Milchish Duds

Prior to this point, when Odysseus tries to exercise Xenia (ancient Greek guest rites/hospitality code), he did what he was supposed to do. (Well, we think so anyway — notably, the most famous books of the Odyssey are told by Odysseus, who isn’t exactly a reliable narrator.)

But when Polyphemus kills and eats some of the men, the game changes. The Cyclops makes it clear he has no intention of abiding by Zeus’s laws, and will cannibalize the lot of the men. So, Odysseus responds in kind — he breaks Xenia and lies. He introduces himself under a false name as part of a trick. Polyphemus then breaks Xenia again — he tells Nobody he’ll be eaten last, and that is the Cyclops’ guest gift to him.

Odysseus’ transgression is clearly the lesser one. The Nobody trick works. It gets Odysseus and most of his crew out of the cave alive.

But, crucially, before leaving Odysseus sheds his disguise. He admits his true identity, in detail, so he can boast of his achievements and add vanquishing a Cyclops to the list. And it bites him in the ass spectacularly.

The only reason why Polyphemus can curse Odysseus, can bid his father Poseidon to curse the man who blinded him, is because he now knows who did it. If Odysseus had kept his mouth shut, he might have safely made it home from there. But while a big part of why the Nobody disguise vs. real name reveal is showing Odysseus’s hubris, it’s not just about that. It’s also about the start of a pattern that hurts him more than it helps him.

From this point in the Odyssey on, Odysseus lies about his identity constantly. And sometimes it protects him, but more often it’s a detriment or at least unnecessary. He’s lying about his identity primarily to people who are on his side — a kindly loyal swineherd, his son, his faithful wife, his ailing father.

The last one is especially damning, because happens when Odysseus has already killed the suitors and returned home and reunited with the rest of his family sans disguises. He knows from everyone else that Laertes never betrayed him or his legacy, but was mourning his son and heartbroken for almost a decade. Odysseus has publicly declared his return to everyone else — his father doesn’t know because he’s living in squalor remotely. But Odysseus doesn’t tell his father who he is. He makes up a fake identity and tells a story implying Laertes’ son is dead. And when Laertes bursts out crying, then Odysseus drops the charade and finally admits who he really was.

There was no utility to that lie. No loyalty to test. No hidden threats to worry about. But Odysseus still instinctively lies to his beloved father about who he is, only dropping the charade when he sees the damage it’s doing to his relationships.

Because at this point, lying is pathological for Odysseus. He can’t seem to stop doing it. Because with Polyphemus, a lie protected him and the truth hurt him. That is the point of the “ Nobody” disguise.

This has been a common method for a long time in some states

Idk girl, when I took the tree surgeon license exam, there were more than one or two questions, so I think it might be more complicated than that.

Me in 2016: I’m still salty about that

IDs: 2 variants of a "Toronto Star" headline for a book review article about new historical fiction books. The first reads: "Sylvia Plath, [comma] a New York vigilante and Shah of Iran featured in latest historical fiction."

The second reads: "The latest historical fiction books take inspiration from Sylvia Plath, [comma] a New York vigilante and Shah of Iran." There is a subheading reading "We review 'Daffodil Days,' 'Lady X,' 'Love Lane' and 'Mistress of the Persian Boarding House.' /end IDs.

the original, were it to mean that Sylvia Plath is a vigilante and shah, is missing an appositive comma (a pair of commas that separate a clarifying dependent phrase from the rest of the sentence, like the commas in the part of this sentence outside the parenthetical).

without the appositive comma, the only grammatically correct way to read the sentence is as a list without the oxford comma.

it is confusing because the comma in that place and the order of the list may prime you to read it as an appositive phrase, added to the fact that newspaper headlines drop helping/auxiliary verbs, and this headline did not clarify that there were multiple separate books with different subjects.

[i am a strong proponent of oxford comma, *especially* for three-item lists, just because it is clearer and more aesthetically pleasing. however, the sentence is grammatically correct to the intended meaning, and readers misinterpreting on first read does not mean it is wrong.]

the new phrasing... oh boy.

the new phrasing is now completely grammatically ambiguous as to whether it contains a list or an appositive phrase, because an appositive at the end of a sentence can be denoted by a comma and a period rather than 2 commas.

they fixed one problem with the ambiguity of the first headline by clarifying that it is about multiple separate books, but in doing so, their new phrasing adds proper grammatical ambiguity to the subject(s) of the books.

the second headline can reasonably and correctly to English grammar rules be parsed as either:

"Three subjects of new historical fiction books include writer Sylvia Plath, a New York vigilante, and the Shah of Iran." (the intended meaning)

or, "Multiple historical fiction books have been published about Sylvia Plath, who was also a New York vigilante and the Shah of Iran."

both are equally correct readings of this headline!

while the first headline was colloquially ambiguous but grammatically correct to the intended message, the second headline tried to fix the misinterpretations by clarifying that there were multiple books, and providing a list in the subheading of the books in question. [the list also does not use oxford comma, per the paper's style guide i'm sure, but it is completely unambiguous due to both the single quotes as title markers and having more than 3 items on the list.]

this post is like 11 years old

hey