The Death and Birth of English

photo from Grammarly

A friend of mine recently posted the photo from Grammarly featuring the quote from Conan O’Brien. The most surprising thing about it is that it is almost a year old and still making the rounds. I have previously mentioned various words of the year as named by various groups. Each so-named word-of-the-year generates the usual pitiful wails from the language purists who remain convinced that Shakespeare, or Dickens, or (insert favorite English author) had the language in its perfect form and we are fools for changing it.

To those purists who have nothing better to do than grouse about the perversion of our language based on societal change I say, “Get over it! English ain't Latin." (Like it or not even spell check knows ain’t is a word.)

Some argue the words selected are too silly or represent a fad. Often they do. Not!* The truthiness** of the Occupy*** movement was challenged by some, but not if they had a subprime**** mortgage. The rise of words expressing the dynamic of society generate the energy that keeps English alive. Rather than killing the language, these words represent the continual birth found in any living language.

Truthfully, those decrying the various words of the year are not attacking the word so much as they disagree with the circumstances that promoted the word to prominence. That is not a question for the linguists who study trends in language but for the society that allowed “selfie” to become a thing. Why are people so preoccupied with taking photos of themselves? I would argue that in a world where everything is social, it’s a cry for attention, “Hey, look at me,” and when the world does not, the selfie offers the illusion of attention, “I’m looking at me.”

Maybe selfie is not so silly.

People, look beyond yourself.

No. Really. Pay attention to the background! No one wants to see your dirty underwear or any of the other embarrassing things captured in that moment of self-affirmation.

In November the various organizations that compile the lists of influential words will again offer their collections. At this point in the year I am at a loss to predict what words will be selected, but I know there will again be the usual uproar predicting the death of our diseased dialects. If it is the typical year, my voice will rise with the others - with the understanding that those cries do not draw us to the funeral parlor, but to the nursery, where we view the continuing birth of English.

*1992, **2005, ***2011, ****2007 words of the year. We may not use them as much, but we still know what they mean.

Yahoo!

Despite my propensity for high-tech toys, in one area, I remain firmly entrenched in the 1990’s. My computer home page remains Yahoo. It has been the same since my internet addiction took hold in the mid/late ’90’s as it was the dominant email server and search site. As a digital immigrant, I grew comfortable with it and stuck with it over the years.

Despite it being a dropping in point, I do have other key applications in the tool bar across the top of the screen and use them almost exclusively for actual Internet functions.

Except quick news.

I am still addicted to the Yahoo top headlines - whatever they have picked out for me to be the top headline of the day.

Sometimes they are relevant.

Mostly they are not.

Mostly, they are nothing more than entertaining.

Especially when I get things about Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore breaking NCAA rules. Really? I care about this because? Because they met two potential Iowa basketball recruits, suddenly the NCAA is in a tizzy because they could potentially influence the recruits to attend Iowa.

Frankly, it would take more than Aston and Demi to make me attend Iowa.

And yet, I’ve spent twenty-something minutes pondering the uselessness of this information.

I think it is time for me to move into the 21st century and find a new Internet home page.

Deep in the (Broken) Heart of Texas

Somehow in the busyness of the day, I missed the breaking headlines of the tragic shooting at Fort Hood, just up the road from Austin. I brought home volumes of work to get done and had no intention of turning on the television, but as I did turn on the computer to check on Facebook messages and wish a couple people 'happy birthday' I started seeing posts from several friends about the shooting.

I never expected my breaking news to come from Facebook.

Twitter yes. Facebook no.

So I immediately turned on the news and other than a trip to the grocery store, stayed transfixed to the news as more and more details broke throughout the evening. There have been the occasional stories of soldiers in combat turning the gun on fellow soldiers, but I had never heard of such a horrific among soldiers of the same force. As details of the shooter emerged, it only became worse: he was one of the trauma psychiatrists for the military.

I know several reservists well as well as a few members of the military. I even have some in my family. I suppose there is a certain acceptance of potential sacrifice when that friend or family member enlists; however, there is never the expectation that the loss will occur in the homeland at the hands of fellow soldier. The military friends I have spoken to all say the same thing, "I just can't get my head around it." All I can do is comfort and support, but really, I can't get my head around it either.

As far as I know, no one I know was killed or injured in the event; however, the fact that the shooter is a psychiatrist strikes close to home. As a trained counselor, I cannot begin to grasp how someone in such a healing profession could act out the grotesque violence he performed. It runs contrary to anything I ever learned and with his medical training, he learned it at a far deeper level than I. His actions strike home to me on the professional level and I feel drawn a personal attack that someone in a similar profession could act out so abhorrently.

While I think there are many things the armed forces need to change (Don't Ask Don't Tell, the blatant lies recruiters tell to potential members), I am completely supportive of the troops for the service they proudly give and all the armed services for the opportunities to further education and broaden the world-view they provide to young people. I dare say some on both sides will try to turn the tragedy for political benefit, but if they have any sense of true patriotism, they will leave the politics out of this and unite to give our service members all they need to do their jobs as the best trained military force in the world. Give them both the firepower to do what is asked, but also the emotional strength to use it wisely.

God bless out troops and keep them safe.

Remembering Russert

Although I strive to keep up-to-date on pop culture and do occasionally comment on it here, my television spends much more time off than on, sometimes going between weekend sporting events before being turned on. When it is on, it is usually news or some kind of educational programming from one of the "nature" channels just to provide noise in the house while I'm alone and also giving me the chance to possibly learn something in the process.

The educator in me is always present.

Tim Russert was one of those voices that could always catch my attention. As hard as he skewered various politicians, fairness dominated that skewering. A Democratic Congressman would be on the spit next to a Republican operative. Party or view protected no one with Russert. His intellect and research always turned up something worth a challenge.

Despite the awards and recognition of his peers and politicians after his untimely passing last week, the moment that made me pause and both cheers and haunts me is the interview on Today with Russert's son Luke. Luke at 22 years old demonstrates a composure that proves he is Tim's son more than the similar build and family looks. He spoke of his father in such a composed and mature way it was like watching his father post-time-travel. Those around him, those who are journalistic professionals, could not control their own emotions as well as young Luke.

The video is fifteen minutes long, but I'm already ready to nominate young Luke to take his father's place on Meet The Press. If he can be this composed and well spoken so shortly after his father's death, the Washington politicians would be quaking in their boots.

The clip is fifteen minutes long, but it is truly amazing to see how well young Russert handles himself.

I would hope that Luke Russert is just an example that society is not totally doomed. As an educator, I can vouch that there are many young people as impressive as Luke - they just don't make the news. Maybe if Luke does not take over his father's spot, he can start a channel of positive news stories and help us to know that all is not lost with the future.

Go get 'em, Luke.

Just so you know...

Just so you know, drinking a gin and tonic after eating a big bowl of ice cream with chocolate sauce is not necessarily the best thing to do.

Now you know.

Ring Rage - A New Dilemma

This morning Weekend Edition Sunday on NPR ran a story from New York about Ring Rage and what the city council is proposing to combat the rising documented incidents of fights being sparked by annoying ring-tones on cell phones. And while astute listeners who were keen to the date (April 1) quickly recognized the story as the annual hoax (less astute listeners probably also missed the jab of the “sponsorship" by the Soylent Corporation – manufacturers of high protein food products in a variety of colors: “Soylent Green is People!”)

Despite the humor of the piece, it strikes at a deeper issue in society. As cell phones have become ubiquitous in our world – I’m one of those people who only has a cell phone and no home phone – issues of courtesy (especially the lack thereof) have become noted. It has become increasingly difficult to experience even the most solemn of public events without having it interrupted by a cell phone ring.

Is it really necessary to have a cell phone on at a funeral? Could you be receiving any worse news???

Do you have to answer the phone while trying to check-out at a store? Is your voice-mail that difficult to access? Is it that difficult to redial a number that just called you?

Vibrate people! Vibrate! In the correct pocket it is an unobtrusive ring and a cheap thrill.

Or just don’t answer! Since the person is calling you, the odds are that he/she knows your number. If it is important, they are likely to call back – or at the least leave a message.

I’m also not entirely opposed to the suggestion that there be only four approved ring-tones. While the “acceptable” ring-tones presented in the piece were among the most annoying tones (despite being vetted by audiologists as the most pleasant sounds to the ear) I’ve ever heard, it does makes sense. The purpose of the ring is to alert the phone’s owner that something is going on. Do I really want my favorite song played in the tonally limited way of a cell phone ring? I think I’ll stick to listening to my music on my iPod with quality stereo headphones. Just give me a good old ring or scale.

And don’t forget vibrate; make me happy! Make my phone buzz, ya’ll!