Linguistic
mishugass redux
by
Howard
Richler
Recently
the Journal
of Animal Ethics
advised us to refer to our pets as companion animals and to remember
that as we are also members of the animal kingdom, we should call
our animals “non-human” animals; ergo your pet should really be
called a companion non-human animal. We are also advised that the
term vermin and pest are politically-incorrect as is the expression
“stubborn as a mule,” regardless of the recalcitrance level of
the ass. This is reminiscent of some of the preposterous terms
proposed by the quasi-oppressed in the late 80s, early 90s. For
example, in Language,
Gender and Politics,
authors Francine Wattman Frank and Paula A. Treichler suggested the
addition of the word “ovarimony” to our lexicon to reference
statements that women give under oath, because of the supposed
etymological link between testimony and testes. This neologism was
topped by poet's Betsy Warland suggestion thar
"dictionary" should be respelled as “dicktionary,”
because DWEMs (Dead White European Males) such as lexicographers
James Murray and Samuel Johnson exemplified patriarchal thinking
that was controlled by the first four letters of the revised
spelling.
I
will admit, however, that there is a place for sensitivity in one's
choice of words. For
those people who find terms such as cerebrally-challenged too
euphemistic, I remind them that it wasn’t that long ago that words
like “cretin” and even “moron” were used in polite society
without compunction. Given a choice, I’d rather be oversensitive
than not sensitive enough. Increasingly, “ethnic” verbs such as
“to welsh” (to avoid payment); “to gyp”(to cheat) and “to
jew” (to bargain) are also avoided. Also, because for some people
the suffix -ess denotes inferiority (it's difficult to think of a
manageress running a Fortune 500 company), I understand why a female
thespian would rather be called an actor than an actress. I even can
comprehend why ESPN commentator Max Bretos was suspended in
February for saying that the New York Knicks loss to the New Orleans
Hornets revealed “a chink in his {Chinese-American basketball
phemon Jeremy Lin's} armor.” For some people of Chinese lineage the
term “chink” is as offensive as the word “nigger” is to
blacks.
But
where does it end? Some years ago when I wrote
A Bawdy Language: How a Second-Rate
Language
Slept Its Way to the Top, I
included a
section on word play where one of the chapters was titled
“'Definitions depend on how you split 'em” Here, I featured a
puzzle I called “Animal Split Definitives” where words were
defined by their constituent parts. Hence, “aspire” was defined
as “venom” by breaking up the word into “asp” and “ire”;
similarly “heathen” was
defined as “barbecued chicken” by dividing the word into “heat”
and “hen.” One of the “animal” words I included was
“hippocampus” that I defined as “'university for fat people”
and my editors wanted me to exclude this definition as they felt is
was insensitive to the horizontally-challenged. While normally I'm
fairly open to editorial suggestions, in this instance I dug in my
heels and after great hesitation the editorial board at my publisher
caved into my intransigence and left my definition unedited. ( I'm
not sure if my calling their objections “fatuous” helped sway
them.)
Must we avoid the word niggardly that means stingy or miserly because someone might associate it with the dreaded N word notwithstanding it having no etymological connection to it? If I say that I find a “penal institution (and pronounce the first word “penile”’) to be barbaric,” I’m sure there’s somebody out there who thinks I have cast aspersions on the practice of circumcision. If I use the word “pithy” will someone feel I’m mocking lispers? Must I avoid the word “judicious” when among Jews, “dyspepsia” when among French-Canadians and “nervous titter” when in the company of women? Must everyone, except white Protestants, avoid “waspish comments?”
The mind boggles.
hrichler@gmail.com
Howard
Richler's latest book is
Strange Bedfellows: The Private Lives of Words.
Linguistic meshugas redux
by
Howard
Richler
Recently,
the Journal
of Animal Ethics
advised us to refer to our pets as companion animals and to remember
that as we are also members of the animal kingdom, we should call
our animals “non-human” animals. Ergo, Fido should really be
called a companion non-human animal. We are also advised that the
term vermin and pest are politically-incorrect as is the expression
“stubborn as a mule,” no matter the recalcitrance level of the
said ass. This is reminiscent of some of the preposterous terms
proposed by the quasi-oppressed in the late 80s, early 90s. For
example, in Language,
Gender and Politics,
authors Francine Wattman Frank and Paula A. Treichler suggested the
addition of the word “ovarimony” to our lexicon to reference
statements that women give under oath, because of the supposed
etymological link between testimony and testes. This neologism was
topped by poet's Betsy Warland suggestion that
“dictionary” should be respelled as “dicktionary,” because
DWEMs (Dead White European Males) such as lexicographers James
Murray and Samuel Johnson exemplified patriarchal thinking that was
controlled by the first four letters of the revised spelling.
I
will admit, however, that there is a place for sensitivity in one's
choice of words. For
those people who find terms such as cerebrally-challenged too
euphemistic, I remind them that it wasn’t that long ago that words
like “cretin” and even “moron” were used in polite society
without compunction. Given a choice, I’d rather be oversensitive
than not sensitive enough. Increasingly, “ethnic” verbs such as
“to welsh” (to avoid payment); “to gyp”(to cheat) and “to
jew” (to bargain) are also regarded as improper. Also, because for
some people the suffix -ess denotes inferiority (it's difficult to
think of a manageress running a Fortune 500 company), I understand
why a female thespian would rather be called an actor than an
actress. Recently, after
their constituent parts. Hence, “aspire” was defined as “venom”
by breaking up the word into “asp” and “ire”; similarly
“heathen” was
defined as “barbecued chicken” by dividing the word into “heat”
and “hen.” One of the “animal” words I included was
“hippocampus” that I defined as “'university for fat people”
and my editors wanted me to exclude this definition as they felt is
was insensitive to the horizontally-challenged. While normally I'm
fairly open to suggestions by editors, in this instance I dug in my
heels and after great hesitation the editorial board at my publisher
caved into my intransigence and left my definition unedited. ( I'm
not sure if my calling their objections “fatuous” helped sway
them.)
But where does it end?Must we avoid the word niggardly that means stingy or miserly because someone might associate it with the dreaded N-word notwithstanding it having no etymological connection to it? If I use the word “pithy” will someone feel I’m mocking lispers? Must I avoid “judicious” when among Jews, “dyspepsia” when among French-Canadians and “nervous titter.” when in the company of women? Might not “enigma” offend? Must everyone, except white Protestants, avoid “waspish comments?”
The mind boggles.
hrichler@gmail.com
Howard's next book From Happy to Homosexual will be published by Ronsdale Press in 2013,
No comments:
Post a Comment