vocabulary

Sympathy and empathy   Recently updated !

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

This is a post about word usage, not about the murder of Charlie Kirk, but it started from seeing a lot of online rage about a statement of his. According to Snopes, he once said:

I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That’s a separate topic for a different time.

It’s strange that of all the things he said, this should draw so much anger. If I were cynical, I’d say it’s because people saw an opportunity to pull the first sentence out of context and create a deceptive impression. In this case, cynicism is fully justified.

How much difference is there between sympathy and empathy, anyway?
(more…)

A curiously missing word

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

A few days ago, I started to write something complaining about people who use “white supremacy” when they mean “white supremacism.” Supremacy, I was going to say, is the state of being supreme. Usually they mean the unfounded assertion of being supreme. People who make that claim are supremacists, so the claim should be called supremacism, right? Like “racist” and “racism.”

But my spelling checker complained about the word “supremacism,” so I checked to make sure. Neither Merriam-Webster nor dictionary.com recognizes it as a word, though both recognize “supremacist.” The OED recognizes the word, though, so it’s OK to use it east of the Atlantic.

If one word exists, shouldn’t the other? I’d start a campaign to get it listed in dictionaries, except that “campaigning for supremacism” doesn’t sound so good.

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…)

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…)

There’s nothing wrong with these expressions

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

I’ve written a lot of posts on the misuse of words and expressions. For balance, I should mention some that pedants object to, but I don’t. (“Pedant” is defined as someone who objects to usages I don’t object to.)

“I could care less.” The pedant says this should be “I couldn’t care less.” Don’t you understand irony? This is always uttered in a sarcastic tone, and it means something like “I could care less — if I really tried hard.” Do you also object to saying “Big deal!” to dismiss something unimportant?
(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…)

What is a “conspiracy theory”?

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

A conspiracy theory, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.” Alternatively, it’s “a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public”; the idea presumably is that insiders have conspired to keep the truth hidden.

Dictionary.com takes a similar approach: “a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot” or “a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group.” In all these cases, a conspiracy theory requires a conspiracy to make something happen or to keep something hidden. The cabal has to be hidden and the conspirators powerful; an accusation that some people got together to plan a crime doesn’t count as a conspiracy theory unless the perpetrators are extremely rich or powerful.
(more…)

A word that will live in infamy

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

Today’s post on word misuse is a tricky one to write. The word is “infamous,” and the difficulty is that I can’t tell what people even mean when they misuse it. Merriam-Webster’s main definition is “having a reputation of the worst kind : notoriously evil.” The additional definitions are closely related: “causing or bringing infamy” and “convicted of an offense bringing infamy.” If you call a person infamous, you’re saying that person is rotten, vile, and contemptible. If you call an act infamous, you’re condemning it.

People seem to toss the word around just to add emphasis, with no specific meaning. I just saw a link on YouTube to a short referring to a statement attributed to J. Robert Oppenheimer, “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds” as “infamous.” I suppose someone might condemn Oppenheimer for saying that, though I don’t know why, but the video doesn’t do that.
(more…)