#granted i did skim the latter half because i was tired and just wanted to get this done

[the-converse-high-top]

Affixes, Clitics, and Particles

i think that these parts of language are really cool! so im going to try to explain them :D also i definitely did not get sent down an hours long rabbit hole of linguistic papers and i also definitely didn't find out that the reason i wanted to make this post is actually a misconception :D i love ignoring things :D

Affixes:

the wikipedia article for affixes says that "in linguistics, an affix is a morpheme that is attached to a word stem to form a new word or word form."

in hopefully simpler terms, this basically means that an affix is a letter, or a group of letters that form a single sound or syllable, that is attached to a word stem to form a new word or word form.

some examples of these are the somewhat well known prefix and suffix, but also the beloved infix:

prefix: undone suffix: spotless infix: abso-fucking-lutely

sidenote: my favorite thing about english infixes is that they pretty much only work with expletives. in fact, there's a tom scott video about expletive infixations!

Clitics:

wikipedia defines a clitic as such: "a clitic is a morpheme that has syntactic characteristics of a word, but depends phonologically on another word or phrase."

in layman's terms: a clitic is a letter, or a group of letters that form a single sound or syllable, that has the function of a word in a sentence, but depends on another word or phrase based on the sound rules of the language.

a few examples of clitics can be seen in finnish (which also has a great many affixes but we're not talking about those right now):

-ko/kö -han/hän -pa/pä -kin

the spelling of the clitic depends on vowel harmony. if you want to learn more, this dissertation is all about finnish clitics!

you may be asking yourself how to tell the difference between clitics and other parts of speech. well this study has just the thing for you! quite a few tests are suggested by the author of this study if you want to be able to tell if something is a clitic or not, including some of the following:

a phonological test observe how the clitic forms a phonological unit with an independent word. (do not ask me how this one works i dont know) accentual test "clitics are accentually dependent, while full words are accentually independent." put simply, if you can't put stress on it, it's probably a clitic syntactic test a word can stand on its own and be subject to normal word processes such as tense changes while a clitic cannot do this

Particles:

"'Particle' is a cover term for items that do not fit easily into syntactic and semantic generalizations about the language[.]"

read: "particle" is a miscellaneous, catch all term for anything that doesn't fit into the above two categories (or any other word categories like nouns, verbs, etc.)

the author of this study (who i'm going to refer to as Zwicky from now on because it's easier) says that theres no such thing as a particle and that its distinction from affixes, clitics, words, and clauses is unnecessary. i think thats an. interesting take.

anyway even though Zwicky just said theres no such thing as particles (which, how could he do that? theres kids around! we dont want to ruin the magic!) he concedes that there is actually a group of words that are commonly called particles that he agrees are actually particles. but he decides to call them discourse markers instead. because fuck you.

i dont like any of the words that Zwicky included so i made a list of my own:

-ね (ne) eh (canadian english) innit (common transcription of "isn't it", british english)

the funny thing is im coming out of this still not entirely clear on what a particle is. i thought i knew, i did some research, realized i didnt know, and now i'm here. based on how Zwicky puts it, it feels like the category of "particle" exists to accommodate the fact that there might be words* that arent affixes, clitics, words, or clauses but it feels like Zwicky is just being contrary. I should probably have done more research but this post was supposed to be done 24 hours ago.

out of context highlights from my research process: - sanskrit - the panini rule - doch - verbosely long section titles

*i dont actually mean words, i mean a morpheme which is a letter or a group of letters that form the representation of one sound that carries meaning, but i didn't want to make that sentence long and unreadable

if i'm wrong, please tell me! i would appreciate being corrected, i know i am not an expert on this topic in the slightest.

[benevolent-dictator]

Late Night Thoughts on Dan and Phil: Fond Memories and Little More

     Before I get into the meat of this post, I want to include what I believe to be a critical preamble if one is to understand the bulk of this essay (and please understand, I use the term “essay” very loosely here. As you’ll quickly come to realize, it is more a haphazard collection of thoughts strung together in a more of less cohesive format). It’s important I lay out explicitly what this post is as opposed to what it is not: namely, the intent of this post is to act as a sort of analytical essay delineating my thoughts and opinions on the famous Youtubers Dan Howell’s and Amazingphil’s entertainment value rather than the merit of their characters themselves (and how I believe - for me personally - their entertainment value to have stagnated). 

     I feel this important to clarify because typically, when reading online analyses of internet personalities, critiques tend to fall into one of two camps: 1) value judgments placed upon a creator’s work/entertainment, or 2) value judgments placed upon a creator’s moral character. The perfect example of these two camps in action can be found in Lilly Singh and Jake Paul. Regardless of your own personal feelings surrounding the two online creators, I believe it fair to say the vast majority of criticism allotted to them illustrate the two camps rather nicely. For example, a not insignificant amount of people tend to dislike Lilly Singh for her lackluster entertainment value, i.e. the content she uploads to YouTube/broadcasts on her late night show. Although there does exist some backlash towards her standing as a moral actor (or lack thereof), when you enter her name into Youtube’s search feature, six out of the first ten recommended videos are all criticisms directed at how “unfunny” she is. Jake Paul, on the other hand, demonstrates the other school of thought: criticizing moral standing over entertainment value. Again, regardless of your personal views on Jake Paul’s character, it is undeniable that the vast majority of the backlash he receives centers around the immorality of his actions rather than how, “mundane” or “lackluster” his content. Therefore, I want to clarify that I am in no way attempting to use this post to discredit either Dan or Phil’s character. Instead, I wish to share my thoughts on their entertainment value as creators, and how - for me - I no longer find myself enchanted with their content. 

     Additionally, throughout the course of this post you’ll find that I often refer to Dan and Phil as a collective. I understand how this remains a point of contention throughout the fandom, for it remains a sad truth that oftentimes Phil (despite being his own autonomous individual/entertainer) gets lumped in with Dan who - in terms of subscriber count and sheer volume of fans - remains the more successful of the two. It is not my intent to relegate Phil to Dan’s shadow - rather, I find that many of the critiques I have for one cross-apply to the other, hence my frequent use of “Dan and Phil” instead of just Dan or just Phil.   

      Lastly, I would like to get ahead of the curve (should it ever arise) and placate the masses now while I have the opportunity. It is not my intent - and nor has it ever been my intent with any online criticisms - to disparage not only the creator, but their fans. I understand that there is still a thriving community of fans centered around the entertainment Dan and Phil put forth, and it is not my goal to shame anyone for their likes and preferences, or even to try to change your minds. This is not meant to be a persuasive essay: simply an analytical one (granted, one primarily propped up by my own biased opinions over statistical data, but I hope you are able to take the sum total of my assessments with a grain of salt and understand that just as you are welcome and encouraged to share your thoughts on the matter, I wish to be afforded that same generosity).  

     Now with that very important preamble out of the way (which, if you decided to skim, I would highly encourage you to go back and read it in full, for I believe it to have some rather crucial groundwork laid out) we can delve into the heart of the matter. In order to do so, I think it important to establish my background on this subject matter. Dan Howell was the first Youtuber I ever watched. I was still extremely new to YouTube as a platform at the time, and I remember scrolling through my homepage until I stumbled across a video titled, “Human Interaction.” From there, I was hooked. There really isn’t much to say from there; I immediately fell over myself watching video after video of his and, in the process, quickly discovered his flatmate Phil’s channel (or as we know him, Amazingphil). From the years 2013 to about late 2017 they were my all-time favorite Youtubers. As the years wore on I only subscribed to about ten other Youtubers because I felt so strongly that no other creator could capture the magic of what Dan and Phil uploaded. I watched all their videos, bought their merch, and, when the opportunity arose, even went to the Amazing Tour is Not on Fire. I still remember that night (seeing Dan and Phil burst on stage out of a giant prop microwave) as one of the happiest live-performance experiences of my life. My apathy towards both did not spring forth born out out of some heinous act either committed. Rather, it was a steady, almost innocuous decline. I feel as though I simply grew out of them. And here is where my first, and pretty much only real critique comes to light; both Dan and Phil’s content have remained stagnate. 

     Please do not misunderstand: I realize that Youtubers are real people, and to demand growth and change out of people who have arguably settled into who they want to be as adults would be rather unfair. Dan and Phil are not characters on a tv show - I don’t get to shake my fist at my laptop screen and gripe about “poor character arcs” or “slow seasons.” Dan and Phil are flesh and blood - they are not playing characters in a fictional universe. Sure, arguably all Youtubers (and any online persona) “put on a face” for the camera, but there’s a world of difference between, “forcing myself to be extra chipper for the next hour,” and acting out a character in a Hollywood writer’s script. On the one hand, there is a part of me that is happy Dan and Phil (after so many years of struggling with their identities) finally found happiness in themselves. However, if you’ll remember back to what I said in the preamble, that is not the point of this essay. 

     My apathy towards Dan and Phil lies not with their moral characters, but with their entertainment value, and for me personally, I find it hard to be entertained by what I find to be the same old content I was laughing at in 2013 repackaged into new scenarios and re-uploaded in 2020. Dan and Phil’s prize content was their ability to be so relatable. For Dan especially, I loved hearing him talk about how awkward he was around other people because that’s how I felt around the people in my own life. However, that did not last. I eventually grew out of my awkwardness and found a multitude of friends that I was able to be myself around, and in turn take that confidence I felt around them and project it onto others that came into my life, regardless of how well I knew them. Dan, as well as Phil, had lost the one thing that drew me to them in the first place: their ability to be relatable. Even so, during the latter half of the years during which I continued to watch their videos, there was something else that kept me around: their humor. I thought they were wonderfully funny, and even during my darkest hours I knew I could count on them to brighten my day. Yet, as the years I went by, I noticed that the subject matter of their humor remained pretty much the same as well. Most of their punchlines centered around the same handful of premises (for example, Dan joking about how black his soul is), and like I stated earlier, I had begun to grow tired of the stagnation. 

     One last time, I would like to recognize that what one person might call “stagnation” another would call “finding a niche,” and I respect that. Many people would argue that Dan and Phil simply stumbled across a specific niche years ago and have been fulfilling that hole glamorously nearly a decade later, and to that I say that’s wonderful! I think that’s a perfectly valid viewpoint to take! It just so happens that I do not share that same perspective.

     One of the many indicators in which I feel you can physically see how unchanged their videos have become is in Phil’s (it’s hard to judge Dan’s progression since his last video was uploaded about a year ago as of this post’s uploading). As of mid-2020, Phil’s editing has remained largely unchanged. He still uses the same sound effects, the same visual cues, the same editing tools, and after nearly a decade of watching, I’ve just begun to find it all stale. Even his video concepts remain largely unchanged. I understand that if he’s uploading much of the same content over years that must mean he’s making the content he wants to make, and I am happy he’s reached that point, but it is not the content for me. 

     All in all, this was a terribly long post that I had considered writing for a while now, and regardless if anyone even reads it, I figure, “Hey - I’ve written it, it’s off my chest, and now I can finally rest in peace.” I no longer find Dan and Phil relatable for the person I have grown into. I in no way regret all the years I spent loving their content and laughing at their antics. But when you look at Dan’s Tweets from around 2014 to now and see that his jokes have remained fairly unvaried, as have Phil’s, I no longer feel a connection to the two as I once had. Lastly, I do want to say that these opinions of mine are not solidified. Yes, this is how I feel now, and it is how I’ve felt for quite some time, but please do not mistake my current stance for me digging my heels in the sand to declare, “No! I have sworn off Dan and Phil and I shall never partake in their content again!” No, of course not! I’m always open to change, and if Dan and Phil suddenly take an enjoyable creative turn, I’d be happy to take a look. And what’s more, I’m a sucker for nostalgia, so I can definitely see myself popping on YouTube to watch an old Dan video or two, or an old Phil video or two, or a gaming channel video or two, or whatever! They will always leave me with fond memories - memories I will take with me for years to come.