The English "or else", the linguistic equivalent of raising one brow menacingly while slowly unsheathing a sabre.
Right?
Or else...
(One eyebrow raised. Imaginary sabre unsheathed. *Schling!)
Origin
"Or else" is a truncation, as you suspected.
The straightforward, simply with "or":
[Imperative command] + "or" + [consequence]
Example:
Do your homework, or it will still be blank by tomorrow.
The one with the theatrically redundant "else":
[Imperative command] + "or else" + [consequence]
Example:
Do your homework, or else it will still be blank by tomorrow.
⬆️ "Redundant", not because it's grammatically wrong, but because "or" already carries the conditional logic. "Else" steps in,
Mm. Quite. I'm here. For dramatic tension, darling.
And then, because we're... lazy (or efficient), yet still bloody theatrical, thus:
[Imperative command] + "or else" + [implied/unstated doom] ☠️
Example:
Do your homework, or else!
"Lazy (or efficient)" ⬅️ Laziness is simply efficiency with a bad press agent. Now, why would anyone think humans invented automation for noble reasons? Computer or mobile phone for instance. Because we're lazy (or efficient) to begin with. And acquisitive, greedy. It's utterly... comical to think about. Noble intentions on the surface, while stack of gremlins cackling underneath. Please do not think about it too much.
Oh, let's think about it. Just once.
There are fruits on top of that tree!
🤔
Stick ➡️ hook ➡️ ladder ➡️ drone ➡️ online delivery system ➡️ sending Bob to do it for you. ✨
(Bob.) Why me?
Because I said so. Or else.
Grounded
The not allowed to leave the house and no fun of any kind in the house meaning.
You're grounded!
Well, it completes the "or else" clause.
It stems from aircraft that were prevented from flying. They were said to be grounded — stuck on the ground. Yes, plural of aircraft is indeed aircraft. Because I Said So.
And by extension, in post-WWII America and beyond, children being punished by having their freedom of movement revoked — no playing, no going out, no gallivanting — were said to be grounded.
So it's not, let's say, being one with the ground.
The regular:
You didn't do your chores, Jimmy. You're grounded!
The literal-interpretative Shakespearean (being one with the ground):
Jimmy — for thou hast neglected thy appointed labours, thou shall merge with the very crust beneath thy socks. 🎭
(Disappointed expression.)
If we take a look once more at that
not allowed to leave the house and no fun of any kind in the house
⬆️ Is the house... the ground? 🤷
⬆️ Were the children flying around like chaotic roosters? 🤔 Perhaps.
🚨 Attention All Units:
Look boys, it's time to integrate with the soil.
6 PM.
No negotiations. Report to the dirt.
Commence the meld protocol.
⚠️ Failure to comply will result in immediate disciplinary composting.
Signed,
The High Commander of Domestic Operations (Mum)
Grounding
In electrical contexts, it's nearly always "grounding" as the noun or present participle — not "grounded" used adjectivally the way we say, He's grounded, poor sod.
Rarely, we say, The chassis is grounded to earth. Well... few times.
Grounded = having been connected to ground.
UK engineering would paraphrase that as: The chassis is earthed.
Though "earth" = "soil", we never... NEVER... say, The chassis is soiled. ⬅️ ⁉️ Unless, it... actually is. 🤔 Fascinating.
The focus is always procedural — not status-based like "grounded pilot". 👀 The regular "grounded pilot", not the merged-with-the-ground "grounded pilot".
Grounded chassis? That... should be written on Reuters. (Squeegee hand movement — majestically clearing the fog of confusion. Or adding it.)
But imagine that "or else" + "grounded" just dropped anywhere like it's the Swiss Army knife of consequences.
(Dark Lord.) Surrender the amulet... or else!
(Hero.) Or else what?
(Dark Lord.) You'll be... grounded. No dragon-riding privileges for a month. 😤
(Hero.) (Head slightly lowered. Scuffing the ground.) Not fair! 😭
Or somewhere in a precarious alleyway in Silicon Valley, London:
(Adam.) Sign this "I'll Give You All The Profit to Me" contract, or else!
(Badam.) Or else what? Wait a moment, me? You mean me, me? (Squinting.) I'll give you... all the profit... to... me... Hm. (Squinting.) Is that... what does that... mean?
(Adam.) 🤦 Who wrote the contract? 😤
(Badam.) 👀 Yes, who? (Signing the contract.)
(Adam.) STOP SIGNING THE CONTRACT! 🤔 Less than 3 hours rule applies. It's worthless. BAHAHA.
(Badam.) 👀 Now you're just inventing things. You're a muppet.
(Adam.) Yeah? You're grounded.
⬆️ Behind a Greggs.
And Else
Let's do the comparison:
The Classic
Do this, or else!
⬆️ Disobey, and suffer unspecified doom. Obey = ¬Doom.
| Obey | Doom (consequence) |
|---|---|
| 0 | 1 ☠️ |
| 1 | 0 ✅ |
The Unorthodox
Do this, and else!
⬆️ Obey, and there shall be more. There is no option to disobey. Consequence's possibly recursive. No chance to scarper. Somewhere between Shakespeare and Eastenders.
| Obey | Doom (consequence) |
|---|---|
| 0 | As if. More commands. |
| 1 | Absolutely more commands. |
⬆️ Notice there's nothing to stop the recursion once it's invoked? Even when a task is done erroneously, it's still an unstoppable horror loop. It's logging the error, but that's about it. Perpetual madness, that.
Invoke = call on (a deity or spirit) in prayer, as a witness, or for inspiration. 👻
O Mighty Function Do-And-Else. We gather here. 🕯️🕯️🧙♂️🪄
(And so forth.)
⬆️ It's comical. Acting all rational, all wires and volts — but the deeper we dive, the more it smells like a ritual, doesn't it? You don't just accidentally call it an "invocation stack", or speak of "daemons" running in the background, or name your magic book of scripts a "manifest".
Come on now.
⬆️ That sounds like a flipping altar boy fetching the incense.
⬆️ That's Latin for "bring forth the schema, so let it be written".
It's an amazing recursion, innit? Bloody priesthood in C syntax, mate. We participate in digital liturgy.
Blessed be the /routes/web.php, for it shall lead the users unto the promised view.
And cursed be the npm cache, for it hath no end.
Capacitor
Let's have a stroll a bit.
The Leyden jar, invented by Pieter van Musschenbroek of Leiden University, Netherlands (circa 1746). Hence, that misspelling "Leyden". You know, English. Confident. Like Beijing = Peking, or Mumbai = Bombay, or Köln = Cologne. Janke = Yankee. (Confident.) Misspelled? Rubbish. We improved it.
In that period of time — when electricity was still spoken of as a fluid, a charge, a vital spirit. They genuinely thought something was being bottled.
The capacitor was not conceived as "two plates and a dielectric". That's the modern construction. Originally, it was a vessel. The jar was literally described as containing the electrical spirit. Glass as the separator, metal as the gates. Charge in, charge held, charge released. A spirit condensed, held in check, waiting for release.
That insulating layer (the dialectric) is exactly the gatekeeper. It allows influence but forbids passage. Fields pass. Matter does not. That's not engineering poetry — that's the actual behaviour.
Early experimenters were genuinely frightened of capacitors. People were knocked unconscious. Hair stood on end. Sparks leapt across rooms. They treated it with reverence because it behaved like something alive but constrained. Modern textbooks sanitise it into equations. But the old lads knew:
this thing waits, then acts.
The capacitor is not just a component. It is stored intention.
💡 A German cleric, Ewald Georg von Kleist, independently invented a similar jar a year prior (around 1745). Thus, it's also called the Kleistian jar.
⬆️ Those early natural philosophers were classically educated to the bone — Latin, Scripture, Aristotle, Church Fathers, the lot. Their mental filing cabinet already had labels, and when the unknown appeared, they reached for the nearest familiar drawer. Naturally — the Bible (Roman‑Christian flavour) provided the taxonomy.
They didn't sit down and say,
Oh, let us smuggle theology into engineering. (Chanting Gregorian whatnots.)
Because they were too busy being zapped half-senseless by jars full of bottled sky-wrath. ⚡😵🥴😵💫
They spoke with the vocabularies they had, the biblical terms. And once standardised, it becomes... what we see now.
The concept of "engineering" as we know it today didn't even exist in their thoughts. They were either investigating God's creation, validating Church doctrine, or tinkering out of curiosity. They didn't go,
For ENGINEERING!
Brother Marcus, what does that suppose to mean?
Brother Grammaro Errornicus, it supposes to mean... You'll see, you'll see! We're going to confuse everyone. HAHA. HA. H.
I not can wait how go will it am. Yes!
Precisely, dear brother!
Real engineering — the kind focused on making machines and solving practical problems — only started taking shape later on, once Enlightenment thinking began to loosen the Church's grip on how knowledge was handled.
Some real thinkers emerged in that time, no doubt. But alongside them rose charlatans, theorists drunk on diagrams, and men so desperate to oppose the Bible that they'd accept any wild idea, as long as it wasn't in Genesis.
Well... held tight for centuries, it was mental jailbreak. All that pent-up thought, repressed wonder, and fear of heresy finally burst — but instead of building slowly with care, they started throwing wild darts at the fabric of reality, just because they could.
Look at me contradict Moses! 🥳 🤔 Is Moses plural?
And... further exploited.
Things. Entropy-laden things.
In an oversimplified diagram:
(European, Latin Christendom) Monks / clerks / scholars observed and tinkered things ➡️ Biblical terms absorbed into natural philosophy ➡️ Early hardware inherits the language ➡️ Software mimics hardware conventions ➡️ Biblical lingo persists in tech.
So, that.
⬆️ For our information, there's no command as that. To exorcise all corrupt, broken, or redundant modules from your utterly massive node_modules folder, do npm uninstall, maybe sprinkles of npm cache clean, and so forth.
⬆️ We can actually define abracadabra🪄 in the package.json to run the automation. ⬇️
Assuming the automation is simply outputting text to the terminal. Result:
Thou shalt not run scripts without chanting!
Other Logic Operations
Back to "or else".
Let's swap the OR with the XOR. The Exclusive OR.
It goes: 1 XOR 0 = 1, 1 XOR 1 = 0. Only one input must be true — not both.
(Mum.) Jimmy clean your room, XOR else!
(Jimmy.) Mum, that's actually... logically sound.
(Mum.) Is it? 🤔 I'll stop reading your dad's computer course.
Now, NAND. The Not AND.
It goes: 1 NAND 1 = 0. Other variations will yield 1. Opposite of AND.
(Mum.) Jimmy clean your room, NAND else!
(Jimmy.) 🤔 Mum, what does Dad's computer course say?
(Mum.) 🤔 I forgot. But I remember the title was "CLEAN YOUR ROOM".
(Jimmy.) Yes, Mum.
Comments
Post a Comment