photo by Walter Henritze
1972. We were young, we were opinionated, we were almost certainly right about everything, and we were laying down the rules. A lot of things were going to have to change: attitudes about women, about gays, about war, about the environment. The language had to change, too.
For one thing, we were women. Calling us “girls” diminished us. Which was true. But it was normal. Calling yourself a “woman” straight out of high school felt like putting on airs. And about forty years. So if someone said “that woman” and pointed at us, we looked over our shoulder to see who they were talking about. It all took some getting used to.
Which is why it was so hilarious when my sweet Max reported he casually mentioned to his mother that he was “seeing a woman”—trying valiantly to make the usage sound normal—and his mother, scandalized, said “You’re seeing a WOMAN?” Basically, she thought he was seeing Mrs. Robinson, not me.
And that was well before he was seeing men, so that was not the issue.
Then we started tinkering with the words themselves, certain that we would effect lasting societal change. We made rules, by goddess. Some of our efforts skidded into the ditch, like “wimmen” and “womyn.” Those never got traction. You can try to steer the car your way, but sometimes nobody gets in the passenger seat.
Woman: it means wife-man. Clearly objectionable, needed fixing. Fun fact: “wimmen” is not only a creation of 1970s feminists but is also the exact same spelling of the original Old English word meaning “wife-man.” Oops!
It’s not that English can’t handle it. English can handle anything. English bears the boot-prints of every army that ever invaded it, which was most of them at one point or another. But the vanquished made off with the words of their conquerors as their own spoils. Consequently English has a vocabulary so large and rich it doesn’t even need to steal other languages’ lunch money. Other languages just pay tribute to English on their own. English is a broad, muscular juggernaut of an evolving language and it will survive all attempts to evolve it by fiat.
Juggernaut: Sanskrit/Odia Jagannātha, lord of the world. Large chariots bearing his image were said to have crushed devout Hindus who sacrificed themselves under their wheels. Stolen by English, 1342.
So today, once again, we are daily instructed where we’ve gone wrong. The rules are being laid down. It’s person with a substance use disorder, not addict. Person experiencing houselessness, not homeless person. Person with an intellectual disability, not Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I understand the point. It is thought that the attitudes and reality itself are as much influenced by the language we use as the other way around, and that in order to change those attitudes and reality, we need to make our language conform to our ideals. There’s truth to that, or some of that. For my money, “person experiencing houselessness” is no improvement on “homeless person,” which is quite as descriptive, nimbler, and doesn’t presume that the person saying it is passing judgment. Our mother tongue is fluid, agile, and compact, and you can pack a load of meaning into one sentence without larding it up with prepositional phrases like it’s French or something. It’s a superpower English has, and I wince to see it strung out and enfeebled by modern demands on it to carry all the water for necessary change.
I don’t think it needs to, either.
Every injustice, every insult, every offense that has ever been committed against a human being is already buried in this language, and been forgotten in the compression of time. The original offenses are no more dangerous now than dinosaur bones.
And yet we’re busy tying a clatter of tin cans on the bumper of our beautiful juggernaut.
Maybe these little engineering efforts are worthwhile, or at least worth thinking about. I don’t disagree with the motives, and I approve of kindness. But to the degree that our word usage undermines our ideals, I believe it is minor. Current dogma holds otherwise, I’m aware. Still, I think it’s something to celebrate when your own language allows you to take a headline like “person with a mental health disability reported missing from psychiatric institution,” and substitute “Nut bolts.”
I’m a Progressive, but I roll my eyes at some of these terms. Instead of having a pithy term for something, a term we have always used and know what it means, the “rules” are now that you have to obfuscate the meaning of a word by having a fuckton of modifiers to go with it. One that particularly made me eye-roll was reading that museums are no longer calling mummies mummies anymore. They are “mummified human remains.” Why? Because people associate “mummies” with horror films, so they think that the mummies in the cases are not real. So we’re supposed to change the way we speak because some people are dumb as a brick? SMH.
We old.
You are funny. “Person with an intellectual disability, not Marjorie Taylor Greene.” I got a snort out of that one.
All about the snorts, hon.
…and “Nut bolts”.
I attended a lecture some years ago presented by an oil company exec who had obtained artwork while serving in an African country. He obtained it in a quasi acceptable manner by letting it be known that he would pay for tribal artwork. By this means he acquired a bunch of sacred masks and carvings that he admitted probably were stolen from their caretakers/temples.
No one in the audience objected to the ransacking of cultural heritage.
Their objection was that he referred to it as tribal artwork. They suggested a multi-word title that I have now forgotten which they considered to be more culturally sensitive.
At this point a man stood up with ritual scars on his cheeks and let it be known that he had no problem with tribal and explained at length how it was far more applicable than the newly suggested term.
I have read, and you probably know more about this than I, that “Native Americans” actually don’t mind being called “Indian.” What’s your take on this? The only person I knew was part Cherokee, and he just called himself “part Cherokee.”
All of this reminds me of the story about the correct ways of referring to various native populations, and how important it was to do so. I was interested because my nephew’s wife is Eskimo, her family and most of her village refers to themselves as Eskimo, and yet white people are constantly being told that is incorrect. “It’s Inuit,” we are told. Well. She is not Inuit, she is Inupiaq, and calls herself Eskimo. I’m staying out of it at this point. But someone in this story who was scolding everyone for the way they referred to an African tribe–they insisted the tribe called themselves “X”—finally asked someone in the tribe what “X” means, and was told: “It means the people.” All over the world, the names of groups boiled down to “the people.”
Yup, the people is standard. There’s the people and then there’s outsiders.
I’ve heard the same. That Native Americans prefer Indian, that they refer to themselves as Indians and then as their tribal affiliation.
In my story, the person who got angry about the use of the word tribal was African American. The African from Africa seemed to be amused by her outrage over the term.
Sort of butting in here, Mimianderly, because you did ask Murr to comment, but it is my understanding that Native American Indians (see what I did there?) prefer to be referred to by their tribal association (hence “Cherokee” or “part Cherokee”) if known, but do not, generally, object to the term Indian. Native “American” being problematic itself, of course, because they were here long before it was called America by white people.
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I heard. (Or read.) But I really don’t know enough of them to ask about it. The only one I knew was a man who taught a herbal medicine class, and he called himself “half-Cherokee.” The rest is just stuff I read, which can be faulty.
Several years ago when I was a vendor at Portland Saturday Market, a British tourist came by and asked me where she could find any “Red Indians”. I was so stunned, I don’t remember what I mumbled, but she left quickly before I had the presence of mind to tell her that was likely a very offensive term.
I did have a native American visitor to my booth, who used to come around from time to time, by the name of Standing Elk. He had me make a standing elk for him.
It gets damn complicated.
Person with an intellectual disability, not Marjorie Taylor Greene. – hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
She has “fetal alcohol syndrome” written all over her face. Well, probably not, but I just thought I’d put that out there.
And Matt Gaetz’s visage strongly suggests “congenital syphillitic.”
My Father’s maternal family is Tuscarora, which is one of the Haudenosaunee or Six Nations. In our Native language, which is Skarù•ręʔ, we call ourselves ękwehˋę•we, which means “real people”. In most Native languages in the Americas everyone calls themselves some version of that. We are ‘the real men’, the real people, the original people, the first people. 🙂 That MTG quip was brilliant, and ‘nut bolts’. In the midst of an ongoing personal storm you’re a port I can hove into twice a week Murr. Thanks for being there.
Come on in any time and throw out a bumper before you hit the dock, Deb!
Murr, interesting essay… This reminds me of a Ted Talk I quite enjoyed. If you listen all the way toward the end of the 14 minute talk, she describes how language can affect our perception of blame.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RKK7wGAYP6k&si=qKfb_pe9Xhjr9KVW
I don’t agree with using more words than are necessary. Keep it simple.
In the fourth grade, I was taught that ‘notoriety’ meant ‘well-known for bad behavior’ like Bonnie and Clyde. The correct term for someone known for accomplishments of a more positive nature is ‘notable.’ I guess this has changed.
Our teacher then made us all very confused when she did a lesson on ‘disinterested.’ At the time (1950’s) it meant neutral, as for someone called in to judge a dispute. Now it is used to mean ‘uninterested.’
So goeth Grade 4.
I was taught the proper meaning of words, too. (We’re probably in the same cohort.) And because English was one of my favorite subjects, and I’m a nerd, I still use them the correct way. I detest that they are now used incorrectly — even in the news media — and everyone thinks it’s okay. Another one I hate is when people use “penultimate” when they mean “ultimate.” They think that by adding another syllable to it, it makes it more impressive. Or when they say “very unique.” Since unique means “one of a kind,” something is either unique or it isn’t. Get rid of the “very”, people!
Hmm. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone use “notorious” as a neutral description, but I’m sure I will! I used to fret about these things a lot more than I do now. At this point, whatever anyone says is fine with me, although I’m careful with my own words. I get more prickly about poor usage in newspapers and the like. And I’m still triggered by “comprised of” because I have PTSD about my dad jumping all over us on that one. *Every* time.
Hello.
Hi!
I much prefer “nut bolts” to the alternative. I like concise and to the point.
I guess the latest term we’re not supposed to use is “prostitute” Now it’s “sex worker”. Same number of syllables, but I still roll my eyes. Guess if I’m going to say “whore” I’d better have smelling salts ready.
I don’t like limits put on my language. Personally, anyway. And there’s no HR department in this house.
Are we making puns now (Nut Bolts)?
Remember when the first Pres. Bush made a big fuss over not liking broccoli, and the fuss grew and spread to the general public, whereupon a headline writer created the best that has ever been or will ever be:
“Broccoli Rhubarb Mushrooms”
You’re welcome!
THANKS!
Oh, that is pure gold!
Oh, Susan! That made me laugh even more than the MTG reference.
Perhaps appropriate ‘tribal’ identification should depend on the vantage point and the degree to which a distinction is required: Hence, if you’re, say, African American, you might refer to “old white men.” But you may need to offer more clarity with a location, like “old Nebraskan men.” Or, the Hansen family patriarchs. (By then whatever you say about may be more accurate. 😉)
Perhaps appropriate ‘tribal’ identification should depend on the vantage point and the degree to which a distinction is required: Hence, if you’re, say, African American, you might refer to “old white men.” But you may need to offer more clarity with a location, like “old Nebraskan men.” Or, the Hansen family patriarchs. (By then whatever you say about them may be more accurate. 😉)
I’ll call people whatever they prefer. It is getting harder though because a lot of things are coming down to the individual level and I can’t even remember if my guests are gluten-free or not.
That’s one of the reasons I don’t invite people over for dinner. There are the vegans… vegetarians… pescatarians… carnivores… I just can’t keep up! Then there are those who can’t tolerate gluten, or lactose, or whatever-the-fuck. It is easier just not to socialize at all or to do so in a restaurant and let THEM deal with this crap.
I love this post, Murr, and the comments, everybody!
Am I the only one bothered by the replacement of “pregnant women” with “pregnant people”? Or “bicyclists” with “people on bicycles”? Or the confusion of “recalcitrant” with “reluctant”? Or the British use of “brilliant” (oft shortened to “brill” or maybe “bril,” I don’t know) to mean merely “very good”?
And Susan, the now decades-long misuse of “disinterested” has been driving me nuts. (“Short drive,” my wife would say.)
Then there’s the now nearly universal misuse of “beg the question…”
According to Merriam-Webster (and yes–I looked it up long ago out of curiosity), the current “correct” distinctions between disinterested and uninterested were originally reversed. More than once I have discovered that things I was sure were wrong, weren’t. Or didn’t use to be. This is one reason I am more relaxed about the whole thing now.
Please, teach me how to be “more relaxed”! I’m not doing very well so far.
Jeremy, I think if there’s a key it involves accepting how little control you have over anyone else. Also, for me, an awareness of how much language changes and meanings change, and a suspicion that it’s just happening faster now because of mass communication. Also? We’re old farts.
Perhaps it will always bother me that so many of the changes are the result of people never having the learned the language in the first place but insisting on talking anyway. But whatcanyado? One of my sons gently chided me for being more “prescriptive” than “descriptive” in my thoughts about language. This old fart may be a curmudgeon to the end — downright “proscriptive” — but I could try, I suppose.
Jeremy, I am bothered by all of the above! Pregnant PEOPLE? Yes… they are people. But they are also women. Why not just say that?
And Bicyclists is verboten? My husband is a bicyclist. What else do you call a person who LOVES to ride a bicycle? A “biker”? That assumes a motorcycle is involved.
And, yes! I get it on the difference between recalcitrant and reluctant! Recalcitrant implies that you are “set in stone” against something, whereas reluctance implies you’re kind of on the fence. People just don’t GET nuance anymore!
Trans and non-binary people who do not identify as women can be pregnant too, and then of course there’s Thomas Beatie.
Point.
Should it be “comprised from”? Comprised is not a word I use except in crosswords, so I don’t know.
Mimimanderly—-how do you catch a unique rabbit?
Unique up on it!
How do you catch a tame rabbit?
Tame way!
I just read, or maybe browsed, through the comments.
It seems to me the kerfuffle about terms is a example of chasing one’s tail.
I’m rather elderly, and I’ve seen terms gain acceptance, then fall out of use. Terms change meaning. Example…something is ‘sick’ , in common parlance it means really cool, at least to someone. In times past it means something horrible, terrible.
‘Woah, that’s insane!’ means something really good, out there. Once it meant anyone doing it is crazy.
My point being, if you stick to past uses when the world around you changes, you miss a lot, and mostly being able to communicate with others.
You don’t have to like it, but it’s good to simply accept and keep on.
Mike
I have a problem with changes that remove from the language the number of things that can be expressed. For example, if now “awesome” means the same as “very good,” how will anyone be able to express what used to be expressed by the word “awesome”?
Sorry about the construction of that first sentence — that was a mess.
I’m very late to the party here, but it was such a good post with a lot of rich comments that I’m going to add my 2 cents to get them off my chest, even if few people ever see this.
Murr – I love the MTG comment. I know we shouldn’t say retarded anymore, but in her case, an exception is in order.
Regarding wordy new phrases – a colleague once said, “never say marmalade when you can say jam.” Academics are very prone to jargon, either to sound intelligent or make some technical distinction that nobody else cares about. My favourite of all time was from a paper on Puerto Rican frogs (yeah, I read that sort of stuff). The authors said that the frogs’ “vocalizations dominated the nocturnal sound spectrum.” I guess “they were noisy at night” just wouldn’t do! My wife and I adopted the phrase. “You kids get to sleep, and stop dominating the nocturnal sound spectrum.” (Silence. Then, “what did he say?”).
On the “Indian” topic, the preferred designation here in Canada is First Nations–or the person’s specific tribal affiliation. We have a lot of true Indians (aka South Asians) here.
And it seems that it’s a losing battle to fight what our generation learned as proper word usage. Like “impacted” (this should only apply to teeth), “irregardless” (not a word), and using “literally” for things that are not literal, as in “I was so hungry that I was literally starving!” Really.
Jargon can be used or abused. You just pointed how it can be abused. My favorite example was something done with satirical intent — when the famous author of a paper on ecology wrote that soil samples were taken with a “geotome,” a word he made up out of Greek roots to mean “shovel.”
But it can also serve a valid purpose, providing a single word or phrase to communicate a concept to those familiar with a field instead of having to recite a thesis every time the subject arises.
Good point, Jeremy. Jargon isn’t all bad. I like the “geotome” example for shovel! I think a second meaning could be a very large geology textbook.
LOL!
very very nice https://www.gevezeyeri.com/