What do Flickr, Tumblr, Pooln, and Kaboodle all have in common? The obvious answer would be to say that they’re all “Web 2.0″ sites, relying on user input and participation to succeed. However, there’s a less obvious (and far more language-related) characteristic that these and many other Web 2.0 sites share: Syllabic Consonants.

Phonology 1013: Syllable structure

Take an utterance like “Eddie poked a badger with a spoon”. There are several different ways we can break this down into smaller parts. We could simply break it into words (as we do in writing), giving us “Eddie”, “poked”, etc. At the other end of the spectrum, we could break it into individual sounds (phonemes), giving us “ɛ”, “d”, “i”, “p”, and so on.

However, as all speakers of all languages know (at some level), there’s a middle step: syllables. A syllable is a phonological unit comprised of one or more sounds which are naturally grouped together in speech. We would break our above example into syllables as follows: “E-ddie poked a ba-dger with a spoon”.

Most speakers, if asked to repeat something very, very slowly, will naturally break words into syllables, and all languages can be described in terms of syllables. Syllables are handy for determining the stress pattern of a word (in some languages), for dictating when sounds are allowed to be used (the velar nasal can’t start a syllable), and they play a major role in the phonology (sound system) of most languages.

A syllable has two sections. The first is the onset, or beginning of a syllable, is always a consonant (or several). Not all syllables need one, but they’re pretty common. For example, in the word “bat”, the onset is “b”. The rhyme (or rime) is the second part of the syllable, and is composed of the “nucleus” and the “coda”. The coda is the final consonant(s) of a syllable (t in “bat”). Coda consonants are less common, and some languages (like Hawaiian) don’t allow a coda at all.

The nucleus, however, is the fundamental piece of a syllable. You can have a syllable with no onset or coda (”a”), but you have to have a nucleus. The nucleus of a syllable is usually a vowel (as in “bat” or “scowl”), but some languages allow consonants to live in that spot and function as a syllable’s nucleus. When that happens, it’s called having a “syllabic consonant”, and is represented in the IPA with a small vertical line under the sound.

Some languages use syllabic consonants frequently. For instance, as one of my readers pointed out in a comment, in Czech, syllabic R’s are used frequently, and can result in seemingly unpronounceable sentences like “Strč prst skrz krk” (’Put your finger down your throat’). However, most relevant to our discussion, in English, only /l/, /r/, /m/ and /n/ can be syllabic, and only in certain situations.

Now that we know what a syllabic consonant is, we can better explore the world of Web 2.0.

Syllabic Consonants and the Web

As you can now see, Flickr, Tumblr, Pooln, and Kaboodle are all pronounced with syllabic consonants at the end of their names (/r/, /r/, /n/, and /l/, respectively). This is interesting to me for two reasons.

First, syllabic consonants (especially /r/) are extremely common at the end of Web 2.0 site names (see this list for proof). First flickr, then variations on it, and now sites like tumblr and even twitter are on the syllabic bandwagon. At first, I thought that it might be an isolated case (with the -r ending just being trendy), but then I noticed that other syllabic sites were popping up. Kaboodle ends with a syllabic /l/, and now sites like pooln are working their way through the other syllabics in English. It’s worth noting, though, that google beat everybody to the syllabic /l/, even though they don’t draw attention with the trendy spelling.

Second, people seem to be recognizing the syllabicity of these final consonants, and skipping the written vowels altogether when creating their site names. The flickr -r may well have started the game, but now completely unrelated sites are becoming Web 2.0 by not including the written vowel in words with syllabic endings. Pooln chose its site name over “Poolin” or “Poolen”, tumblr over “tumbler”, and I suspect it’s only a matter of time before the first sites ending in /l/ pop up (at the time of writing, rumbl, tumbl and bumbl were already reserved). Interestingly, I’m yet to see a syllabic M site (perhaps because we generally just write the m with now vowel, as in “chasm” or “orgasm”). Who knows, though, maybe “phantm” is the next Web 2.0 ghost hunting site

Web 2.0: Complexity, Interactivity, Syllabicity

So, it’s pretty tough to deny the correlation between “Web 2.0-ness” and syllabic consonants. Of course, there are plenty of Web 2.0 sites that are vowel-nucleus-only (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace), but there does seem to be a trend at work here.

What does it all mean? Well, if you’re hoping to start a new Web 2.0 business, you might want to talk to a linguist or a phonologist. Syllabic consonants might not be the only key to success, but do you really want to take that chance? I assure you, my rates would be quite reasonabl.

This morning, I stumbled Adobe Systems Incorporated’s Permissions and Trademark Guidelines. This is basically Adobe’s way of dictating how it wants people to use and display its trademarks. Many companies have these, but Adobe’s policies regarding Photoshop are more restrictive (and thus, more laughable) then most.

Photoshop “to photoshop” out of your lexicon

They begin the Photoshop section with the phrase “Trademarks are not verbs”. Here, they’re objecting to the ubiquitous use of “to photoshop”, meaning “to use Adobe® Photoshop® software or similar image manipulation software to manipulate an image”. This prohibits phrases like “Dude, that is so photoshopped” or “the printing company photoshopped it for us”. This seems to be a common theme, with paralells to Xerox fighting to stop us from Xeroxing documents, but it’s still a bit crazy.

I think it’s ridiculous that they think they can stop this usage. One of the unifiying features of human language is our lazyness, and our desire to only do the minimum amount of speaking necessary. To think that we’ll gladly surrender “Could you photoshop this real quick?” in favor of “Could you enhance this image using Adobe® Photoshop® software real quick?” is completely insane.

The fact of the matter is that the verbed form is more versatile as well. In English, we can use other particles to change the meanings of an established verb, and “to photoshop” is no exception. One can photoshop something in, photoshop it out, photoshop something away, and so on. However, one cannot “enhance using Adobe® Photoshop® software out the guy in the background”. Instead, we’re asked to “enhance an image using Adobe® Photoshop® software in such a way that the guy in the background is removed from the picture”. Yeah, we’re going to do that, Adobe. Sure thing.

Adobe doesn’t know what they want

The real beauty comes in that the next heading: “Trademarks are not nouns”. Adobe, you’re in blatant violation of your own trademark policies on this very website.

…and Photoshop is one of Adobe’s most valuable trademarks…
…Adobe and Photoshop are either registered trademarks or trademarks…
…Get everything in Photoshop CS3 plus tools for editing 3D and motion-based content and performing image analysis….

In each of the above phrases, “Photoshop” is acting as a noun. So, I don’t think noun-like usage is what Adobe’s really worried about. Let’s look at their explanation:

CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.

It looks like what they’re really trying to ban is “Photoshop-Related Metonymy“. Metonymy is where a commonly associated element (or part of something) is used to refer to the whole thing. For instance, “The White House was silent on the corruption charges” or “The press is more and more biased every day” are both metonymic expressions, using parts of these establishments to represent the whole.

So, although I suspect they have no problem with noun form use (”Photoshop® is exceptionally good at what it does”), they’re worried about metonymy with manipulated images, like “Photoshops are causing more scandals every day for the embattled prince”. Perhaps they should be clarifying that on their website, lest they be forced to sue themselves.

Other miscellaneous escapes from reality

According to Adobe, “Trademarks may never be used as slang terms”. This is just charming because it’s an attempt to control casual usage. I can understand their not wanting an ad campaign with “Help Photoshoppers Photoshop better”, but trying to regulate casual conversation shows Adobe to be out of touch with not only language usage, but with reality.

Finally, I’m not sure I buy this “Proper Adjectives” thing. To claim that “Adobe Photoshop” is incorrect and meaningless without adding “software” is a bit ridiculous. Whether or not they want to pretend that Photoshop isn’t a noun, it won’t really change how speakers view and use the term. It just makes them seem stodgy and delusional.

Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Continental Drift

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: A speaker (or grammarian) trying to stop language from changing is like a gardener trying to stop continental drift.

Adobe can write this up, and heck, they can even try and enforce parts of it with marketing and high-profile cases. However, I hope they realize the folly of trying to change established words and constructions, especially when the ones suggested are longer and less useful than the originals. No matter what they do, in everyday speech, people will photoshop images, those images will be photoshops, and photoshopping will be an entertaining pastime on the internet.

Know, however, that we’re not doing it to hurt you, Adobe. Our language is a language of love for your software, and the fact that “Photoshop” is so ubiquitous is a sign of our respect for your work. So, dearest Adobe, please stick to manipulating images, and leave the language manipulation to us.

As you all know, I’ve spent the last week traveling in the Southwestern US, visiting and photographing Bryce Canyon, Zion and Grand Canyon National Parks. Along the way, as always, I’ve been looking out for interesting uses of language, and found plenty of it. The purpose for this post is twofold, though, and for that reason, it’s more of a rant than you normally find here. My first reason for posting is that I’d like to discuss an interesting (and infuriating) technique by which people and companies can tell the truth and lie simultaneously. My second (and main) purpose for this post, however, is to let people know to avoid Best Western Ruby’s Inn, outside Bryce Canyon, Utah. They scammed us, and I’d like to see that other people aren’t similarly taken.

Barely false advertising

Being the nerd I am, I do my best to stay connected when I’m on the road. I try and pick hotels that have internet available. According to AAA (and all the hotel’s posted information), Best Western Ruby’s Inn offers “High Speed Internet Access” and “Complimentary Wireless Internet”.

Both of these statements are true, technically. Best Western Ruby’s Inn (repeated for Google) does, in fact, have Wireless Internet, and I was able to pick up their signal without any trouble, and at full strength. However, unlike other hotels, the wireless speeds are around 1 kilobyte per second to non-existent (loading my mail took around 5 minutes, and even then was unreliable). Of course, I anticipated less-than-superb speeds if they had to use a satellite connection, seeing as they’re out in the middle of Utah, but still, I expected some degree of usability.

So, I went across the way to the front desk to ask if I was doing something wrong. I explained my problem to the manager, and he informed me that the wireless system is, regrettably, “a bit slow” and that there wasn’t anything he could do. However, he eagerly pointed out that the High Speed Internet terminals in the lobby would have no such connection speed issues. What he failed to mention is that those High Speed Internet terminals (listed simply as “Eight Internet Kiosks” on their site) cost 50 cents per minute to use. (EDIT: According to their manager, the cost is 20 cents per minute. I was misinformed.)

At every other Best Western we visited, “Free Wireless Internet” and “High Speed Internet” refer to one and the same service. However, Best Western Ruby’s Inn has redefined those terms, separating them, so that they can still offer what they’ve promised, but still gouge the guests for 50 cents a minute.

If you bought a car based on an ad saying “Used Car, New Engine”, then they proceeded to hand you a gutted Camry and a factory sealed engine for a lawnmower, you’d likely sue. They’re not lying, per se, but they’re certainly not being honest. By changing the meaning of the hotel catch phrase “Free Wireless and High Speed Internet”, they’re off the hook for false advertising. If it were just the internet situation, I’d be more willing to cut them some slack. However, they don’t stop there with their creative redefinition of usual terms.

We meant REALLY local calls

On the little laminated sheet next to each phone, they discuss the rates for different sorts of calls. It clearly states that long distance calls cost an arm, International costs both arms and a leg. However, it proudly proclaims that local calls are completely free.

When my girlfriend and I realized that we didn’t want to stay the planned three nights (their $16 per person buffet and $9 microwaved mozzarella sticks didn’t thrill us), we decided to try and find another hotel in the area. We called a Best Western (which didn’t have an 800 number) in the same area code and general region and made some reservations, figuring that it was a local call. One call, maybe 4 minutes, total.

The next morning, at checkout, the young lady at the desk informed me that I made $6 worth of phone calls. I explained that they were local calls, and that the charge was made in error. She then informed me that “local” refers to calls made to any room or building at the Best Western Ruby’s Inn complex, not to any outside numbers. Outside numbers are billed at $1.50 a minute, apparently, even to nearby hotels in the same chain, same region, and same area code.

Then, the sheer sleazyness of it hit: They redefined “local” so they could charge us more. Note, this wasn’t on the sheet. There wasn’t a “Ruby’s Inn Rate” and a “Far-Local” rate. Just “Local Calls are complimentary”. This is like a hotel boasting about “nearby parking”, and then explaining to customers that there’s a small plot of land that the hotel owns next to the lot, 10 miles away, so technically, the lot is right near the hotel’s land. Once again, they’ve changed the meaning of a word to hide a rather exorbitant charge.

Dishonest honesty

Unfortunately, there’s not much one can do about this sort of thing. They’re never actually lying to you, they’re just redefining terms in the language so that they can sound like a good, honest, and benevolent hotel, while still operating like a Tourist Trap.

They might not get many return customers this way, but they figure that once you’re there, you’re trapped. By the time you’ve seen through their deceptive phrasings, you’re 15 miles away from the nearest motel, likely already moved in, and probably exhausted, so you’re not going to find a better place. If you’re not careful, you’ll go to check out and be billed exorbitantly, but it’s after the service was rendered, so you’re pretty much stuck paying.

Lessons to learn

So, from this tirade, what should you take away?

1) Visit Bryce Canyon National Park (and Zion National Park) if you ever get the chance. They’re truly beautiful places, and worth every cent of the trip to get there.

2) Best Western Ruby’s Inn, near Bryce Canyon National Park, is a tourist trap. They will lure you in and sound wonderful, but once you’re checked in, they’ll do their best to charge you as much as legally possible. Between deceptive tactics like those above, hidden charges (nearly 20% tax on the room) (EDIT: According to the Manager’s response, the room tax is 11%. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming my memory was in error), and the exorbitantly priced goods in the diner and grocery (often your only option), your room and board can easily jump up by half or more.

3) If you’re going to the area, I highly recommend commuting from the Best Western East Zion Thunderbird Lodge instead. From here, you can get to Bryce in around 1.5 hours, and Zion within 30 minutes, and the room rates were half of what Ruby’s charged, for equivalent (or nicer) rooms. They also offered actual high-speed wireless and free local calls, without any deception. This hotel is as good as Ruby’s was bad.

4) Ask for definitions. When you call for reservations at a hotel which smells tourist-trappy, ask if the free wireless is high speed. Ask what local means. Ask what “reasonably priced” means in the context of their restaurant. They can’t lie to you if you ask directly, and their power over your checkbook lies in your assumptions about the English language.

5) To the proprietors of Ruby’s Inn: Remember, language works both ways. You used it to distort the truth about your hotel, now I’m using it to bring some clarity to your practices. Hopefully some of your future customers will google you, read this, and decide to find another hotel based on this post.

Live by the word, die by the word.

EDIT: The manager of Best Western Ruby’s Inn has commented on this thread and refuted some of my points here. I encourage you to read the comments thread to hear both sides of the matter.