that's not the point

When a crime is committed, of course it must be some comfort to the victims to know that it will be investigated and the perpetrator/s brought to justice - much preferable, obviously, to being the victim of a crime and voiceless, unable to get redress.

But when the crime is committed against you by someone from an organisation which claims to be acting in your best interests, and as the outworking of the highest ideals of enlightened principles, it makes the crime much much worse, and the comfort of being told by that organisation that the perpetrator will be brought to justice becomes somewhat cold, one would expect.

If you haven't guessed already, I've just been reading some of the reports of the alleged killing of civilians by US troops in Hadith, Iraq. And not only that, but Hilary Benn's almost incredibly unhelpful explanation that this actually represents progress for Iraq, because they can now complain about it.

This argument is perhaps most politely described as disingenuous. If all this so-called openness had arisen under Saddam's regime, then you might have considered it progress. But the point of the so-called liberation of Iraq was meant to end all this violence and undeserved bloodshed. When it turns out that the liberators themselves are basically as violent and bloodthirsty as the dictatorship, I'm afraid that's not progress. Given that the stated purpose of America going into Iraq in the first place was to bring in an idealised version of the freedoms that we enjoy in the West, it's completely beside the point to talk about the opportunity of "due process" when the very people who were meant to be introducing human rights are flouting them at will. All they're doing is perpetuating the misery that the population was already experiencing, with the only difference that they're now giving Western democracy a bad name while they're at it.

what did peter know about the trinity?

I’ve started reading a book about Simon Peter written by Ted Donnelly - Peter: Eyewitness of his Majesty (Banner of Truth 1998), and it’s just reminded me of something which I was going to write a long time ago – about the nature of the faith that believers had in the Old Testament (already mentioned here).

A couple of paragraphs in Chapter 3 of this book are devoted to demonstrating how thoroughly and dogmatically the Jews were monotheistic. Then comes this paragraph:

“Peter shares this faith of his fathers. But he and his friends have come to believe also that Jesus of Nazareth is related to the living God in a unique and intimate way. We cannot be sure how much he understood when he called Jesus ‘the Son of God.’ What did he know of the Trinity? Had he been taught about the eternal Son, creator of the universe?”

What did Peter know about the Trinity? Quite a lot, actually, simply from being familiar with the Old Testament scriptures. He would of course have known about the First Person of the Godhead (this presumably doesn't need to be elaborated on). But he would also have known about a divine person called the Spirit of the Lord, who inspired the prophets (2 Samuel 23, Ezekiel 3) and enabled them to work miracles (Judges 13-15) and whose presence was necessary for spiritual life (Psalm 51); and thirdly he would have known about another divine person, the Son of God (Psalm 2). By reading the scriptures, any Jew of his era should have known that there is one God, and that he is one (Deuteronomy 6), and yet that there are three persons in the Godhead. This truth was clearly available in the Old Testament for the OT believers to lay hold of (for further examples, take Isaiah 11 where there is the rod of Jesse, the Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord; in Isaiah 59 there is the Redeemer, the Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord; and in Isaiah 61 there is the anointed one, the Spirit of the Lord God, and the Lord).

By calling Jesus “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Peter was identifying the man he was speaking to with the promised Messiah – and there was nothing vague about the characteristics that would identify the Messiah when he came. From the very start of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Saviour who was promised is not only really human (the seed of the woman) but also more than human (with power to bruise the head of the serpent).

• the seed of Abraham in whom all the nations of the world would be blessed
• a kingly priest after the order of Melchizedek
• the New Testament Joseph going ahead of his brethren and out of his overflowing storehouses sustaining them in life (I'm reading in Genesis just now)
  
• a prophet who was like Moses but greater than Moses
• a priest greater than Aaron
• a leader and commander to the people, greater than Joshua
• David’s son and David’s Lord
• a greater than Solomon, wiser and richer
• the fulfilment of all the sacrifices of the tabernacle and the temple
• the suffering servant
• the victorious conqueror
• the child who would be born and the Son who would be given, the Mighty God (Isaiah 6)
• the man who is God’s fellow (Zech 13)

Of course, many of the clearest revelations of the three distinct persons in the Godhead come from the prophecies which were written later in history, ie as the details of the salvation God was providing were enlarged on and added to. If the question had been about someone who’d lived earlier in history than Peter, ie before the Old Testament scriptures were complete, they wouldn’t have had the same amount of knowledge as this. Someone who had lived and died without witnessing the unprecedented splendour of Solomon’s times, for example, wouldn’t have been able to point to all that grandeur and say, The Messiah is greater than all this.

But would they have known the Trinity? Yes, they would still have known the essentials – the bare facts which at the end of the day are both as much and as little as believers know in the New Testament – there is one God, and there are three Persons in the Godhead, and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. And would they have known the Eternal Son? Yes, that believer would still have known that the Messiah was going to be of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and was going to be equipped by God with the power to bruise the head of the serpent: and their faith in that promise would have saved them, just as surely as a person today is saved by faith in the same promises now fulfilled.

Now I'm going to put this behind me and see how the rest of the book pans out - hopefully this will be my only quibble with it.

well just fancy that

Two quizzes from Highland Host. My astounding results are as follows. Who and what are you? =)

You scored as Free Presbyterian Church. You are Free Presbyterian. You believe that the Scottish Presbyterian tradition ought to be upheld, and you are a strong upholder of the Westminster Confession. Frankly, others think you're fossilised. Disruption Free Church 93% Free Presbyterian Church 93% Reformed Presbyterian 65% Auld Kirk 60% United Presbyterian 48% 18th Century 'Moderate' Auld Kirk 15% What Scottish Presbyterian Church would you feel at home in? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as John Knox. You are John Knox. You are implaccably opposed to the Pope and the 'monsterous Regiment of Women'. You uphold classic Presbyterianism. John Knox 95% James Orr 95% Thomas Chalmers 85% Thomas Boston 80% James Denney 65% Which Scottish Theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

quarried stones can't lift themselves

I'm quoting this from memory - something I heard this evening and have to write down before I forget.

In a sermon on Mark 13:34-37, Robert Murray McCheyne talks about Christ as the Builder of his house, the Church, and (possibly with a reference to the verse about 'living stones' in Peter, although I don't remember that specifically) he said that Christians before they were converted were firmly embedded in the quarry of the world. It took the power of the Holy Spirit to dig them out of that quarry. But then, he said, even stones that have been quarried are completely unable to move themselves - they need to be lifted and carried by the Builder, and the Builder places them exactly where they should be.

(In case you're wondering how stones and buildings come into Mark 13:34-37, this was just a passing comment under the point that in this parable the Church on earth is said to be like a house, and Christ is the master of the house - the foundation of it and also the builder of it.)

the hundredth

Well, here's a milestone in literary history ... I think this is post number 100. Behind the scenes at blogger they tell you how many posts you've done, but my number isn't exact cos there are a couple of unpublished drafts in there for when I feel like a 'here's one I made earlier' moment. Anyway, instead of writing anything original I'm just going to direct you away to someone else instead. This post at The Holdfast is full of things to think about. It also fits in quite well with a discussion I had at the weekend with someone who had some remarkably coherent thoughts on the damage that you can do to yourself by thinking too deeply about negative things, like sin and temptation. Not that you shouldn't think about them at all, but you can't help being dragged down when you do focus on them unnecessarily long and hard, and we agreed that it's better to fill your mind with good things instead. Or if not exactly instead, then maybe perhaps at least as well, ie keeping things in perspective.

I do hereby renounce all my rights...

After you've got over the hurdle of enticing people to come and participate in your study in the first place, you then have to wangle their permission to (a) keep and (b) use the data that they've provided you with.

You'd think that the mere fact that they've volunteered to take part would be enough - but that doesn't take into consideration the myriad ways that researchers and their departments might possibly want to use the data into the future. There's an urban myth about a child who was taped as a toddler learning to speak, only to grow up and take a language development course at university in later life, and experience the horror of discovering that that recording of herself was being used in that course as a teaching resource. Whoops. A less than ideal situation in many ways, not least given the fact that the recording must have been at least 15 years old by that stage. Anyway, what should have happened was that that child's parents should have been asked to give their consent to the recording not just being used for the immediate project, but also kept for an indefinite period and made available as a teaching resource.

Well, there was a discussion which clogged up our department's email list for nearly two days with a to-and-fro about drawing up a generic consent form so that everyone who's recorded by anyone in the department will be able to say whether they're happy for the recording to be archived, and select options for the future use of the recording.

But there are competing interests at stake, as different projects have different priorities for how they use their data. Obviously (as far as I'm aware) the default is to anonymise the data, ie you refer to speakers by code numbers or random capital letters, so that none of your participants can be readily identified when you write up the project: an assurance of confidentiality has to be ironclad. But in my case, some of the data I've been collecting has come from people who've had to disclose a disability, and in that case it's completely understandable if people only want you to use their data for a particular specified purpose. But other people in the department work with speakers of endangered languages, say in Australia or the Sahara, and have a real interest in preserving the data in an archive that's as widely accessible as possible. For them, it would be pretty unhelpful if, say, one of the eight remaining speakers of an aboriginal language requested for the tapes to be wiped after two years.

So there are lots of issues around how you phrase the consent form - unrestricted availability is obviously much more convenient for the research community, but participants are few and far between as it is, and the last thing you want to do is make it sound like people are being awkward for wanting to limit the use of their personal data. The debate continues.

forecasts for the day

I'm not the only person who thinks the letters of John Newton are extremely helpful. The other day I was dipping into my copy again (the short version, I haven't actually read any of the longer ones) and had a look at the letter titled "How to keep close to the Lord," which as he says is both "our bounden duty and the highest privilege we can propose to ourselves." He ends by mentioning three means which we should use in order to have this privilege, one being prayer, another being attention to scripture, and the third, consideration or recollection.

By the third, he means that we should carefully observe the things that happen to us, and the particular temptations that individual people are vulnerable to. He also gives a down to earth piece of advice: "it may be well, in the morning, ere we leave our chambers, to forecast as far as we are able, the probable circumstances of the day before us." This would be with a view to not just preparing yourself mentally for them, but asking for help to deal with whatever comes your way. Confronting potential worries before they happen and facing them down is one thing, but ideally it would be a case of praying, knowing that we are not only subject to be tempted, and forward to expose ourselves unto temptations, but also unable and unwilling to recover ourselves out of them - Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Anyway, the reason I noticed that comment in Newton was because Philip Doddridge says the same thing in the Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul, and under the same general heading - Chapter XIX, Some more particular directions for maintaining continual communion with God, or being in his fear all the day long. He says:

"It may be proper after this [ie your personal devotions first thing in the morning] to take a prospect of the day before us, so far as we can probably foresee, in the general, where and how it may be spent: and seriously to reflect, 'How shall I employ myself for God this day? What business is to be done, and in what order? What opportunities may I expect, either of doing or of receiving good? What temptations am I likely to be assaulted with, in any place, company, or circumstance, which may probably occur? In what instances have I lately failed? and how shall I be safest now?'

"After this review, it would be proper to offer up a short prayer, begging that God would quicken us to each of these foreseen duties, that he would fortify us against each of these apprehended dangers, that he would grant us success in such or such a business undertaken for his glory; and also, that he would help us to discover and improve unforeseen opportunities, to resist unexpected temptations, and to bear patiently and religiously any afflictions which may surprise us in the day on which we are entering."

Probably different people would find that kind of advice helpful in different degrees ... as Newton adds as soon as he says it, "the observance of this, as well as of every rule that can be offered, may dwindle into a mere form." However, he says to his correspondent, "I trust that the Lord, who has given you a desire to live for him, will be your guard and teacher." ... Lord, teach thou us / Our end in mind to bear, / And so to count our days, that we / Our hearts may still apply / To learn thy wisdom and thy truth, / That we may live thereby.

keyboard issues - resolved!

Just had a lovely positive experience digging through the innards of my laptop this lunchtime.

Remember my problem? Well, I finally dug out my invoice from Dell so I could confirm the machine was still under warranty, and got on the phone ... navigated through the usual helpline options ... and ... spoke to someone who initially didn't understand my problem. Let me outline the problem, and then you can probably sympathise with him: A slightly annoying thing about the layout of my keyboard is that the delete key is at the bottom right hand side, instead of the top, which means it's right beside the "INS" key which activates the OVR overwrite function in Microsoft Word. Now it wasn't just that the down-arrow and the right-arrow had combined functions, but the Del button and the Ins button had done the same thing: every time I deleted a character in Word, the overwrite function was activated too: you can imagine how frustrating that was. The thing is, I've never been able to find a use for Ins in, say, Notepad, so I tried explaining how the problem manifested in Word. Bad idea: one mention of the M-word and I was getting told patiently that this was the hardware helpline and if I had a problem with applications I'd need to go somewhere else. Ok, I might not have the world's most competent grasp of computing issues, but I did know this much.

Anyway, after I managed to convince him on that point, things speeded up. He talked me through taking my laptop to pieces, I nervously disconnected some scary bits, and, in short, the problem was fixed! Yay! With a little bit of help from James and a screwdriver in the background I should add. But mainly, what a nice chap he was on the end of the phone, guessing the problem, explaining the procedure calmly, and above all sparing me the nightmare of spiriting my laptop away for the repairs instead. Otherwise I might have had to start inhabiting my office again on a regular basis. Phew.

which secular britain hasn't woken up to yet

On Radio 4 they're trailing a program (airing tonight I think) where an intrepid journalist ventures into exotic communities of Religious Believers in the Inner Cities, to investigate a world of strongly held religious convictions, and the trailer ends with a comment along the lines that this is a phenomenon which secular Britain hasn't woken up to yet.

But I find this a slightly misleading description of the state of affairs. It makes it sound like "secular Britain" is the norm, the way it's always been, and creeping waves of religiosity are just starting to infiltrate this nonreligious society. They're completely avoiding the realisation that this isn't so much secular Britain as secularised Britain - dogmatic varieties of religion have had a long and respectable history here, and the cultural change which we've undergone isn't so much religion springing up as conventional religion dying out. The thing to wake up to is that when you do abandon that solid background of a national reformation of religion, then it's hardly surprising that all sorts of intellectual and spiritual oddities will spring up to fill the gap. As they say, when you decline to believe the truth, you don't just end up believing nothing, you'll believe anything.

lamb chops: a cry for help

An urgent and pressing question has arisen. Think of the food you eat with mint sauce: say it out loud, maybe in a convenient sentence such as, "Look at the lamb chops there." Now think of the hairstyle. Say it out loud: "Look at the lamb chops there."

The question is, do both those sentences sound identical when you say them aloud? Thinking particularly about which of the words in "lamb chops" gets more stress - are they identical, or is there a slight difference in where you place the emphasis, depending on which meaning you intend?

If you happen to read this in the next day or so, please let me know what you think! Your intuitions will be invaluable. (This is state-of-the art linguistics methodology you know. Got a problem - ask the nearest native speaker.) (If you didn't know there was such a hairstyle as "lamb chops," by the way, I'm afraid you were clearly just born in the wrong decade. Sorry.)

a triple metaphor for conversion

Commenting that "the drawings of the Father are very powerful," John Flavel expands on the descriptions that the Bible gives of how souls are converted.

"The Scripture expresses the work of conversion by a threefold metaphor, namely, that of a resurrection from the dead, Romans 6:4; that of creation, Ephesians 2:10; and that of victory or conquest, 2 Corinthians 10:4-5.

"All these set forth the infinite power of God in this work, for no less than almighty power is required in each of them, and if you strictly examine the distinct ideas, you will find the power of God more and more illustriously displayed in each of them.

"To raise the dead is the effect of almighty power; but then resurrection presupposes existent matter. In the work of creation, there is no preexistent matter; but then there is no opposition; that which is not, rebels not against the power which gives it being. But victory and conquest presuppose opposition: all the power of corrupt nature arming itself and fighting against God, but yet not able to frustrate his design." (The Method of Grace, p83)

(I quoted before from the same book, the section on receiving the gospel offer.)

In terms of what use can be made of these observations, I was dipping into The Christian in Complete Armour yesterday and found Gurnall speaking along the same lines.

"O how unbecoming it is to have a great God, and a little faith on that great God! a strong God, and a weak faith on his almighty power! ... Obliterate that word, 'Is he able?' Away with that question which so grates on the ears of the Almighty: Can he pardon? can he purge? What cannot he do that can do what he will?"

ornaments to their profession

A couple of posts ago I outlined what happened at the revivals of Stewarton and Kirk of Shotts. It's also interesting to see the way that different personalities and their actions contributed to the set of circumstances that the revivals came from, and in both cases, there was a significant contribution from the contemporary women.

In the case of Stewarton, the minister whose work was used to bring about the revival was David Dickson. But prior to the work beginning, Mr Dickson had been banished from his parish up to Turriff, in the north of Scotland, because of his opposition to the Five Articles of Perth (among other anti-presbyterian measures which the church was battling with at the time). Dickson was brought back to Irvine through the efforts of the Earl of Eglinton, according to McCrie. And interestingly, in a parenthesis McCrie manages to talk much more about the wife of this man, rather than the man himself. Apparently, after an unpromising upbringing, the Countess of Eglinton had been converted and was "an ornament to her Christian profession," someone who "exerted all her influence for the promotion of religion and the protection of its faithful ministers."

Then at Kirk of Shotts, as mentioned previously, the revival started after the Monday of a communion. But in terms of the ministers who were present at that communion, it's interesting to see that they were there by invitation, on the request of a group of ladies who were friendly with the local minister, Mr Hance. When their carriage broke down one time as they were passing, Mr Hance put them up until it was repaired - in return, they clubbed together to build him a new manse. It was out of gratitude for that kindness that he asked what he could do for them, and their response was to ask him to invite to the communion some ministers of their choosing. This was a way of being able to hear some of the ministers who (like Mr Dickson) were undergoing difficulties for their commitment to gospel principles, and the selection included the "venerable" Robert Bruce, a longstanding faithful minister who was by then in his 70s, as well as John Livingstone, the 27 year old minister who eventually preached on that Monday. As a final footnote, it's worth mentioning that Livingstone was at that point the chaplain of the Countess of Wigton: the episcopalians had blocked every attempt to induct him as minister to any particular parish, but she and her husband took him into their home as their chaplain, to preach there according to opportunity.

In DP Thomson's book, Women of the Scottish Church, he gives case after case of women advancing the cause of the gospel in whatever way was open to them. Sometimes that meant giving support and encouragement to their own husbands in difficult situations (like in the covenanting period, a couple of decades after these revivals). But there were more than a few instances of women in the nobility using their influence in various ways - such as appointing chaplains as in this case, or giving the ministers financial help, and generally making their resources available to the cause.

When you look at the revivals themselves, it's also noticeable that nobody had to do anything out of the ordinary as a prerequisite for the blessing being poured out. The Earl and Countess of Eglinton were only doing what anyone in their situation would have done, when they worked to have Mr Dickson recalled. The ladies in Mr Hance's case ditto (hmm, who would you choose, if you got the chance to pick your own ministers for a communion...). They were just going about their ordinary ways, doing sensible Christian things based on straightforward Christian principles, and as it worked out, their actions contributed to the network of circumstances that were used as a means of bringing blessing to themselves and others.

"The Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, neither is his ear heavy, that it cannot hear, but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you..." Isaiah 59. "Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgements, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he swore unto thy fathers, and he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee..." Deuteronomy 7. "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." Malachi 3.

more and better palliative care

It's getting a bit late, but I've just written a letter to a selection of peers about Lord Joffe's bill, Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill, which is due to have its second reading in the House of Lords on May 12th (ie this Friday coming).

It aims to make physician-assisted suicide legal for adults undergoing "unbearable suffering," but it comes with all the usual problems and flaws of this kind of thing. There aren't enough safeguards to ensure that vulnerable people won't be subtly pressurised into asking for their lives to be ended - it doesn't have an adequate definition of "suffering", and it doesn't require any psychiatric screening (people are more likely to ask for euthanasia if they're depressed), and so on.

In the light of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society's recent rebranding of themselves under the title Dignity in Dying, it's also worth considering which option really ascribes more dignity to human beings in need - the approach that thinks it's better to get them killed to get them out of their needy situation, or the approach that wants to meet those needs and address the reasons why they're suffering. We don't need easier earlier deaths, as if that's somehow helpful to anyone: what we need is more and better palliative care, and greater efforts to care for terminally ill people to allow them to live out the rest of their natural lives in circumstances that are as comfortable as possible. See the Care NOT Killing alliance's site for much much more in the same strain.

electorally credible

I'm listening to the World at One and they've just had a pundit from Strathclyde pointing out that Labour can't rely on the electorate's continuing dislike of the Tories - the results of the English local council elections have been surprisingly good for the Tories, and Labour has taken a big kicking. That could be because of the bad publicity they've gone through over the past week or so: or it could just be because of their bad management of the country, domestically and internationally, for the past nine years.

But however unattractive the idea of a Tory revival may be in some quarters, it's much more disturbing to see that 'electoral credibility' is being gained by none other than the far-right British National Party. Who are racist, in case you hadn't noticed. It's a huge credit to Scottish politics that the BNP hasn't managed to get a foothold up here so far (although they are trying), but until recently you wouldn't have expected such success for them in England either. We all know that New Labour is a mess, and we all know there isn't much in the way of alternatives, but surely we can't turn to thuggish white supremacists to help us out of this dilemma.

two revivals

In The Story of the Scottish Church, Thomas McCrie mentions two 17th century revivals - one in Stewarton (Ayrshire) and one in Kirk of Shotts (outside Glasgow).

In the early to mid 1620s, David Dickson, minister of Irvine in Ayrshire, began holding lectures every Monday in Irvine (that was the weekly market day). The meetings were held in a hall in the manse, and over a hundred people would attend - including visitors from nearby Stewarton, encouraged by their own minister. It was as a result of concerned hearers attending these meetings that the revival began to spread throughout the Stewarton area, affecting "multitudes" according to McCrie, including some people who had previously been very hostile and derogatory towards the gospel. The features which McCrie mentions are these people's concern about sin, which brought them to listen to Mr Dickson's lectures in the first place, and the resulting "solid, serious, and practical piety" which characterised these people as the work proceeded.

Then in 1630, the sacrament of the Lord's supper was dispensed at Shotts, attended with an unusual "spirit of light and love." The people in general, it seems, felt constrained to hold an extra service on the Monday of the communion, and a young minister called John Livingstone was persuaded to preach. He took the verses in Ezekiel 36:25-26, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you ..." and spoke for an hour and half. Then as he was about to close, he was led to speak on for another hour, accompanied with what he himself described as such liberty as he never experienced in his life before or after: and according to McCrie, no less than five hundred people traced their conversion to this sermon. Again, a new seriousness, a readiness to pray, and a subsequent life of 'soberness, righteousness, and godliness,' were among the characteristics of the people who were affected at this time.

I wrote something previously which was sparked off by McCheyne's comment that revivals are typically preceded by a spirit of praise. It is still hard to look at circumstances in the church, never mind in society at large, and find anything very positive to rejoice in: given the sorry state we're in, how can there be anything other than shamefacedness. But even if we didn't have the example of how things happened in the 1600s, in times of perhaps greater harrassment of Christians and less of a heritage to appeal to - there's still the fact that although we have destroyed ourselves, in the Lord there is help: Hosea 13:9. Or as it says in Psalm 95:

1 O come, let us sing to the Lord:
come, let us every one
A joyful noise make to the Rock
of our salvation.
...
3 For God, a great God, and great King,
above all gods he is.
...
6 O come, and let us worship him,
let us bow down withal,
And on our knees before the Lord
our Maker let us fall.

keyboard issues

A weird thing has started happening with my laptop. My cursor keys have combined roles, or something - whenever I press the down-arrow, the cursor jumps down AND right: same if I press the right-arrow. This is incredibly annoying, cos I'm working in Excel at the moment inputting pitch and duration measurements for yet another batch of sound files, and it means I can't use the arrows to navigate around half the directions I need. It's not so much fun editing text documents either. This is probably an indication of how I should work at the office with a desktop maintained by real live tech support, rather than lurking in my "home office" with nothing but an internet connection to any outside world. Hmm, once my hair's dry, maybe I'll do something about that.

a day to work from home

I got a phonecall this morning to cancel the meeting I was supposed to have at 11am. Which was just as well, as it turns out my hairdryer was on its very last legs. When I switched it on, it just started smoking and died. Serves it right for smoking! I hear you cry. But it also gives me the perfect excuse to hibernate in the flat instead of going to the office, again. Once it's safe to venture forth without looking like a drowned rat, I'll go and buy a new one - on route to the office, of course.

the gaelic for ouch

Since I have no idea how to spell it, I'll give a stab at a phonetic transcription: the Gaelic for ouch is: [ɤ:v].

Just for completeness, and to be honest, just to show off my newly acquired ability to make IPA symbols appear out of HTML, a rough transcription of (Scottish) ouch would be [ʌʉʧ].

A related piece of linguistic trivia is the variation in onomatopoeia across languages. The trusty old textbook which I've had since first year gives the following examples.





(O'Grady et al 1996, p159)

I also want to write a post sometime soon on the issue of where different regional accents come from, but first I have to quickly read up on some stuff, just to make sure I make sense.