Jul

29

JAPs.

Filed Under Language | Leave a Comment

When I was twelve, my family abruptly moved from San Ramon, California to South Orange, New Jersey. Leaving behind what were at the time a number of rather close friends, I resolved to keep in touch, with ultimately disappointing results. One way in which touch was kept was via the dominant communication device of the day: the touchtone telephone.

I recalled the other day a particular telephone call with a childhood friend, Matt Kolda. I had recently learned a new-to-me term at my Jewish-heavy middle school: JAP. Jewish American Princess. The California school I had attended was decidedly lacking in Jews. And although I knew Mr. Kolda had recently moved to a new school, I suspected the ethnic makeup was not radically different. And so I had good reason to expect I learned the term “JAP” before Mr. Kolda.

Showing off my superior knowledge backfired, however, for reasons that may already be apparent. See “JAP” sounds exactly like “Jap” over the telephone. And so when I absurdly asked, “do you have any JAPs in your new school? Because my new school is lousy with them,” he heard “do you have any Japs in your new school?” Japs, as a somewhat derogatory term for people of Japanese descent. Predictably, he got offended. And I had to explain, no, no, I’m not asking about Japanese-Americans…I’m asking about spoiled Ashkenazim…and inexplicably comparing them to lice…oops…I seem to have saved myself from one mildly offensive statement by diverting into a fairly deep river of offense. Ugh.

Lesson learned: be careful in how you go about sharing new words and concepts.

Apr

24

The (mis?)use of “C” in the Latinization of Greek words.

Filed Under Language | Leave a Comment

A couple of weeks ago, while road-tripping the Peloponnese, I came to the startling realization that “Mycenae” is not pronounced “My-Sen-A” or “My-See-Nee” as I had up-to-then believed, but something closer to “Mee-Ken-Ee” or “Moo-Kay-Nye.” When “C” is used in a transliterated Greek word, think “K,” not “S.” So the “Cyclades” are the “Kee-Kla-Thes,” not the “Sye-Kla-Des.” And Macedonia is not “Ma-Seh-Doe-Nee-Uh,” but “Ma-Ke-Tho-Nee-Uh.”

What’s frustrating is that, at least for English speakers, “C” is an ambiguous letter, whereas “K” and “S” are not. So why on Earth would “C” ever be used to transliterate? Isn’t the whole point to make the word more readable to those not well versed in the native language? Of course the answer may be that the letters were well-chosen for Latin, which I would assume was the original transliterating language, and that the Cs are retained for consistency’s sake. Which may also perhaps explain why β is off-puttingly rewritten as a “b,” rather than a more appropriate “v.” Or why δ’s aspirated “th” sound is frustratingly often written as a “d.” Is that right? Is English all fuggered up vis-a-vis Latin? Or are the folks that mucked up Latinized Greek cut from the same cloth as the irritatingly academic Yalies that wrote “Beijing” as “Peking” all those years ago with special marks and expected everyone to notice the special marks?

Nov

21

Cunt vs. nigger.

Filed Under Language | 2 Comments

I have met the occasional easily offended individual that recoils every time I utter one of Carlin’s seven. Well, maybe not “piss.”

But most people seem increasingly comfortable with the taboo vulgarity of the past becoming the mainstream slang of today. “Bitch” has become a term of endearment; “motherfucker” an expression of disbelief (think Marcellus Wallace carrying the box of doughnuts and seeing Butch behind the wheel of Fabienne’s Honda); “shit” an expression of regret; and “fuck”…well, “fuck” has come to mean pretty much anything and everything.

The one exception to the mainstreamization of dirty words is “cunt.” And I say that because I’ve still met an awful lot of otherwise enlightened twenty-first century foxes that hesitate slightly before using “cunt.”

What’s replaced these taboos are the racial and ethnic slurs: “spic,” “kike,” “gook,” and “nigger.” The majority of which, I would admit, I have a problem with. Does that make me “unenlightened”? Or is there a fundamental difference between the objective offensiveness of, say, “cunt” as opposed to “nigger”?

I would submit that there is. The insults I find acceptable, like “dumb cunt,” “sack of shit,” “meathead,” “dumbass,” or “bat-shit-insane motherfucker” all have, at their core, something other than a human. Take “bitch,” for example. Female dog, right? Legitimate word. And essentially what you’re doing when you refer to someone as a “bitch” is characterizing them as similar, in some specified or unspecified way, to a female dog. Perhaps “yappy” is the core characteristic? Or perhaps “vindictive”? Or simply “not very bright”? But the important thing is that the insult is customized to the individual, and highlights negative qualities by reference to something not human.

But, you’re wondering, what about “motherfucker”? Isn’t that a human: a person who has sexual relations with his mother? Well, I think the core of “motherfucker” is the act of motherfucking, not so much the individual involved. I know, I know: it’s a stretch.

So how does that distinguish from racial and ethnic slurs? The core point then becomes, when the word “nigger” is thrown about as an insult, is that the target shares characteristics with “niggers” as a group. And that, on its face, is objectionable. You’re no longer comparing an individual unfavorably to a bucket of feces, a well-worn vagina, or a particularly brainless fanny. Instead, you’re comparing an individual unfavorably to a racial or ethnic group. Big no no. No?

Nov

15

Torpedo.

Filed Under Food & Drink, Language | Leave a Comment

Being in the mood for an especially hoppy India Pale Ale, and being at the market with Sierra Nevada products bearing a sale price, I thought I’d purchase a six of Torpedo. Mistake? Perhaps. It isn’t that it’s a bad beer; it has certain charms. But it isn’t an IPA. It’s an extra special bitter. Somewhat disappointing. But more jarring is that the label identifies “Torpedo” as “Extra IPA Ale.” Which, like “ATM machine” and “PIN number” before it, bothers the piss out of the grammarian in me.

Jun

21

Vokzal.

Filed Under Language, Print Media | Leave a Comment

“Russian borrowings from English include…vokzal (’station’). [This] is a corruption of Vauxhall, the name of an area in south London once famous for its pleasure gardens; a Russian delegation of the 1840s stopped there and took this word, displayed on a sign, to be the generic name for a station.”

From Henry Hitchings’ The Secret Life of Words: How English Became English, which I’ve just started. I adore the English language, and am fascinated by anecdotes along these lines. Although the bulk of the book, as you might surmise from the title, concerns movement of words in the other direction than this example. Misconceptions of this sort really are amusing, aren’t they?

Mar

3

Metric assload.

Filed Under Language, Science & Technology | 4 Comments

One of my favorite phrases is “metric assload.” Because it implies that there is an Imperial assload, defined by the volume capacity of a particular monarch’s ass, then standardized at a later date in order that it be directly convertible to fluid ounces, gallons, and hogsheads.

Indeed, I’m a little surprised there aren’t more old timeny weight and measure units being thrown around in modernity. Of course, metric makes sense for consistency and whatnot. And should be adopted by all peoples as a standard. But there’s something quaint and culturally rich and downright adorable about ancient units like furlongs, firkins, and foot-candles. And those units should be preserved as marketing materials for posterity. As in, “you can purchase one Imperial barrel per month of organic India Pale Ale for only X lira per month.” So much more satisfying–at least when lives don’t depend upon it–than forcing the quantities into liters and euros. No?

Nov

17

Fun with top level domains.

Filed Under Language, Science & Technology | Leave a Comment

As you are no doubt aware, there exist top-level domain country codes. For example, .us for the United States of America, .uk for the United Kingdom, .es for Spain, .jp for Japan, etc. Germany has .de, because the Germans self-label their country as Deutschland of course. [Aside: Were you aware that we use "Germany" because the Romans ganked the Celtic word for "those other guys"? And that the French use Allemagne because a small group of German-speakers that abutted the French-speakers happened to call themselves something like "Alemanni." No? It's true.]

But some puzzling ones: why is Switzerland .ch? Apparently it comes from “Confoederatio Helvetica,” the Latin name for Switzerland. Why is Iceland .is? I gather Iceland is “Island” in Icelandic. And why is French overseas collectivity Mayotte .yt? I have no idea.

Oct

22

Absentee vs. postal voting.

Filed Under Language, Politics | 1 Comment

Michelle Obama left a message on my voicemail today, reminding me to vote. Preferably for her husband. Unfortunately, someone neglected to explain to her the difference between postal and absentee voting. Thurston is a vote-by-mail county. There are no polling stations. So calling to remind me to send in my “absentee ballot” before November 4th is sort of an irritating misuse of language. Am I being petty? Perhaps. But this is how we vote; I’m not “unable or unwilling to attend the official polling station.”

Oct

17

Ink pen.

Filed Under Language | Leave a Comment

How many times have you heard someone refer to a writing implement as an “ink pen.” How many times have you wondered about what sort of pen is “non-ink”? Why aren’t those numbers the same?

Sep

18

Bathroom.

Filed Under Language | 3 Comments

The idea of a “bathroom” is, I take it, a room in which one bathes. A “bathroom” without a bath is an anathema, although I can understand the impulse of wanting to include rooms with showers within the “bathroom” category. What I cannot understand is tendency of some to refer to the space in which only toilets are located as a “bathroom.” [See e.g. the traditional first floor powder room, or the retail store washroom.] It contains no bath. It isn’t used for anything resembling bathing. It contains one or more toilets, and one or more sinks. Nothing else of note. Not a bathroom.

Which got me to thinking: why do we tend to group showers and baths with toilets. Perhaps there was a time when indoor plumbing was an expensive and alien enough concept to suggest running water ought to be ghettoized within a residence. But no more. Water flows freely in whatever room it is required. So why not segregate the idea of a “bathroom” and a “toiletroom.” Really, do we want to associate the room in which we excrete with the room in which we cleanse? Isn’t that, well, repulsive?

keep looking »