Search This Blog

Showing posts with label words. Show all posts
Showing posts with label words. Show all posts

Thursday, January 16, 2025

Call me strong, don’t call me resilient. (Or do.)

Standing or caving?

‘Resilient’ is an important and strong and wonderful word, but I have to admit I’m weary of it. 

 

Widows and widowers, traumatized children, oppressed communities of color, survivors of cancer and war and natural catastrophe—and on and on and on—are all called resilient. When we say someone or a group or someones are resilient, are we saying anything more than that people keep putting one foot in front of the other and taking the next breath instead of lying down, giving up, and dying? Sometimes, in spite of my admiration for strength and perseverance, I want to say, Can’t we just realize that life is resilient and move on?

 

Really, though, my annoyance with that word is simply what I see as its overuse, and I’m being petty. It’s an important word and not at all offensive. It’s important to celebrate strength. Yeah. Forget I said anything. ‘Resilience’ is a good word. Let’s keep it going.

 

Ah, but what about ‘hack’ used as a noun? I am really sick of hearing any helpful tip or shortcut referred to as a hack, and overuse is not the only problem here. Let’s remember that hacking started out as a kind of virtual breaking and entering. Not a good thing. In fact, criminal. So when we offer an easy way to open a pomegranate and call it a hack, we’re erasing an important distinction. I have a similar gripe with anything beautiful being called ‘porn,’ as in bookshelf porn—God forbid! Whose bad idea was it to start calling helpful or beautiful ideas or things by ugly names, as if there’s no difference between good and bad?

 

Then there’s the business of referring to something bad or ugly with a neutral term or one that can even sound (if you don’t look too closely) positive? The worst such phrase in my book (I’ve written about this before) is ‘ethnic cleansing.’ Think about it. It’s good to be clean. Genocidal policies and practices, therefore, when called ethnic cleansing, are put forth as something good for a particular country, and it’s easy to see why a dictator or any other oppressive government would want to cloak its sins in clean-sounding language, but why do journalists around the world allow themselves to be led around by their noses, parroting this term in print, online, and on the airwaves? Trampling on human rights, deporting people because of their religion or ethnic background, putting their very lives at risk, sometimes taking their lives—there’s nothing clean about using euphemisms to refer to cruel and ugly actions and policies. 

 

Before I started writing this post, the words I first thought of were simply annoying. Words that elicited in me a peevish response. Modern locutions like ‘monetize,’ ‘privatize,’ incentivize,’ etc. Then came ‘hack,’ and I had a sudden insight as to why it strikes me as so offensive, and my post turned serious. I could never make a living as a nightclub comedian. Guess I’ll stick to bookselling. 

Thursday, April 30, 2020

Our Vocabulary Today

What else would you add to this list?

alone together 
asymptomatic 
at-risk populations 
case fatality rate
“Chinese” virus (Trump)
clinical trial
community spread
confirmed positive
contagion
coronavirus
COVID-19
Covidiot
crisis 
DYI antiseptic wipes
DYI masks
dying for the Dow
essential/nonessential businesses 
essential/nonessential travel
"face time"
“flatten the curve”
herd immunity
“hunker down”
immunity
lockdown
mask 
N95 masks
pandemic
PPE
press conference
quarantine 
reaching out
respirator
'rona
screening
self-isolation
self-quarantine
sheltering in place
social distancing 
“Stay home and save lives.”
stay-at-home order
symptomatic
vaccine
ventilator
vulnerable populations
virus
walking at a distance 
“We’re all in this together.”
working from home

Zoom

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

The Word 'Wash'



After two winters spent in the high desert, the word immediately conjures up for me not an image of wet laundry on a clothesline but a dusty, river-shaped opening through scratchy mesquite. The dry wash. Arroyo. “There were mule deer down in the wash this morning.” On some maps, washes (each, like a river, with its own name) are called ‘canyons,’ but that word to me still means something larger and much grander. 

I do hang my washed clothing and table linens and towels out on a line in the backyard, and sometimes I recall years when I only  dreamed of being at home to do such a thing, but I did not then imagine doing it before the sun came up, as I must often do these busy days. I did imagine chickens pecking around in the grass at my feet, and those chickens’ presence I still have to imagine.

‘Wash’ makes me think also of watercolor, an art medium I will never attempt, content (and sufficiently challenged) as I am with pen or pencil. I am happy, though, that others dare the mystery and chance effects of a watercolor wash.

“Wash that man right outta my….” How I loved singing and acting out that “South Pacific” musical number! 

Dishwasher. I have never had one. Instead, I am one. On good days, washing dishes is a meditative activity, something my hands do while my mind is free to roam. 

‘Washed-up’ is not a good way to be, but treasures may be washed up on shore by the waves.

The sun washes over a field of green wheat, waves of grain rippling dark and light in the spring breeze.

Laver. Se laver. Lavar. Lavarse. Je me lave les mains. And in Spanish? It does not come as quickly, and I wonder if it ever will.

Washed away, carried away, swept away — gone from here but gone altogether or simply deposited somewhere else? Edith Piaf with her new love, sweeping (rather than washing) away the old. In another French song, however, waves wash away footprints in the sand: La mer efface sur la sable….  


Washable. Temporary. Evanescent. Mysterious.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

What Is Patriotic?




The words on this discarded beer can are familiar. “Land of the Free” is proudly proclaimed, along with “Home of the Brave” and “Indivisible Since 1776.” Indivisible? Well, the attempt to divide was certainly made in a bloody conflict that dragged on for years, but in the end the political entity known as the Union held.


Near the top of this recyclable (but no returnable; was it brought to Michigan from another state?) some of the words of the national anthem appear. Only the first few lines, and even those are incomplete, as the lines were made to arc upwards toward the pull tab, cutting off all but “Oh say can ... proudly”/”we hailed at the ... Whose broad”/with two remaining lines appearing in full, ending with the words “so gallantly streaming?”

Against a red background at the bottom of the can we may read “LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL.”




I found this beer can at the side of one of my favorite walking roads, presumably thrown from the window of a passing car or truck.

Is littering less objectionable if an empty can is emblazoned with patriotic sentiments? Are customers for this product more patriotic than drinkers of Canadian beer? Is the company more patriotic for using the national anthem to promote and market its product? The Budweiser company calls this beer “America.”

Respect. Disrespect. National symbols. I’m thinking about it all.



Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Another Word For It


Said around the dinner table on Saturday by one of our guests (actually, my son): “I took debate in high school, and that is not debate.” So true, we all agreed. I’ve been saying the same thing for I don’t know how many election cycles, and it’s never been truer than this year, and whenever the subject cannot be avoided, I have resorted to “so-called ‘debate’” as my verbal reference. But the modification of the noun was still unsatisfying.

There must be something else we could call it, I kept thinking. But what?

Confrontation? Yelling match? Reality TV? All seemed at least partially appropriate but, again, unsatisfying, failing to get at the tragic heart of the disappointment. It is, after all, American democracy and perhaps the future of political freedom in the world that are at stake.

During the Monday morning early radio news, the word came to me: debacle. I said it aloud, trying it out.

“What? What are you referring to?”

“Instead of ‘debate,’ you know. What to call it. I’m going to call it ‘debacle.’”

The de- prefix makes the substitution particularly appropriate and calls up adjectives such as debased, degraded, and demeaned. Like debased and debate, it also contains the voiced bilabial plosive, with which a speaker can vent emotions such as disgust and disdain – Bah! -- while the hard C shading into a final L hints at spectacle, calling up sound and fury and barkers and circuses. And, of course the dictionary meaning....

When political satisfaction fails, there is some satisfaction to be found in the right word.

Late in the afternoon, glancing at Facebook, I saw that one of my friends had used the phrase “debacle of a debate.” Yes, Linda! You, too? But can we trim away the official designation we all agree does not pertain and be content with a single word to sum up what took place?

Debacle: “a stunning, ruinous collapse or failure, often ludicrously calamitous.” (New World Dictionary, 4th meaning)

Calamity inviting laughter? Joking at the approach to the gallows? Debacle!

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Humans Lie; Hens Lay Eggs


The subject is not mendacity but “getting—or putting--horizontal.” The distinction is confusing in English, because the past tense of one verb is the present tense of the other. What a pickle!

“I think I’ll lie down for a while.” [Correct]

“Just lay the book over there on the table.” [Correct]

Two points need to be made about the simple sentences above. First, it isn’t a matter of humans versus the whole rest of the world (books and hens and such) but a matter of intransitive versus transitive verbs. (I heard those groans!) Unless there’s an object, you want the intransitive verb, in this case, to lie. That takes us to the second point, which is that dogs, when relaxing in front of the fire, are lying there, not laying, and the correct wording of the training command is “Lie down,” not “Lay down.” When, on the other hand, there’s an object following the verb, an egg or a book or whatever, you want the transitive verb, the one that can carry or transport its object.

It wouldn’t be so bad if that were the end of the story—but then along comes the pesky past tense.

“I lay down to rest and fell asleep for an hour.” [Correct}

“He laid the book carefully on the table, as if it were an egg.” [Correct: The addition of the egg was just to see if you were paying attention.]

Suddenly the spelling and sound of lay is correct for a human but only because it is the past tense of to lie, not to lay, the past tense of the latter being laid! We could take lie and lay into deeper waters, but why bother? Something tells me the distinction may vanish in my own lifetime.

Often, quite honestly, I almost wish I didn’t know the rules for using these verbs correctly, because the knowledge makes it so annoying to hear the incorrect usage. Embarrass my fellow human beings with public correction, I will not.

Okay, what about “Now I lay me down to sleep,” some of you are asking. Could it be that the confusion in English arises from this very source, the childhood prayer? It’s a tricky question, but note that ‘me’ in there. The speaker of this sentence takes himself or herself not only as subject (“I”) but also as object (“me”). Strictly speaking, it would be more proper to use a reflexive pronoun, i.e., “I lay myself down to sleep,” but of course the rhythm would then be entirely lost. Poetic license! Whether for rhythm or for rhyme, verse and song often depart from strict grammar, and there it’s just fine.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Homonym of the Day


Rain falls from the sky.
To rein in a horse--or, by extension, one's enthusiasm--means to hold it back. Giving "free rein," on the other hand, means letting it go.
Monarchs reign from thrones.
These words are homonyms. They sound the same but have very different meanings. Since horses are no longer part of everyday life for most English speakers, there is great confusion over rein and reign. Here's another case where Matthew's recommended study of Latin would help out a lot. Journalists, take note.

[This was originally and mistakenly posted on Books in Northport. I meant to post it here.]