language

Don’t call it “Alligator Auschwitz” 1

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged history language liberty on by

The new ICE confinement facility in Florida, semi-officially called “Alligator Alcatraz,” is by all accounts brutal, unsanitary, and degrading. It’s a showpiece of the Trump administration, whose followers admire it for its sheer viciousness. Some people, including plenty on Bluesky, have taken to calling it “Alligator Auschwitz.” The term trivializes the Nazi extermination camp. Bad as the Florida facility is, it isn’t designed to kill people systematically. Equating the two implies that Jews in the Nazi camps merely had a very rough time of it.

Alligator Alcatraz is a concentration camp, a place where many civilians are involuntarily moved to and confined in without charges or due process. The Japanese-American internment camps of World War II were concentration camps in the same sense, and I’ve used the term repeatedly for them. But it isn’t a death camp. Trump is evil, but he hasn’t reached that level of evil yet.
(more…)

Americans do not have a commander in chief 2

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language usage vocabulary on by

We’re regularly subjected to the obscene notion that the president of the United States is the “commander in chief” of the American people. It’s part of the cult of the presidency, the notion that we live or should live under a powerful ruler. It’s an idea that goes against everything the country was founded on.

The Constitution says: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” If you’re in those categories, then he’s your commander. Otherwise, no. If you’re a civilian employee of the executive branch, he’s your boss, not your commander.
(more…)

The misuse of fallacies

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language philosophy reason on by

Recognizing logical fallacies is important when evaluating claims and arguments. At the same time, it’s important to recognize when someone misidentifies or misapplies a fallacy. People can claim to knock down valid claims by saying they commit a fallacy, when actually there’s no fallacy.

Take the “slippery slope” fallacy. Some slopes really are slippery. You have to evaluate a claim that X will lead to Y by the specifics, not just the formal structure. A trivia quiz I recently saw offered something like this as a supposed example of the fallacy: “If I give you an extra day to complete the assignment, I’d have to give it to anyone else who asks.” The quiz’s author was probably thinking something like, “The teacher can give special favors to some students and not others, so it’s fallacious to make that claim.” That assumes that consistent and fair treatment count for nothing.
(more…)

Authoritarianism and the control of names

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged language Trump usage on by

Authoritarian regimes control language as a way to control thought. And let’s face it, the United States is well on its way to becoming an authoritarian regime. Congress is asleep. It’s not clear how much the courts can do in the long run. Trump has made it clear that he can rename things at a whim and punish those who don’t use the names he chooses.

He issued a decree that the Gulf of Mexico shall henceforth be called the Gulf of America. The USGS updated its data accordingly, and the change quickly flowed into Google Maps, DuckDuckGo, and other online information sources. More significantly, Trump has banished Associated Press from the Oval Office for not falling into line. AP has said, “As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences,” so it continues to use “Gulf of Mexico” as the primary name.
(more…)

Words without meaning 8

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged Internet language SanityProject vocabulary on by

To answer an accusation, you have to know what it means. If the words have no fixed meaning, no argument can show that it’s false. Certain words in the culture of the left serve this purpose. They allow irrefutable accusations — irrefutable because they mean whatever the accuser wants them to. Denying the accusation or defending someone else against it can even become evidence of guilt. Words are supposed to be the tools of thought, but these words are designed to make thought impossible.
(more…)

Has the meaning of “refute” changed?

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged language usage vocabulary writing on by

This week I came upon a bizarre claim in an Associated Press article: “The federal law that President Joe Biden signed at the end of 2021 followed allegations of human rights abuses by Beijing against members of the ethnic Uyghur group and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. The Chinese government has refuted the claims as lies and defended its practice and policy in Xinjiang as fighting terror and ensuring stability.” If AP was using the established meaning of “refute,” it was claiming that these allegations were lies and China had proven they were. The article didn’t say what this proof was.

However, it was called to my attention that some dictionaries give a new, second meaning for “refute.” Merriam-Webster gives two definitions: (1) to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous. (2) to deny the truth or accuracy of. Dictionary.com, on the other hand, gives two definitions that both entail proof: (1) to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge. (2) to prove (a person) to be in error.
(more…)

The language of music isn’t exactly Italian

This entry was posted in Music and tagged history language music on by

Musical annotation is a language in its own right. Its words come from Italian, but the syntax is very different, and the meaning of the words often is too. I’m sure linguists have studied it in detail. I’m neither a linguist nor a professional musician, but I have a strong interest in both areas, so let me offer a few thoughts on the subject.

Since the nineteenth century, musical directions have come in other languages, usually the composer’s native language. I think Schumann was the first major composer to do it. For this piece, I’m just talking about annotations based on Italian.
(more…)

Britannica blunders 1

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged language Shakespeare usage vocabulary writing on by

The once-respected name of Britannica has really sunk. In an article on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, they misquote and misinterpret the most famous line of the play, while thinking they’re correcting a misconception.

The most famous line of the play, “Wherefore art thou, Romeo?”, is often misinterpreted. The archaic word wherefore does not mean “where”, but “why”, rendering the modern English translation as “Why are you, Romeo?”

That’s not what the line is! It’s “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” with no comma. Juliet isn’t asking why Romeo exists. She’s asking why he’s Romeo — meaning why he is Romeo Montague, a member of an enemy family. The next lines make this clearer: “Deny thy father and refuse thy name, Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.”
(more…)

Oligarchy: The polite way to say “conspiracy”

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language vocabulary on by

An oligarchy is a government run by a small number of people. If a country is an oligarchy, it’s not a democracy. It might have the appearance of democracy, with elections for show, but the ruling insiders call all the shots. Some countries fit this description. Most would say that the United States doesn’t, and until recently claiming it is would have fallen under crazy conspiracy theories.

It’s getting more popular, though, to claim the USA is an oligarchy. An article in The Nation, not usually considered a fringe publication, is titled “It’s Official: America Is an Oligarchy.” Its “evidence” is that some people are very rich. Today I saw a post by Robert Reich casually taking it for granted that we’re living in an oligarchy, and a search turned up an article by him titled “How America’s oligarchy has paved the road to fascism (Why American capitalism is so rotten, Part 7)”. He makes it clear he understands what the word means, and he claims that the current American oligarchy emerged around 1980.
(more…)

The attack of the singularized plurals 2

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged grammar language writing on by

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…)