News & Articles

A winning topic despite in some parts of the U.S. being spoken as wiener, meaning to come in first in a race, etc. One hundred eighty degrees from winner we find summer. Yup, I’m talking drift, not snow, but language or linguistic drift. Please don’t fear a blah-blah about language purity. Not from me. Not now. 
Why? Simplest explanation – words and language change ALL THE TIME. Not something I’ll try to fight or reform. Hopeless task. On the other hand, pointing out drifts, shifts and changes provides us with material of interest. To some.  
 

To encounter winner as a season we’ll likely have to drift south. I say because up here we’re apt to keep the T in winter out of respect. Note I wrote respect with a T instead of easier and simpler respec’, again a southerly slant used by those lucky enough to rarely think of wind chill and who next to nought about Sorels or choppers. 

Yes, there are favored populations who’d feel confident thinking ice fishing would haul in either blocks or cubes. I bet most of you don’t think that and are well aware that snow tires (including the sticky varieties) are not magical tires that won’t outperform a driver’s careless errors about speed or braking. 

Sure, sure, there are those among us T in winner folk who require an annual snow lesson, but most of us know (perhaps from learning the hard way) the first few snowfalls require us to adjust. You know what I mean. You’ve seen more than one “oops” slip-slide into traffic on a failing-failed STOP. 

Pronunciation, spelling and meaning changing over time is normal, natural and inescapable. Change is part of the dynamic of language. How we speak, communicate and think is tied tightly to our being human. From my perspective whenever and wherever some authority tries to pin down, tries to permanently affix meaning you’re apt to find stagnation. 

Settling language into a set of prescriptions will likely fail. Not that societies haven’t tried. The good old Romans had official truths and set bans on things they didn’t like. Others did so before and after, usually in the form of religious orthodoxy. 

More recently (things are relative, right) the French Revolution spawned heaps of prescriptions aimed at controlling meaning and with it the direction of human thought. To build greater social perfection days of the week, months, seasons and measurements were recast. 

Did it work. I can’t say, but ask yourself if metric has prevented any recent conflicts. Has it? Sloppy and imprecise me has always been skeptical of metric until I see a good metric clock and calendar. Change can’t be stopped and order can’t be imposed. 

Yet, we try, don’t we? On the language front I’ve been oft annoyed by wait persons coming to a table to ask “What’ll you guys have?” 

Some at the table waiting to order were not guys, clear evidence of misgendering from decades back. 
Also, the former teacher in me questioned the school wide demotion of students to kids. I rather thought an in-school role of student was a necessary distinction from being a kid outside school. A useless distinction or one with some value? 

The way in which we tighten or loosen pronunciation and meaning has consequences worth, at least occasionally, consideration. Mingling winner and winter isn’t the end of life as we know it, but it might not be the best of habits to let things slide, perhaps like a driver having to relearn how to stop during the first snow of winner. 

 Is this a good place to bring in Through a Looking Glass? Why here? Why now? For answer recall the mad queen saying things meant what SHE said they meant. 

There’s a term for that. Stipulative definition comes close, but the queen example is more of arbitrary or idiosyncratic definition. (Stipulative definition is useful in some situations where limits to terms are needed.) 

We could hope the Looking Glass example was farfetched. We’d be wrong. Recasting, remaking or redo-revising of meaning is far more common than in the pages of L. Carroll’s book. Far more. Almost anything coming from politics can wallow up to its appetite in word swap. 

There’s a difference between informal talk or word play and sloppy use. Hearing my surgeon or pilot got credentialed by a school that made it easy would be a signal for me to run like I was on fire (an awful strategy but useful image). Developing some skills is time consuming and difficult. If acquiring professional skills interferes with a person’s life I’d guess that person should find something else to do, something better suited to them. Doesn’t seem so because it is so; gaining skills and experience is demanding, is by its nature discriminatory, not suited to all. 

If a person’s dream is to become an outstandingly successful surgeon, they have a long road ahead. If a person likes doing mechanical work, they too have things to learn and master. Your life’s work counts whether performed in a sterile surgical theatre or dirty-hand doing brake service. 

Our communal efforts matter as mutually important. Without turning hypercritical maybe being less tolerant of laxity isn’t so bad a thing to cultivate in ourselves and society. 

Take for example the lazy use of actually. What’s the difference between “I saw” and “I actually saw”? 
None that matters. Saying I saw clearly, briefly or thought I saw add something missing from “actually” plugged in to make seeing sound more informative. What might actual seeing be? Does it mean two-eyed seeing, use of two eyes being worth the effort of including? I don’t think so. Spotting empty and useless language fluff and not supporting it are OK habits.  

 Anycase, worth a moment’s thought. And this. Much needed trans dialog has yet to mention our store of knowledge regarding trans species. Experience with that can be traced to Egypt and Rome, both familiar with the humble mule. Like Sapiens and Neanderthal mixing, the lowly mule made its transition long ago, and without surgery or blockers.

Is that a success, maybe? Maybe looking at hybrids might reveal something, but only if we actually look.