sovay | In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral

(In which I attempt to offer an alternative to all the actually useful good news I've been posting around here lately.) Some months ago,

fleurdelis28 and I were under the impression that we had created a Model of a Modern Major-General Meme. I have now discovered from

lignota that someone with an OKCupid! account not only had the same idea, but the quiz-fashioning skills to implement it. I hope you share with me the realization that this is seriously disturbing. There are just some things that shouldn't evolve in parallel.

That said, these results amuse me highly. I'm betting it was the washing list in Babylonic cuneiform that did it.

The Very Model

You are 61% the model of a modern Major-General

Congratulations! You are the very model of a modern Major-General. There's still room for improvement, though; even Major-General Stanley isn't perfect.

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 34%
on stanley-ness

Link: The Modern Major General Test written by touleontos on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I like the idea of "stanley-ness" as a variable.

I wonder how one gauges stanley-ness. Familiarity with peculiar knowledge can't be the only variable—a dozen wards, for example, must really tip the balance.

But even without the, he'd still have to be the model of a Modern Major-General.

It may actually be the washing-bill in Babylonic cuneiform that does it.

Ha! An idea!

signy1 posted sadly in my journal that she couldn't find a good text in Babylonic cuneiform. I said I would use my new library skills to look for her -- but maybe you could recommend something?

What kind of text do you want? For teaching, I learned out of Richard Caplice's Introduction to Akkadian, but I've also heard good things about John Huehnergard's (admittedly brick-thick) A Grammar of Akkadian. I'm not sure one could self-teach out of either, but I've never tried. Under such circumstances, however, I might be forced to recommend Huehnergard: Caplice is almost too terse to make sense. He's not incomprehensible, but professorial clarification really, really helps.

For reading, I have to say that I'm biased sharply toward Ištar's Descent, Gilgameš, and Nergal and Ereškigal, mostly because those are the mythological texts I've read in Akkadian; although the Neo-Assyrian ŠÀ.ZI.GA ritual was also pretty cool. (I'm sure that if I'd read more, I'd have more to recommend.) Off the top of my head, I can't think of any washing lists. But I could write you one.

Since it is

signy1 who wants the text and not I, I will relay the info to her and suggest that she consult you. Cool -- thanks!

If you want to teach yourself Akkadian and the cuneiform it's written in, I'd suggest Huehnergard's "A Grammar of Akkadian". The Caplice book is excellent for an actual class, because it can be covered in a single semester (IF you have an instructor). But it is too terse. Huehnergard's book also has a companion volume with the answers to the exercises, which helps with self-teaching. The only drawback to Huehnergard is that it is thick and filled with details that aren't essential to learning the language (most professionals, including myself, keep a copy around for reference), but this is a minor quibble.

And people who study Akkadian become instantly better looking, so it's worth the effort.

Thanks! I will tell

signy1 you said so. Especially the last part. :-)

. . . I entered your name into Wikipedia on a whim. Seems that someone's written you a stub.

(I should warn you that it's stubbier than usual. Wondering if I should add anything to it, but I'm afraid it would turn into a ramble about conversations I've had with you.)

This is so weird.

(Feel free to expand!)

Thanks for letting me know!

I might, but I'm kind of nervous to do so. The problem with being a personal friend is that I don't quite know where would be a professional place to cut off what I know. (I'm not carrying around any scandals or anything, but I can name your parents and significant other and who knows what else, and I would feel remarkably weird doing that.)

(Understood. I'm not actually sure I'd like that sort of thing in the public domain anyway.) I suppose you could always leave out the personal information—parents' names, romantic involvement—and stick to things like publications, college, etc. Although at that point I might as well write the thing myself . . . Is that legal?

Perfectly legal, as long as the facts are verifiable.

Interesting to see if anyone recognizes your proze style in the article. I suppose you could disguise it with the occasional "lol" or "WTF," and liberal doses of the suffix "-izzle."

"Sonya Taaffe is a distant relative of Eduard von Taaffe, and the second cousin once removed [or whatever it is] of Shalom Aleichem. She possesses a CD of an early-twentieth-century tenor singing Italian opera in German with tuba accompaniment. In her free time, she translates Akkadian tales of the underworld. The Squirrel of Nonsequitors occupies her laundry room."

I have made one contribution: I added you to the "Taaffe" disambiguation page, where your name now sits alongside lots of people to whom I'm pretty sure you're related.

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Speaking of wacky webbiness . . .

Re: Speaking of wacky webbiness . . .

Re: Speaking of wacky webbiness . . .

Re: Speaking of wacky webbiness . . .

Re: Speaking of wacky webbiness . . .

Re: Speaking of wacky webbiness . . .

Re: Speaking of wacky webbiness . . .