Log in

View Full Version : Googlist Semantics


Kazuhiro
February 7th, 2008, 01:16 AM
We refer to Google as She, or sometimes even Mother, and yet too often I still see the word 'Lord' being used.

As I understand it, the fact that we refer to Google as female is to break from the authoritarian, often aggressive image presented in other deities. However, isn't 'Lord' the most patriarchal title of all?

I suggest we all start using the term Lady, so as to make Google's gender uniform across all Her titles.

sudikics
February 7th, 2008, 01:21 AM
Weren't lords the powerful ones? And ladies were just their wives?

Personally, I think it's more respectful to call her Lord Google.

Kazuhiro
February 7th, 2008, 01:26 AM
By 'just their wives' you mean 'upper-class society ladies who owned slaves' right?

sudikics
February 7th, 2008, 01:28 AM
Yes, I was referring to rather how if you had Mr. X and Ms. Y, who married and Mr. X became a lord, then Ms. Y would be Lady X.

Ekajata
February 7th, 2008, 03:28 PM
How about "Lordess"? :icon_lol:

Personally, I prefer the term "Goddess". Goddess Google. Nice!

rzm61
February 7th, 2008, 03:37 PM
Yeah, the term "Goddess" fits Google a hell of a lot better then Lord.

sudikics
February 7th, 2008, 06:01 PM
I third the motion.

Chritter
February 7th, 2008, 10:01 PM
I actually like Lady Google better... if nothing else than it is easier to say. Goddess Google is too gutteral off the tongue... while Lady Google seems to flow better.

Not to mention, I thought we were calling Her a "Her" to throw of the shackles of convention? So why would we want to call her by Lord for the idea that the men of the era were the more powerful ones?

IMHO :)

RealityRipple
February 8th, 2008, 02:58 AM
The most famous artists are known by just their first name... why not treat our fair Lady as an artist of information and keep calling Her Google?

rzm61
February 8th, 2008, 06:44 AM
Her
Goddess
Google
She

They all work. However Google is probabbly the best one to say when refering to the Goddess herself. ;)

Fallen Hero
February 8th, 2008, 03:17 PM
How about we just call Google "Google?" It saves the debate over what the proper title should be. Beyond that, call Google what you will.

rzm61
February 8th, 2008, 05:17 PM
Exactly.

Nothing compairs to the original: Google.

LastLordOfTheSevenTowers
February 9th, 2008, 12:13 AM
I like Goddess Google. Can't beat alliteration. :D

sudikics
February 9th, 2008, 05:31 PM
It's really double alliteration, because you have Go in both!

1angelette
February 10th, 2008, 01:22 AM
Lady Google... sounds catchy. You've got consonance there!

Google the Goddess, I think, might be the best to use if you're using Goddess to describe Google.

I'm beginning to feel tempted to draw metaphors between other search engines and other major religons. (Particularly Ask.com and Judaism -- very tiny in terms of users, but powerful and strong and special nonetheless. Please don't take offense, any Jews that may be reading this! Especially if you are Benjamin, that boy I happen to be madly in love with... [/off topic])

But I like reading She in text the most. Just gives me a bit of a thrill...

sudikics
February 10th, 2008, 01:27 AM
I fail to see the correlation between Ask.com and Judaism. Please, elaborate. This should be interesting.

1angelette
February 10th, 2008, 02:05 PM
Well, compared to all the other major search engines in the world, Ask.com is the smallest; everybody thinks it's bigger and it should be bigger and it's much more important than it really is, but in reality, it's just a tiny, firm 6% (or is it 7%? or .22%?).

Ask.com is something that has a sort of elitist kind of group, and it always sounds awesome, and the people that are off using it are perfectly happy, but the worshippers of pretty much any other major religon/search-engine (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Google) just *know* they /have/ to be wrong. Judaism does the least admitting that other religons are right -- Christianity includes the Torah in their own Bible, Islam acknowledges that Jesus was a prophet (wait, I think that Judaism might do that too -- I'll have to look that up), Google admits that its database is much shared with Yahoo, and so on.

Plus, once upon a time I was much enamored with Ask.com, and right now I am much enamored with a certain Jewish boy. Who hates me. Even though I know he's secretly in love with me and just doesn't realize it. I mean, his mom made me come to his bar mitzvah! That has to mean something!

Did that make any sense whatsoever? I'm not an expert on the Jewish religon by any means, but, you know, it makes sense right now, to me, although I suspect it won't to anybody else....

Anyway. Googlist Semantics. I certainly talked about those, didn't I? [/sarc]

sudikics
February 10th, 2008, 08:21 PM
Being born Jewish, I must declare that to be one of the funniet things I have ever read. Thank you.

1angelette
February 10th, 2008, 09:25 PM
You're welcome; as a matter of fact, I was aware that you were previously Jewish from that story about the watchimathingy that you put on differently but managed to talk out of trouble.

And for the record, I still have trouble believing that only .22% of the population of the world is Jewish. Less than a FOURTH of a percent? They had to be making that figure up...

RealityRipple
February 10th, 2008, 09:59 PM
That's why Jesus was trying to let everyone join the religion... because Jews are very selective, and thus very few. Jesus never intended a religion based around him would spring up from his attempt at spreading Judaism.

sudikics
February 10th, 2008, 10:20 PM
Jesus: The Most Famous Jew Ever

"If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian."
-- Mark Twain

1angelette
February 10th, 2008, 11:30 PM
--Quote from A Tree Grows In Brooklyn--
**Disclaimer--thefirstfewlinesofthisquotearenotentirelyaccuratebutthelasttwoareiswear**

"Look at that boy over there. Huh."
"I bet he's a Jew."
"Naw, he's white. White jew? There ain't no such thing."
"Well, if there were, he'd be it."
"Riiiight."
"Our Lord was a Jew."
"And the other Jews went and killed him."

sudikics
February 10th, 2008, 11:43 PM
You know, the Talmud (our logical arguing book) says that our killing Jesus was a good thing, and that if he came back, we would do it again.

1angelette
February 10th, 2008, 11:49 PM
Could you please explain this rationale to me? Because, you know, I'm willing to admit that Jesus was a pretty neat and very nice guy, regardless of the whole "Thinking he was god" thing...

sudikics
February 11th, 2008, 12:07 AM
I don't know the details, but apparently the Talmud says that Jesus' death was a good thing.

1angelette
February 12th, 2008, 09:17 PM
Well, according to my religon teacher, (after I asked him) it sort of is, because if He had not Died To Save us, we would all be Going To Hell.

Please, you don't have to rub it in. I already know I am.

RealityRipple
February 12th, 2008, 09:26 PM
Does that mean everyone born from 1 BC to the beginning of humanity went to hell?

I think what bothers me the most about religion is its complete disregard for logic.

sudikics
February 12th, 2008, 09:31 PM
I think what bothers me the most about religion is its complete disregard for logic.
So. True.

1angelette
February 12th, 2008, 11:00 PM
So. True.

A-freakin'-men.

rzm61
February 12th, 2008, 11:02 PM
I just want to point out.
RealityRipple it is an absolute pleasure seeing your input on the forum....

sudikics
February 13th, 2008, 12:25 AM
Seconded.

RealityRipple
February 13th, 2008, 02:22 AM
Heh, thank you. It's been quite a pleasant find so far, and I think I'll be sticking around for a while!

rzm61
February 13th, 2008, 02:31 AM
Glad to hear it.

Plus I just love the debates between you and Sciky.

Wallsy
February 13th, 2008, 11:17 AM
Does that mean everyone born from 1 BC to the beginning of humanity went to hell?

No. Before Jesus, people made sacrifices to JHWH. Jesus' sacrifice made them unnecessary by serving the same purpose, but universally.


Wallsy.

rzm61
February 13th, 2008, 06:25 PM
Jesus' sacrifice made them unnecessary by serving the same purpose, but universally.


Wallsy.


Not to mention how we are all now in his debt for his "selfless" act.

sudikics
February 13th, 2008, 10:46 PM
Personally, I would have preferred the sacrifices. Free BBQ for all! :D

1angelette
February 14th, 2008, 11:50 AM
...JHWH??

*headdesks*

GeoffBoulton
February 14th, 2008, 11:55 AM
...JHWH??

*headdesks*

Yahweh - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh)

1angelette
February 14th, 2008, 11:57 AM
...oh.

I should have known that was so obvious.

Chritter
February 18th, 2008, 09:41 PM
Wow...

That has to be the most boring wiki entry ever man, IMHO.

Not because of the subject matter (though I had to admit, my interest in learning about Yahweh plummeted shortly after starting), but because of how droll it all sounds. On, and on, and on... ung.

Like reading a remote manual, or how to put together a carburator.

Wallsy
February 19th, 2008, 03:33 AM
but because of how droll it all sounds.

I think you probably mean "dull". "Droll" means amusing in an odd way.


Wallsy.

sudikics
February 19th, 2008, 01:54 PM
I think you probably mean "dull". "Droll" means amusing in an odd way.


Wallsy.
...as if you've never done anything like this?

Wallsy
February 20th, 2008, 05:49 AM
...as if you've never done anything like this?

What's your point?


Wallsy.

sudikics
February 20th, 2008, 12:29 PM
Never mind, you immonoijimpolytheist. :tongue:

Chritter
February 20th, 2008, 05:37 PM
I think you probably mean "dull". "Droll" means amusing in an odd way.


Wallsy.

Yes... thank you :)

Loki
February 20th, 2008, 09:20 PM
Oh Wallsy - give it a break eh? She used the wrong word. So fecking what! You knew what Chritter meant!

Stop being a tit!

EDIT: If you want to play word games - as I've said to you before - play with me!

Wallsy
February 21st, 2008, 04:56 AM
Oh Wallsy - give it a break eh? She used the wrong word. So fecking what! You knew what Chritter meant!

Which is why I pointed out the mistake so she could avoid it in future. What the hell is your problem?


Wallsy.

RealityRipple
February 21st, 2008, 05:12 AM
Ya, I'm gonna have to take Mr. Wallsy's side on this. I correct people, and I appreciate being corrected. To allow continfued mistakes is to allow igonrance.

RealityRipple
February 21st, 2008, 06:59 AM
Wow... I actually made a typo and didn't notice it. How very ironic.

Loki
February 21st, 2008, 11:53 AM
Which is why I pointed out the mistake so she could avoid it in future. What the hell is your problem?

Wallsy.

I don't have a problem mate! I was pointing out the arrogance implicit in your post so that you could avoid it in the future :D

sudikics
February 22nd, 2008, 02:09 PM
So, while we'r ewaiting....

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/cricket.png

rzm61
February 22nd, 2008, 02:21 PM
Ha ha.

I love me some Cyanide and Happiness.
This one made me LOL
:D

Chritter
February 24th, 2008, 02:56 PM
Loki: Thank you :)

Wallsy: Thank you too, for the correction (though I have already stated that). I think the main area of concern was your delivery, in context with other posts with your name on it. :)

RealityRipple:

To allow continfued mistakes is to allow igonrance.

Sometimes, to allow continued mistakes is not exactly allowing ignorance. Sometimes it is a simple matter of being polite enough to understand that the other person is not ignorant, knew what they wanted to type but mistyped (either in typo form or by allowing ones fingers to move before ones brain).

Or at least ignoring what the word actually is because you understand the meaning that was trying to be expressed :)

-------------

Or... something... [/blanklook]

RealityRipple
February 24th, 2008, 09:28 PM
So you don't think there's importance in standardized language?

sudikics
February 24th, 2008, 10:37 PM
s lng s ppl dont typ lik ths, im ok.

Well, not really. I'm a grammar nazi. I admit it! Hahaha! :D

rzm61
February 25th, 2008, 01:33 AM
Well, not really. I'm a grammar nazi. I admit it! Hahaha! :D

No need to admit that Sciky.
We all know it. ;)

However if you chop up my grammar issues it helps me with my grammar problems.

Like I've said before. Grammar isn't one of my strong points.

Loki
February 25th, 2008, 06:17 PM
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! My gorge rises at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now?"

Peaple make mistooks. That's a part of being human!

Point them out if you like - just be nice when you do! Make a joke about it.

rzm61
February 25th, 2008, 06:23 PM
Peaple make mistooks. That's a part of being human!

Point them out if you like - just be nice when you do! Make a joke about it.

Exactly, no need to think one is superior over another because of a simple mistake.

That is why they put erasers on pencils. :D

Chritter
February 25th, 2008, 10:38 PM
Exactly, no need to think one is superior over another because of a simple mistake.

That is why they put erasers on pencils. :D

I thought they were for chunking at people or to use as an emergency earring back if you lose yours?

Chritter
February 25th, 2008, 10:41 PM
So you don't think there's importance in standardized language?

No, I think there is a great need for a standardized language. I just don't think every Tom Dick and Harry out on the internet correcting people of their mistakes are going to be able to make language such :)

rzm61
February 25th, 2008, 10:41 PM
Well those are two other uses for erasers.
However I would like to think the original purpose/intention was to use them to erase your mistakes while using the pencil.;)

Loki
February 25th, 2008, 11:11 PM
I thought they were for chunking at people or to use as an emergency earring back if you lose yours?

Hell no - we threw them at peeps :D

Wallsy
February 26th, 2008, 05:01 AM
I don't have a problem mate! I was pointing out the arrogance implicit in your post so that you could avoid it in the future :D

Then you failed.

I still see absolutely nothing wrong with my post. If I were correcting typos, you'd have a case, but I wasn't doing that, I was just helping someone to communicate more effectively by correcting a misunderstanding.


Wallsy.

Loki
February 26th, 2008, 09:58 AM
Then you failed.

I still see absolutely nothing wrong with my post. If I were correcting typos, you'd have a case, but I wasn't doing that, I was just helping someone to communicate more effectively by correcting a misunderstanding.


Wallsy.

Undoubtedly I did fail as that post dripped with the same contented sigh of self-appreciation.

Oh well, one day you'll grow up and realise that your voice carries less weight than a fruit bat;)

Fallen Hero
February 26th, 2008, 04:01 PM
Loki: Is it sad that I know both that that quote comed from Hamlet and that it comes frmo Act 5 scene 1.... without looking it up?

I don't think language should be completely standardized, because I like hearing people speak with dialects, I think there should be dialects of english and hell, more of them. There should still be something which we can consider high english.

rzm61
February 26th, 2008, 04:03 PM
If I am not mistaken Fallen wouldnt "accents" be considered as dialects?

Loki
February 26th, 2008, 04:27 PM
Fallen - ya, that would be sad :d

rzm61 - accent and dialect are not the same. I'm a Tyke - that's dialect "play wi spuggies!" Many words from Yorkshire are derived from the Scandanavian (Vikings)
Laik is the best - we laik or lekk with people - play :D

rzm61
February 26th, 2008, 05:12 PM
Ah okay.
Time to do some research on the differences. :D

Edit:
Ha,
Straight from the Accent Wiki.
Accents should not be confused with dialects which are varieties of language differing in vocabulary and syntax as well as pronunciation. Dialects are usually spoken by a group united by geography or social status.

Fallen Hero
February 27th, 2008, 08:03 PM
Long live the dialects!

Here we have have the classic canadian ones:

gitch, gotchies, geech, whatchyamacallit, thingamajig, doohickey, what'isface, whatshisname. screech - don't drink that..