Archive for the ‘Writing’ Category

How New Terms Come Into Being

Posted: October 20, 2014 in Humor, Language Use
Tags:

by Earl Lee

(reposted from Earl’s Libraries in the Age of Mediocrity blog)

 

Last week I realized that an email with a draft document I had sent to Dr. Z**** last year had gone unanswered. He’d never commented on it or even acknowledged receiving it.

Everyone in the library is aware that Dr. Z**** (a D.Ed., as you may suspect) rarely if ever responds to emails, phone calls, or any other form of electronic communication.  On this campus he has become legendary!

So I forwarded the draft to my boss in another email, this time referring to Dr. Z’s tendency to drop the ball.  Unfortunately, I mangled the expression in the sentence:

“Here is another one of Dr. Z’s ball droppings.”

It was only after I sent the email that I realized just how nasty this sounded. I was not trying to imply that Dr. Z**** is a “teabagger” or anything else. I guess this is how the English language grows through mutation.


Originally posted on The Return of the Modern Philosopher:

badgeThe internet can be a very dangerous place, Modern Philosophers.

Today, however, the good guys made it a little safer.  In what’s believed to be the first ever cyber sting conducted by the Grammar Police, seventeen Mainers were arrested for abuses against the English language.

Charges ranged from the basic misuse of punctuation marks and capitals, to the reckless disregard for the proper use of your, you’re, there, their, and they’re.

Detective Bonnie English, who led the sting operation, told this Modern Philosopher, “While we were discouraged at being able to make so many arrests in such a short amount of time, we believe that this is a major step in curbing assaults on the English language.”

Most of the suspects were released after posting bail (one was scheduled to be held overnight after she insisted on paying her “bale” and would not budge on the matter), and ordered to…

View original 281 more words


Front cover of "The Heretic's Handbook of Quotationsby Chaz Bufe, publisher See Sharp Press

A couple of weeks ago an acquaintance (who I’ve know for roughly 20 years) was very excited about the article on reparations (for African-Americans) in The Atlantic. He called me to talk about it (of course he hadn’t read it–I hadn’t either), and I said something to the effect of “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.” I added that it’s a given that black people have been, and still are being, screwed over mercilessly in this country, but that I thought reparations demands were a really dumb idea, unless they were very specifically targeted against institutions that have exploited black people (e.g., banks’ and their “red-lining” practices).

He didn’t want to hear my reasons for saying that.

Those reasons are 1) blanket “reparation” demands–with “reparations” presumably financed by the government–divide working people along racial lines; 2) political goals and demands should be along economic lines, the 1% versus the rest of us (which unites people); 3) “reparations” demands are not demands for fundamental change–they implicitly accept the current corporate-capitalist political and economic set-up; 4) they reinforce the scarcity mentality that’s a huge stumbling block in the path of real social change–they reinforce the idea that there’s not enough to go around, and that the only way to reimburse some victims is to take from other victims. (And please, let’s not start playing the “who’s more oppressed?” game. If you want to divide and depress people, that’s a great way to do it.); and 5) there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of blanket “reparations” becoming reality any time soon–the primary effect of such demands is to drive the white working class into the arms of the Republicans.

To put this another way, if you want to get rid of corporate capitalism, don’t play into the hands of the corporate capitalists. If you’re going to make reformist economic demands, make demands that unite low and middle income people (increased minimum wage, increased taxes on the 1%, etc.), not divide them along racial lines.

My acquaintance didn’t want to hear any of that, and wouldn’t even let me articulate it–he kept interrupting me, and started playing the “who’s more oppressed?” game, among other things belittling the experience of my illiterate immigrant grandfather who worked for 40 years in a foundry before dying a horrible death of silicosis. When I took strong exception to that, he asked me, “Are you a racist?” At that point, I went ballistic.

Here’s why:

1) The “question” “Are you a racist?” is dishonest. It’s a trap, not an honest question. The person asking it is not seeking information, they’re not interested in your answer. They’re setting you up. If you say “yes,” they win. If you say “no,”  they’ll “enlighten” you by reciting standard PC talking points about how all white people are “privileged” and “racist.”

2) “Are you a racist?” is an accusation, not a question. There’s no way to win when someone asks you that, if you fall into the trap of answering “yes” or “no.” But there are two ways of handling that “question.” The first, as Jim Goad recently pointed out, consists of asking the person implying racism on your part to define racism. As Goad notes, that almost always “flummoxes” them.

The second way to handle that question is to in turn ask the world’s most offensive question: “Do you have sex with your mother?” (Just askin’, you know? What’s the harm in asking a simple question?) Goad’s way of dealing with the racism “question” is probably better, but this is probably more gratifying.

3) Asking someone “Are you a racist?” is condescending. The accuser invariably assumes that you are a racist,  that you need to be tricked into hearing the accuser’s prepared pearls of wisdom, and that you’re dumb enough to fall for it.

4) The PC use of  “racism” trivializes the term. The painfully earnest PC types who label every white person a “racist,” simply because they’re white, use exactly the same term to describe those who say disgusting things about and commit violence against people of other races. There’s a major difference between what you project is in someone’s head simply because of their race (white) and violent physical assault. So, please, stop trivializing the terms “racism” and  “racist.” Reserve them for those who say and do hurtful things based on race.

And don’t ever ask anyone that stupid, insulting question again. Stop using verbal traps. Be honest. Openly say what you mean–not hide behind “questions” that are accusations–and only ask questions if you want information, not as transparent attempts to set people up.


BierceEXCEPTION, n. A thing which takes the liberty to differ from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful woman, etc. “The exception proves the rule” is an expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who parrot it from one another with never a thought of its absurdity. In the Latin, “Exceptio probat regulam” means that the exception tests the rule, puts it to the proof, not confirms it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

by Chaz Bufe, publisher See Sharp Press

The rules for capitalization in English are a mess. Always have been, always will be.

But there are some “dos” and “don’ts.” When looking through submissions in recent years, I’ve noticed that more and more writers simply ignore those rules; they seem to think they’re Germans–semi-literate Germans–and capitalize nouns seemingly at random. (In German, all nouns are capitalized.)

In broad strokes, the first letters of the following should always be capitalized: 1) proper nouns; 2) the first words in sentences; 3) names of individuals; and 4) place names. There are many other words that customarily have initial caps, including some which probably shouldn’t, especially those capitalized to show respect, such as “Congress”–an institution only slightly more popular than death by asphyxiation and scabies.

The important things to remember are that capitalization in English is not entirely arbitrary, that you don’t capitalize ordinary nouns, and when in doubt, look it up. (There are many good, free, online guides, such as GrammarBook.)

If you want to impress an editor, do something unusual: use capitalization properly.

Enhanced by Zemanta

SLAVE OWNER, n. The world’s most effective job creator, and one still widely admired and pined over by certain segments of the U.S. population–segments who, out of pure consideration for the feeling of others, are reluctant to openly discuss their feelings in raw, historically accurate words. Hence their widespread adoption of the more mellifluous, soothing term, “job creator.”

–This definition will appear in the revised and expanded edition of The American Heretic’s Dictionary, by Chaz Bufe,  scheduled for 2015.


MOVE FORWARD, phr. (also “Move On”) A cliche much in vogue with the president and other high public officials. It invariably means 1) To ignore felonies; 2) To move forward from the base concept of holding the rich and powerful accountable for their actions.

* * *

–Chaz Bufe, from the revised and expanded edition of The American Heretic’s Dictionary scheduled for 2015