concatenation?

February 13, 2007

While I’m pleased to say that my posts are usually more logocentric than phallogocentric, even I have my vocabulary failings. [btw, a good discussion in class today on the word for ‘vocabulary’ in Hebrew–otzar milim. otzar milim is a direct calque for the German worschatz, both translating literally into English as “treasure of words.” I guess the closest we have in English is “word bank” as a bank is a place that steals people’s money to make treasure. 2, nay 3 dollar ATM fees? It’s past time we elect Al Franken President, perhaps the staunchest opponent of ATM fees extant.]alfranken_whynotme.jpg

So it’s really a rare occurrence when I go through any book in English–even an academic work–and find more than 2 or 3 words that confuse me. Woe is me that today I found such a work. The best (or worst) of these words, and the one that got me to pry myself away from Mosley’s stimulating work on Jewish autobiography is, “concatenation.” I have no good guesses. Let’s try parsing it:

con (together or with) + caten (?) + ation (indicating nouns of action, usually from Latin via French)= doing something together with caten.

Actually, my parsing would have worked perfectly if I had known that a “catena” is a chain. Concatenation is “Union by chaining or linking together; concatenated condition,” or “the action of chaining together” as my word-regenerator would have given.

Unfortunately, I have no way of concatenating the first part of my post with this next part. Last week, I railed against Studio 60, calling for sweeping changes with the show. While this week, regrettably, placed our heroes further in the depths of their idiotic love stories, Sorkin managed to begin exploring his dark past via-Matt’s-dark-side-which-was-actually-Danny’s-dark-side. Confused? Danny and Matt work for NBS because Danny failed his drug test, and Matt’s a nice guy and only wanted to work with his buddy. Sorkin, has had many a drug problem in his day, and that part of the fabula was clearly autobiographical. But it gets better: Danny had a weird relationship starting with a woman who seemed a lot like Maureen Dowd, an old-Sorkin fling, while Matt has his romantic imbroglio with Harriet who resembles another Sorkin flame, Kristin Chenowith. Sorkin, however, seems to be confused as to which character representing Aaron Sorkin is doing which thing done by Aaron Sorkin, and has decided to have Matt Start poppin’ pills instead of Danny. Such are the dangers of writing a show populated by characters who are representations of various elements of your self.

Will solipsists ever learn? Hopefully I won’t lose myself in dailysalad/Dash Hammerskjold representation.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “concatenation?”

  1. JT Says:

    Somewhere a young boy just lost his virginity to his older sister’s best friend. His parents were in the next room watching reruns of The West Wing. Do you think “concatenation” works in bondage situations? xo. The Pilgrim.

  2. Jen Says:

    “So it’s really a rare occurrence when I go through any book in English–even an academic work–and find more than 2 or 3 words that confuse me.”
    Wow. It’s a good thing it’s Valentine’s Day, otherwise I would comment on your hubris (“exaggerated self pride or self-confidence”).

  3. dailysalad Says:

    JT-

    Your posts are a constant source of confusion, although, in response to your second part, why shouldn’t we make a catechresis of “concatenation” and use it for bondage.

    Jen-

    Surely you’ve come to know the jocular nature of the Salad and my own solipsistic tendencies before this post, which were in fact referenced above. And of course you know that saying you wont do something is tantamount to saying it. Besides, there’s no better place for comeuppance than comment threads.

    Happy Valentine’s Day!

  4. JT Says:

    For some my posts are never-ending pits of confusion. For others they are cathartic. Abiding with the spirit of YS, my posts are jocular in nature as well. My apologies for confounding you with my outre ranting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: