usage

The war on words

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

Calling someone a “villain” is a city-ist insult. The word originally means “base or low-born rustic,” clearly an insult by the urban higher classes aimed at farmers, serfs, and others from the villages. By the censorious standards we run into so often, we should stop using the word and denounce anyone who does. This is, of course, silly, but no sillier than many actual attacks on words.

In some circles, you can’t have a “master” switch or password anymore. The word has a range of meanings, generally in the categories of someone in authority or someone with extensive knowledge and skill (or at least a degree saying so). One of these meanings is “a person in authority over slaves,” so the use of the word is deemed an endorsement of slavery, and it has to go. There are even people trying to rename the Maine coon cat. The origin of the name is obscure, but the most likely explanation is that the tail somewhat resembles a raccoon’s. However, the term “coon” has been used as a racial insult, so the name has to go. Probably raccoons need to be renamed as well.

(more…)

The misuse of “identity” 1

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

If you’ve followed this blog regularly, you know that the misappropriation of words is a favorite topic of mine. Today I’d like to discuss the misuse of “identity.” Some people misuse it deliberately, but writers can fall into accepting it as it’s misused. Hopefully this post will help in avoiding that pitfall.

“Identity” is a straightforward word. It means “who someone is.” We can talk about the identity of someone who committed a crime, a case of mistaken identity, a secret identity for a superhero, establishing your identity, and identity theft. Some people, though insist that your identity is your group membership: your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. Interestingly, people on the “left” as well as white supremacists like to promote this view.
(more…)

Kyiv or Kiev?

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

With the Russian invasion of Ukraine (not “the Ukraine”) dominating the news, many of us have noticed for the first time that most reports now call its capital Kyiv rather than Kiev. I wondered when this shift happened and why, and exactly how the name should be pronounced.

Ukraine flagKiev comes from the Russian name for the city, Kyiv from its Ukrainian name. Both Russian and Ukrainian use the Cyrillic alphabet, so any version of the name in the Roman alphabet is a transliteration. With the current situation, using “Kyiv” is especially satisfying, since it rejects Russia’s claim to the nation. (So far, thankfully, I haven’t seen any claims that criticizing Russia is “red scare racist.”) We can safely say it’s the new standard spelling. For similar reasons, we now talk about “Ukraine” rather than “the Ukraine.” The latter suggests a region rather than a nation. A few other countries have a definite article in front of their names, but they’re ones where the name is a phrase (e.g., “the Netherlands,” “the United States”).
(more…)

Prescriptivism vs. descriptivism

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

Attitudes toward changes in a language range between two poles. The prescriptivist says words have fixed definitions, and using them in ways that aren’t in the dictionary is misuse. The descriptivist says that words mean whatever people choose them to mean. Few people take a pure position at one end or the other. Prescriptivists face the fact that dictionaries change. Descriptivists can’t treat every neologism they hear as part of the language if they expect people to understand each other. The debate is over how much legitimacy a word needs before it’s considered standard. Words pass through the stage of slang or jargon before they reach full citizenship. Some words don’t go beyond that status, and they don’t have to. Professions need their jargon and subcultures need their slang, and they don’t have to impose it on the whole linguistic community.

Linguistic change isn’t something that a mysterious Sprachgeist causes. It’s the product of the users’ choices. Prescriptivists exert a drag on changes, and that can be good. If the language changes too fast, it becomes less precise. No one’s sure whether a word means what it always meant or it’s become something else. New words are necessary to convey new concepts, but they should prove their worth before getting wide adoption. Some words, like “nice,” have changed so many times that no one’s sure what they mean, except by context and tone of voice.
(more…)

You aren’t a virtual person

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

You don’t lose reality by communicating at a distance. You don’t become a “virtual” person. I wrote about this a year ago, but the silliness hasn’t abated, so I want to make the point again.

An online gathering of people can appropriately be called a “virtual” gathering. They aren’t really coming together; they get the effect of it through technology. The people participating, though, remain real. You’d think that after over a century of telephones, everyone would grasp that people can be real without being in the same room.
(more…)