Aimless meanderings

The English language is a bit like one of those wonderful, cavernous second-hand bookshops on the Charing Cross Road. You wander in with an idea of what you're looking for, and within minutes you're picking curious-looking things off shelves and flicking through them. Then suddenly your tummy's rumbling and you realise you've been in there for four hours.

Thinking about something I've now completely forgotten, I found myself wondering why almost all those funny little rhyming words, like harum-scarum and higgledy- piggledy, begin with an H.

Hocus-pocus. Hoi-polloi. Hugger-mugger. Helter-skelter. Hotch-potch... all with an H.

The only exception I could think of straight away was pell-mell, which is a bit archaic these days. So I thought I'd throw it open to the floor. Any other exceptions? Any other H examples? Any theories as to why the H should dominate so? I think there may be a conspiracy at the OED. (They're no doubt plotting hugger-mugger over there.)

Come on, don't try to tell me you've got anything better to do.

Remember the Rubik's Cube?

If you're as old as me, you will. Well it's still around, and I've just been briefed to write some online marketing words for it. Which is rather fun.

From the brief, I learn that there are 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 permutations of the fiendish Cube. Thought you might be interested to know that.

(I know you're wondering, so the answer to the question is that if you took one second to make each turn, it would take you 1400 million million years to go through every permutation. The universe is about 14 million million years old, apparently, so it's not a terribly viable method. No wonder my Mum bought me a solution book.)

There are lots more Rubik facts at the Rubik's website.

The "truth" about Mr Bush

When it comes to words, no-one uses them quite like the current Leader of the Free World. But are those bizarre ramblings ("I know the human being and fish can co- exist peacefully", and so on) really so random?

Click the link below to see what I thought was a great little film, drawn to my attention by Marc Hale of Reuters. I thought you might enjoy it too. (Thanks, Marc.)

Meet Mr Bush's "speechalist"

From the Soapbox: Innocent is not the only tone of voice

It's the big thing in copywriting these days: "tone of voice". Finally, brands have cottoned on to the fact that their words say as much about them as their visual identity.

This is Good News. Not just because it means more (and more interesting) work for writers like me, but also because an investment in using language has to be a good thing all round. (This doesn't include FCUK, of course, which is an investment in the debasement of language, consumers and the nation as a whole. Oh, don't get me started.)

The point I'd like to make - call it a plea if you like - is that while it's good to think about tone of voice, it's not good enough to say, "You know, like Innocent."

It's fair to say that the majority of tone-of-voice briefs I get these days mention Innocent. And Innocent is a very effective tone of voice. As evidence of the commercial validity of an investment in words, it's unbeatable. But why do so many brands miss the point and try to be Innocent too?

Only Innocent can be Innocent. Adorning your brand with wry, chummy little sprigs of copy will not automatically produce a flood of income. But many brands seem to think this is the lesson of Innocent. It isn't. The lesson of Innocent is that being distinctive, engaging and authentic - and, critically, Having Something To Say - makes the difference.