Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: language (page 15 of 22)

Prodigious texters, those kids.

A factoid about youth and texting from this article.

American teenagers sent and received an average of 2,272 text messages per month in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the Nielsen Company — almost 80 messages a day, more than double the average of a year earlier.

I’m ignoring the hand-wringing tone of the article — kids will be fine, and I’m glad they’re communicating to each other in writing. But is anyone else rather surprised by that rate of messages? I know I’m an old fart, but even when I was a young fart, I never communicated with friends at that rate. That’s a message every twenty minutes, day and night.

Capsicun: The plot thickems

I first became aware of the word ‘capsicum’ when I moved to Australia. It’s what American English speakers call a ‘green pepper’. But I recently became aware that some speakers of AusEng call it a ‘capsicun‘, with an [n] sound.

I first heard it from the young lady at the pizza place when she read my order back to me. “So you’re getting the pizza with capsicun, onions…”

I was surprised, but I pretended not to hear her, just to make sure it wasn’t a fluke. “What was that?” I asked.

“I said ‘capsican, onions…'” and so on. So it was dinkum.

Then the next week I ordered the same pizza again, and this time it was a young man who said ‘capsicun’. This kind of thing always sets the linguistic sense a-tingle. Is this happening with lots of people? Is it an age thing? Economic level? Education level? And what’s driving it?

Since then, I have found that many of my students say ‘capsicun’. Sometimes they’re surprised to discover that they say it.

As a linguist, I don’t care whether people say ‘capsicum’ with an [m] or an [n]. The two sounds are pretty similar, and speech communities sometimes swap. Miss Perfect herself says the word ‘something’ with an [n] in the middle. You probably say ‘input’ with an [m] without realising. But that’s because of a process known as assimilation, where a sound changes because of its proximity to a similar sound nearby. It’s strange for ‘capsicum’ to be changing to an [n] seemingly independent of context.

Well, yesterday, I found a tantalising clue that this might be part of a larger pattern. The flowers I got for Mothers’ Day were clearly marked ‘chrysantheman’, as seen in the photo below.

The chase continues. Further updates as warranted. In the meantime, do you say ‘capsicun’ or ‘chrysanthemun’? And where are you from? Become a data point in comments.

Theologian and linguist of the week

I’ve done my best to ignore Not-Joe the Not-Plumber all these months because I’m hoping he’ll go away. Unfortunately, he keeps poking his head into the public discourse, and I’m going to comment this time because ignoring dangerous things can get you hurt somewhere along the line.

Joe’s used to speaking outside his expertise — he’s opined about politics and economics, badly — but now in his recent interview with Christianity Today, he takes a hatchet to gay people, and along the way, he makes a truly strange argument about language.

Interviewer: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

Joe: At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

If I understand his argument, he’s saying that being queer is “strange and unusual”…because the dictionary says so. And there’s only one dictionary. You know — the dictionary! That one.

People have all kinds of attitudes about language, but it takes an especially obtuse individual to insist that a dictionary definition is the true meaning of a word. Words have different senses, as with ‘queer’. It’s hard to make the argument that the dictionary definition for one sense of a word should determine the meaning of a completely different sense. It’s like going to the bank for some cash and being surprised not to find a river there because ‘the dictionary’ says that a bank is ‘sloping land by a river’.

There’s a lot more to the article: his “state’s rights” trope that was used to justify racism in the South. And his admission that he’s ‘had some friends’ who are gay. (Why do they always say that?) But of course he won’t let his friends near the kids. Feel the Christian love.

Changes to the dictionary

Language changes, but these lexicographers aren’t exactly happy about it.

My one beef: Did she say that English was a beautiful language? English? I don’t know of any standard to measure ‘beauty’ among languages, but I admire English more for its tenacity and size of vocabulary than for any aesthetic properties I can think of. In private moments I wonder that it works at all.

via Language Log

Teabagging in the corpus

Teabag Wednesday in the USA really only had two good outcomes: first, we got to mock libertarian/republican rightwads for their cluelessness on sexual terminology, and two, they got to add a new item to their vocabulary, if not to their repertoire.

As a linguist, I tend to be pretty hip with the lingo, taking into account how hard it is to be hip over 40 when we’re talking about sexual acts no one actually does. (Be honest.) But Dan Savage’s latest article has thrown me into a spin — he asserts (and he should know) that teabagging is performed by the one with the teabags. That is, a male teabags a female and not the reverse, as I had always assumed.

To teabag someone, you need a scrotum with which to teabag them: The teabagger dips sack; a teabaggee receives dipped sack. It’s a little confusing, I realize, in that it’s the opposite of a blowjob: The person with a dick in his or her mouth is giving the blowjob; the person being sucked is receiving the blowjob. But language is funny that way.

I tend to side with Mr Savage, not only because of his expertise on all matters sexual, but also for his influence in bending language to his will. He did, after all, introduce us to ‘santorum‘, and while it hasn’t lasted, I give him props for getting it as far as he has. What I mean is that if teabagging meant what I thought it did before he wrote his column, it has a good chance of meaning what he thinks it does by right about now.

I can’t be the only one to have had this misapprehension, if my reading of ‘Overheard in New York‘ is representative.

Husband: Then I can teabag you.
Wife: Wait. They go in my mouth. Wouldn’t I be teabagging you?
Husband: My teabags, my act of teabagging.
Wife: That doesn’t sound right.
Husband: Whatever. Teabagging will occur.

So, to the Corpus. I took a somewhat selective view of the top Google hits for the term “I was teabagging” (minus ‘halo’ — don’t ask).

This page has it both ways:

[A commenter]”So the other night I was teabagging the hell out of this sexy ass bitch…”

[Another commenter] “I love teabagging- well, at least in the sense that I always understood it: putting a man’s balls in your mouth while giving head.”

This page has a bit of both as well:

“Because you kept telling me how much you liked my big balls when I was teabagging you, and I’d hate to think that you’d lie to me at such an intimate moment.”

“I’d just like to point out that, in the phrase, “I was teabagging you,” the teabagger is not the one dipping the bag, but the one receiving it.”

The Official Ninja Forum is fairly unambiguous:

Long story short, while I was teabagging Ashley my male member slithered out of the apartment…

A Wonkette commenter agrees with Savage:

“Personally I wouldn’t want to teabag any of those people. If they’ve come from the CPAC conference, then who knows where their faces have been.”

A little more research turned up this interview from director John Waters, who popularised the term in his film ‘Pecker’.

“Teabagging” is by my definition the act of dragging your testicles across your partner’s forehead. In the UK it is dipping your testicles in your partner’s mouth.

Regional variation, but both definitions put the action onto the one with the teabags.

And can we really argue with Urban Dictionary? Teabagging as an action-with-nuts is far and away the most upvoted.

That does it. I’m convinced. Now to contemplate the physical improbabilities of the act, barring cold water. YMMV.

Students compete in OzCLO

This month saw the state round of OzCLO, or the Australian Computational and Linguistic Olympiad. High school students from all over Perth poured into UWA to solve tough puzzles and problems. It was great to see kids getting fired up about linguistics, I must say.

The peak moment for me was seeing one student stare for ten long seconds at the problem on syntax (which I wrote), and then silently mouth, “WHAT?!?”

Here’s a taste of the kinds of problems they had to face.

One of these two Egyptian hieroglyphic cartouches represents the name of Cleopatra. Which one is it, and whose name is in the other cartouche?



(No spoilers in comments, please.)

There are more sample problems here, if you get hooked.

ASL is not English

Good call from U of M:

The University of Michigan-Flint is the latest school in the state to accept American Sign Language as a foreign language.

The Flint Journal reported Friday the decision follows years of effort by Jill Maxwell of [sic] for the designation. Maxwell graduated in December and substitute teaches at the Michigan School for the Deaf in Flint.

The 32-year-old DeWitt resident argued it was discriminatory not to accept ASL for second language requirements.

Yes, ASL is a foreign language to English speakers. It has its origins in spoken English, but it’s grown and changed since then, and (most importantly) it’s not mutually intelligible with English.

D.J. Trela, dean of UM-Flint’s College of Arts and Sciences, says faculty studied the issue for 14 months.

I hope they spent the 14 months hashing out the procedural details, and not just wondering if it was actually a different language. They could have asked a linguist.

SC state senator is afraid of words

Did anyone notice this fine piece of legislation? South Carolina Senator Robert Ford wants to make swearing a felony.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Article 3, Chapter 15, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

“Section 16-15-370. (A) It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature.

What’s the penalty? Get this:

(B) A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

Takes me back to the good old days of Puritan America, where blasphemy could get you whipped, your forehead branded with a ‘B’, or your tongue bored through with a hot iron. For repeat offenses, you could be killed. And remember that blasphemy could be swearing, or simply being an atheist.

In 1699 a Virginia statute was designed to eliminate “horrid and Atheistic principles greatly tending to the dishonor of Almighty God . . . “Blasphemers might deny God or the holy Trinity, declare that there are more than one God, or worship another god or goddess.

Dark days.

Hey, is ‘piss’ vulgar? Because I have a book that Mr Ford might like to prosecute.

Nashville again smacks down ‘English only’ law

A shout out to the good citizens of Nashville, who voted down an English-only proposal that would have prevented the use of other languages by government workers and publications.

The proposal was introduced by Eric Crafton, a metropolitan councilman. It was opposed by a broad coalition including the mayor, civil rights groups, business leaders, ministers and the heads of nine institutions of higher education.

“The results of this special election reaffirm Nashville’s identity as a welcoming and friendly city,” Mayor Karl Dean said in a statement.

As I’ve argued before, people advance these proposals claiming to want to save money and encourage English use, but they’re really just a more acceptable way of punishing immigrants.

Critics said the proposal would tarnish Nashville’s reputation as a cultural mixing pot and drive away immigrants and international businesses. They also accused Mr. Crafton of worsening anti-immigrant sentiment and wasting at least $350,000 of taxpayer’s money on a special election.

Nice to see it fail. Well done, Nashville.

Portuguese spelling changes

I’m late on this story, but I’m going with it anyway, just because as an American-Australian I think it’s nice to remember that anglophones aren’t the only ones with transnational spelling issues.

This time it’s lusophones. That is, speakers of Portuguese.

Brazilians start 2009 facing the task of learning new spelling rules that have just come into effect.

The spelling reforms have been agreed by Portuguese-speaking nations, but the language seems set to have different written forms for some time to come.

In Portugal, there has been fierce resistance in some quarters to the changes because many of the changes are to spell words the Brazilian way.

Isn’t that always the way? The European colonisers get alarmed by these American upstarts taking over the language.

Any language with an alphabetic writing system will eventually have this kind of trouble because every language undergoes sound change, making old spellings archaic. And when dialects of a language diverge, there are bound to be struggles over whose dialect gets represented in the writing system.

So what are the changes?

  • Silent consonants are getting dropped, like the silent ‘c’ in ‘actualmente’ (actually) or the ‘p’ in ‘optimo’ (great). A tip: if you’re a Portuguese consonant, don’t hang out before ‘t’. There’s no future in it.
  • Some accent marks are being discontinued — diphthongs ‘éi’ and ‘ói’ will lose their accents
  • Letters k, y, and w are being officially added, though they’ve been in use unofficially.

As a linguist, I usually think of language change as slow, like two tectonic plates sliding past each other. And usually it is. But, as with land masses, when the language gets locked into place in the form of writing, we can expect periodic earthquakes. This is one of those cases.

UPDATE: If you’re curious about this issue, here’s a nutty little article about it, written in ‘Simplified Spelling’ English. It’s cute. You can imagine yourself as a citizen of Parallel England, or you can imagine that you’re hanging out with Simplified English advocates like George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain. And here’s a challenge — try reading it aloud without unconsciously affecting a dopey overbite accent, like Cousin Floyd from the country. It’s harder than you’d think.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑