Needless to say, I was very disappointed.
I mean, how can I call myself an English professor when my very own children don't know the difference between "your" and "you're?"
Showing posts with label grammar rants cuz why not I teach writing afterall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grammar rants cuz why not I teach writing afterall. Show all posts
Friday, December 09, 2011
In Which I am Very Disappointed in my Offspring
We found this note (scribbled in kid's Crest toothpaste and reading "Your dead Dad") on our bathroom mirror:
Needless to say, I was very disappointed.
I mean, how can I call myself an English professor when my very own children don't know the difference between "your" and "you're?"
Needless to say, I was very disappointed.
I mean, how can I call myself an English professor when my very own children don't know the difference between "your" and "you're?"
Sunday, August 15, 2010
PC Language: A Rant That Will Probably Not Go In the Direction You Think It Will
Someday I really will be done with grammar rants for awhile.
But today, I have a problem with PC language.
Not the problem that most people have, though.
The problem that most people have is that PC language can be... annoying. How are you supposed to keep track of what is the least offensive term to use for a particular group if that term keeps changing? What if you don't *mean* any harm (and you certainly don't think of yourself as any sort of "ist") and yet people get all offended because you haven't kept up to date with the latest PC term? Isn't that odious?!
That's not my problem with it.
The problem I have with PC language is about connotation. (So, so, so many problems of language are problems of connotation!)
See, the reason that people think of new terms for things--terms that are supposed to be more "PC"--is essentially just a connotation thing. Words have negative connotations and people want to get rid of them by inventing a new word. And there's some logic to this.
Every word that's ever used carries with it the weight of every time anyone has ever used it. In fact, every time *you* use a word, you are oh-so-subtly shaping it's connotation. Connotation is about *use.*
The reason that people feel the need to change terms--"I'm not a homemaker, I'm a stay-at-home-mom," for example--is that negative and/or unwanted connotations have built up around the primary term.
You don't want to be a homemaker if people talk smack about homemakers.
The way that the word has been used shapes its meaning and when the *meaning* becomes odious, you want a different word.
The problem is, though, that changing the word does not change the underlying problem. The underlying problem with "homemakers" was actually that homemakers weren't respected. Their lives and duties were trivialized. People would use the word and preface it with terms like "just." "I'm *just* a homemaker." And every time it was used that way, the original term would become more and more pejorative.
Enter a new term.
But you can change the word, it won't change the underlying problem. Because the problem was never the word, it was the lack of respect for homemakers.
The thing that annoys me about when people complain about the "burden" of having to learn the "latest PC term," is the lack of recognition that the reason the term needs to be changed over and over and over is *real.* It's not that racism would go away if only we could finally settle on one non-offensive term for each race. The terms keep changing *because people keep abusing them.* If people had stopped using terms like "homemaker," "colored," "handicapped," etc. in negative ways, there wouldn't ever have been a need to change the words in the first place. (In fact, you can often tell just *how* big a problem is by how many times the term has had to change. If it goes through three, four, five iterations and more seem eminent, it's because the sentiments *behind* the words haven't changed yet. If it only has to go through one or two iterations and then one sticks for awhile? Chances are there has been some evolving in the society and the lack-of-language change reflects that.)
Words, themselves, aren't the problem. And struggling to "learn the newest non-offensive terms" isn't necessarily going to solve the problem, either.
If you don't like PC language, well, stop being mean to people. Stop marginalizing groups. Stop *using terms pejoritavely.*
There's no need to change words that are universally used with love and respect.
But today, I have a problem with PC language.
Not the problem that most people have, though.
The problem that most people have is that PC language can be... annoying. How are you supposed to keep track of what is the least offensive term to use for a particular group if that term keeps changing? What if you don't *mean* any harm (and you certainly don't think of yourself as any sort of "ist") and yet people get all offended because you haven't kept up to date with the latest PC term? Isn't that odious?!
That's not my problem with it.
The problem I have with PC language is about connotation. (So, so, so many problems of language are problems of connotation!)
See, the reason that people think of new terms for things--terms that are supposed to be more "PC"--is essentially just a connotation thing. Words have negative connotations and people want to get rid of them by inventing a new word. And there's some logic to this.
Every word that's ever used carries with it the weight of every time anyone has ever used it. In fact, every time *you* use a word, you are oh-so-subtly shaping it's connotation. Connotation is about *use.*
The reason that people feel the need to change terms--"I'm not a homemaker, I'm a stay-at-home-mom," for example--is that negative and/or unwanted connotations have built up around the primary term.
You don't want to be a homemaker if people talk smack about homemakers.
The way that the word has been used shapes its meaning and when the *meaning* becomes odious, you want a different word.
The problem is, though, that changing the word does not change the underlying problem. The underlying problem with "homemakers" was actually that homemakers weren't respected. Their lives and duties were trivialized. People would use the word and preface it with terms like "just." "I'm *just* a homemaker." And every time it was used that way, the original term would become more and more pejorative.
Enter a new term.
But you can change the word, it won't change the underlying problem. Because the problem was never the word, it was the lack of respect for homemakers.
The thing that annoys me about when people complain about the "burden" of having to learn the "latest PC term," is the lack of recognition that the reason the term needs to be changed over and over and over is *real.* It's not that racism would go away if only we could finally settle on one non-offensive term for each race. The terms keep changing *because people keep abusing them.* If people had stopped using terms like "homemaker," "colored," "handicapped," etc. in negative ways, there wouldn't ever have been a need to change the words in the first place. (In fact, you can often tell just *how* big a problem is by how many times the term has had to change. If it goes through three, four, five iterations and more seem eminent, it's because the sentiments *behind* the words haven't changed yet. If it only has to go through one or two iterations and then one sticks for awhile? Chances are there has been some evolving in the society and the lack-of-language change reflects that.)
Words, themselves, aren't the problem. And struggling to "learn the newest non-offensive terms" isn't necessarily going to solve the problem, either.
If you don't like PC language, well, stop being mean to people. Stop marginalizing groups. Stop *using terms pejoritavely.*
There's no need to change words that are universally used with love and respect.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Here's to "Y'all"
I had my very first grammar rant when I was about four years old. (Well, the first one I remember. Apparently my Mom says they started shortly after I began to form sentences.)
We were living in Texas and I had a friend who lived across the street named Leah. We used to fight about who was going to marry Michael Jackson when they grew up. But I digress.
Leah's mom had this thick Texas accent. Since my parents were from California and we'd just recently moved there, we didn't have thick Texas accents in our house. And I found the whole Texas accent thing just baffling anyway. I thought it made people sound stoopid.
This one time, Leah's mom was asking about my family. "How are y'all doing?" she said.
I lost it.
"Do you have ANY idea what an IDIOT you sound like when you say 'y'all?!'" I yelled. "I don't think you're actually dumb, but you really sound dumb. Why don't you talk like a smart person and say 'you guys?'"
I don't remember what she said back. I think she might have just laughed at me (which would not have made me very happy). I was Lily's age, after all, and ranting preschoolers can be very entertaining. (Especially when they're talking about 'idiots.')
Fast forward a few decades.
I use "y'all" almost exclusively when referring to plural second person.
Why?
I have reasons.
Primarily, gendered reasons.
Back when I was in elementary school, I was taught, like most people, of a grammatical concept known as "the masculine generic." When the gender of an individual/group is unknown, the masculine term is used. Thus, "his/him/he/man" could all equally mean "She/her/woman." A few years later (high schoolish) when they started teaching "gender neutral" language, I actually used to get offended. "His/Man" didn't refer to "Her/Woman" only because THEY decided it didn't. And their insistence on being all PC only served to BUG me. (Oh, geez. This makes me think of another grammar rant I want to do about PC language! Gah. What's with my grammar obsession lately?!!)
I have changed my mind about this.
Because as I've gotten older, I've realized the main problem: people *say* that they mean "all" people when they say "men," but actually, they're just thinking of men. And so the "masculine generic" is actually the "masculine specific." And we really do a lot better language-wise when we're aware of our specificity.
Some examples:
1) Heart disease. Y'all know the symptoms, right? Pain in the left shoulder, pressure in chest, white clammy skin... But would it surprise you to find out that those are generally only the symptoms of MALE heart attacks? It surprised me. But it's a fairly typical problem of the masculine generic. Grammatical issues are reflective of cultural issues. You can never, ever, remove culture from language, so understanding language and its weaknesses is essentially a process of understanding cultural weakness. And we have traditionally assumed that the experience of the (mostly white, upper-class, straight, non-disabled) male is the *generic* experience of all people when it's not. Thus, a grammatical issue like the masculine generic leads to a wider assumption that there *aren't* major differences between certain groups when there are. And, hence, heart disease is the #1 killer of middle-aged women, many of whom are probably far more terrified of breast cancer, whose risk pales in comparison to that of heart disease.
2) Secretaries and nurses. Consider the following sentences: "A Nurse has a duty to ____ patients." Or, "Part of a secretary's job is to keep track of ____ boss's schedule." What pronoun did you use to fill in the blanks in your head? I'd be willing to bet that even though a big chunk of you were trained, like me, to use the "masculine generic," you thought "her." But notice that I didn't specify a gender in those sentences. According to the theoretical rules of the "masculine generic," if there is no stated/known gender, you should say "he" or "his." But we don't actually think of "his" as representing a generic. And so when faced with jobs that tend to be gender-specific (whether or not they *should* be is a topic for a whole different post), we don't think "his" (which should theoretically mean "her" to us unconsciously if it really *is* generic), we think "her."
3) Two sentences: "All men are created equal." Versus. "All whites are created equal." Why is one offensive and the other not? What if "white" was supposed to be the generic term for all races? Would it still be offensive? In general, to single out one demographic as if it is representative of ALL demographics when it is clearly not is offensive... *if* we're aware that's what we're doing. But gender bias goes very, very deep in our minds. We're not even aware it's happening most of the time. Think of the last time you saw/were/knew a pregnant woman. Did you feel all enlightened if you were PC enough to ask her if she was thinking of going back to work post-baby? But did you even think to ask her husband the same? Why not?
I could probably go on. And those examples are clearly not representative of *all* the possible problems of a grammatical masculine generic. The point is, that at some point in my life my inner grammarian embraced the idea of gender-neutral language for gender-neutral situations.
Enter the problem of plural second person.
Singular second person is simple: you.
And, theoretically, plural second person is also: you.
But then there's the *specificity* issue again. What if I *want* it to be totally clear that I am talking about a plural "you" and not a singular "you?"
My four year old answer was that smart people said, "You guys."
But how do I reconcile the fact that I *want* the specificity of a plural "you," but I don't want to gain that specificity by limiting my audience to a male "you?" What do I say then?
Well, "y'all."
It's a perfect word. By definition it refers to a plural "you." But there aren't any gender restrictions. It's easy to say--less clunky than "you guys" certainly! Kind of rolls off the tongue, actually.
Plus, there's sort of a connotation of fondness when you use that word. And since I actually am pretty fond of y'all, that's just a bonus.
We were living in Texas and I had a friend who lived across the street named Leah. We used to fight about who was going to marry Michael Jackson when they grew up. But I digress.
Leah's mom had this thick Texas accent. Since my parents were from California and we'd just recently moved there, we didn't have thick Texas accents in our house. And I found the whole Texas accent thing just baffling anyway. I thought it made people sound stoopid.
This one time, Leah's mom was asking about my family. "How are y'all doing?" she said.
I lost it.
"Do you have ANY idea what an IDIOT you sound like when you say 'y'all?!'" I yelled. "I don't think you're actually dumb, but you really sound dumb. Why don't you talk like a smart person and say 'you guys?'"
I don't remember what she said back. I think she might have just laughed at me (which would not have made me very happy). I was Lily's age, after all, and ranting preschoolers can be very entertaining. (Especially when they're talking about 'idiots.')
Fast forward a few decades.
I use "y'all" almost exclusively when referring to plural second person.
Why?
I have reasons.
Primarily, gendered reasons.
Back when I was in elementary school, I was taught, like most people, of a grammatical concept known as "the masculine generic." When the gender of an individual/group is unknown, the masculine term is used. Thus, "his/him/he/man" could all equally mean "She/her/woman." A few years later (high schoolish) when they started teaching "gender neutral" language, I actually used to get offended. "His/Man" didn't refer to "Her/Woman" only because THEY decided it didn't. And their insistence on being all PC only served to BUG me. (Oh, geez. This makes me think of another grammar rant I want to do about PC language! Gah. What's with my grammar obsession lately?!!)
I have changed my mind about this.
Because as I've gotten older, I've realized the main problem: people *say* that they mean "all" people when they say "men," but actually, they're just thinking of men. And so the "masculine generic" is actually the "masculine specific." And we really do a lot better language-wise when we're aware of our specificity.
Some examples:
1) Heart disease. Y'all know the symptoms, right? Pain in the left shoulder, pressure in chest, white clammy skin... But would it surprise you to find out that those are generally only the symptoms of MALE heart attacks? It surprised me. But it's a fairly typical problem of the masculine generic. Grammatical issues are reflective of cultural issues. You can never, ever, remove culture from language, so understanding language and its weaknesses is essentially a process of understanding cultural weakness. And we have traditionally assumed that the experience of the (mostly white, upper-class, straight, non-disabled) male is the *generic* experience of all people when it's not. Thus, a grammatical issue like the masculine generic leads to a wider assumption that there *aren't* major differences between certain groups when there are. And, hence, heart disease is the #1 killer of middle-aged women, many of whom are probably far more terrified of breast cancer, whose risk pales in comparison to that of heart disease.
2) Secretaries and nurses. Consider the following sentences: "A Nurse has a duty to ____ patients." Or, "Part of a secretary's job is to keep track of ____ boss's schedule." What pronoun did you use to fill in the blanks in your head? I'd be willing to bet that even though a big chunk of you were trained, like me, to use the "masculine generic," you thought "her." But notice that I didn't specify a gender in those sentences. According to the theoretical rules of the "masculine generic," if there is no stated/known gender, you should say "he" or "his." But we don't actually think of "his" as representing a generic. And so when faced with jobs that tend to be gender-specific (whether or not they *should* be is a topic for a whole different post), we don't think "his" (which should theoretically mean "her" to us unconsciously if it really *is* generic), we think "her."
3) Two sentences: "All men are created equal." Versus. "All whites are created equal." Why is one offensive and the other not? What if "white" was supposed to be the generic term for all races? Would it still be offensive? In general, to single out one demographic as if it is representative of ALL demographics when it is clearly not is offensive... *if* we're aware that's what we're doing. But gender bias goes very, very deep in our minds. We're not even aware it's happening most of the time. Think of the last time you saw/were/knew a pregnant woman. Did you feel all enlightened if you were PC enough to ask her if she was thinking of going back to work post-baby? But did you even think to ask her husband the same? Why not?
I could probably go on. And those examples are clearly not representative of *all* the possible problems of a grammatical masculine generic. The point is, that at some point in my life my inner grammarian embraced the idea of gender-neutral language for gender-neutral situations.
Enter the problem of plural second person.
Singular second person is simple: you.
And, theoretically, plural second person is also: you.
But then there's the *specificity* issue again. What if I *want* it to be totally clear that I am talking about a plural "you" and not a singular "you?"
My four year old answer was that smart people said, "You guys."
But how do I reconcile the fact that I *want* the specificity of a plural "you," but I don't want to gain that specificity by limiting my audience to a male "you?" What do I say then?
Well, "y'all."
It's a perfect word. By definition it refers to a plural "you." But there aren't any gender restrictions. It's easy to say--less clunky than "you guys" certainly! Kind of rolls off the tongue, actually.
Plus, there's sort of a connotation of fondness when you use that word. And since I actually am pretty fond of y'all, that's just a bonus.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Connotations
this is an example I use with my students. I didn't make it up. I got it from a book that Gary Hatch--the old director of composition at BYU--wrote. It is just a paraphrase, though, because I don't know where my copy of the book is (as if I could get up and look anyway! HA! if you know where my skin graft is, you know why this is harder than it sounds).
Example #1:
Coraline paused as she entered and glanced about. An elegant dress draped subtly along her slender form. Her smooth hair accentuated her chiseled features. As she accepted a rose from her escort, she smelled the petals and looked over into his eyes. Coraline had the talent of making every male feel like the only man in the world.
Example # 2:
Coraline halted as she arrived and looked around. A simple dress hung on her thin frame. Her flat hair accentuated her sharp features. As she took a flower from her date, she sniffed it and stared at him. Coraline had the habit of making every male feel like the last man on earth.
the difference between these examples is connotation. The *denotation*--dictionary, literal definition--of each word is the same. In fact, BOTH of these could be considered "accurate" translations of a non-English text into English. But whether or not they are "good" translations depends upon the translator's mastery of connotation--that is, all of the associations that build up around words.
i.e.
"chiseled" makes you think of an artist who sculpts with care, i.e., something beautiful, or, at least carefully crafted.
"sharp" makes you think of a knife, or cheese, i.e., something that either stinks or makes you bleed and feel pain.
When referring to a face, both these descriptors describe the same type of facial characteristics, so the denotation is the same. But the connotation can make one the opposite of the other.
Example #1:
Coraline paused as she entered and glanced about. An elegant dress draped subtly along her slender form. Her smooth hair accentuated her chiseled features. As she accepted a rose from her escort, she smelled the petals and looked over into his eyes. Coraline had the talent of making every male feel like the only man in the world.
Example # 2:
Coraline halted as she arrived and looked around. A simple dress hung on her thin frame. Her flat hair accentuated her sharp features. As she took a flower from her date, she sniffed it and stared at him. Coraline had the habit of making every male feel like the last man on earth.
the difference between these examples is connotation. The *denotation*--dictionary, literal definition--of each word is the same. In fact, BOTH of these could be considered "accurate" translations of a non-English text into English. But whether or not they are "good" translations depends upon the translator's mastery of connotation--that is, all of the associations that build up around words.
i.e.
"chiseled" makes you think of an artist who sculpts with care, i.e., something beautiful, or, at least carefully crafted.
"sharp" makes you think of a knife, or cheese, i.e., something that either stinks or makes you bleed and feel pain.
When referring to a face, both these descriptors describe the same type of facial characteristics, so the denotation is the same. But the connotation can make one the opposite of the other.
A few more bible words that do not mean what you think they mean:
delivered as per request.
Repent. Comes from the greek μετανοεω. Does NOT mean "stop doing bad stuff." DOES mean "Change the way you think." With our current (cultural) Mormon emphasis on certainty and a cultural environment that does not exactly encourage changing our thought patterns, we could all use a hefty dose of Mosiah 18:20.
Perfect. Comes from the greek τέλειός. Does NOT mean "without flaw." Does mean "mature," "complete," "having received ordinances of divinity." The "Be ye therefore perfect" phrase would better read, "Be ye therefore one with God." Atonement, anyone?
Helpmeet. Comes from two Hebrew words "Ezer" and "k'negdo" and means "A divine savior to be your equal." Does NOT mean servant. Does NOT mean subservient. (Does NOT mean a companion for you to preside over, either, but I don't wanna open THAT can of worms right now.) Eve does the things that Adam cannot do--she "saves" him--and she does everything as his equal. Makes her the hero of 2 Nephi 2: 25, really.
Beguile. As long as we're talking about Eve, let's talk about this one. It comes from a less common Hebrew word with many possible (and rich) connotations. It implies a deep internal struggle, one with a lot of thought, a lot of internal debate, consideration of consequences, and, ultimately, coming to a decision with full accountability. (See Beverly Campbell's Eve work for more on this; that's the first place I learned about a lot of it.) Eve as "that stupid girl who believed the snake" is not only a gross oversimplification, it's inherently false and misleading. Eve--given the conflicting commandments of "don't eat the fruit" and "multiply and replenish"--was essentially asked to choose between the law and love. Madeleine L'Engle talks about situations like this--specifically when talking about Abraham and his crazya' decision to sacrifice his only child--and said that God was asking him to choose between the law and love. Abraham chose the law. Eve chose love.
This next one is a little one and maybe nitpicky, but I thought it was interesting. In John 3:1-2, it says that Nicodemus came to Jesus "by night." But in the Greek, the case inflection used is the Genitive case, or possessive. Although used correctly in the sense translated, it also could indicate a level of possessiveness between Nicodemus and the Night. Nicodemus *was* the night's, grammatically speaking. (The 's after a word is a genitive case inflection, just so you know.)
I kind of always thought of Nicodemus as a bad guy, like most people. And the grammar does back this up. But I do have to say that this one Christmas, I went to church at my MIL's ward and Elder Ballard was talking and he mentioned having always felt like he had a "special kinship" with Nicodemus. At first, I found this very alarming. Nicodemus is basically the creepy white guy in a suit sitting at Enron who cares about profits above people and personal gain above the law. But Elder Ballard explained that he was always just a business man, like Nicodemus. He always wanted to follow Christ. And it always seemed harder for him than it seemed for other people. It was a struggle. Nicodemus wasn't a man who got visions and revelations, he was a *real* man, complete with his flaws. And yet, Nicodemus was the one who paid for Christ's funeral. Nicodemus was the one who kept coming to Jesus in spite of his inherent (nightly) nature. He was never a perfect man, but he never stopped trying. And isn't that what following Christ is about?
So I guess I have a little more empathy for that Nicodemus guy than I used to. (Things are all very simple and black and white when you're a 19 year old BYU student.)
If you're ever reading the bible and you find something questionable, I recommend the following:
1) Strong's Concordance. (I'll put a link below.) You can look up every instance of any word in the bible and trace it to its Hebrew/Greek root.
2) A Greek and Hebrew Lexicon. Connotations are the main thing lost in translation. In fact, I'll post a little example I show my students in my next post. Connotations really are the key to understanding meaning from language. And since language (as imperfect as it is) is all we have to understand stuff, it does us good to know how it works.
Repent. Comes from the greek μετανοεω. Does NOT mean "stop doing bad stuff." DOES mean "Change the way you think." With our current (cultural) Mormon emphasis on certainty and a cultural environment that does not exactly encourage changing our thought patterns, we could all use a hefty dose of Mosiah 18:20.
Perfect. Comes from the greek τέλειός. Does NOT mean "without flaw." Does mean "mature," "complete," "having received ordinances of divinity." The "Be ye therefore perfect" phrase would better read, "Be ye therefore one with God." Atonement, anyone?
Helpmeet. Comes from two Hebrew words "Ezer" and "k'negdo" and means "A divine savior to be your equal." Does NOT mean servant. Does NOT mean subservient. (Does NOT mean a companion for you to preside over, either, but I don't wanna open THAT can of worms right now.) Eve does the things that Adam cannot do--she "saves" him--and she does everything as his equal. Makes her the hero of 2 Nephi 2: 25, really.
Beguile. As long as we're talking about Eve, let's talk about this one. It comes from a less common Hebrew word with many possible (and rich) connotations. It implies a deep internal struggle, one with a lot of thought, a lot of internal debate, consideration of consequences, and, ultimately, coming to a decision with full accountability. (See Beverly Campbell's Eve work for more on this; that's the first place I learned about a lot of it.) Eve as "that stupid girl who believed the snake" is not only a gross oversimplification, it's inherently false and misleading. Eve--given the conflicting commandments of "don't eat the fruit" and "multiply and replenish"--was essentially asked to choose between the law and love. Madeleine L'Engle talks about situations like this--specifically when talking about Abraham and his crazya' decision to sacrifice his only child--and said that God was asking him to choose between the law and love. Abraham chose the law. Eve chose love.
This next one is a little one and maybe nitpicky, but I thought it was interesting. In John 3:1-2, it says that Nicodemus came to Jesus "by night." But in the Greek, the case inflection used is the Genitive case, or possessive. Although used correctly in the sense translated, it also could indicate a level of possessiveness between Nicodemus and the Night. Nicodemus *was* the night's, grammatically speaking. (The 's after a word is a genitive case inflection, just so you know.)
I kind of always thought of Nicodemus as a bad guy, like most people. And the grammar does back this up. But I do have to say that this one Christmas, I went to church at my MIL's ward and Elder Ballard was talking and he mentioned having always felt like he had a "special kinship" with Nicodemus. At first, I found this very alarming. Nicodemus is basically the creepy white guy in a suit sitting at Enron who cares about profits above people and personal gain above the law. But Elder Ballard explained that he was always just a business man, like Nicodemus. He always wanted to follow Christ. And it always seemed harder for him than it seemed for other people. It was a struggle. Nicodemus wasn't a man who got visions and revelations, he was a *real* man, complete with his flaws. And yet, Nicodemus was the one who paid for Christ's funeral. Nicodemus was the one who kept coming to Jesus in spite of his inherent (nightly) nature. He was never a perfect man, but he never stopped trying. And isn't that what following Christ is about?
So I guess I have a little more empathy for that Nicodemus guy than I used to. (Things are all very simple and black and white when you're a 19 year old BYU student.)
If you're ever reading the bible and you find something questionable, I recommend the following:
1) Strong's Concordance. (I'll put a link below.) You can look up every instance of any word in the bible and trace it to its Hebrew/Greek root.
2) A Greek and Hebrew Lexicon. Connotations are the main thing lost in translation. In fact, I'll post a little example I show my students in my next post. Connotations really are the key to understanding meaning from language. And since language (as imperfect as it is) is all we have to understand stuff, it does us good to know how it works.
And Just FYI
This was the one we choose as the best new testament translation. It had the accuracy of the KJV (about 80% of the KJV came from the Tyndale anyway) and the beauty of monoauthorial poetry.
Also, we really like Tyndale because he was burned at the stake for preaching the heresy that "Even a Plow Boy should be able to read the bible." Since Mormonism was founded when our own farm boy was reading his bible (English bible! Not Latin/Greek/Hebrew! That was the Heresy, BTW; They used to think that God *wanted* us to have scripture as mystery) and he came upon that verse that said to ask and so he went into the woods (everything good always happens in the woods)... you know the story. So boo on the burning for heresy, but woot for him having the guts to write a readable bible.
If you don't have one you should buy one because it is beautiful. Pure poetry. Makes the KJV feel all clunky.
ps: the first time I was asked to read non KJV translations of the bible, I kind of felt like I was doing something "dirty." And at BYU, no less! But it was quite the opposite. We're *supposed* to understand the processes and errors of translations in the bible. Yay for the 8th article of faith! And you will love it if you do. Email me if you want suggestions of bible translations to start with.
Also, we really like Tyndale because he was burned at the stake for preaching the heresy that "Even a Plow Boy should be able to read the bible." Since Mormonism was founded when our own farm boy was reading his bible (English bible! Not Latin/Greek/Hebrew! That was the Heresy, BTW; They used to think that God *wanted* us to have scripture as mystery) and he came upon that verse that said to ask and so he went into the woods (everything good always happens in the woods)... you know the story. So boo on the burning for heresy, but woot for him having the guts to write a readable bible.
If you don't have one you should buy one because it is beautiful. Pure poetry. Makes the KJV feel all clunky.
ps: the first time I was asked to read non KJV translations of the bible, I kind of felt like I was doing something "dirty." And at BYU, no less! But it was quite the opposite. We're *supposed* to understand the processes and errors of translations in the bible. Yay for the 8th article of faith! And you will love it if you do. Email me if you want suggestions of bible translations to start with.
But what do you mean the appearance of evil doesn't mean what I think it means?!!
In my History of the English language seminar that I took from the lovely Professor Don Chapman, we had this assignment where we had to compare translations of the New Testament. We had to learn enough Greek to verify word choices and conjugations and inflections and such and essentially write a translation for one chapter. Then we had to use about twelve different bible translations from twelve different times in English history and decide which translation was first: the most accurate; and second: the most poetic; and third: the best combination of poetry and accuracy.
we found some really interesting things as we did this.
One such was a mind-blowing re-working of the phrase: "Avoid even the very appearance of evil."
We all know how this verse has been *used.* It's been used to tell us that we should not get tattoos and have purple hair and piercings because *appearance* matters and we do not want to *appear* like we are/know a drug dealer. I think a lot of Mormon appearance obsession can be traced directly back to this verse. And, um, we gotta lot of appearance obsession. (Ooo, Audra! There's another one: "gotta.")
The problem is that while the phrase "very appearance" does represent an accurate translation from the Greek to early modern English it is NOT an accurate translation into Modern English.
My brain iz toast, so I don't remember what it meant back then (Zina: do you?). But I do remember the way that the verse would read if we were to have it translated directly from the Greek to *modern* English. It would read: "Avoid evil in all its forms (even the little ones)."
So unless there is sin in having purple hair, you can have your purple hair and look like a drug dealer or whatev. According to King James, at least. It's the *sin* that matters, not its "appearance."
Purple hairlers unite. [Kick! Make me a purple hair picture, would you?!]
post edit:
woot!
we found some really interesting things as we did this.
One such was a mind-blowing re-working of the phrase: "Avoid even the very appearance of evil."
We all know how this verse has been *used.* It's been used to tell us that we should not get tattoos and have purple hair and piercings because *appearance* matters and we do not want to *appear* like we are/know a drug dealer. I think a lot of Mormon appearance obsession can be traced directly back to this verse. And, um, we gotta lot of appearance obsession. (Ooo, Audra! There's another one: "gotta.")
The problem is that while the phrase "very appearance" does represent an accurate translation from the Greek to early modern English it is NOT an accurate translation into Modern English.
My brain iz toast, so I don't remember what it meant back then (Zina: do you?). But I do remember the way that the verse would read if we were to have it translated directly from the Greek to *modern* English. It would read: "Avoid evil in all its forms (even the little ones)."
So unless there is sin in having purple hair, you can have your purple hair and look like a drug dealer or whatev. According to King James, at least. It's the *sin* that matters, not its "appearance."
Purple hairlers unite. [Kick! Make me a purple hair picture, would you?!]
post edit:
woot!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
My cousin Audra wants to know about funky slang spelling (would you be more or less likely to read this if you knew there'll be swear words?)
cuz I've been known to spell things funkily. I guess some people expect English professors to know how to spell. Confession: I was never that type of English professor.
However, since I am AMAZINGLY bored, I will write a post about SPELLING! It's more exciting than it sounds, though. Blood, guts, class wars, insanity... Oh, wait, the insanity part is just about the OED.
Question One: Why does English have such funky spelling?
Well, don't quote me on this because I just had major surgery and am weaning off pain medicine. I may or may not remember my English language history right.
But a long, long time ago, English used to be a Germanic language. We call this period in language history Old English. Contrary to popular belief, Shakespeare did not speak Old English. Beowulf did. But I think he was fictional.
Then came the Norman invasion of 1066. The Normans spoke a Latinate language, similar to French. Not, like, similar enough that you'd *recognize* it if you spoke French, of course. Not that you'd recognize Old English, either.
Well, now there was a situation where the Normans were the ruling class and the Germanic Old English was the language of the plebeian masses.
The thing about language is that it changes. It evolves to suit the requirements of the society that uses it. With a Norman ruling class and a Germanic peasant class, the language eventually evolved into what we academicky people call "Middle English." Shakespeare did NOT speak Middle English. And if I were to speak Middle English at you, you wouldn't understand it, either. Ooooo! I think I'll have Tom speak some for you!
The fun thing about Middle English and the whole Norman/Germanic split is swear words! This is a tricky lesson to go over at BYU, but the reason that we have the swear words we do goes right back to the Normans and their peasants. See whoever is in charge becomes the more "refined" or "dignified" language. Queen's English, right? Even if your monarch is a jerk, people tend to go all sycophantic around them. So the words that the ruling classes used became "refined" and the words that the peasants used became "dirty."
Consider:
defaecate: a Latinate word for voiding
vs.
sh*t: a Germanic word for same
also:
canine: Latinate
b*tch: Germanic
I could go on, but I won't because we're family friendly here. Sort of.
The thing about Middle English is that they invented the printing press (at least in the West) while they were speaking Middle English. And the most fascinating thing is, back then they spelled English the way it sounded. Novel, right?!
Middle English still had some degenerated versions of case inflections in it, back from when it was a Germanic language. So the silent 'e' at the end of some words? (Like 'case' and 'some'!) Those were actually degraded case inflections and they would have been pronounced.
But for some friggin reason, some of the very first Grammar Nazi's decided to come to play during the same time. It kind of had to do with the rise of a middle class. The split between peasant and royalty was pretty simple back in Beowulf's day. But during Middle English times, you started to have people who weren't exactly classy and who weren't exactly trashy. And, well, what then? How do you prove you're not riff raff? Some super smart dude decided, "I know! I'll prove how classy I am because I'll SPELL properly!!" Blah on them. Because EVERYONE wants to prove how classy they are. And because of the printing press, that meant a whole heck of a lot of people decided to spell properly because no one wanted to be a part of the icky plebeian masses.
So English spelling froze in time.
But language keeps on changing.
And one of the changes (among many) was that we didn't need case inflections at all, so we just stopped pronouncing those pesky e's. (Didn't stop *spelling* them, though. Cuz we're classy like that.) Another super fun one that happened sometime between the 1400's and 1500's was what's called "The Great Vowel Shift." Academics like to say it like that cuz it sounds dirty. All it means is people started to pronounce vowels different.
So Middle English became Early Modern English. And YES! Shakespeare spoke Early Modern English. So did King James. You can actually understand most of Early Modern English, though there are plenty of places that it's different. That whole "avoid the very appearance of evil" thing, for example? Does not mean what you think it means.
Eventually, Early Modern English became Modern English. But, you have to remember there are no clean lines. Language evolves slowly and is totally influenced by culture.
And what is the great cultural influence over language today? Technology. Texting, IMing, Twitter, all of that. IT (double capital left on purpose because there's two meanings to that word now!) made people tired of having to spell out archaic spellings just for the sake of being proper. If you only have 140 characters in which to say what you want to say, you sure as heck don't want to waste your time transcribing remnants of case inflections that are literally meaningless now.
So now we occasionally go back to spelling things the same way we pronounce them!
Halleluja. If we keep it up, language scholars from the future will thank you because then they'll actually know how we said stuff.
So back to what Audra wanted: a tutorial about "slang" spelling.
The key to spelling something "slang": spell it the way it sounds.
that's prettymuch all there is to it.
I have a couple of words I spell my own way.
cuz
sux
gotta
gonna
yanno/yunno
thanx
stooopid
tho
lemmie
iz
(lots of these added post edit with y'alls help.)
I can't think of any more right now. Can y'all think of more? Ooo. Y'all. I have a long grammar rant about why I use that word, too.
However, since I am AMAZINGLY bored, I will write a post about SPELLING! It's more exciting than it sounds, though. Blood, guts, class wars, insanity... Oh, wait, the insanity part is just about the OED.
Question One: Why does English have such funky spelling?
Well, don't quote me on this because I just had major surgery and am weaning off pain medicine. I may or may not remember my English language history right.
But a long, long time ago, English used to be a Germanic language. We call this period in language history Old English. Contrary to popular belief, Shakespeare did not speak Old English. Beowulf did. But I think he was fictional.
Then came the Norman invasion of 1066. The Normans spoke a Latinate language, similar to French. Not, like, similar enough that you'd *recognize* it if you spoke French, of course. Not that you'd recognize Old English, either.
Well, now there was a situation where the Normans were the ruling class and the Germanic Old English was the language of the plebeian masses.
The thing about language is that it changes. It evolves to suit the requirements of the society that uses it. With a Norman ruling class and a Germanic peasant class, the language eventually evolved into what we academicky people call "Middle English." Shakespeare did NOT speak Middle English. And if I were to speak Middle English at you, you wouldn't understand it, either. Ooooo! I think I'll have Tom speak some for you!
The fun thing about Middle English and the whole Norman/Germanic split is swear words! This is a tricky lesson to go over at BYU, but the reason that we have the swear words we do goes right back to the Normans and their peasants. See whoever is in charge becomes the more "refined" or "dignified" language. Queen's English, right? Even if your monarch is a jerk, people tend to go all sycophantic around them. So the words that the ruling classes used became "refined" and the words that the peasants used became "dirty."
Consider:
defaecate: a Latinate word for voiding
vs.
sh*t: a Germanic word for same
also:
canine: Latinate
b*tch: Germanic
I could go on, but I won't because we're family friendly here. Sort of.
The thing about Middle English is that they invented the printing press (at least in the West) while they were speaking Middle English. And the most fascinating thing is, back then they spelled English the way it sounded. Novel, right?!
Middle English still had some degenerated versions of case inflections in it, back from when it was a Germanic language. So the silent 'e' at the end of some words? (Like 'case' and 'some'!) Those were actually degraded case inflections and they would have been pronounced.
But for some friggin reason, some of the very first Grammar Nazi's decided to come to play during the same time. It kind of had to do with the rise of a middle class. The split between peasant and royalty was pretty simple back in Beowulf's day. But during Middle English times, you started to have people who weren't exactly classy and who weren't exactly trashy. And, well, what then? How do you prove you're not riff raff? Some super smart dude decided, "I know! I'll prove how classy I am because I'll SPELL properly!!" Blah on them. Because EVERYONE wants to prove how classy they are. And because of the printing press, that meant a whole heck of a lot of people decided to spell properly because no one wanted to be a part of the icky plebeian masses.
So English spelling froze in time.
But language keeps on changing.
And one of the changes (among many) was that we didn't need case inflections at all, so we just stopped pronouncing those pesky e's. (Didn't stop *spelling* them, though. Cuz we're classy like that.) Another super fun one that happened sometime between the 1400's and 1500's was what's called "The Great Vowel Shift." Academics like to say it like that cuz it sounds dirty. All it means is people started to pronounce vowels different.
So Middle English became Early Modern English. And YES! Shakespeare spoke Early Modern English. So did King James. You can actually understand most of Early Modern English, though there are plenty of places that it's different. That whole "avoid the very appearance of evil" thing, for example? Does not mean what you think it means.
Eventually, Early Modern English became Modern English. But, you have to remember there are no clean lines. Language evolves slowly and is totally influenced by culture.
And what is the great cultural influence over language today? Technology. Texting, IMing, Twitter, all of that. IT (double capital left on purpose because there's two meanings to that word now!) made people tired of having to spell out archaic spellings just for the sake of being proper. If you only have 140 characters in which to say what you want to say, you sure as heck don't want to waste your time transcribing remnants of case inflections that are literally meaningless now.
So now we occasionally go back to spelling things the same way we pronounce them!
Halleluja. If we keep it up, language scholars from the future will thank you because then they'll actually know how we said stuff.
So back to what Audra wanted: a tutorial about "slang" spelling.
The key to spelling something "slang": spell it the way it sounds.
that's prettymuch all there is to it.
I have a couple of words I spell my own way.
cuz
sux
gotta
gonna
yanno/yunno
thanx
stooopid
tho
lemmie
iz
(lots of these added post edit with y'alls help.)
I can't think of any more right now. Can y'all think of more? Ooo. Y'all. I have a long grammar rant about why I use that word, too.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Students! Alert! Grammar Link!
So, y'all who know me well enough to have experienced one of my oh-so-enlightening grammar rants will know that I am not a prescriptionist. Indeed: prescriptionists annoy me with their snobbiness and refusal to acknowledge that reality--->language--->reality.
Nevertheless.
This was a very useful read. If you'd prefer to not look stupid, that is.
However.
I disagree with their interpretation of the word "hopefully." It's been used the "wrong" way so often that using it the "wrong" way no longer makes you look stupid. In fact, if you're the kind of person who would call other people on this "wrong" use, you're the one who will look stupid. For not friggin acknowledging reality.
End rant.
Here's the link: http://www.copyblogger.com/commonly-misused-words/
Nevertheless.
This was a very useful read. If you'd prefer to not look stupid, that is.
However.
I disagree with their interpretation of the word "hopefully." It's been used the "wrong" way so often that using it the "wrong" way no longer makes you look stupid. In fact, if you're the kind of person who would call other people on this "wrong" use, you're the one who will look stupid. For not friggin acknowledging reality.
End rant.
Here's the link: http://www.copyblogger.com/commonly-misused-words/
Friday, September 19, 2008
Someone needs to tell Barney
that his attempt at gender neutral language is appreciated, though it is so forced as to sound... awkward.
however.
1) english is an ordinally hierarchical language and, thus, "his or her," while seemingly PC on the surface, actually implies a hierarchy with "his" being above "her."
2) grammar is fluid and goes to usage. thus, it has become not only PC but *grammatically acceptable* to say "everyone is special in *their* own way." "Their" being an acceptable gender-neutral single pronoun. (Actually has been since Jane Austen, apparently.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)