It's generally recognized that British English and American English have significant differences--mainly in pronunciation and vocabulary. Winston Churchill famously called the U.S. and Britain "two countries separated by a common language."
Of course we live in an age of instantaneous global communication. The British have been viewing our movies for decades, and an enormous volume of such exchange should serve to "level" (in the jargon of linguists) the differences. And I think that the British now are acquainted with many terms which had been Americanisms.
However, the influence can work both ways. Americans have come to use a few terms that had been mainly British in their use.
First, fridge for refrigerator. This is now so common in America that we hear it and don't give it a thought but (trust me, I can remember!) there was a time when this was used only in Britain.
Another is to go missing. News broadcasts in America seem to be full of stories about a person or a pet who has "gone missing." Now, here's the interesting part: What did we say before we used that expression? I don't remember. It's funny how that works, once a term becomes well-established, we don't even remember how we got along without it.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
Monday, October 5, 2009
Still More on the Police
I don't really want this blog to become solely about the police, or even mainly about the police, but I can't resist the urge to disseminate word about the latest incident of police misconduct.
In this case, a Chicago police officer has been hit with a civil suit by 21 plaintiffs who charge that the officer unjustifiably arrested them for Driving Under the Influence. It is charged that he picked his targets by observing them coming out of gay bars. One of the plaintiffs said (in an interview shown on TV news) that the officer said to him, "You've got two strikes: you're black and you're a fag."
What is this officer's motivation, other than his biases and prejudices? He makes money. When he appears in court in these cases, even if the case gets thrown out, the officer is paid time and half.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving has given this officer a reward because of his uncommon number of drunk-driving arrests--300. It's sad that single-issue constituencies like MADD so typically only scratch the surface of an issue and see only what they want to see. I think they deserve a new acronym, maybe IDIOT, standing for Idiotic Dames Inflicting Obnoxious Temperance.
Chicago has a (relatively) new police superintendent who came to his position with great promise of cleaning things up. So far he has shown too much inclination to defend the police officers under him, rather than getting at the truth and doing something about these abuses of police power.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
In this case, a Chicago police officer has been hit with a civil suit by 21 plaintiffs who charge that the officer unjustifiably arrested them for Driving Under the Influence. It is charged that he picked his targets by observing them coming out of gay bars. One of the plaintiffs said (in an interview shown on TV news) that the officer said to him, "You've got two strikes: you're black and you're a fag."
What is this officer's motivation, other than his biases and prejudices? He makes money. When he appears in court in these cases, even if the case gets thrown out, the officer is paid time and half.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving has given this officer a reward because of his uncommon number of drunk-driving arrests--300. It's sad that single-issue constituencies like MADD so typically only scratch the surface of an issue and see only what they want to see. I think they deserve a new acronym, maybe IDIOT, standing for Idiotic Dames Inflicting Obnoxious Temperance.
Chicago has a (relatively) new police superintendent who came to his position with great promise of cleaning things up. So far he has shown too much inclination to defend the police officers under him, rather than getting at the truth and doing something about these abuses of police power.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Some Linguistic Musings
First, a couple of words of which the original meanings have been forgotten through maybe several "rounds" of meaning change:
First, jock originally meant 'penis'. Then jock became short for jockstrap, and then it came to mean an athlete through a natural association with jockstrap.
Joystick also originally meant 'penis'. The next meaning was for the control stick of an airplane, and then it came to be used for the similar controllers for video games and so forth.
Scumbag originally meant 'condom'. You can get the "bag" part of it, so guess what the scum part denoted.
Now, maybe what is another subject and not related at all.
Some diseases that people used to talk about (and which presumably doctors used to diagnose) are not heard of at all. The words have totally fallen into disuse.
Chilblains. Defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. as "an inflammatory swelling or sore caused by exposure (as of the feet or hands) to cold."
Ague. Defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. as "a fever (as malaria) marked by paroxysms of chills, fever, and sweating that recur at regular intervals."
La grippe or the grippe. Defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. as "an acute febrile contagious virus disease; esp. influenza."
Now, these are all things that you would expect people would still get. People do in fact get malaria, although it is not common in the U.S. any longer; but it is in fact common in certain warmer parts of the world. Maybe there people still talk about having an ague.
As to the other two words, again you'd think you would still hear the words because people must still get those conditions; but you don't in fact hear the words--ever. I think it's a case of, if you have the word for it, you can get it. Without the word in current use, you won't get it. Sort of a mind-body issue.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
First, jock originally meant 'penis'. Then jock became short for jockstrap, and then it came to mean an athlete through a natural association with jockstrap.
Joystick also originally meant 'penis'. The next meaning was for the control stick of an airplane, and then it came to be used for the similar controllers for video games and so forth.
Scumbag originally meant 'condom'. You can get the "bag" part of it, so guess what the scum part denoted.
Now, maybe what is another subject and not related at all.
Some diseases that people used to talk about (and which presumably doctors used to diagnose) are not heard of at all. The words have totally fallen into disuse.
Chilblains. Defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. as "an inflammatory swelling or sore caused by exposure (as of the feet or hands) to cold."
Ague. Defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. as "a fever (as malaria) marked by paroxysms of chills, fever, and sweating that recur at regular intervals."
La grippe or the grippe. Defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. as "an acute febrile contagious virus disease; esp. influenza."
Now, these are all things that you would expect people would still get. People do in fact get malaria, although it is not common in the U.S. any longer; but it is in fact common in certain warmer parts of the world. Maybe there people still talk about having an ague.
As to the other two words, again you'd think you would still hear the words because people must still get those conditions; but you don't in fact hear the words--ever. I think it's a case of, if you have the word for it, you can get it. Without the word in current use, you won't get it. Sort of a mind-body issue.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monks and Priests: Preservers--and Destroyers--of Learning
Medieval monks, as is widely known, collectively spent untold hours working in their scriptoria, copying and thus preserving the manuscripts of much literature. In this way some of the works of the classical writers, Greek and Roman, were preserved (although the Byzantines and their successors in a sense, the Islamic scholars, may have preserved even more).
However, on the other side of the issue, medieval monks also destroyed a lot of literature, especially anything they came across that, rightly or wrongly, they classed as "pagan." In this way much was lost--it's virtually a crime against culture.
When the Spanish conquered most of the New World, Spanish priests destroyed most of the written records of the Maya--again because it was "pagan" and, in their eyes, little short of Satanic and demonic.
There is no way of telling how much has been lost to posterity by this kind of destruction; but book burning, of course, is not unknown to more recent and supposedly more enlightened times.
However, on the other side of the issue, medieval monks also destroyed a lot of literature, especially anything they came across that, rightly or wrongly, they classed as "pagan." In this way much was lost--it's virtually a crime against culture.
When the Spanish conquered most of the New World, Spanish priests destroyed most of the written records of the Maya--again because it was "pagan" and, in their eyes, little short of Satanic and demonic.
There is no way of telling how much has been lost to posterity by this kind of destruction; but book burning, of course, is not unknown to more recent and supposedly more enlightened times.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Police Receive Lenient Treatment by Courts
To my loyal followers: I should have told you in advance that Mourning Dove Hill was going to be on vacation. Anyway, it was, but now I, and it, happily are back.
This is kind of an addendum to the posts on the police (I could have done this as a comment). Recently, in pretty quick succession, our local news here in Chicago has had two or, I think, three stories about policemen being convicted of wrongdoing. In at least two of these cases the police officers in question received probation. That amounts to a mere slap on the wrist, I feel. I believe that courts are far too sympathetic to police and almost excuse their wrongdoing. One reason might be that if a policeman ever received what he deserved for his wrongdoing, the police union would be all up in arms. They claim that punishing any police officer undermines all the others in their doing of their jobs.
I for one am tired of police abusing their power and authority. Even when it is conduct that falls far short of a serious crime, why should they even run red lights (when not responding to a call and without their red-and-blue lights on) or otherwise violate traffic laws? Because they are the law, they are above the law.
This is kind of an addendum to the posts on the police (I could have done this as a comment). Recently, in pretty quick succession, our local news here in Chicago has had two or, I think, three stories about policemen being convicted of wrongdoing. In at least two of these cases the police officers in question received probation. That amounts to a mere slap on the wrist, I feel. I believe that courts are far too sympathetic to police and almost excuse their wrongdoing. One reason might be that if a policeman ever received what he deserved for his wrongdoing, the police union would be all up in arms. They claim that punishing any police officer undermines all the others in their doing of their jobs.
I for one am tired of police abusing their power and authority. Even when it is conduct that falls far short of a serious crime, why should they even run red lights (when not responding to a call and without their red-and-blue lights on) or otherwise violate traffic laws? Because they are the law, they are above the law.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Interesting Comments from Laura Bush
The conservatives, as the media acknowledge, have been vocally stating their opposition to Obama's speech to school children. They claim it's "indoctrination." When Ronald Reagan did the same thing, or George H.W. Bush, were they crying out about "indoctrination"? I don't remember hearing any such thing, and I'd wager I'm not just forgetting.
And the Republicans marshalled people to turn out at the town meetings on health care reform and be very vocal and literally yell and scream and shout down the speakers.
And now we have the "tea parties," more of the same thing. I'd like to know who is organizing and funding these things. I doubt that they are really grass-roots or spontaneous upwellings of popular sentiment.
Evidently in a recent interview with CNN, former First Lady Laura Bush has acknowledged how partisan and polarized the country is getting. She said her husband did not succeed in "reaching across the aisle" in Congress as he had been able to do as governor of Texas; he did not expect national politics to be different from Texas politics. Maybe back in Texas he didn't have the same cronies doing the same kind of dirty work as in Washington (I won't mention any names but I've already blogged about a former Vice President--and then there was Rove).
Mrs. Bush says that the reason for all this shrillness, stridency, partisanship, and polarization is because we now have more congressmen from energetically liberal or energetically conservative (my word, not hers) districts. I don't know if that's true, but it's interesting. My own idea would have been that the Republicans are just trying to stir things up with battle cries of "socialism" and "socialized medicine" because they are already preparing for the 2012 elections.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
And the Republicans marshalled people to turn out at the town meetings on health care reform and be very vocal and literally yell and scream and shout down the speakers.
And now we have the "tea parties," more of the same thing. I'd like to know who is organizing and funding these things. I doubt that they are really grass-roots or spontaneous upwellings of popular sentiment.
Evidently in a recent interview with CNN, former First Lady Laura Bush has acknowledged how partisan and polarized the country is getting. She said her husband did not succeed in "reaching across the aisle" in Congress as he had been able to do as governor of Texas; he did not expect national politics to be different from Texas politics. Maybe back in Texas he didn't have the same cronies doing the same kind of dirty work as in Washington (I won't mention any names but I've already blogged about a former Vice President--and then there was Rove).
Mrs. Bush says that the reason for all this shrillness, stridency, partisanship, and polarization is because we now have more congressmen from energetically liberal or energetically conservative (my word, not hers) districts. I don't know if that's true, but it's interesting. My own idea would have been that the Republicans are just trying to stir things up with battle cries of "socialism" and "socialized medicine" because they are already preparing for the 2012 elections.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Science Fiction Becomes Science Fact; or, The Next Arms Race
I recently viewed a History Channel program about the development of a new class of weapons called Directed Energy weapons. These are "Star Wars"-type laser weapons and "death rays"—extraordinarily high-power lasers that not only could kill an individual from a distance but destroy an airplane or tank or much more.
It's not clear to me why we need these awesome devices, and, as the TV program admitted, the deployment of such weapons is likely to usher in another arms race. Have we learned, yet—in thousands of years—that every new development in weaponry is matched or even exceeded by the results of countering efforts on the other side?
We must always have newer and more dreadful weapons because the Pentagon boys love their toys—and their toys are destructive. These are people who have never outgrown their boyhood fascination with blowing things up. This viewpoint was beautifully and satirically put forth in the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
I was very saddened by this TV program. These weapons are being developed in my name and, supposedly, on my behalf, and I certainly don't want them. Over the years and decades, we've had a rubber-stamp Congress that gives the Pentagon whatever they want, and Congressmen, a White House, and a public who will rationalize any new weapons, no matter how horrible, as needed for "national defense" or security. And there is the question that was raised after the development of the atomic bomb: Should scientists lend scientific research and knowledge to destructive aims? I think they should not, but it seems we always have plenty of scientists who will work on weapons with few or any qualms of conscience. As an example of their lust for advancing science while, with ivory tower aloofness, shutting their eyes to any real-world implications of their work: I learned from another TV program—no, I do not want to be perceived as having learned all I know from television—that a German Jewish scientist in the Nazi era, incredibly, allowed his research to be used in the development of the Nazis' atomic bomb.
Remember that once upon a time the United States government Executive Branch included a War Department? Instead of that more honest name, now it's euphemistically called the Defense Department, supposedly to manifest the myth that the United States only wages war as defense. (To digress a bit, to see an example or two of how that is not correct, look at how the U.S. acquired some of its territories, especially those from Spain and Mexico: it was simple conquest.)
We probably would have a more peaceable world, as has been suggested, if the world were controlled by women. Men are definitely more aggressive and more prone to war and conflict. A friend of mine has coined the lovely term "testosterone poisoning."
And this can only get worse as a generation raised on video games matures and becomes the new population of the Pentagon. They will have already been well schooled in vicious things to do to your "enemy."
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
It's not clear to me why we need these awesome devices, and, as the TV program admitted, the deployment of such weapons is likely to usher in another arms race. Have we learned, yet—in thousands of years—that every new development in weaponry is matched or even exceeded by the results of countering efforts on the other side?
We must always have newer and more dreadful weapons because the Pentagon boys love their toys—and their toys are destructive. These are people who have never outgrown their boyhood fascination with blowing things up. This viewpoint was beautifully and satirically put forth in the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
I was very saddened by this TV program. These weapons are being developed in my name and, supposedly, on my behalf, and I certainly don't want them. Over the years and decades, we've had a rubber-stamp Congress that gives the Pentagon whatever they want, and Congressmen, a White House, and a public who will rationalize any new weapons, no matter how horrible, as needed for "national defense" or security. And there is the question that was raised after the development of the atomic bomb: Should scientists lend scientific research and knowledge to destructive aims? I think they should not, but it seems we always have plenty of scientists who will work on weapons with few or any qualms of conscience. As an example of their lust for advancing science while, with ivory tower aloofness, shutting their eyes to any real-world implications of their work: I learned from another TV program—no, I do not want to be perceived as having learned all I know from television—that a German Jewish scientist in the Nazi era, incredibly, allowed his research to be used in the development of the Nazis' atomic bomb.
Remember that once upon a time the United States government Executive Branch included a War Department? Instead of that more honest name, now it's euphemistically called the Defense Department, supposedly to manifest the myth that the United States only wages war as defense. (To digress a bit, to see an example or two of how that is not correct, look at how the U.S. acquired some of its territories, especially those from Spain and Mexico: it was simple conquest.)
We probably would have a more peaceable world, as has been suggested, if the world were controlled by women. Men are definitely more aggressive and more prone to war and conflict. A friend of mine has coined the lovely term "testosterone poisoning."
And this can only get worse as a generation raised on video games matures and becomes the new population of the Pentagon. They will have already been well schooled in vicious things to do to your "enemy."
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
