“The simultaneous borrowing of French and Latin words led to a highly distinctive feature of modern English vocabulary: sets of three items, all expressing the same fundamental notion but differing slightly in meaning or style, e.g., kingly, royal, regal; rise, mount, ascend; ask, question, interrogate; fast, firm, secure; holy, sacred, consecrated. The Old English word (the first in each triplet) is the most colloquial, the French (the second) is more literary, and the Latin word (the last) more learned.” (Howard Jackson and Etienne Zé Amvela, “Words, Meaning and Vocabulary: An Introduction to Modern English Lexicology.” Continuum, 2000)
Though I like how John McWhorter phrases it better:
But language tends not to do what we want it to. The die was cast: English had thousands of new words competing with native English words for the same things. One result was triplets allowing us to express ideas with varying degrees of formality. Help is English, aid is French, assist is Latin. Or, kingly is English, royal is French, regal is Latin – note how one imagines posture improving with each level: kingly sounds almost mocking, regal is straight-backed like a throne, royal is somewhere in the middle, a worthy but fallible monarch.
when you demand that white supremacists be called “terrorists”, you legitimize the label in its current application. why are you arguing for the endless expansion of the language the police state uses to describe all actions deemed to be a threat to itself? who do you think that’s helping? weren’t you all calling to “defund the police” a few months ago? where exactly do you think this insistence that this is “terrorism” leads? to the satisfaction of seeing the evil white men called a bad name, or to enforced militarism and increased surveillance in the name of security?
The thing that interests me is thinking about how the application of this label has changed* – I grew up in a time and place where the terrorists I heard about were white “nationalists”?? I guess??? It was and still is a complicated question for someone on the outside because I guess each was nationalist for their own desired national identity and those are two separate nationalities.
Like, my dissertation was about the Troubles (I literally skipped out on focussing on the bombings and physical murdering to concentrate on education and employment and discrimination and policing** etc etc because it was the bombings and various kinds of traditional physical violence that I only ever heard about and I wanted to know about the rest) and there were people committing acts of terror on both sides of that conflict and basically yes, they were all white (I briefly dipped into looking at how it was for other ethnic groups but it was kind of outside the scope of my topic although probably more relevant to my own life).
* And like, yes, this has changed over the last few decades but also, I suppose outside the UK and Ireland and I guess Europe (although they seemed to forget the GFA pretty easily the other day), the “usual” experience of terrorism never really included what went on here? Even though it was such a huge thing in my early life*** and so like… yeah. And even now – the reason it was so difficult for years and years and years to find a bin to put your rubbish in at Euston was the Troubles, and I don’t think there are bins in the overground part at the moment (though it’s been a while since I was there) but they have installed those hoops with a clear plastic bag hanging off them in the underground part. And this is the smallest thing! Was terrorism always about BIPOC in the USA? I didn’t even study conflicts in North America for my masters as I decided to stick to stuff that my own family had experience of like stuff in the UK and Malaysia.
** The stuff there was violence too but like, y’know, a different kind.
*** Watching/reading coverage of the Troubles and being British and Catholic and a child with a child’s understanding of war and not knowing who were the good guys and who were the bad guys because your own identities are part of those of both groups and everyone seems to be suffering and dying. And of course, it’s not that simple is it because the media I was exposed to was framed from the British point of view, reduced into basic sides.
when you demand that white supremacists be called “terrorists”, you legitimize the label in its current application. why are you arguing for the endless expansion of the language the police state uses to describe all actions deemed to be a threat to itself? who do you think that’s helping? weren’t you all calling to “defund the police” a few months ago? where exactly do you think this insistence that this is “terrorism” leads? to the satisfaction of seeing the evil white men called a bad name, or to enforced militarism and increased surveillance in the name of security?
The thing that interests me is thinking about how the application of this label has changed* – I grew up in a time and place where the terrorists I heard about were white “nationalists”?? I guess??? It was and still is a complicated question for someone on the outside because I guess each was nationalist for their own desired national identity and those are two separate nationalities.
Like, my dissertation was about the Troubles (I literally skipped out on focussing on the bombings and physical murdering to concentrate on education and employment and discrimination and policing** etc etc because it was the bombings and various kinds of traditional physical violence that I only ever heard about and I wanted to know about the rest) and there were people committing acts of terror on both sides of that conflict and basically yes, they were all white (I briefly dipped into looking at how it was for other ethnic groups but it was kind of outside the scope of my topic although probably more relevant to my own life).
* And like, yes, this has changed over the last few decades but also, I suppose outside the UK and Ireland and I guess Europe (although they seemed to forget the GFA pretty easily the other day), the “usual” experience of terrorism never really included what went on here? Even though it was such a huge thing in my early life*** and so like… yeah. And even now – the reason it was so difficult for years and years and years to find a bin to put your rubbish in at Euston was the Troubles, and I don’t think there are bins in the overground part at the moment (though it’s been a while since I was there) but they have installed those hoops with a clear plastic bag hanging off them in the underground part. And this is the smallest thing! Was terrorism always about BIPOC in the USA? I didn’t even study conflicts in North America for my masters as I decided to stick to stuff that my own family had experience of like stuff in the UK and Malaysia.
** The stuff there was violence too but like, y’know, a different kind.
*** Watching/reading coverage of the Troubles and being British and Catholic and a child with a child’s understanding of war and not knowing who were the good guys and who were the bad guys because your own identities are part of those of both groups and everyone seems to be suffering and dying. And of course, it’s not that simple is it because the media I was exposed to was framed from the British point of view, reduced into basic sides.
Gretchen: On the International Space Station, you have astronauts from the US and from other English speaking countries and you have cosmonauts from Russia. And obviously it’s very important to get your communication right if you’re on a tiny metal box circling the Earth or going somewhere. You don’t want to have a miscommunication there because you could end up floating in space in the wrong way. And so one of the things that they do on the ISS – so first of all every astronaut and cosmonaut needs to be bilingual in English and Russian because those are the languages of space.
Lauren: Yep. Wait, the language of space are English and Russian? I’m sorry, I just said ‘yep’ and I didn’t really think about it, so that’s a fact is it?
Gretchen: I mean, pretty much, yeah, if you go on astronaut training recruitment forums, which I have gone on to research this episode…
Lauren: You’re got to have a backup job, Gretchen.
Gretchen: I don’t think I’m going to become an astronaut, but I would like to do astronaut linguistics. And one of the things these forums say, is, you need to know stuff about math and engineering and, like, how to fly planes and so on. But they also say, you either have to arrive knowing English and Russian or they put you through an intensive language training course.
But then when they’re up in space, one of the things that they do is have the English native speakers speak Russian and the Russian speakers speak English. Because the idea is, if you speak your native language, maybe you’re speaking too fast or maybe you’re not sure if the other person’s really understanding you. Whereas if you both speak the language you’re not as fluent in, then you arrive at a level where where people can be sure that the other person’s understanding. And by now, there’s kind of this hybrid English-Russian language that’s developed. Not a full-fledged language but kind of a-
Lauren: Space Creole!
Gretchen: Yeah, a Space Pidgin that the astronauts use to speak with each other! I don’t know if anyone’s written a grammar of it, but I really want to see a grammar of Space Pidgin.
Gretchen: On the International Space Station, you have astronauts from the US and from other English speaking countries and you have cosmonauts from Russia. And obviously it’s very important to get your communication right if you’re on a tiny metal box circling the Earth or going somewhere. You don’t want to have a miscommunication there because you could end up floating in space in the wrong way. And so one of the things that they do on the ISS – so first of all every astronaut and cosmonaut needs to be bilingual in English and Russian because those are the languages of space.
Lauren: Yep. Wait, the language of space are English and Russian? I’m sorry, I just said ‘yep’ and I didn’t really think about it, so that’s a fact is it?
Gretchen: I mean, pretty much, yeah, if you go on astronaut training recruitment forums, which I have gone on to research this episode…
Lauren: You’re got to have a backup job, Gretchen.
Gretchen: I don’t think I’m going to become an astronaut, but I would like to do astronaut linguistics. And one of the things these forums say, is, you need to know stuff about math and engineering and, like, how to fly planes and so on. But they also say, you either have to arrive knowing English and Russian or they put you through an intensive language training course.
But then when they’re up in space, one of the things that they do is have the English native speakers speak Russian and the Russian speakers speak English. Because the idea is, if you speak your native language, maybe you’re speaking too fast or maybe you’re not sure if the other person’s really understanding you. Whereas if you both speak the language you’re not as fluent in, then you arrive at a level where where people can be sure that the other person’s understanding. And by now, there’s kind of this hybrid English-Russian language that’s developed. Not a full-fledged language but kind of a-
Lauren: Space Creole!
Gretchen: Yeah, a Space Pidgin that the astronauts use to speak with each other! I don’t know if anyone’s written a grammar of it, but I really want to see a grammar of Space Pidgin.
You rarely see a “wend” without a “way.” You can wend your way through a crowd or down a hill, but no one wends to bed or to school. However, there was a time when English speakers would wend to all kinds of places. “Wend” was just another word for “go” in Old English. The past tense of “wend” was “went” and the past tense of “go” was “gaed.” People used both until the 1400s, when “go” became the preferred verb, except in the past tense where “went” hung on, leaving us with an outrageously irregular verb.
You rarely see a “wend” without a “way.” You can wend your way through a crowd or down a hill, but no one wends to bed or to school. However, there was a time when English speakers would wend to all kinds of places. “Wend” was just another word for “go” in Old English. The past tense of “wend” was “went” and the past tense of “go” was “gaed.” People used both until the 1400s, when “go” became the preferred verb, except in the past tense where “went” hung on, leaving us with an outrageously irregular verb.
per herbam ad astra means “from grass to the stars” and i was like damn that’d be a sick tattoo but its literally the motto for the british lawn mower racing association
per herbam ad astra means “from grass to the stars” and i was like damn that’d be a sick tattoo but its literally the motto for the british lawn mower racing association
per herbam ad astra means “from grass to the stars” and i was like damn that’d be a sick tattoo but its literally the motto for the british lawn mower racing association
