{"id":237,"date":"2016-02-08T00:01:47","date_gmt":"2016-02-08T07:01:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/?p=237"},"modified":"2020-03-04T17:28:22","modified_gmt":"2020-03-05T00:28:22","slug":"keeping-up-with-linguistic-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/2016\/02\/08\/keeping-up-with-linguistic-change\/","title":{"rendered":"Keeping Up With Linguistic Change"},"content":{"rendered":"

l’Acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise has just announced <\/a>that a set of 2,400 proposed changes to spellings and punctuations will be rolled out in school text books in the upcoming academic year.<\/p>\n

My knowledge of the Acad\u00e9mie is not that great, but if I\u2019m not mistaken, this is tantamount to revolution, not evolution. Apparently, these 2,400 changes affect approximately four percent of the French lexicon. The changes were first proposed in 1990, but were never embraced by the French at large.<\/p>\n

One interesting change\u2014\u201cweek-end\u201d is to become \u201cweekend\u201d. How behind the times I am! Last time I took an interest in this topic, l’Acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise was resisting all attempts to include borrowings from English into French; perhaps I was misinformed all those years ago.<\/p>\n

Interesting Parallel<\/h1>\n

A BBC radio interview<\/a> in 2012 addressed the topic of \u201chow the French messed up English spelling\u201d. Apparently, old and middle English spelling was straightforward (given the letter and word pronunciation rules of the time), but the Normans (1066 and all that) brought a whole new raft of words to England, which over the following decades and centuries got mixed and mooshed up into the existing English lexicon.<\/p>\n

The interview cites the introduction of the \u201cb\u201d into \u201cdebt\u201d as being a reforming attempt to standardize the spelling of \u201cdet\u201d or \u201cdett\u201d by using Latin influence\u2014in this case, \u201cdebitum\u201d. Not sure how the French got the blame for that, but that\u2019s Brits for you!<\/p>\n

The Last 60 Years<\/h1>\n

While Professor David Crystal (the 2012 interviewee) was talking about centuries-old change, I want to look at changes to English that have occurred in my lifetime (significantly less than \u201ccenturies\u201d!) With a Shorter Oxford Dictionary that was revised in 1944 and corrected in 1956 at my disposal, I went hunting for a few interesting changes.<\/p>\n

I shall refer to this dictionary as \u201cSOD44\u201d for brevity.<\/p>\n

Smalls Talk<\/h2>\n

This article was inspired by the SOD44 definition of \u201clingerie\u201d, which just happened to jump off the page at me as I was browsing for something else. (You must have noticed how certain words do that \u201cjumping off the page\u201d thing\u2014an article about it is on my \u201cto do\u201d list.)<\/p>\n

So, when I was born (in 1955), the Oxford Dictionary defined lingerie as \u201clinen articles collectively; those in a woman\u2019s wardrobe or trousseau.\u201d<\/p>\n

By 1995, Webster\u2019s had \u201cunderwear, sleepwear, and other items of intimate apparel worn by women.\u201d<\/p>\n

A quick surf for \u201clingerie\u201d on Google Images (carried out purely for dispassionate research for this article you understand), reveals very little linen. (It revealed much else, but little or no linen.)<\/p>\n

Change the search to \u201clingerie 1950s\u201d and the lack of linen is still evident, although, to be fair so is the lack of revealing\u2026<\/p>\n

Change the search to \u201clingerie 1920s\u201d and finally we\u2019re seeing more \u201clinen\u201d and a lot less skin.<\/p>\n

I strongly suspect that linen doesn\u2019t feature strongly in the catalogues of Ann Summers and Victoria\u2019s Secret; I haven\u2019t checked, because that might be considered a little too creepy!<\/p>\n

Canoe<\/h2>\n

Not much to see here, except the breathtaking superiority\u2014nay, arrogance\u2014of a certain cross-section of the British!<\/p>\n

In SOD44, there are two definitions\u2014\u201ca boat in use among uncivilized nations hollowed out of a tree trunk or otherwise rudely constructed\u2026\u201d and \u201cin civilized use, a small light boat or skiff\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

By these definitions, that would make the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean uncivilized, the North American Indians and Australian Aboriginals civilized, and the early Danes uncivilized. (Okay\u2014the Danes referred to are from about 4000 BCE; not quite fair!) Whatever definition of \u201ccivilize\u201d you decide to use, this assumption that a dugout canoe is peculiar to uncivilized societies and a birch bark (or similar) canoe is the domain of civilized societies does seem arbitrary and yes, somewhat arrogant. This kind of attitude puts the \u201cgrrrr\u201d into Great Britain. Thank goodness times have changed!<\/p>\n

This didn\u2019t matter to me as a kid though\u2014I paddled around in two-man kayaks; canoes were for mounties serenading<\/a> their best girlies.<\/p>\n

No Sweat, We’re British<\/h2>\n

This is a word you didn\u2019t use in polite company! I remember learning a saying: \u201cpigs sweat, men perspire, ladies glow\u201d. In SOD44, the verb \u201csweat\u201d is prefaced with, \u201cavoided in refined speech in the ordinary physical senses.\u201d Now the word is used informally in North America to refer to, for example, sweatpants, although admittedly, this isn\u2019t a verb use.<\/p>\n

Drugs in the Tabloid<\/h2>\n

Nowadays, we associate the word \u201ctabloid\u201d with a small newspaper format (half the size of a broadsheet). These newspapers sell well to people who enjoy salacious gossip, half-truth, rumour, and tales of celebrities falling from grace.<\/p>\n

You may be as surprised as I was to discover that the word is originally a term registered by a pharmaceutical company in 1884 to describe medicinal preparations in compressed (tablet) form. Although a registered term, \u201ctabloid\u201d was fairly quickly adopted to describe other goods in compressed form, and this was the sense in which the word was used in news-speak (not to be confused with newspeak<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Most newspapers used to be broadsheets, so the tabloid moniker originally meant, \u201cnews in a condensed format\u201d. However, the format quickly came to be associated with news of a scandalous nature that was beneath the dignity of the broadsheets to print. It seems that the normally puritanical Americans were decades ahead of the Brits in this race to the bottom (pun not intended, but retained anyway).<\/p>\n

The tabloid form really came into its own in the UK in the late 1960s, some thirty or forty years after the USA. With the format came the connotation, and some of the newly-shrunken newspapers called themselves \u201ccompact\u201d rather than tabloid. The UK now refers to \u201cred tops\u201d (e.g., the Mirror, the Sun) and \u201ctabloids\u201d (e.g., the Daily Mail, the Daily Express). \u201cRed Tops\u201d are so-named because of the use of white text in a red background for the newspaper\u2019s masthead. All newspapers appear to be proud of their style and fan base and the reactions that their reporting cause. Those that aren\u2019t \u201cred tops\u201d seem to me to assume an air of superiority over those that are. However, a cynic might point out that the red tops could be likened to pigs and the tabloids to pigs with lipstick, journalistically speaking, although the simile seems base-upwards from a colouration perspective.<\/p>\n

Full Circle<\/h1>\n

Being an ex-Brit, I\u2019d grown up using \u201cise\u201d endings on words. I really don\u2019t recall using \u201cize\u201d endings at all. When I immigrated to Canada in 1994, I went out of my way to learn \u201cproper\u201d Canadian spellings. I didn\u2019t want to hang on to British spellings, nor did I want to adopt American spellings\u2014I wanted to use Canadian spellings. Luckily for me, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary was published in 1998, and the Canadian Press adopted it as their reference dictionary. I was therefore happy to adopt \u201cize\u201d endings. Many British spellings look strange to me now.<\/p>\n

A few years later, I discovered that the \u201cise\/ize\u201d debate doesn\u2019t involve the Atlantic Ocean; it involves the 84 miles that separate the Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England.<\/p>\n

The Oxford Dictionary advocates the \u201cize\u201d endings, and does quite a convincing job of justifying that stance. For example, they state that the \u201cize\u201d ending dates from the 15th century, with \u201crealize\u201d being recorded in 1611; \u201crealise\u201d doesn\u2019t appear until 1755.<\/p>\n

The Cambridge Dictionary advocates \u201cise\u201d endings but doesn\u2019t attempt to justify it (or if it does, the justification has been invisiblised).<\/p>\n

The \u201cise\u201d endings are a French affliction that the British adopted in the 20th century. And those are the ones I learned. Obviously I didn\u2019t use my 1963 Oxford Pocket Dictionary much: if I had, I would have spotted that \u201cize\u201d endings were cited throughout.<\/p>\n

So in a way, I\u2019ve come full circle with the \u201cize\/ise\/ize\u201d debate.<\/p>\n

And this article has come full circle\u2014Professor David Crystal had said that the French had messed up English spelling, and I guess the \u201cise\u201d endings are proof positive.<\/p>\n

Summary<\/h1>\n

English is constantly evolving. The problems that many of us have with Shakespeare originate in part from the change in meaning and use of words, and you have to wonder what people will make of 21st century writing in the 25th century.<\/p>\n

With the implementation of the 2,400 changes to spelling and punctuation, the Acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise is acknowledging and encouraging evolution. That\u2019s a healthy thing for any language. Language has to adapt or it will be supplanted by another language that does.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

l’Acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise has just announced that a set of 2,400 proposed changes to spellings and punctuations will be rolled out in school text books in the upcoming academic year. My knowledge of the Acad\u00e9mie is not that great, but if I\u2019m not mistaken, this is tantamount to revolution, not evolution. Apparently, these 2,400 changes affect approximately four percent of the… Read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[490],"tags":[31,30,33,32,667],"class_list":["post-237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-commentaries","tag-canoe","tag-lingerie","tag-sweat","tag-tabloid","tag-words"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1650,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237\/revisions\/1650"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}