Ash on a Star✨️
LightNews LightNews
banner
ashonastar.bsky.social
Ash on a Star✨️
@ashonastar.bsky.social
310 followers 780 following 820 posts
阿修是星辰的灰烬✨️just ashes from stars✨️
i write and study and sometimes even draw

i like linguistics, ancient history,
and writing about little crabs & birbs🦀🦢🌈✨️

lets yap at 3am about medieval astronomy & medicine
(eng/рус/日本語/汉语)
Posts Replies Media Videos
ashonastar.bsky.social
Here is one: www.oah.org/process/reme...

This passage in particular:
Agricultural labor notoriously exploited children well after the passage of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. A 1959 Bureau of Labor Statistics report, Child Workers in Agriculture, found close to 500,000 children under fifteen years old working for pay on farms. These child laborers represented 18 percent of the commercial agricultural workforce.
November 24, 2025 at 4:19 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
"Yes," I said, "let us be gone." "For the love of God, Montresor!"
November 8, 2025 at 11:17 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
I have been given too much power...
BLOOD for the Blood God! SKULLS for the Skull Throne!!
November 8, 2025 at 11:05 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Bro didnt even like GB or the Commonwealth why the fuck would he care for any empire
Scanned page of Letters from Tolkien: soldiery (German or other), I am not really sure that its victory is going to be so much the better for the world as a whole and in the long run than the victory of.5 I don't suppose letters in are censored. But if they are, or not, I need to you hardly add that them's the sentiments of a good many folk - and no indication of lack of patriotism. For I love England (not Great Britain and certainly not the British Commonwealth (grr!)), and if I was of military age, I should, I fancy, be grousing away fighting service, and willing to go on to the bitter end - always hoping that things may turn out better for England than they look like doing.
November 2, 2025 at 9:52 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Voting in Texas every year is always a PITA because every measure on the ballot is suspiciously worded, like this Mitch Hedberg joke:
November 2, 2025 at 6:41 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
A 1951 Dodger-Giants NL playoff game draws an audience to an appliance storefront on a rainy day in San Francisco.

(Not the World Series here but almost world series lol... not sure if they're watching the exact "Shot Heard 'Round The World" Dodgers-Giants 1951 game but maybe!)
Black and white photo of a crowd completely filling the sidewalk in front of a storefront window, with a sign "Music Center, Records Radios Television Appliances"
November 2, 2025 at 4:13 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
A crowd gathered in front of the Playograph machine set up to watch the Pittsburgh Pirates vs Washington Senators game in the 1925 World Series.
November 2, 2025 at 4:01 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Outside the Sturgis Radio Store at 5308 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, a crowd gathers to listen to a live broadcast of the 1929 World Series game the Philadelphia Athletics facing off against the Chicago Cubs.
This photograph captures a crowd gathered outside the Sturgis Radio store in Los Angeles to listen to a broadcast of a baseball game from a floor model radio displayed in front of the shop.
November 2, 2025 at 3:43 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Fans gather in Washington, D.C., to watch the telegraphed play-by-play of the 1912 World Series between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Giants.
Black and white photo of large crowd completely filling the streets and sidewalks watching a mechanical baseball game board
November 2, 2025 at 3:34 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
New York, New York: Crowd watching World Series on TV set in window of bank building on 40th St. near 6th Avenue. On TV screen, you can see Dick Sisler at bat in the 9th inning. He struck out to end the game, Yanks winning 1-0. Game 1 of the 1950 World Series, played on October 4, 1950.
Black and white photo of large crowd of men and women standing in the street watching a tv set in a building window of the Union Dime Savings Bank.
November 2, 2025 at 3:33 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Baseball fans gather to watch the 1913 World Series across from Shibe Park, Philadelphia, PA
Black and white photo of crowds of people on every level of multilevel building exteriors watching a baseball game
November 2, 2025 at 3:27 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
A crowd at Herald Square watching mechanical updates of the 1911 World Series
Black and white photo of several large crowds in the street watching a mechanical representation of the baseball game
November 2, 2025 at 3:25 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Good Texas gays representation😤 very accurate.
Photo of a page from an old book: Mollycoddles A ferocious-looking character excited curiosity in an Arkansas town by rattling in from the South in an old buckboard drawn by a panther and a tiger which he kept in action with a whip made of a live boa constrictor. Stopping at an ash house he slaked his thirst from a kettle of lye. "What's your mission in these parts, pardner?" inquired a native. "Nawthin' 'cept the Ku Klux are drivin' all the molly- coddles out of Texas, an' I'm on on my way!"
October 22, 2025 at 4:27 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
This one did made me laugh tho...

I've absolutely gotta work "Great guns!" into my vocabulary
Photo of a page from an old book: Bunker Hill A grandiloquent guide at Bunker Hill upraised his arm at the base of the shining shaft and cried. "Behold where Warren fell." "Great guns!" exclaimed the visitor, "did it kill him?"
October 22, 2025 at 12:26 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
"The difference between the two types of militants is quite plain.

The suffragist takes tea with Mrs. Belmont and the suffragette sets forth and bites a perfectly good policeman."

Lol.....hits differently in 2025
Photo of a page in an old book: Suffragism The beautifully-gowned advocate of equal rights had con- cluded her appeal for the enfranchisement of her oppressed sisters, but said she would remain a few moments for ques- tions. "There is one thing I would like to ask you," said a young matron faintly. "Proceed, my dear young woman," said the suffragist en- couragingly. "How do you get that smooth effect about the hips?" asked the non-voter. — The difference between the two types of militants is quite plain. The suffragist takes tea with Mrs. Belmont and the suffra- gette sets forth and bites a perfectly good policeman. Photo of a page from an old book: The difference between the two types of militants is quite plain. The suffragist takes tea with Mrs. Belmont and the suffra- gette sets forth and bites a perfectly good policeman.
October 22, 2025 at 12:03 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
I have a small dusty pile of old books in my office at work; valueless sacrifices for restoration/re-binding practice. One 1920s book has some...interesting anecdotes, to say the least😅

They're supposed to get a sensible chuckle at dinner parties but ofc most are every -ist & -ism you'd expect...
Faded red book cover 1500 ANECDOTES from forty years of After-dinner Speaking
October 21, 2025 at 11:54 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
He's the woke friend lol

(Amusingly, in the later edition decades later, he did add an admission that this blunder is in the [King James] bible... he's like "they're still wrong tho😌💅✨️")
WIDOW LADY. Widow-lady and widow-woman are frequently encountered in conversation and in print. But whether either of them has yet been encountered by a widower-gentleman or a widower-man, remains to be discovered. WIDOW LADY. Widow-lady and widow-woman are frequently encountered in conversation and in print. But whether either of them has yet been encountered by a widower-gentleman or a widower-man, remains to be discovered. Strange to say, this blunder is at least as old as the Bible. In 1 Kings xi. 26: "And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite, Solomon's servant, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand against the King."
October 18, 2025 at 4:51 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Maybe unexpected of a book from 1867–but not unwelcome–is Mr. Gould eviscerating unnecessarily gendered words

"Nothing, in either word, indicates sex; and everybody knows that the functions of both poets and authors are common to both sexes."

Okayyy feminist king!👑😤
In addition to those, there are some words which long usage has sanctioned, although a good reason can hardly be given for their admission into our vocabulary, because the primary words serve all the purposes of their substitutes. Of those, are actor, actress; benefactor, benefactress; patron, patroness. But there is a class of words, some of them modern, and most of them of very recent fabrication, which set all philological principles at defiance. Two of them that are the least objectionable to ourselves, because they are the most familiar to our ears, are poetess and authoress; but, philologically, they are just as absurd as any of their successors. Poet means, simply, a person who writes poetry; and author, in the sense under consideration, a person who writes poetry or prose: not a man who writes, but a person who writes. Nothing, in either word, indicates sex; and everybody knows that the functions of both poets and authors are common to both sexes. Hence, "authoress" and "poetess " are superfluous. And they are superfluous, also, in another respect, — that they are very rarely used, indeed they hardly can be used, independently of the name of the writer; as, Mrs., or Miss, or a female Christian name. They are, besides, philological absurdities, because they are fabricated on the false assumption that their primaries indicate men. They are, moreover, liable to the charge of affectation and prettiness, to say nothing of pedantic pretension to accuracy. If, however, those two words have, by long usage, become conventionally endurable; what shall be said of the superfine affectation, prettiness, and pedantry of conductress, directress, inspectress, waitress, and so on, which have become as plenty as blackberries? Conductor is a person who conducts; director, a person who directs; inspector, a person who in- spects; waiter, a person who waits.
October 18, 2025 at 4:30 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
I don't agree with a lot his general typical language prescriptivist arbitraryass inflexibility, but he is making some points with some of these😹
STOPPING. It is a matter of almost daily experience to find in the newspapers sentences like this, "General Grant and his family have arrived in town, and are stopping at the Fifth Avenue Hotel." On reading such an announcement, one is tempt- ed to inquire, — "When will General Grant stop ' stopping'?" Stopping is not a continuous process, like going, living, etc. To stop is to do a single act that ter- minates the prior action. The act may be repeat ed, but it cannot be continued.* RELIABLE. An immense quantity of ink has been wasted by newspaper scribblers in defence of reliable; but they would have done better by saving their ink. Their defence is a forlorn hope. The verb to rely cannot be used without a following preposition, - rely on; just as depend requires the on, and confide the in. We rely on, we depend on, and we confide in; and if the corrupters of language will form an adjective from any of the three verbs, they must, to be correct, include the preposition, — rely-on-able, depend-on-able, confide-in-able. To say reliable is no better than to say dependable and confidable. It has been urged, in reply to this, that laughable, then, should be laugh-at-able; agreeable should be agree-with-able; indispensable, indispens-with-able, etc.
October 18, 2025 at 2:25 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
To my shock and delight, there was a compliments of the author inscription so I unintentionally bought a copy signed by THE LEGEND HIMSELF✨️🥺
(this was an exciting development weeks ago, I just kept forgetting to post about it...I was in the middle of drafting a longer @leaflet.pub with highlights)
Photo of an old books ex libris page with a calligraphy inscription: Professor McElhenny, D.D. with the comps. of EDWARD S. Gould
October 18, 2025 at 12:37 AM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Anyways, this was obviously unacceptable so naturally the most reasonable, normal next step was to hunt the book down so I could read the og unabridged old man ranting

(😤more old grammarbooks for the old grammarbook hoard😤)

there's a WHOLE chapter dedicated to Noah Webster's orthography🕺✨️🥂🥳
Closeup of a worn spine of a faded maroon book labeled in gold, GOOD ENGLISH — GOULD with a small leaf fleuret/vignette in gold Photo of inside of book table of contents, reading: INTRODUCTORY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE SPURIOUS WORDS MISUSED WORDS A PLEA FOR THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH WEBSTER'S ORTHOGRAPHY CLERICAL ELOCUTION INDEX
October 17, 2025 at 11:19 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Due to my habit of skipping forewords, I belatedly realized that the digitally archived version I read is a later edition that omits ~50 pages, mostly devoted to bitching about Noah Webster?!?!

(I feel bad bc he was still so optimistic "proper" English would still make a comeback...😭...Mr Gould...)
THE present edition of "Good English" is very different from its several predecessors. Somewhat more than fifty of its former pages are omitted, and an equal number of pages are put in their place. The latter are made up of new material on the old subject. The greater part of the omitted pages are those devoted to Webster's orthography. The war on that topic was waged for five-and-twenty years; and, as it was won by the opposing critics, there is no need of prolonging it. Webster and his suc- cessors have been gradually driven from their ortho- graphical positions, until nothing remains in their hands but seventy primitive words; and their posses- sion even of the seventy is not exclusive. They hold it jointly and in common with their adversaries. That is to say, they have assented to right spelling side by side with wrong spelling in their dictionary, thus: Defense, Moldy, Saber, etc. Defence, Mouldy, Sabre, etc. through the disputed territory. That concession on their part, however, leaves them in the predicament of certifying that there are two correct ways of spelling certain words. Moreover, the Webster style of spelling those seventy words and their derivatives is falling into disrepute. The largest publishing-house in the United States, and one of the best class of New York newspapers— which respectively were the first to adopt Webster's orthography—have quietly abandoned it; and no doubt some other publishers who followed their bad example will soon follow the good one, if they have not done so already. American authors of distinction – Irving, Cooper, Bancroft, Hawthorne, Bryant, and many others – have wholly and from the beginning rejected Webster's attempt to **reform** our orthography.
October 17, 2025 at 11:08 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
And even Webster,*

Large asterisk leading to a footnote that takes up half the page in small but bold print talking about Webster
Zoomed up clip of scanned book text: it, and even Webster,* as
October 17, 2025 at 10:42 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Gould: this """"""word"""""""😒😒😒😒😒😒

(we won't tell Mr. Gould about goated....)
UNDERHANDED. This "word" is formed by adding to the adjective underhand a participial termination; but the addition still leaves the word an adjective, without in the least modifying the sense of the true word. There is no verb to underhand, and no noun an underhand, from which such a compound could be made. The addition of ed, therefore, renders the word a mere vulgarism; as much so as the same addition would make of beforehand and behindhand. What would be said of behindhanded? Or, take a shorter word, bland— and make it blanded.
October 17, 2025 at 10:37 PM
ashonastar.bsky.social
Bro didn't you introduce this book talking about words that deserve to be ejected from the English lexicon because they weren't correct??? lmaoooooo
it ought to have been spelled instable originally; and, indeed, so it ought, but it wasn't. And what then? Does the English language BELONG to Webster? Is he the autocrat, the very patriarch, of our vernacular? and has he, therefore, the right and the power to go behind the certificate of his predecessors, and summarily to expel a denizen of the philological demesne who (or which) has been recognized as legitimate for three centuries, and all that, because, in Webster's judgment, the word was improperly admitted to citizenship? Moreover, if Webster expelled unstable because it is improperly formed from instabilis, let him expel many other words for the same reason. For instance, he should expel pronunciation, denunciation, etc., because they are improperly formed from pronounce and denounce etc. and they should therefore—
October 17, 2025 at 10:34 PM