On Rhinos and Grammar

Now, if you're reading this, I bet you're asking yourself  "why am I reading this?" If you weren't you are now. You're now thinking of a rhinoceros. The more you try to think of something else, there it is. It may be one you've seen at the zoo, or in a National Geographic, or somewhere on the internet. It could be a real one, a cartoon one, or even a fuzzy plush one.

God dammit, this is stupid. What was I even talking about?

Oh right, the purpose of the blog.

Well, I suppose I am writing this mostly to transcribe various miscellaneous thoughts that I have. I am sure that many of you know that instead of thinking about things that most people think about (Sports? Politics? Boobs? I am literally just drawing stuff out of my ass here), I tend to think about inane academic things that aren't even allowed in the Ivory Tower because they're so entirely pondiferous and stupid.

Apparently pondiferous isn't a word, by the way. I don't see why not; it's a conjoining of pondere and ferre: "to carry things of great weight, to be reflected upon." 

Yeah, see it's things like that. Why would I need to reflect upon the etymology of words that are so fake that they have tiny, squiggly red lines under them? Because that's just how I roll.

Speaking of which, the idea of words being "real" is stupid anyway. When I say "pondiferous" you know exactly what I mean. It has a sensible etymology in a suitably serious language. While it is not common in the English vernacular to be sure, it carries more meaning than other words, as the very fact that it's fake gives it the additional meaning of "seemingly intelligent but in fact meaningless." Its fakeness is so poignant that it is like a meaningfulness double reach around, as its fakeness contributes to the very meaning of the word. It is seemingly intelligent and literally means that something is really serious and weighty and requires a lot of thought, but its contextual meaning in the language which it simultaneously is and is not a part of gives it the additional meaning because of the irony of its false nature. I can understand why it isn't a word now, because it's not being a word somehow makes it more powerful in its meaning. What the fuck, English?

Still, it's better than the word "to be," (Yes, I know that "to be" is two words. That's because English can't do an infinitive without a preposition. The "to" doesn't actually exist despite it being RIGHT FUCKING THERE. Fucking analytic languages.) Anyway, putting aside the fact that "to be" is nearly always an irregular verb, at least in the Indo-European Language family, which is so fucking stupid because it's literally the most common verb ever, "to be" is a real word, but unlike the fake word "pondiferous," WE HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT THE SHIT IT EVEN MEANS. Go to the dictionary: "to be" is defined as "to exist" and "to exist" is defined as "to be." WELL GEE, THANKS A LOT, YOU WORTHLESS CLOD OF A BOOK, THAT'S REAL FUCKING HELPFUL. To be fair, "to exist" is also defined as "having objective reality." I guess that makes sense.

Wait, no it doesn't. What about the infinitive preposition "to?" I just said at the beginning at the last paragraph that it doesn't actually exist. But it obviously does, because without it, I have to say "be" and order the reader around like a fucking asshole, because in English, an unconjugated verb is an imperative! Who the fuck came up with this nonsense? It's like a bunch of people just made it up as they went along with absolutely no regard for sensible metaphysics, grammar and common courtesy.

Which is exactly what happened.

Fuck this shit.

Sincere Regards, Michael Coffey