Saturday, September 01, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Peter Pan 2012 Revision
Coming Soon...
Peter Pan
(Version Two, Revision from 2010 Version One)
The man that’s a boy, who turns me into a little girl,
He has the hands of a man, with the soul of a man,
But the laughter of a boy~ that tickles me,
My laughter,
My soul,
This boy that’s a man,
Chokes my heart up into my throat,
And scutules back down into my stomac,
With a swiftly tempo’d rhythm.
The mans that’s a boy
That almost turns this cynic woman
Into a little girl
With the sensibilities of a naive romantic
When I indulge in him…
Seems to be succeeding,
At suffocating those last embers
Left from the blazing Notions devoid of hope
That brimmed the burn for 26 years
Of My laughless, tickleless, smirking Soul...
It’s oxymoronic? And thus untrue?
A boy can’t be a man, a woman a little girl
Or do we defy normality
To revel in the pleasure,
That could exist
In another... Reality
No. I have hidden in alter realities long enough,
Now I’ll indulging the contrived cliché that it’s never to late,
So I left Peter Pan in Never Never Land,
Simply a storybook that seemed great.
How ironic, or true to my nature;
Being oxymoronic,
That I would find my fairytale man,
Right here, without a plan now on my land
And he just happens to exist...
In THIS reality,
That is Mine, Yours, and the Who ever wants it,
Purified from fictions trickery,
An allowed treachery,
That once always had its hold on me.
Deplorably, whom am I kidding?
Peter Pans fable will always have a lingering hold on me.
Luckily for me not so unpardonably,
This loitering end with weighted eyelids,
The effortless fall to my pillow,
My face smartingly teder, left with a pleasant aching,
Pure ramification of all the prolonged smiles and bouts of laughter,
Uncontrolled from fits
That haile down on me, as I'm regailed
against my will, but only resisting because of this unfimiliar provacation
Some kind I've never had to forture of taking
This is a woman's man,
Absant of the of child’s play enchantment…
The expostion of any lurcking
All I taste is a thimble, As you face me
Want to attach, that hiding place so nimble
No longer, not the way this pusle attracts
Needle and thread?
Hell no, I will reap what you can't no longer sew
Shadowless
Because fuck fairy dust!
As I sink into the onslaught of Night
That fills my slumber
With the pleasantries that design
These neverever-land of dreams
Where now you resign your flight.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Neologism | limeduck
This is a blog post i read by the writer of www.limeduck.com,and found it funny and interesting. So I wanted to share it in case anyone actually reads my blog (If there are any readers besides myself (ha) the blogger analytics do not indicate so)
o_0
limeduck :D
Posts Tagged “neologism”
Ginormously annoyed at Merriam-Webster
Posted on July 16th, 2007 by limeduck in culture, reading & writing
I guess it should come as no surprise that I am now officially on the losing end of my years-long battle against the word, ginormous. Trying to curry favor with the post-literate generation, those old bus drivers Merriam and Webster have officially added ginormous to their dictionary, as reported by the AP and regurgitated here by CBS.
I’ve always been a fan of using big, even made up, numbers to denote serious bigness. Instead of saying, “That was a ginormous waffle I had for breakfast!” one might say, “That waffle I ate must have had about a zillion grams of fiber in it!” Although wikipedia lists umpteen “indefinite and fictitious numbers” including zillion, they omit my personal favorite, the engagingly modest exaggeration, eleventeen.
I love a good neologism or portmanteau as much as the next red-blooded American man, (probably more) but not every one should get added to the dictionary. I say no new words for big until you’ve used up the ones we already have. I guess I have to get used to the fact that we already have ginormous.
Tags: neologism
“There will be linguistic conservatives who will turn their nose up at a word like `ginormous,”’ said John Morse, Merriam-Webster’s president.You bet there will be, and we’re mad as Hatters. Come on guys, ginormous isn’t even in the OSPD, and they’ll take anything. Has the world really changed so much that we need more words that mean big? What does ginormous give us that gigantic and enormous didn’t? Were they not big enough? What, if anything, is the difference between those two words anyway? It just seems gratuitous to me, and it sounds like it should be spelled gynormous and mean really big and also female. (I think there should be an illustration by R. Crumb next to the definition under that spelling.)
I’ve always been a fan of using big, even made up, numbers to denote serious bigness. Instead of saying, “That was a ginormous waffle I had for breakfast!” one might say, “That waffle I ate must have had about a zillion grams of fiber in it!” Although wikipedia lists umpteen “indefinite and fictitious numbers” including zillion, they omit my personal favorite, the engagingly modest exaggeration, eleventeen.
I love a good neologism or portmanteau as much as the next red-blooded American man, (probably more) but not every one should get added to the dictionary. I say no new words for big until you’ve used up the ones we already have. I guess I have to get used to the fact that we already have ginormous.
Tags: neologism
One Response to “Ginormously annoyed at Merriam-Webster”
-
Has been around since 1948… It’s a word. People use it. Native speakers like it because it fits perfectly in some situations where other words just ain’t the same. If they included “then” as a variant of “than”, for instance, I could understand some uproar. But this is just mundane lexicography. Words change and get added to languages all the time. Go have a beer and relax or something.
mark says:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)