember that, and then forget it.
• Let's shoot holes at it.
• My mind is a vacuum of information.
• No loaf is better than half a loaf at all.
• You're blowing it all out of context.

These almost make the original clichés and idioms sound ridiculous, don't they?

These posters were posted around UCSD this week. I don't know who designed and posted them.

Drawn by Prof. Goguen in CSE 271.

Steven Pinker, Listening Between the Lines:

In his grand jury testimony, Mr. Clinton expounded on the semantics of the present tense ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is") and of the words "alone," "cause" and, most notoriously, "sex."

Clinton's rebuttal to the Starr report:

Literally true statements cannot be the basis for a perjury prosecution, even if a witness intends to mislead the questioner. Likewise, answers to an inherently ambiguous question cannot constitute perjury.

A joke:

Have you ever touched Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky?

It depends on your definition of "or".

Poll (pick one): Un-fucking-believable or Unbe-fucking-lievable?

Michelle, Lauren, and I stumbled on a strong illusion last night. It's similar to the checkerboard illusion but involves color rather than just shades of gray.

The "blue" tiles on top of the left cube and the "yellow" tiles on top of the right cube are actually the same shade of gray.

Articles that talk about this illusion: American Scientist: Why We See What We Do and Discover Magazine: Sensory Reflexes. (The authors of the American Scientist article wrote a book with the same name.)

Berkeley's dilemma (as described by the American Scientist article) reminds me of Quine's Gavagai problem in the acquisition of language. Berkeley's dilemma is that retinal images are inherently ambiguous -- for example, there's no difference in the retinal image created by a large object at medium distance and a small object at a large distance. In the Gavagai problem, an island native points to a rabbit and says "gavagai". Do you interpret "gavagai" as "rabbit", "there goes a rabbit", "white", "animal", "hopping", "it's a nice day", "cute", "lunch", or something else?

Both Berkeley's dilemma and the Gavagai problem are problems of infinite ambiguity. Humans have clever heuristics for dealing with both problems. Examples include color constancy and overestimation of acute angles in visual perception, and the whole-object, taxonomic, and mutual-exclusivity assumptions children use to interpret new nouns.

Proper use of the Photoshop trademark (via Alex Utter)

INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.

INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.

There seems to be a continuum of how much meaning a trademark has lost in colloquial speech:

1. Used only as an adjective or noun to refer to the correct product.
   • "You should eat something healthier than Goldfish crackers and Oreos."
2. Used in a non-traditional manner, but only when referring to the correct product.
   • "I googled her".
   • "Yes, the protestor's sign is photoshopped. The original photo is..."
3. Used when it a competitor's product might be used instead.
   • "It doesn't exist, it's photoshopped... Sorry."
   • "Letters you send should be xeroxed after you sign them"
   • "You should have some kleenex handy before loading this site."
4. Used even when you know a competitor's product will be used.
   • "Can you go downstairs and xerox this for me?"
5. Used in the same sentence as a competitor's trademark.
   • "my rollerblades: k2 backyard bobs"
   • "I used the HP multifunction printer to xerox it."
6. Used as a noun modified by a competitor's trademark. (At this point, you're screwed.)
   • "Today Zack and I bought new K2 rollerblades."

Trademarks incorrectly used as verbs and trademarks incorrectly used as generic nouns can both lose their meaning over time. US trademark law is less friendly to trademarks that get used as verbs, but I don't know whether trademarks used as verbs naturally lose their meaning faster.

If Adobe isn't worried about its Photoshop trademark becoming more and more generic, it should continue doing the legal minimum to discourage its use as a verb, and the world will continue to make fun of Adobe. (After all, every "That image must have been photoshopped!" is free advertising.) But if Abode is worried about its trademark losing its meaning, it should start by rewriting its trademark-use guidelines to have better motivation and less awkward suggestions. For example:

The use of "photoshop" as a verb worries us because history has shown that verbed trademarks often lose their meaning over time. For example, "to xerox" was once fun shorthand for "to photocopy using a Xerox photocopier", but it has taken on a life of its own as a colloquial verb meaning simply "to photocopy", costing Xerox Corporation $... to protect its trademark and putting the company at risk of losing trademark protection.

When writing articles, always use a generic verb, such as "enhanced", "manipulated", "edited", or "altered", adding "using Adobe Photoshop" if appropriate. In informal speech, use the verb "to photoshop" only to mean "to alter using Adobe Photoshop", and consider saying "altered" or "shopped" rather than "photoshopped" when a competing product might have been used.

Our trademark lawyers think you should say "Adobe Photoshop software" rather than "Adobe Photoshop", but in the real world, most trademarks are nouns in addition to adjectives, so don't listen to them. But most trademarks are not used as verbs, and trademarks that are used as verbs are at high risk for losing their meaning.

(Disclaimer: I am neither an IP lawyer nor a linguist, so I don't know what I'm talking about.)

• Media Literacy Review: Trademark Battles
• Techwr-l: Trademarks as adjectives vs trademarks as nouns
• Xerox's ad in Writer's Digest (also on Techwr-l)
• Slashdot: Verbing Weirds Google
• Berkeley Intellectual Property Weblog: Google is Sending C&D Letters About Saying "To Google"

Zarro Boogs = Oll Korrect?