When I discuss my views on language to people, a comment I often get is, "Oh, then you believe anything goes." Well, no. I believe that language is a rule-governed activity, and that there are rights and wrongs. But, I also believe that the rights and wrongs change over time and that the rules are often not what people think they are.
Still, there are times when I become a little put out that people don't take more trouble to actually think about what they are writing. I am fond of quoting Alfred Korzybski, the founder of general semantics, when he said, "I say what I say; I do not say what I do not say." In other words, "Pay attention. Language is not a sledgehammer; it's a scalpel."
A case in point. In today's issue of the university paper is a sentence that I love for it's lack of direction. The sentence reads, in part, "... a freshman majoring in biology native to Price, Utah." Hmmmm. Just what is it native to Price, Utah, the freshman or the biology? Structurally it's the biology, but I strongly suspect that it's really the freshman. A simply rearrangement of words would disambiguate the sentence, "...a freshman from Price, Utah majoring in biology."
Or, there's this headline from the same paper: "Indian Students Celebrate Festival." I'm a little uncomfortable with that headline, since it's slightly redundant and a little off kilter. We normally hold festivals and celebrate occasions. The fact that the writer kind of scrambled the two usages makes me focus more on the language than on the meaning, and that's a bad thing.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Innocent bystanders
Consider the word "niggardly." It sounds awful, doesn't it, makes one think it's racist. It isn't, and has no connection historically with the other N-word. There is a news story somewhere about a person who was fired because he used the word "niggardly," and his superior thought he was being racist. It actually means "stingy," according to the only source I trust, the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary. It is not allied to, derived from, or derived from the same source as the other N-word (which is a southernized pronunciation of the word negro).
Ah, but as my friend Bill likes to say, "There's the rub" In a discussion with a group of intelligent people the other day, I learned that the word "niggardly" (henceforth the other N-word) makes people uncomfortable. In addition, they tend to think that it is somehow connected to the N-word. At first, I was upset with this. I mean, how could people be so blind, so ignorant, so, so.....
After I cooled down, I realized I was simply watching language change in action. A new meaning for the Other N-word was in the process of being created. So, I predict that in the future, the other N-word will further cement its associations with the primary n-word and will become vocabularia non grata in almost everyone's dialect. People who know the word won't use it, and people who say the n-word will have no idea that the other n-word exists.
Finally, to seal its fate, the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary, which refuses list demeaning or sexual words, will drop it from its list. Thus, a perfectly good word, which has done nothing to deserve such a fate, will become an outcast. Language change, like evolution, is good for the entire population but sometimes hard on the individual.
Ah, but as my friend Bill likes to say, "There's the rub" In a discussion with a group of intelligent people the other day, I learned that the word "niggardly" (henceforth the other N-word) makes people uncomfortable. In addition, they tend to think that it is somehow connected to the N-word. At first, I was upset with this. I mean, how could people be so blind, so ignorant, so, so.....
After I cooled down, I realized I was simply watching language change in action. A new meaning for the Other N-word was in the process of being created. So, I predict that in the future, the other N-word will further cement its associations with the primary n-word and will become vocabularia non grata in almost everyone's dialect. People who know the word won't use it, and people who say the n-word will have no idea that the other n-word exists.
Finally, to seal its fate, the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary, which refuses list demeaning or sexual words, will drop it from its list. Thus, a perfectly good word, which has done nothing to deserve such a fate, will become an outcast. Language change, like evolution, is good for the entire population but sometimes hard on the individual.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Truth in headlines
I remember an address given some years back entitled "Truth is a Linguistic Question." I didn't accept the premises of the address, but sometimes I wonder.
Like now, for instance. I have noticed a strange disconnect between the headlines in my local newspaper and the news accounts as they unfold in the actual articles. On Monday, the headline read, "Most banks won't make it," implying that in my town of, oh, a dozen banks, at the end of the financial crisis only two or three would be standing. The others would be piles of smoking rubble, with citizens poking about in the detritus looking for a stray roll of quarters.
The article itself suggested that perhaps one hundred banks in the U.S. could fail in the next little while. Okay, then Utah's share is two. That's a far cry from most.
The second headline was about the local university, and read, "Enrollment shows downward trend." Well, not really. In fact, most emphatically not. The enrollment is at its second highest level ever. Only last year was greater. So, if one looks at the two years running, it's true that the enrollment has dropped, but a one-year anomaly is not even close to a trend, or to a spiral, or to whatever it was they called it.
A great many times, as I leaf through the daily paper, I don't read the articles. I'll glance at the headline and use that to flesh out my picture of the day. What happens when the headline is a little beside the point, or a lot beside the point, or of the point altogether, or not even in the same county with the point?
So, I think I need to amend Mark Twain's quote. I'll put it, "There are lies, damn lies, and headlines."
Like now, for instance. I have noticed a strange disconnect between the headlines in my local newspaper and the news accounts as they unfold in the actual articles. On Monday, the headline read, "Most banks won't make it," implying that in my town of, oh, a dozen banks, at the end of the financial crisis only two or three would be standing. The others would be piles of smoking rubble, with citizens poking about in the detritus looking for a stray roll of quarters.
The article itself suggested that perhaps one hundred banks in the U.S. could fail in the next little while. Okay, then Utah's share is two. That's a far cry from most.
The second headline was about the local university, and read, "Enrollment shows downward trend." Well, not really. In fact, most emphatically not. The enrollment is at its second highest level ever. Only last year was greater. So, if one looks at the two years running, it's true that the enrollment has dropped, but a one-year anomaly is not even close to a trend, or to a spiral, or to whatever it was they called it.
A great many times, as I leaf through the daily paper, I don't read the articles. I'll glance at the headline and use that to flesh out my picture of the day. What happens when the headline is a little beside the point, or a lot beside the point, or of the point altogether, or not even in the same county with the point?
So, I think I need to amend Mark Twain's quote. I'll put it, "There are lies, damn lies, and headlines."
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Who and whom
Who is, of course, a relative pronoun. It's used when we have a sentence embedded inside another sentence, and both share the same subject. So, let's say we have a sentence "The man is a friend of mine," and we want to specify which man. We can embed a second sentence inside the first, and come up with "The man [the man lives up stairs] is a friend of mine," where the bracketed sentence is the embedded one. Then we change the embedded noun phrase (the man) to a relative pronoun, who, and come up with "The man who lives up stairs is a friend of mine." Tada!
This works well when both noun phrases are subjects, but what if one is an object? Pay attention now. Here's a sentence: "The man [My sister loves the man] is a friend of mine." Now, the noun phrase in the embedded sentence is an object. We can make it into a relative pronoun just fine, but the rule in English is that a relative pronoun has to immediately follow the noun phase that it's attached to. So, we get "The man who my sister loves is a friend of mine."
Wait a minute. That's not right. The pronoun who has a subject form, who, and an object form, whom. So, in the embedded sentence, it's not who but whom, so the correct form of the sentence is "The man whom my sister loves is a friend of mine."
Whew. Lots of work, no?
And not really worth it. So, the English language (and definitely not English teachers) has evolved strategies to get around the complexity of who/whom. There are three of them:
1. Don't worry about it. Just use who in all cases. After all, who knows? Who cares?
2. Replace the who with that. Thus we get the sentence, "The man that my sister loves is a friend of mine."
3. Leave the relative pronoun out altogether. Say, "The man my sister loves is a friend of mine."
It's amazing how creative and logical people are when they have to deal with linguistic deadwood.
This works well when both noun phrases are subjects, but what if one is an object? Pay attention now. Here's a sentence: "The man [My sister loves the man] is a friend of mine." Now, the noun phrase in the embedded sentence is an object. We can make it into a relative pronoun just fine, but the rule in English is that a relative pronoun has to immediately follow the noun phase that it's attached to. So, we get "The man who my sister loves is a friend of mine."
Wait a minute. That's not right. The pronoun who has a subject form, who, and an object form, whom. So, in the embedded sentence, it's not who but whom, so the correct form of the sentence is "The man whom my sister loves is a friend of mine."
Whew. Lots of work, no?
And not really worth it. So, the English language (and definitely not English teachers) has evolved strategies to get around the complexity of who/whom. There are three of them:
1. Don't worry about it. Just use who in all cases. After all, who knows? Who cares?
2. Replace the who with that. Thus we get the sentence, "The man that my sister loves is a friend of mine."
3. Leave the relative pronoun out altogether. Say, "The man my sister loves is a friend of mine."
It's amazing how creative and logical people are when they have to deal with linguistic deadwood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
