An excellent discussion on the pin-pen merger over on Language Log has me thinking on phonemic mergers generally. We all know that there are regional variations in English speech, some of them quite jarring (I'm looking at you, Wisconsin natives who rhyme bag with vague). What is so fascinating about phonemic merging is how subtle it is.

Take, for instance, pin and pen. I pronounce these words exactly the same. Perhaps more interestingly, they generally sound the same to me, even when someone pronounces pen [pɛn]. The difference, to my ears, is so subtle as to be nearly indistinguishable. In order to hear or speak the difference, pen has to be pronounced like pan.

So, too, with cot and caught, a merger with far-reaching implications. Among the word pairings I treat as homophones: collar and caller, don and dawn, and father and bother. In order to distinguish between these pairs, I'd have to roll out a real drawl. Though even that wouldn't help with the father-bother pairing. Seriously, how are those not the same?

Oddly enough, the pin-pen merger is very common in the South, where the cot-caught merger is decidedly uncommon. If I had I had to guess as to how I managed to end up with both, I would say that the pin-pen merger is so subtle that it is not stigmatized. However, the drawl required to differentiate caught from cot is heavily stigmatized. I don't recall if I ever had a thicker Southern accent, but I definitely made a concerted effort not to sound like a character from Gone With the Wind.

Last week, a district judge in New York denied Coca-Cola’s motion to dismiss a class-action suit relating to its Vitaminwater line of drinks. The claims, in essence, are that Vitaminwater is marketed as a health drink, when it is nothing of the sort. The ruling [PDF] was procedural, and simply clears the way for a full legal proceeding. But there were some amusing findings nonetheless.

The FDA regulations restricting health claims (or implied claims of “healthiness”) to foods which meet certain minimum nutrient levels, colloquially termed “the jelly bean rule,” were developed in order to prevent food producers from encouraging the consumption of “junk foods” by fortifying them with nutrients.

....

By including the suggestion that the product will “keep you healthy” or “help bring about a healthy state of physical and mental being” alongside such statements, the quoted language implies that the nutrient content of vitaminwater may help consumers maintain healthy dietary practices. I conclude, therefore, in light of the language and context in which they are used, that the statements on the “defense” and “BRelaxed” labels constitute implied nutrient content claims which use the word “healthy.” Such claims are in violation of violation of FDA regulations because, as discussed below, vitaminwater achieves its nutritional content solely through fortification that violates FDA policy.

Of course, a cursory scan of the nutrition information reveals that Vitaminwater is anything but a health drink. As the plaintiffs' complaint put it: "[I]t is just another flavored, sugary snack food like Coca-Cola, except that Defendants chose not to carbonate it.” But then, as the judge noted, not everyone can be expected to read or appreciate the information on the label. What matters is the marketing claims, which do suggest the product is, in some way, good for you.

And, for the record, I don't care if it's healthy or not. "Revive" (aka "the purple one") is magical hangover medicine. Carry on, Coca-Cola.

(Via The Consumerist.)

I think we argue more over how cold/hot to keep the car, not directions.

In Britain, a survey of 2,200 individuals found that nearly 70 percent of people admitted being involved in an argument in a car at least once a month; 18 percent confessed they had in-car fights at least once a week... The survey was commissioned by the British car accessories retailer Halfords to promote sales of portable navigation devices. So not surprisingly, the results also revealed that more than a third of respondents said they argued about directions on the road, making navigation the top argument inducement.

Ultimately, the source of such disputes may be caused by mistaken perceptions about one’s own navigation skills. In a smaller survey in the United States of 502 people (split evenly between men and women) conducted by location-based services company, TeleNav, almost 25 percent of the women lacked confidence in their own sense of direction. However, only 9 percent of the men felt the same way. Of course, it may have been mere bluster on the part of the men, since 58 percent of the men also said they used GPS navigation systems (so much for that innate sense of direction).

Count me among those who have utmost confidence in their innate sense of direction. But I also have no problem stopping to review the map. I suspect many people don't carry maps (or a way to access them online), which is just asking for trouble.

Update: We were at the Farmer's Market, and Mrs. tRJ asked if we were near Fromagination, a wonderful artisinal cheese shop. I smiled and laughed, knowing that she struggles with keeping her bearings on the capitol square.

Mrs. tRJ: You know I have a hard time on the sqaure!

tRJ: Five years! Five years you've lived here!

Mrs. tRJ: [Friend] has lived here her whole life, and she told me still struggles with the square.

tRJ: Ah, so it's a lady thing...

Mrs. tRJ: Yes, alright! Are you happy? We are bad with directions!

While some cops are leveraging the legal system to punish those who film them doing their jobs, others are going entirely the other direction.

Times are changing for Butler County [Kansas] sheriff's deputies. They're all getting cameras to record their interactions with the public... [M]icro cameras will be worn on deputy uniforms. The video from the officer's shift will be downloaded into a computer for storage at the end of each shift... [Sheriff Craig] Murphy says video cameras protect the officers and the public with evidence of what transpires between officers and civilians.

In keeping with my film-everything-they-do mindset, I think this is a great idea. And the fact that Murphy acknowledges that film protects the public and officers only reinforces my distrust of officers who don't want to be filmed.

(Via Photography is Not a Crime.)

Here in Wisconsin, independent candidates for office are permitted to submit a Statement of Principle, of five words or less, that will accompany their name on the ballot. The idea is that a major party candidate's general political stance can be inferred from his or her party affiliation. Thus, independent candidates are afforded the opportunity to identify their political leaning with a short statement.

Ieshuh Griffin is running for the 10th Assembly District seat as an independent. Her statement—NOT the 'whiteman's bitch'—was rejected by the Government Accountability Board, meaning Griffin would appear on the ballot as an independent only.

Griffin appeared before the Board this afternoon to challenge the staff decision to reject her statement. Well, actually, she challenged their authority and jurisdiction to judge the statement in the first place. It was a fascinating testimony (video) that, despite some errors (e.g. suggesting that the Supreme Court signs treaties), did raise a very reasonable question: does this rejection not infringe on Griffin's First Amendment rights?

Despite being a panel of retired judges, the Board didn't really do much analysis on the issue. There was some testimony, a couple questions, and then a motion to overturn the staff decision. The motion actually went 3-2, but lacking the sufficient four votes to carry, to motion failed.

Griffin says she will be seeking an injunction.

"While the bus was stopped at a light the other day, I saw a homeless man drawing on a brick building. He would make an x in the center of a brick with a piece of chalk, and then he would yell at that particular brick for a while before moving on to the next one. I admired the dedication it took to hate on each and every brick of a building."

—mimi smartypants

There is growing agitation about the fact that, in many jurisdictions, one can face criminal penalties for videotaping the police. ABC is the latest to cover such a story, this one involving a daredevil motorcyclist and his helmet cam.

This is a particularly interesting situation, because the recording of a law enforcement officer was incidental. The biker was recording his high speed wheelies for posterity when a plain-clothes officer cut him off and detained him. The biker wasn't filming the officer; the officer walked into the frame of what the biker happened to be filming. Nonetheless, the biker was indicted for recording the officer without his consent, in violation of state wiretap laws.

The philosophical premise of such laws is that people have an expectation of privacy. People reasonably assume that their interactions and conversations with other people will not be secretly recorded. The question then becomes whether law enforcement officers have such an expectation.

Setting aside that such an expectation is foolish in a time when nearly everyone has some kind of recording capability at their disposal all the time, there is no reason officers should be afforded such privacy. They are public servants, performing a taxpayer-funded job, in public. They are the polar opposite of a private citizen. Indeed, I struggle to identify a reason for prohibiting filming officers, other than the obvious: they don't want to be caught doing something wrong.

Take, for instance, the officer in the above scenario. He was in an unmarked vehicle, and was not in uniform. He jumped from his car, gun drawn, shouting at the biker. Is this proper protocol? I have no idea. But it doesn't strike me as the sanest response when you consider that, from the biker's perspective, he just looks like a crazy guy with a gun.

I would be curious to hear a serious argument advanced for why we shouldn't be allowed to film absolutely everything cops do. Thus far, the only real argument appears to be that we protect everyone from one-sided recording, officers included. But that's a weak argument that refuses to truly engage the question.