Category: Language

By on

I was going to mention this in my previous post regarding Ron Johnson (see my thoughts here) but there are two different topics here and so I decided to do two separate posts. Welcome to the windmills of my mind. Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel.

Johnson writes “This is all preplanned by an elite group of people.” Isn’t planned sufficient? What different meaning does the pre give to preplan. Nothing, right?

I was disappointed to find a definition for preplan. It means this travesty has been on the loose for some time and has wandered a bit too far to bring it back into the barn. But, I am sucker for losing causes so please remember to plan and avoid preplanning at all costs. If nothing else using plan will save you some time. I mean thats three less letters to write. That’s something. Pretty please.

By on

Until recently, I prided myself on being able to spell the most difficult word and if I couldn’t spell it, I could generally spot my error pretty quickly when I edited. As I age, though, I find that this super power is declining. Maybe aging isn’t to blame but I have only noticed the problem since I slipped over the 65 years marker. Whatever the reason, I have noticed my spelling has gone to Hell in a hand basket.

Here are two recent and, once you see them, embarrassing, mistakes. I tried to spell technically as tycnically. I was convinced that the tycn was correct and ically was wrong after I began to edit. I spent an ungodly amount of time trying to change the ically before realizing that perhaps the tycn was wrong. I still think that tycnically is a valid alternative.

Then there was exspell instead of expel. This misspelling I blame on my sounding it out. I say ex spell when it should be Ex pel.

I am not so worried about the actual misspelling because I think that when you are writing and you need to get the word on the page, putting down a close approximation of the word is enough until you go back and edit. But now I can’t see the problem where it once, on review, was easy for me to spot. I now make countless attempts to correct the wrong syllable.

Which means I am down to one super power – parallel parking.

By on 1 Comment

Moms for Liberty, a right wing group, recently quoted Hitler. It created a great deal of commotion. So much so that Lt. Gov. Robinson came to their defense. His awkward finesse was basically that just because Hitler and Mao were wrong about a lot of things doesn’t mean that they weren’t right about some things. As the old saying goes, a stopped clock is right twice a day. This doesn’t mean you should rely on that clock in any way.

As a rule of thumb, I think if you have a quote from a serial killing authoritarian and you want to use that quote as support for a position you are espousing, take a deep breath and, after regaining your senses, find another quote from someone less controversial, and when you are considering Mao and Hitler, this would be almost anybody, and use that instead. But never use the quote from the dictator. NEVER. It will only bring you heart ache.

By on 2 Comments

A Cervical Cancer society in the UK recently made a suggestion, and it was a suggestion and not a command, to medical professionals to use the term bonus hole or front hole instead of vagina when talking to trans patients. It isn’t going to happen. One, if someone said bonus hole to me I wouldn’t have a clue what they are talking about. My mind drifted to golf for some reason but it did not go to vagina. There is also a perfectly good word already in use for vagina that would be vagina. I am not sure why it is offensive to Trans people and I am not sure why it needs to change.

But what about Trans people’s feelings? I doubt that many Trans people actually are offended by the use of the word vagina. Has anyone ever checked into this? Or are Trans activists, with nothing better to do with their time, imagining offenses where no offense is being taken. The Trans community would be better served by activists who can explain why Trans people might need medical treatment, how they are not forcing these medical options on Trans people, and helping parents make the necessary decisions regarding their children’s future. Until then, Trans Activists are acting as if they have won the day and that they are in a position to direct people’s language. They are not. Trans activists are going to lose while also alienating potential supporters of Trans rights which is something I would think they would like to avoid.

Then there is the argument that if it is important for people to be comfortable and to use language that supports this comfort, what about all the people who prefer vagina to bonus hole? Aren’t they people too? Last year, Bette Midler got entangled in another controversy because she objected to replacing the word woman with birthing people or menstruators. She wants to be called a women and I am betting that there are billions of other women who have the same preference. Billions, mind you, while Trans people being offended by the word woman is how big a group — I am guessing hundreds, maybe thousands at best. And to make it even more confusing, what about Trans women who want to be called women? Can they use women? Language is around to make life simpler. Menstruator and Bonus Hole makes life more complicated so are doomed for failure.

So in summation, this society is recommending replacing a perfectly useful and widely understood word like vagina to a different word nobody knows so nobody will understand it when used in order to prevent offending a very small group within society who may not even be offended by vagina in the first place. There is a better use for people’s energies than this losing battle.

By on

A BBC talk show guest recently corrected his host on the proper phrase for seaweed which is apparently marine algae. This is news to me as well. But Ok, yes, maybe seaweed is confusing and isn’t exactly the best way of saying it. On the other hand, people have been saying seaweed for thousands of years. These changes take time and most people don’t take kindly to lectures that make them appear stupid. Since the seaweed/marine algae isn’t a particularly urgent matter, it would be wise to put a lid on it.

It also give the Conservative Press a chance to point out the hectoring ways of some language policing Liberals. Since there are so many more important battles to fight, it would seem prudent to pick the right battles to exert our time and energy. Sometimes you have to fight losing battles but this isn’t one of them.

There is a better way to finesse this. You just start using the correct phrase when speaking with the interviewer. Then, the interviewer can respond to your phrasing and maybe even inquire more about why you prefer marine algae. But to do it in the corrective manner reported is ridiculous. All it does is make me want to say seaweed in the most annoying tone possible: seaweed, seaweed, seaweed. So there.

More importantly, you don’t change people’s minds by making them feel stupid. Once you’ve made someone feel stupid, they aren’t going to listen to a word you say. So, good you are are correct but you aren’t a very effective agent of change. People have to see why they need to change and then they do. Remember Ms? Or should I say, remember Mrs and Miss? Nobody uses Mrs and Miss any more. Ms is just easier. The moment people realized that they could just use Ms instead of inquiring about the woman’s preferred title, the battle was over. I might add that people changed to using Ms in a very short time.

This is also why I think the various personal pronoun options are doomed. It’s too complicated, you have to ask everyone you meet their preferred pronouns whereas, in the past, a quick visual assessment of a person’s gender did the trick and 99% of the time this works. Yes, you might, on a rare occasion, make a mistake but, by and large, you will get it right. I am certainly not going to ask a person for their preferred pronouns and risk getting my head bit off by someone who thinks preferred pronouns are a crap idea which, by the way, is most of middle America. If you want me to use something different, you are going to have to tell me. I will be happy to oblige.

In the meantime, I am telling you now I am not going down fighting to ensure people use the term marine algae for seaweed. Because my reply will be: Seaweed. Seaweed. Seaweed.

By on

I don’t want to bring any more controversy to the abortion debate but I have seen the term medication abortions numerous times in the past week. If I had only seen it once, I would have chalked it up to author error but repeated use of the same term leads me to believe that the accepted term for an abortion brought about by pills is medication abortions. Here are additional example of this phrase here and here. This seems grammatically incorrect. Why is it called medication abortions instead of medicated abortions?

Medicated is an adjective that explains the abortion process the author is talking about. Since abortion is the subject and not medication, medicated abortion is the appropriate expression for the process. Joining medication and abortion doesn’t change the meaning and the term grates on my ears. What is the point? I am baffled. Or am I missing something?

By on

I learned a new phrase for going to the toilet. I never liked the ones presently available as they are a bit too crude for my taste. So I am watching an old television show — Supernatural, season 4 if you must know and discovered the use of Releasing the Hostages. This euphemism perfectly encapsulates, at least for me, the bowel movement process. I can’t wait to use it.

By on

I blogged the other day that I was afraid the Democrats would go down to defeat over a peripheral issue such as the use of personal pronouns that matters to only a small section of the population. Well, ask and ye will receive. I saw a good example of what I am worried about. Bette Midler objected to the use birthing people and menstruators instead of the now forbidden word – women. Women is not inclusive of trans women or trans men or something like that. I am not exactly sure why women is non-inclusive but it is. I am sure I will be accused of being transphobic but I am honestly don’t understand what the problem is.

And that is kind of a problem for Midler’s critics. I’m still baffled on why woman or women is wrong. I read a particularly nasty piece by Alison Stine in Salon charmingly named “Language is flexible, unlike boomers Bette Midler and Jordan Peterson” Someone else must have felt the same way about the title as I did because boomer has been removed from in the current title and from the article. I think this, alone, says a lot about Stine’s article. You really shouldn’t write about the importance of being inclusive and respectful of what people want to be called with a title that is clearly condescending to older people. The whole tone of the article is that old people just need to get out of the way of this hipper and with it and obviously better generation of people. And, then, dare to say that these older people just need to learn how to be more inclusive and flexible. Doctor heal thyself first.

Midler was upset because people were using birthing people and menstruators instead of women in an article about abortion and healthcare. Again Stine fails to live up to her own standards. ( I am assuming Stine is she. I didn’t see a preferred pronoun for her in the article. My apologies if I am wrong). Her whole point is that we should respect people’s wishes and call them what they want to be called. Midler wants to be called a woman not a menstruator or a birthing person. It seems simple enough. But women isn’t inclusive enough for Stine. Birthing people and menstruators somehow is although I am not sure why. Not all women menstruate nor bear children — so they are actually excluding a lot of women here. I recommend pre-menstruators, post-menstruators and a non-birthing menstruators. If you then, toss in menstruator and birthing people I think you will have covered most of the female population. Does everyone feel included now?

When inclusive is so inclusive that you are alienating and confusing your audience, its best to rethink your approach and not scold your audience for objecting. When talking about abortion as healthcare issue, 99% of the people who need abortions identify as women. So when people use menstruator and birthing person they are meaningless to much of their audience whereas everyone understands woman and most adults knows why she might need an abortion.

How can people be confused by something so clear as menstruator and birthing person. Well, let me tell you. I was trying to explain the Midler tempest to two 70 plus gay men who are both liberal Democrats. Neither one knew what I was talking about and couldn’t understand why anyone would use menstruators or birthing people instead of women. I always thought one of the main tools of persuasive communication was making yourself understood to the other person. So, if you want to be inclusive, then stopping using the language of the academic elite (I swear every time I see CIS gendered, I have to look it up to make sure I understand what they are talking about) and use terms that can be found in the language of every day Americans. Terms like woman for instance.

Stine talks about the need to be flexible because language changes all of the time. Great, I agree with that. But birthing people and menstruators are new words. Menstruators is so new that it isn’t even in spell check. Contrary to what Stine thinks, the society as a whole has not adopted these words. Scolding people for not incorporating these terms immediately into their daily language is a terrible way to get people to change. Particularly a person like Midler who is more often than not an ally for liberal causes. She also is sympathetic to trans people in a way that most people her age will never be. But calling her, and people like Macy Gray, J.K. Rowling and Martina Navratilova, as transphobic is a losing battle. They are not Ted Cruz or Sean Hannity or Donald Trump. If transphobic is so broad to include all of these people, the term ceases to have meaning. Midler is on the right side and we need to keep her there for the difficult elections ahead.

By on

I ran across the above word the other day and was completely stumped. Like I assume everyone else in the world does, I tried to figure out the meaning through the context. No luck whatsoever. I then used my reader’s dictionary. There was no Horren and no Dously. I tried to look up the word with the dash present, my reader’s dictionary, for some reason, probably user incompetence, would not allow me to look up the word with the dash in the middle.

I pondered it a little more. It came to me in a flash, it is a German phrase. Why it was German, I can not tell you but I was convinced. Well, in case you are wondering, it isn’t a German phrase, nor French for that matter. I tried rereading sentence for context again. No, I was still baffled.

In desperation, I went to Google Search where, miraculously, a word appeared but with no dash in the middle. Horrendously. I didn’t bother to read definition because it couldn’t be right, the word is Horren-dously. There is a dash in the middle. I tried google it again and I got the full word without a dash. I read the definition which was something like done badly or done appallingly.

Smug guy that I am, I thought well that can’t be right. The word Horren-dously came in the middle of the line, not the end of one line and the beginning of another line. That would be the only time I should see horrendously separated like that.

I reread the sentence yet again. The author did mean horrendously.

Damn dash.