Homographs and Heteronyms

This is a wonderful and funny piece of writing, for all of you who suffered through English classes, hated grammar and wonder why folk from other countries have a bit of trouble with the English language. 

I wish I had the skill to put this together but I don't. This was sent to me by a friend of mine, he did not know who the author was, so I did a search. The author is Liv Hambrett an Australian writer living in Germany. She wrote this piece in 2013. Her writing and her books can be found on her website which is http://www.livhambrett.com / 

Liv did a lot of work on this, so please enjoy and check out her website for more of her writing.

*Homographs are words of like spelling but with more than one meaning.

A homograph that is also pronounced differently is a heteronym.*

*You think English is easy???*

==============================================

1) The bandage was *wound *around the *wound.*

2) The farm was used to *produce produce*.

3) The dump was so full that it had to *refuse *more *refuse*.

4) We must *polish *the *Polish *furniture

5) He could *lead *if he would get the *lead *out.

6) The soldier decided to *desert *his dessert in the desert..*

7) Since there is no time like the *present*, he thought it was time to *present* the *present.*

8) A *bass *was painted on the head of the *bass* drum.

9) When shot at, the *dove* *dove* into the bushes.

10) I did not *object* to the *object.*

11) The insurance was *invalid* for the *invalid.*

12) There was a *row* among the oarsmen about how to *row*.

13) They were too *close* to the door to *close* it.

14) The buck *does* funny things when the *does* are present.

15) A seamstress and a *sewer* fell down into a *sewer* line.

16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his *sow* to *sow.*

17) The *wind* was too strong to *wind* the sail.

18) Upon seeing the *tear* in the painting I shed a *tear.*

19) I had to *subject* the *subject* to a series of tests.

20) How can I *intimate* this to my most *intimate* friend?

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.  

There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger;  neither apple nor pine in pineapple.  

English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. 

Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.  

We take English for granted.  But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. 

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?  

If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth?  One goose, 2 geese.  So one moose, 2 meese?  One index, 2 indices?  

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend?  If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?  

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?  

Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.  In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?  Ship by truck and send cargo by ship?  Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?  You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all.  That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

PS. - Why doesn't 'Buick' rhyme with 'quick'?  AND If a male goat is called a ram and a donkey is called an ass, why is a ram-in-the-ass called a goose?

Response to Green Shield Post

I was very surprised to receive a response to my post from a member of my executive board, as I did not expect any response.  So here is my response to the executive members thoughts on my post. 

I read with your statement that “I have no interest in defending Green Shield (GSC)” then found it interesting that you do just that by your following statement. “I think you will find it a common (not universal) plan practice to not fund a full 90-day initial prescription.”

I believe it is common for those companies that discriminate or practice ageism or paternalism to have what they believe to be “good” reasons for their actions. The reason that you put forward is one of these “good” reasons.  On the face of it, the argument appears to be based on some sound logic, but without statistics that show this is a major cost issue, it is hard to accept the argument that you put forth on behalf of Green Shield Canada.

The insurance company is in my mind claiming they know what is best for the patient and the doctor, which is either based on ageism or paternalism. Either one should be unacceptable.  You state that sometimes a person begins a drug program but experiences side effects and stops taking the drug. I wonder what percentage of people stop taking the drug because of bad experiences and what this action actually costs the drug company.

Before I accept your argument that this policy has nothing to do with the age of the client, I would have to see some independent review of the number and ages of the clients that Green Shield have had that stopped taking medication and began a new treatment based on side effects of a drug. I suspect the policy has more to do with an underlying culture of paternalism, which leads to discrimination such as ageism. So, I have to respectfully disagree with your argument on this point.

Your next argument, about reducing costs and maximizing profits is a legitimate aim of any business, but when they do this at the expense of the client it should be questioned. You state in one sentence that “GSC appears to have decided that there is a saving to the plan when they limit the initial prescription and pay the additional Dispensing Fee one week later when a person renews.” And then state that GSC does not want to pay the repeated dispensing fee for 30-day prescriptions on a 90-day treatment. This is interesting but does not deal with the point that both these policies appear to be ageist or paternalistic, in that these policies come from a culture of “Father knows best” so they are paternalistic at best or discriminatory (ageist) if only older clients receive the benefits of these policies.

You state that “It's all about reducing their costs and they will say it's about keeping premiums as low as possible”, this is the result of the policy but what the policy reinforces and I believe grows from, is the discriminatory or paternalistic culture that appears to be driving decision making at GSC.

I am glad to hear that the “Office staff has spent a lot of time helping our members deal with GSC and we have repeatedly let the Pension Trustees know of our members' frustrations with GSC.”   I will let others that I talk to that they should continue to let the the executive know what problems they are having so you can continue to press the Pension Board for action.

No, I was not aware that we “have a combined EHC plan with a travel plan that has been growing”.  Where can I find information on the plan so I can pass on the information to others?

Yes, I will agree with you that all plans can be improved, but I am glad that we have a say in policy language and coverage, and I will take a look at our plan, although I and my wife do not travel as much as we used to travel. I am encouraged that there may be a plan for members like myself who do not travel.

Finally, thank you for your response, although I disagree with some of your positions, I find it encouraging that there is some action on extended health options for our members.

Snow Days

It snowed in my area overnight Friday and brought about 25 cm of snow to our cul de sac. I live in a community, Port Coquitlam, where the roads are ploughed when it snows. I know I am leaving Poco when the side roads become snowbound and it is hard to drive.

As I was out this morning shovelling the driveway, all of my neighbours were doing the same. Some of them had started early than I had and they were just finishing as I was about halfway through. My next door neighbour to my right went down the street and started helping another neighbour and they finished up that driveway very quickly. When they were finished they came over to my driveway and started working on mine.  The first thing that was said to me was "Merry Christmas". Very quickly I had three young men helping me finish my driveway. When my driveway was finished they moved on to another driveway and I went with them and one more person joined us so the five of us finished two more driveways within about 30 minutes. It was a fun morning, and a pleasant surprise to get see how the how the group came together to help each other. There are only 12 houses on our cul de sac, and there were six of us out helping each other. I did notice when I came out that four of the houses had their driveways completed before I had even started mine. So by 10:00 every house on the cul de sac had their driveway cleared. 

Serendipity happenings in life are or can be a pleasant reminder that we all are in this together and if we help each other unpleasant work can be made a lot easier. Thank you to my neighbours who worked together this morning. The Christmas spirit is still with us.

How much should you save for retirement?

In 2018, many of you are one step closer to retirement. Many of you are now starting to think about retirement. I really did not think about retirement until about 10 years before I retired. My first thought was, will I have enough money to fund a reasonable retirement? That thought or this thought “how much should I be saving – and have banked already – for my retirement” may be taking over your thoughts as it did mine.

If you listen to the financial industry, the answer is an awful lot more than you probably have. According to one financial journalist, and the industry, by the time you are 30 you should have at least the equivalent of your annual income saved for retirement. By 40 it should be three times your annual income; by 50, six times; by 60, eight times and by retirement 10 times. This advice is not meant for the young who are burdened by student debt, high housing costs and stagnant real wages, any of them can ever dare to dream of saving at this kind of level.

These benchmarks are really fairly arbitrary. The industry is designed to sell and uses the greed- and fear sales pitches as everyone else to flog product (the more we save, the more they earn). But in real life it is impossible to project 40 years into the future in this super-tidy way.

I am like most people, in that I could not afford to save 15% of my income every year (most of it into the stock market) from the age of 25 onwards. Because I had small children and I bought a house.

I retired at 60 but I kept working albeit part time for another 9 years. Many of my cohorts (early boomers) will work past retirement if they can and will end up un-retiring, even when we do retire. The idea that we must save a set amount of cash and live on that cash and only that cash for ever seems old-fashioned. Very few of us will rely on nothing but specific retirement savings from the age of 60 on.

The good news is that almost everyone is now saving something. If you have a defined benefit pension with your employer (if you work in the public sector for instance), you are doing just fine. If you are in an auto-enrolment scheme you won’t be saving 15% of your salary, but you will have made a start, and by 2019, you will be saving 8% of your total income automatically. Here is one idea, if you take your next few pay rises and ask to have them immediately recycled into your pension, you will be close to retirement clover before you know it.

Life is a constant balance between the needs of the present and the needs of the future. When I was young, the present was a lot more important. It was hard to think about saving. And with money tight, and expenses high, it was even harder to save. In Canada we have three pillars to help us as we prepare for retirement. We have

·       Government programs, Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement, Registered Retirement Savings Programs, Tax Free Savings Accounts and the Canada Pension Plan

·       Employer programs such as Defined Contribution or Defined Benefits retirement programs

·       Personal Savings in non-registered savings and investment programs.

We are all savings toward retirement if we are working in Canada through the Canada Pension Plan, if you decide you want to save on your own, start when you have the ability to put money into your savings program, and don’t be pressured by the industry that is intent on scaring you that you will not have enough when you retire.