To slurp, revised
November 19, 2008
Undisclosed Office Location / Portland, OR – After giving it some thought, I have come to the conclusion it is important to both modify and clarify the definition of slurp posted yesterday. Slurp is not an intransitive verb. An intransitive verb does not take an object, and slurping always has an object. Slurp is a transitive verb; it requires both a subject and one or more objects.
(Parenthetical Note #1: The links above will take you to the relevant and quite interesting wikipedia articles on transitive and intransitive verbs. I especially recommend the article on intransitive verbs, because it includes a section on ambitransitive verbs, which are exactly what they sound like – verbs that can go both ways. Play, for example, is an ambitransitive verb. I love this stuff.)
I also feel like some clarification is necessary re: what can be an object of a slurp. Specifically, is it appropriate to say you slurp inanimate (static) objects or can one only slurp sentient (dynamic) beings? A case in point: can I slurp Van Morrison’s album Moondance or can I only slurp Van Morrison?
(Parenthetical Note #2: I don’t slurp Van Morrison. Both Astral Weeks and Moondance are brilliant, beautiful albums, but some of his later stuff is pretty inconsistent.)
I believe one can only slurp sentient beings (famous people, usually), because authentic slurping cannot be reduced to a mere matter of taste. Furthermore, to be a true slurp there must be an element of relationship involved. A one-sided, sometimes stalker-like relationship certainly, but a relationship nonetheless. You must take something as complex and dynamic as a person and flatten them out into something smaller, something less pointy, something that has much more to do with the slurper than the slurpee. Therefore, while I cannot slurp Wilco’s album Sky Blue Sky, I can (and very much do) slurp Jeff Tweedy. I’m sure he’s got his issues and has probably caused a fair bit of pain for the people in his life, but none of that matters to me. I slurp him.
Excellent. My first thought from your first post on slurp was whether or not you needed the preposition to use it. Your quote was “slurp on”, but you proceeded to use slurp on its own. Thoughts?
I am having trouble reading your blog without busting out laughing in the office. This window into the inner thoughts of DBJ is a real treat and I miss seeing you in person. Keep up the good work.
You seem to slurp linguistics, yet profess that only sentient beings can be slurped. Is it possible to say that one can slurp multi-dimentional, sentient-being-created wonders like a whole lexicon and its ongoing ideological debates? Or, say, creme brulee?
When I first went about defining “to slurp,” I really wanted to be an irrational thing and it blinded me to the fact that I do slurp non-sentient things (in my case and among other things, English grammar – if I had taken Intro to Linguistics during my sophomore year instead of the last semester of my senior year, I would have had a completely different college experience).
I enjoy your comments, naptimewriting.