Category: Language Matters

Some Aptronyms

An aptronym is a name that "suits the nature or occupation of its   bearer," as the erudite Dr. Gilleland explains. Some examples from my  experience:

1. During part of my tenure at the University of Dayton, the secretary of the Philosophy Department was Mrs. Betty Hume.

2. While a graduate student in Boston in the 1970s, I heard tell of a knee specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, one Dr. Patella.

3. A number of philosophers bear aptronymic names: John Wisdom, Gerald Vision, J.J.C. Smart, and others that escape me at the moment.

4. Wasn't Jimmy Carter's main spokesman a man by the name of Larry Speakes?

5. Joe Bastardi, Fox News meterologist, is not an aptronym because he is not a name, and his demeanor and delivery suggest that his name isn't either.

Obama on Stuff

Barack Obama wants an economy "Where we're making stuff and selling stuff and moving it around and UPS drivers are dropping things off everywhere." 

Stuff it, Mr President.  And take a gander at my On 'Stuff' and 'Ass' while you're at it.

The real problem, of  course, is not that Obama lacks gravitas, but that he is utterly clueless and incompetent when it comes to the the problems facing the nation, the chief of which is the debt crisis.

Neologisms, Paleologisms, and Grelling’s Paradox

'Neologism' is not a new word, but an old word. Hence, 'neologism' is not a neologism. 'Paleologism' is not a word at all; or at least it is not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. But it ought to be a word, so I hereby introduce it. Who is going to stop me? Having read it and understood it, you have willy-nilly validated its introduction and are complicit with me.

Now that we have 'paleologism' on the table, and an unvast conspiracy going, we are in a position to see that 'neologism' is a paleologism, while 'paleologism' is a neologism. Since the neologism/paleologism classification is both exclusive (every word is either one or the other )and exhaustive (no word is neither), it follows that 'neologism' is not a neologism, and 'paleologism' is not a paleologism.

Such words are called heterological: they are not instances of the properties they express. 'Useless' and 'monosyllabic' are other examples of  heterological expressions in that 'useless' is not useless and 'monosyllabic' is not monosyllabic. A term that is not heterological is called autological. Examples include 'short' and 'polysyllabic.'  'Short' is short and 'polysyllabic' is polysyllabic. Autological terms are instances of the properties they express.

Now ask yourself this question: Is 'heterological' heterological? Given that the heterological/autological classification is exhaustive, 'heterological' must be either heterological or else autological. Now if the former, then 'heterological' is not an instance of the property it expresses, namely, the property of not being an instance of the property it expresses. But this implies that 'heterological' is autological. On the other hand, if 'heterological' is autological, then it is an instance of the property it expresses, namely the property of not being an instance of the property it expresses. But this implies that 'heterological' is heterological.

Therefore, 'heterological' is heterological if and only if it is not. This contradiction is known in the trade as Grelling's Paradox. It is named after Kurt Grelling, who presented it in 1908.

Issues and Problems

Perhaps you have noticed how, in American English at least, ‘issue’ has come to supplant ‘problem.’ For example, people will refer to medical problems such as obesity and hypertension as medical issues. Being a conservative, I don’t confuse change with improvement. And being a linguistic conservative, I am none too pleased with this recent development. So I would like to be able to say that a mistake is being made, or a distinction is being obliterated, by those who use ‘issue’ when, not long ago, one would have used ‘problem.’ I would like to say what I say to those who confuse ‘infer’ and ‘imply,’ namely, that there is an extralinguistic distinction that their linguistic confusion renders invisible. In the case of ‘infer’ and ‘imply’ it is the distinction between a subjective mental process and an objective relation between propositions.  In a slogan: People infer; propositions imply.  For details see On the Correct Usage of 'Infers and 'Implies.'

Trouble is, I am having a hard time finding any clearly formulable mistake of a logical or conceptual nature such as would justify my displeasure.  Here we read that "A problem is something negative."  Sometimes.  A flat tire is a problem and something negative.  But chess problems – the  ones problemists compose, if not  over-the-board problems – are not something negative.  The same is true of many if not all logical, mathematical, and philosophical problems. 

The so-called 'problem of universals,' for example is not negative; it's just there.  Ditto for the problem whether existence is a property of individuals.  We could just as well describe it as an issue, a topic of debate.  So some problems are issues.  But other problems are not issues.  If you suffer from hypertension, then you have a medical problem, not a medical issue.  Nevertheless, there is the medical issue of how best to treat hypertension (with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors?  With beta-blockers?).  This medical issue can also be described as the problem of how best to treat hypertension.

Perhaps we should say the following.  Every issue is a topic of controversy.  But it is not the case that every problem is a topic of controversy.  Some problems are topics and some are not.  Of those that are not, some are difficulties while others are tasks.

 Let’s consider some more examples.

No one is about to start referring to chess problems and math problems as chess and math issues. At least I hope not. These are problems, in particular, tasks.  For example,White to move and mate in three.  If you run out of gas in the middle of nowhere, then you’ve got a problem in the form of a difficulty.   And if your wife is about to give birth when you run out of gas, then you really have a problem in the form of a difficulty.   The use of ‘issue’ here offends my linguistic sensibilities, and rightly so if every issue is a topic of controversy.   If you are running out of gas and your wife is in labor, then those are facts, not topics of debate. More examples:

There is an issue with the starter solenoid.

You got an issue with that, buddy?

There are serious issues with the formatting of the March issue of Chess Life.

Thank you Carmelita, for putting me on your blogroll. Carmelita: No issue!

I say that the above four examples are all egregious misuses of 'issue.'  For in none of these four cases is there any topic of controversy.  Each is a problem in the form of a difficulty. 

One issue that arises for a married couple is whether or not to have children. It's an issue because it is a topic of debate. But if the man is impotent, then that is a problem. It is even more of a problem if the two find each other physically repellent.  Neither of these is an issue because neither is a topic of controversy.

In the sentence, ‘He died without issue,’ one cannot substitute ‘problem’ for ‘issue’ salva significatione. But that is not the relevant use of ‘issue.’ We certainly don't want to make an issue, or a problem, out of that use of 'issue.'   Similarly with 'issue' in the sense of an issue of a magazine.

I end with a question.  Why is ‘issue’ coming to supplant ‘problem’? Is it just because people are suggestible lemmings rather than the independent thinkers and speakers that they ought to be?  Is it because people are averse to facing problems and so use 'issue' as a euphemism? 

We can speak correctly both of the issue and of the problem of why 'issue' is coming to supplant 'problem.' 

I assume that the bird of Reality is jointed, and we need to cut it linguistically at the joints. 

On ‘Stuff’ and ‘Ass’: A Language Rant

Too many people use the word 'stuff' nowadays. I was brought up to believe that it is a piece of slang best avoided in all but the most informal of contexts. So when I hear a good scholar make mention of all the 'stuff' he has published on this topic or that, I wonder how  long before he starts using 'crap' instead of 'stuff.'  "You know, Bill, I've published a lot of crap on anaphora; I think you'll find it   excellent." But why stop with 'crap'?  "Professor X has published a fine piece of shit in Nous on temporal indexicals. Have you read it?"

If you ask me to read your 'stuff,' I may wonder whether you take it seriously and whether I should. But if you ask me to read your work, then I am more likely to take you seriously and give you my attention. Why use 'stuff' when 'work' is available? Do you use 'stuff' so as not to appear stuffy? Or because you have a need for acceptance among  the unlettered? But why would you want such acceptance? Note that when 'stuff' is used interchangeably with 'work,' the former term does not acquire the seriousness of the latter, but vice versa: 'stuff' retains its low connotation and 'work' drops out. The net result is linguistic decline and an uptick in 'crudification,' to use an ugly word for an ugly thing.

No doubt there is phony formality. But that is no reason to elide the distinction between the informal and the formal.  A related topic is phony informality. An example of the latter is false intimacy, as when people people address complete strangers using their first names. This is offensive,  because the addresser is seeking to enjoy the advantages of intimacy (e.g., entering into one's trust) without paying the price.

'Ass' is another word gaining a currency that is already excessive. One wonders how far it will go. Will 'ass' become an all-purpose synecdoche? Run your ass off, work your ass to the bone, get your ass out of here . . . ask a girl's father for her ass in marriage? In the expression, 'piece of ass' the reference is not to the buttocks proper, but to an adjoining area. 'Ass' appears subject to a peculiar semantic spread. It can come to mean almost anything, as in 'haul ass,' which means to travel at a high rate of speed. I don't imagine that if one were hauling donkeys one could make very good time. So how on earth did this expression arise? (I had teenage friends who could not refer to a U-Haul trailer except as a U-Haul Ass trailer.)

Or consider that to have one's 'ass in a sling' is to be sad or dejected.   Here, 'ass' extends even unto a person's mood. Robert Hendrickson (Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, p. 36) suggests that 'ass in  a sling' is an extension of 'arm in a sling.' May be, but how does that get us from the buttocks to a mental state? I was disappointed to find a lacuna where Hendrickson should have had an entry on 'haul ass.'

'Ass' seems especially out of place in scholarly journals unless the reference is to some such donkey as Buridan's ass, or some such bridge as the pons asinorum, 'bridge of asses.' The distinguished philosopher Richard M. Gale, in a piece in Philo (Spring-Summer 2003, p. 132) in which he responds to critics, says near the outset that ". . . my aim is not to cover my ass. . . ." Well, I'm glad to hear it, but perhaps he should also tell us that he has no intention of 'sucking up' to his critics either.

In On the Nature and Existence of God (1991), Gale wonders why anyone would "screw around" with the cosmological argument if Kant is right that it depends on the ontological argument. The problem here is not  just that 'screw around' is slang, or that it has a sexual connotation, but that it is totally inappropriate in the context of a discussion of the existence/nonexistence of God. The latter is no joking matter, no mere plaything of donnish Spielerei. If God exists, everything is different; ditto if God does not exist. The nonexistence of God is not like the nonexistence of an angry unicorn on the far side of the moon, or the nonexistence of Russell's celestial teapot. As Nietzsche appreciated (Genealogy of Morals, Third Essay, sec. 27), the death of God is the death of truth. But to prove that Nietzsche was right about this would require a long article or a short book. One nice thing about a blog post is that one can just stop when the going gets tough by pleading the inherent constraints of the genre.  Which is what I will now do.

Of Christograms and Political Correctness

Monterey Tom liked my 'Xmas' post and sends this:

Many Catholic artifacts related to worship are marked with the Roman letters IHS, which is a partial Latin transliteration of the Greek form of 'Jesus' and can also be read as an acronym for the Latin Iesus Hominum Salvator (Jesus Savior of Man). However, some have construed the IHS to be an acronym for "In this Sign", as in "In this sign you shall conquer." Some who were desirous of defending the judgements of the Obama administration used that last and incorrect notion to justify covering all of the IHS images at Georgetown University two years ago on the ground that Muslims would see  the IHS as a symbol of Christian aggression. My reaction to that  claim is that the event presented the U.S. government with what educators now call a "teachable moment." The only problem being, I suspect,  that no one in the White House gang actually knew the true meaning of the letters and probably shared the Muslim belief that the Crusades were wars of aggression aimed at forcefully converting the peace-loving Muslims and enriching the pope.

Although it is true that 'IHS' is, as Tom writes, "a partial Latin transliteration of of the Greek form of  'Jesus'," it is not true that it abbreviates Iesus Hominum Salvator, at least according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:  "IHS was sometimes wrongly understood as "Jesus Hominum (or Hierosolymae) Salvator", i.e. Jesus, the Saviour of men (or of Jerusalem=Hierosolyma)."

Being a pedant and a quibbler (but in the very  best senses of these terms!), I was all set to quibble with Monterey Tom's use of 'acronym' in connection with 'IHS.'  After all, you cannot pronounce it like a word in the way you can pronounce 'laser' and 'Gestapo' which are clearly acronyms.  But it all depends on how exactly we define 'acronym,' a question I'm not in the mood for.  The Wikipedia article looks good, however.  I am tempted to say that, while every acronym is an abbreviation, not every abbreviation is an acronym.  'IHS' is an abbreviation.

Acronym or not, 'IHS'  is a Christogram, and sometimes a monogram.  As it just now occurred in my text, 'IHS' is not a monogram but a mere abbreviation.  But again it depends on what exactly a monogram is.  According to the Wikipedia monogram article, "A monogram is a motif made by overlapping or combining two or more letters or other graphemes to form one symbol."  Clear examples:

Chi-rhoIHS monogram

In the first monogram one can discern alpha, omega, chi, and rho.  The 'chi' as I said last post is the 'X' is 'Xmas.' 

From pedantry to political correctness and a bit of anti-Pee Cee polemic.  To think that 'IHS' abbreviates In hoc signes vincit shows a contemptible degree of ignorance, but what is worse is to worry about a possible Muslim misreading of the abbreviation.  Only a namby-pamby Pee-Cee dumbass liberal could sink to that level.  That is down there with the supine foolishness of those librul handwringers who wailed, in the wake of 9/11, "What did we do to offend them?"

If hypersensitive Muslims take offense at 'IHS,' that is their problem, not ours.  There is such a thing as taking  inappropriate offense.  See Of Black Holes and Political Correctness: If You Take Offense, is That My Fault?

As for Georgetown's caving to the White House demand, that is contemptible and disgusting, but so typical.  To paraphrase Dennis Prager, there is no one so spineless in all the world as a university administrator.  They should have said loud and clear "Absolutely not!"

Merry CHRISTmas!

‘Merry Xmas’

When I was eight years old or so and first took note of the phrase 'Merry Xmas,' my piety was offended by what I took to be the removal of 'Christ' from 'Christmas' only to be replaced by the universally recognized symbol for an unknown quantity, 'X.' But it wasn't long before I realized that the 'X' was merely a font-challenged typesetter's attempt at rendering the Greek Chi, an ancient abbreviation for 'Christ.' There is therefore nothing at all offensive in the expression 'Xmas.' Year after year, however, certain ignorant Christians who are old enough to know better make the mistake that I made when I was eight and corrected when I was ten.

It just now occurs to me that 'Xmas' may be susceptible of a quasi-Tillichian reading. Paul Tillich is famous for his benighted definition of 'God' as 'whatever is one's ultimate concern.' Well, take the 'X' in 'Xmas' as a variable the values of which are whatever one wants to celebrate at this time of year. So for some, 'Xmas' will amount to Solsticemas, for burglars Swagmas, for materialists Lootmas, for gluttons Foodmas, for inebriates Hoochmas, and for ACLU extremists Antichristianitymas.

A reader suggests some further constructions:

For those who love the capitol of the Czech Republic: Pragmas. For Dutch Reformed theologians of Frisian extraction who think Christmas is silly: Hoekemas. For Dutch Reformed philosophy professors of Frisian extraction who like preserves on their toast: Jellemas. For fans of older British sci-fi flicks: Quatermas. For those who buy every special seasonal periodical they can get their hands on: Magmas. One could probably multiply such examples ad nauseum, so I won't.

How could an ACLU bonehead object to 'Xmas' so construed? No doubt he would find a way.

A while back I quipped that "Aporeticians qua aporeticians do not celebrate Christmas. They celebrate Enigmas."  My man Hodges shot back:  "But they do celebrate 'X-mas'! (Or maybe they 'cerebrate' it?)"

Merry Chimas to all, and to all a good night.

‘It Depends on Who You Talk To’

Really?  Suppose some question is posed, some question concerning which there is an objective answer, regardless of how difficult it is to ascertain the answer.  For instance, Is the Social Security system  currently taking in more in payroll taxes than it is paying out in benefits? People have a knee-jerk tendency to say, 'It depends on who you talk to.'

But of course it doesn't.  What depends on who you talk to is the opinion of the one doing the talking. The answer to the question precisely does not depend on who you talk to.  It depends on the way the world is.

If you want to say that different people have different opinions on a certain (objective) question, then say that.  But don't say that it depends on who you talk to.  The latter is a phrase that thoughtful people ought to beware of. Don't let your sloppiness of speech aid and abet a sophomoric relativism.

Language matters.

Addendum 12/16.  A reader complains that the second sentence of the second paragraph should read, 'What depends on whom you talk to is  the opinion of the one doing the talking.'  That's right, except that,  for stylistic reasons, I was paralleling the street idiom on which I was commenting.  The problem with the street idiom is not the grammatical peccadillo it contains, but the conceptual confusion it embodies.

One ground of my dislike of editors is that the typical editor is a Besserwisser.  He knows better what you really want to say, or ought to say.  But he lacks the subtlety to realize that there are stylistic questions which may require the flouting of a grammatical rule. 

You may enjoy The Paltry Mentality of the Copy Editor.

When I insist that language matters, I am not insisting on the satisfaction of the grammatical punctilios of schoolmarms, but on avoiding expressions that impede clear thinking.

A Diversity Paradox for Immigration Expansionists

Liberals love 'diversity' even at the expense of such obvious goods as unity, assimilation, and comity. So it is something of a paradox that their refusal to take seriously the enforcement of immigration laws has led to a most undiverse stream of immigrants. "While espousing a fervent belief in diversity, immigrant advocates and their allies have presided over a policy regime that has produced one of the least diverse migration streams in our history." Here

In the once golden and great state of California, the Left's diversity fetishism has led to a letting-go of academics in the Cal State university system with a concomitant retention of administrative 'diversity officers.'   Unbelievable but true.  Heather McDonald reports and comments in Less Academics, More Narcissism. 

My only quibble is her failure to observe the distinction between 'less' and 'fewer.'  Use 'fewer' with count nouns; 'less' with mass terms.  I don't have less shovels than you; I have fewer shovels.  I need fewer shovels because I have less manure.

Typos!

Despite my 'due diligence,' typographical errors, though I strive to ferret them out, often go undetected on the day of publication.  All of yesterday's posts contain them.  So I will correct them now.  No, I don't use any SpellCheck utility.  That's like having a jackass of an editor looking over my shoulder, a miserable Besserwisser who thinks he knows what I am 'trying' to say and how I want to say it.  I'll say it my own way, damn you, and without your political correctness and school-marmish rules.

‘Surely’

A device of literary bluster.  When one is unsure about something, or sure about what one has no right to be sure about, one writes 'surely.'  Example:  "Vallicella links to Dinah Washington here. But surely Peggy Lee's version is better. A voice like no other, and the little piano break at 1:13 is exquisite."

I confess to using 'surely and 'of course' promiscuously.

Illiteracy at CNN

On CNN this morning, two subtitles included the phrases "Jobs death" and "Job's global influence."  The man's name is Steve Jobs. To form the possessive you must add an apostrophe and put it in the right place: "Jobs' death."

Can we blame this one on liberals too?  Is there perhaps something to the 'definition' of a liberal as a person who has never met a standard he didn't want to erode?