Archive for 2012

fugues

April 10, 2012

Today’s Bizarro, with a pun on fugue:

(with an accompanying pun on minor). There’s a musical and a medical sense of fugue; from NOAD2:

Music a contrapuntal composition in which a short melody or phrase (the subject) is introduced by one part and successively taken up by others and developed by interweaving the parts.

Psychiatry a state or period of loss of awareness of one’s identity, often coupled with flight from one’s usual environment, associated with certain forms of hysteria and epilepsy.

Remarkably, these two words share an etymology, going back to Latin fuga ‘flight’, related to the verb fugere ‘to flee’ — with metaphorical extensions of flee in two different directions, in two different domains. (Because of the common etymology, the two words are listed in dictionaries in a single entry, though the relationship between the two will not be obvious to any ordinary speaker of the language.)

In tandem with this ambiguity, there’s a parallel ambiguity in minor: a musical sense, referring to a scale or to an interval within that scale; and an older general sense, meaning ‘lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance’. The first is a metaphorical development from the second, and both are contrasted with major. So: a minor fugue, a contrapuntal composition in a minor key or a psychiatric condition of lesser importance.

(Bonus: the Latin fug- ‘flee’ root crops up in other English words: fugitive, refuge, refugee, and the rarer fugacious ‘passing away quickly, evanescent’.)

almost not

April 10, 2012

Yesterday’s Zits, featuring Jeremy and his dad:

First, Jeremy steps back from saying that what his father said was not uncool (which isn’t all the way to saying that it was cool — so, sort of cool), but moderates this already modest assertion with almost; so Jeremy sees it as not quite sort of cool, but in the right direction. Then his father picks up on the almost not, and uses it to say that what Jeremy said almost didn’t make him feel insulted; that is, he felt insulted, but just barely.

Distinguished linguist

April 8, 2012

A piece of weekend silliness: a recent request, from someone with the name of a distinguished linguist, to go into my circles on Google+. The name was a common-enough one, so I thought to check him out. And got this steamy photo:

Entertaining, but not anyone I know.

Turing at 100

April 8, 2012

In the April 4th Princeton Alumni Magazine, “Daybreak of the Digital Age: The world celebrates the man who imagined the computer”, by W. Barksdale Maynard: a piece on Alan Turing, the great mathematician (and, during WWII, an extraordinary code-breaker) who got his Ph.D. from Princeton in 1938. His 100th birthday comes on June 23rd, to celebrations in Princeton and in the U.K. There’s even a commemorative stamp, in the Britons of Distinction series for this year:

Alas, the stamp depicts, not Turing, but the Bombe, the electromechanical device used by the World War II codebreakers at Bletchley Park to decipher messages encoded by Nazi Germany using Enigma machines.

In a little while, I’ll get to my connections to Turing. But first, various bits of background. (more…)

Occupy English

April 8, 2012

In the April issue of IEEE Spectrum, an article “Occupy English” by Paul McFedries, about the vocabulary introduced by the Occupy movement. The intro:

Occupy is an old word, of course, but by late 2011 it had come to have a new meaning: “to take possession of and remain in a place without authorization as a form of protest.” In fact, the protesters soon largely abandoned the “Wall Street” portion of the name, and the protests became more generally known as the capital-O Occupy movement. Indeed, the word became so iconic that the American Dialect Society voted it Word of the Year for 2011.

and the conclusion:

The language is richer for these new additions to the vocabulary, but it remains to be seen if this movement can create more than just linguistic wealth.

(more…)

Double dactyl for Easter

April 8, 2012

[In the news, reported here: 65-year-old Rep. Timothy Johnson of Illinois has cited family obligations for his decision not to run for re-election; Johnson has a family of 22: 9 children, 11 grandchildren, and 2 great-grandchildren. Meanwhile, today is Easter, a Christian holiday that has picked up associations with springtime celebrations of fecundity (featuring rabbits, eggs, and chicks).]

Bunny Hop

Hippity, hoppity,
Congressman Johnson is
Father and grandfather,
Great-grandsire too.
Loving his family, so
Philoprogenitive,
Duties are calling him —
Oh, twenty-two.

[On double dactyls, see here and here.]

 

Our philoprogenitive congressmen

April 7, 2012

From “A Candidate No More” (by Stephen Yaccino) in the NYT yesterday:

Representative Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois will not continue his re-election bid, despite winning the Repiblican Party nomination in a primary last month.

… Mr. Johnson, 65, cited a “strained” schedule and family obligations for his decision. He is a father of 9 children, 11 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren.

“One of my grandsons is 2 years old; I have seen him for a total of about 10 minutes,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement. “I have another grandson who asked me not long ago if I was ever going to come to one of his ballgames. I didn’t have an answer.”

So Johnson is philoprogenitive in both senses.

(more…)

hopefully

April 5, 2012

It’s one of those topics in English usage that just will not die. It erupted on ADS-L yesterday, with this query from Dan Nussbaum:

In the sentence, “Hopefully, the sun will rise tomorrow” the word hopefully is being used incorrectly. What word should be used?

And then we were off on a familiar path. Larry Horn got in first, noting that there was nothing incorrect about the example; Lisa Galvin reported that she had a professor long ago who said that the proper usage should be I hope rather than hopefully, since as it stands the sentence says “that the sun itself is full of hope that it will rise tomorrow”; and Larry replied:

“Hopefully” is a sentence adverb in such contexts and has been used as such for decades — while also being a manner adverb in “The dog is sitting hopefully by her food dish”.  (Not arguing with Lisa here, but with her long-ago professor and my fellow [AHD] Usage Panelists who vote with the majority to condemn this perfectly ordinary and proper usage.)

Pretty much everyone who writes about English usage has taken on hopefully, and the informed consensus is solidly with Larry, but a bizarre irrational prejudice continues against sentence adverbial hopefully.

(more…)

Redundancy vs. simplicity

April 4, 2012

From David Parkinson on Facebook, an expression of his frustration in his German class:

If your language (like English) doesn’t have much inflectional morphology, then learning a language with a respectable amount of it (like German) can be a chore: you have to learn to mark all sorts of distinctions in grammatical categories that don’t come naturally to you.

Many of these inflectional marks are, at least in part, redundant (in a technical sense); they reinforce category distinctions that are marked in other ways. Marks of agreement are like this. So, in German, the definite article agrees in case, gender, and number with its head noun.

Speaking very crudely, these redundant marks are helpful to the hearer, by giving extra cues to relationships among the parts of phrases and clauses. They aid comprehension.

On the other hand, these redundant marks require effort on the part of the speaker, in planning language production and and accessing the appropriate inflectional forms. They work against simplicity.

There are trade-offs here. Redundancy is good. But simplicity is good too.

 

Linguists as villains

April 3, 2012

A letter from Martin Schell (Princeton ’74) of Klaten, Central Java, in the Princeton Alumni Weekly of April 4th points an accusing finger at linguists:

I wish Olivia Waring ’12 success in her study of Tibetan dialects as a Sachs scholar (Campus Notebook, Jan. 18). Ironically, the “homogenization” that she wrings her hands about is directly attributable to the study of linguistics that she loves so much. As Patrick Geary notes in The Myth of Nations, “The infinite gradations of broad linguistic groups in Europe were chopped up by scientific rules into separate languages,” leading directly to standardized languages in 19th-century Europe.

Aside from the fact that linguistics these days is not much like the linguistics of the 19th century, there’s the question of what the linguists of those days had to do with the development of standard languages in 19th-century Europe: were these linguistic scholars (who were mostly historical-comparative linguists, philologists, and dialectologists) responsible for “chopping up” the language varieties of Europe “by scientific rules”?

Not at all, by the usual accounts of standardization, which see it as directed by political figures, writers and critics, educators, church authorities, and other public figures — insofar as standardization is directed rather than spontaneous. The role of linguistic scholars in these developments seems largely to have been to describe the linguistic practices of socially and culturally significant groups, by compiling dictionaries and grammars for the varieties used by these groups.