It’s gotten incredibly common: in the same sentence in supposedly literate websites, “Black” as a skin color is consistently capitalized, while “brown,” “white,” “yellow” and so on are consistently in lower case, sometimes in the same sentence. The racial discrimination is so obvious it’s plainly intentional. What purpose does it serve?
Is it to tell us that “Black” people are the Master Race, while others are subordinate? That would be silly. Is it to provoke and anger people, so they’ll say something intemperate and open themselves to accusations of racism? I’ve often thought that, but a complex intention like that makes no sense.
(more…)
English includes many nouns that end in “-um” or “-on” and are pluralized by changing the ending to “-a.” They come from Latin and Greek respectively. Examples include “medium,” “datum,” “ovum,” “criterion,” and “phenomenon.” As with everything else, the language isn’t consistent; we have museums, not musea; morons, not mora; polygons, not polyga. I wouldn’t complain if the language regularized the endings of all these words. “Bacteriums” and “phenomenons” would sound weird at first, but we could get used to it.
What’s happening instead is that people turn the plurals into singulars. With some words, like “data” and “media,” the change has been firmly established. Others are substandard but turn up often, like “a bacteria” or “a phenomena.” Recently I saw a writer friend who should know better talking about “a criteria.” This doesn’t make the words any more regular, since double-pluralizing “medias” or “datas” is still frowned upon. It leaves us with words that are the same in the singular and the plural.
(more…)
Recently I replied to an online point that said that if the US enacts laws that enforce Christian views, the country will be a theocracy. I pointed out that all or nearly all European countries for most of history have met that criterion and that the USA itself was a “theocracy” by that measure until at least the 1960s. The person making the post rebuked me for being a “prescriptivist” and implied it’s consistent with being a libertarian.
First, it’s not a political issue. I don’t advocate laws requiring people to use words with standard meanings, except in legal documents. Aside from that, I’m not exactly a prescriptivist. I prefer to consider myself a “consistentist.” Whatever meaning you give to a word, stick with it and don’t conflate it with other definitions. If you want to use “glory” to mean “a nice knock-down argument,” don’t use it to mean “splendor” at the same time.
(more…)
Just some more miscellaneous complaints about how people abuse the English language. I’ll avoid ones I’ve already written about, and hopefully the items here aren’t the ones you usually see. To vary things a bit, I’ll include some alleged corrections which I disagree with.
“Free reign.” The term “free rein” means lack of restriction, letting someone do what they want. If it’s applied to a government official or agency running wild, “free reign” could make sense, but in general it’s wrong.
“LOL.” Laughing out loud is appropriate when something is funny or ridiculous, but too many people on the Internet stick it onto everything they say. For some, it’s a cheap way to score a point. Some people seem to think it softens what they say. It doesn’t.
“Illegal” as a noun. People do illegal things. There is no such thing, at least in the United States, as a person whose existence is illegal.
“Begging the question.” I’m losing this battle, but I’ll keep fighting it. Begging the question is the fallacy of assuming the point which is to be proven. Example: “The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.” People often use it to mean something like “leading to the question.” Granted, expressions shift in meaning, but “begging the question” as a term for a fallacy conveys a precise, useful meaning that shouldn’t be watered down.
“Ad hominem.” While we’re on the subject of logical fallacies, here’s another one whose name is often misused. An ad hominem argument attacks the person making a statement rather than its facts or reasoning. We often see it used for insults in general. An ad hominem argument doesn’t have to be insulting; an example of an ad hominem argument could be “X isn’t European and has never been to Europe, therefore his statement about Europe is wrong.” (Technically, this item is about abusing the Latin language.)
(more…)