QUIET WEEK or DEAD WEEK?

It’s QUIET WEEK on my campus—the week before finals, when students hopefully are finishing projects, preparing for exams and writing papers. The idea of QUIET WEEK is to transition gently into finals exams, with instructors not making any last minute changes to the syllabus and not giving finals early.

QUIET WEEK used to be called DEAD WEEK but was officially renamed a few years back. The intent was to make it clearer that work was still doing in during the week—classes were being met, readings done, assigned papers collected, presentations made, etc., but that things were slowing down.

The name QUIET WEEK has been a hard sell with students. It’s hard to change reality merely by changing language, and so far the name hasn’t caught on.

And I have a theory about this (which arose when a student explained the term DEAD WEEK to me). “It’s because students are dead on their feet,” she said. That etymology makes sense (you try writing four terms papers in a ten weeks). I had always assumed that the dead of DEAD WEEK meant inert and thus that QUIET WEEK could be a possible and suitable synonym. But the double metaphor of DEAD WEEK (the intertia of the end-of-term and the exhaustion of the students) has made DEAD WEEK hard to kill, as it were.

Posted in Language | Comments Off

An Interview with Diane Goeres-Gardner

Diane Goeres-Gardner is a fifth-generation Oregonian, with roots in Tillamook County as early as 1852. She has a master’s degree from the University of Oregon where she studied with poet Ralph Salisbury. Her book Necktie Parties: A History of Legal Executions in Oregon, 1851-1905, was released by Caxton Press in 2005 and her Murder, Morality and Madness: Women Criminals in Early Oregon appeared in 2009, also by Caxton. Her book Images of America: Roseburg was published by Arcadia Press in 2010, part of its Images of America series.

In addition to writing about Oregon history, Goeres-Gardner is a poet, winning the 2002 narrative division in the Oregon State Poetry Contest with “Racing the Antelope.” and she has been a sponsored speaker for the Oregon Council for the Humanities.

She and her husband live along the Umpqua River surrounded by Myrtlewood trees and her miniature poodle-mix Cody.

Later this year, she will release two books on the Oregon State Hospital:
Inside Oregon State Hospital: A History of Tragedy and Triumph from The History Press along with Images of America: Oregon Asylum due to be released by Arcadia Publishing this summer.

EB: How did you get interested in crime?

DG-G: I got interested in Oregon’s hangings after noticing stories in old Oregon newspapers. I had been reading microfilm newspapers from the 1850s in the University of Oregon Knight Library. After collecting a few I became curious and tried to find out how many had occurred. I discovered that except for a few wonderful county historians, no one knew how many men had been executed or where the executions had taken place. This was right after William Longs’ book about Oregon’s history of capital punishment “A Tortured History” had been published. He had about a page and a half dedicated to the years prior to 1905. To me it seemed a fascinating subject and one that would make a wonderful book. After several years of research I submitted the manuscript to Caxton Press and they published my book Necktie Parties: A History of Legal Executions in Oregon, 1851-1905 in 2005.

EB: In frontier Oregon, what could get you hanged?

DG-G: Oregon has only hanged men after they were convicted of first-degree murder. I couldn’t even find a lynching for anything other than murder. There are a lot of myths floating around about who was hanged first and that so-and-so was hanged for stealing a horse. Almost all the myths I encountered were false.

EB: Hangings were social events. Why is that? Is there an American desire for spectacle, like reality shows, or did hangings fill some other social function?

DG-G: The major reason they were social events was to prove to the citizens that law and order really worked and the legal punishment was carried out. They served as a social function for people to get together, meet their neighbors, lecture children about morality, and do a little shopping in town. All the hangings took place in the county seats.

EB: You have also written about women being incarcerated. What were some of the reasons that women were imprisoned in early Oregon?

DG-G: Women were incarcerated for the same crimes men were. The major difference was that there wasn’t any place appropriate to put them when they were convicted of crimes. The Oregon State Penitentiary was never designed to hold women – under the assumption women would not commit crimes – and very few did. The first Oregon prison for women was opened in 1965.

EB: Were there typical women’s crimes?

DG-G: Oregon has never executed a woman. And no woman was convicted of first-degree murder until the law was changed to allow judges and juries the option of execution or life in prison for a first-degree murder conviction. Mostly women were sent to prison for short periods of time for first-degree larceny.

EB: How has this informed your views on women’s rights?

DG-G: Murder, Morality and Madness: Women Criminals In Early Oregon is a case-by-case study that illustrates how women accused of crimes were unfairly treated by the court system, their neighbors, and society prior to 1900. That didn’t change much until they received the right to vote in 1912 and even then the cultural obstacles took much longer to overcome. Even now in 2013, there are still people in the government trying to limit women’s rights. It’s extremely disappointing. Read history and discover the truth.

EB: Your books contain a lot of research. Have you always been a writer/researcher?

DG-G: I think of myself more as a researcher than a writer. I write to get my research into print. The research is fun. Writing is really hard work! My goal has always been to recreate the cultural and psychological context experienced by the participants in the historical events I’m writing about. I want the reader not only to understand the history but to empathize with the individuals involved.

EB: Tell us about your latest project.

DG-G: I became interested in the history of the Oregon State Hospital (known as the Oregon State Insane Asylum until 1913) because many of the women prisoners were sent to OSH in a humanitarian effort to provide appropriate housing for them. It became an even higher priority for me when the hospital began its reconstruction efforts in 2006 and they started planning to demolish many of the historic buildings.

I have two new books being released this summer. The first is Images of America: Oregon Asylum due to be released by Arcadia Publishing on June 17. It is a photo-history showing the 120-year history of the Oregon State Hospital using photos, graphs, and other historical materials. My daughter, Laurie Burke, took many of the later photos.

My second book is “Inside Oregon State Hospital: A History of Tragedy and Triumph published by The History Press. It includes a foreword by John Terry, an Oregonian columnist. It will be released about the end of June. It is an 85,000-word narrative looking at the hospital’s history through the eyes of the patients who lived there. It also tracks the various changes in mental health care from 1860 to 2012 in Oregon and the United States. I believe very few Oregonians know about the Eugenics Movement in Oregon when hundreds of people were sterilized (men were castrated) because they were poor, mentally ill, gay, or promiscuous. The whole movement led to the Holocaust in Germany. Authorities in Oregon were avid supporters of the movement.

Included are interviews with Dr. Dean Brooks, superintendent of OSH when “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” was filmed in the old J Building, the new superintendent, Greg Roberts, and various other hospital employees. If you ever wondered about the mental health system in Oregon or saw the old buildings in Salem, this book is the only published history of the hospital. It includes a full index and over a thousand endnotes as references, and is supported by the Oregon State Hospital Museum of Mental Health, which opened in October 2012.

Endorsements include the following:

    John Terry, columnist for the Portland Oregonian found the book “tremendously informative as well as disturbing.”

    Dr. Howard Baumann, a board member for the OSH Museum of Mental Health believes “Ms. Goeres-Gardner balances the unique and complex history of the Oregon State Hospital with the art of the storyteller.”

    Dr. Robert Nikkel, retired Oregon Mental Health and Addictions Commissioner, writes: “Her exhaustive research tells the full story of the institution, its troubled and humanitarian past without passing judgment. Ms. Goeres-Gardner presents a compelling story with historic references that no other book has provided to date.”

For future announcements concerning Inside Oregon State Hospital: A History of Tragedy and Triumph, please check my web page “www.dlgoeres-gardner.com”.

EB: Thanks. I hope we can get you back in the summer to talk more about these new books.

Posted in Interviews | Comments Off

An Interview with Virginia Morell

Acclaimed science writer Virginia Morell’s latest book Animal Wise: The Thoughts and Emotions of Our Fellow Creatures is being released this month by Crown Publishing. It’s about the inner worlds of animals, from ants and parrots to elephants and monkeys. Morell takes readers to field sites and labs around the world, introducing us to researchers and animals and exploring the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise when we learn that animals have cognitive abilities usually only attributed to humans.

Virginia Morell’s work always brings nature alive. She’s the author of three previous books. Ancestral Passions, her dramatic biography of the Leakey family was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year. Her Blue Nile, about her journey down the Blue Nile to Sudan, was a San Francisco Chronicle Best Travel Book. Wildlife Wars, which she co-authored with Richard Leakey in 2001, was named by The Washington Post as one of their Best Books of the Year.

She is also a contributing correspondent for Science, and has covered evolutionary and conservation biology since 1990. Morell is also a regular contributor to National Geographic and Conde Nast Traveler. In 2004, her National Geographic article on climate change was a finalist for Best Environmental Article from the Society of Environmental Journalists, and her National Geographic article “Animal Minds“, was selected for the Best American Science and Nature Writing 2009.

Morell lives in Ashland, Oregon, with her husband, writer Michael McRae, a Calico cat named Nini and a Farm Collie named Buckaroo.

EB: How did you become a science writer?

VM: As a child, I loved reading and spending time in nature. My parents were great outdoor enthusiasts, and as a family we spent many weekends and every summer vacation camping, hiking and exploring the mountains and deserts of the western states–and I was soon a devoted reader of field guides, learning all I could about wildlife, plants, and geology. I loved reading because I loved imagining myself as the characters in my books and being carried away by the words into their lives. And I loved watching birds and animals for much the same reason. Who were they? How did they live their lives? Did they have romances and adventures? They were elusive, flitting and flying away just as you inched closer. You had to be patient to see them and to learn their ways. I wrote short, imaginary tales about their lives, which everyone seemed to enjoy. And while these were fictional tales, they were my first efforts to explain the things in the world that I thought and cared about. I actually did not set out to become a science writer; as a child I didn’t realize there was such a career. I only discovered it in college. And then there was a sudden illumination: here was a way to combine all that I loved–reading, exploring the wild, meeting unusual, eccentric characters (human and animal), and sharing all of this through my tales.

EB: You’ve written about Africa’s natural treasures, about the Nile, and about the Leakey family. What brought you to the idea of animal minds?

VM: For my biography about the fossil-hunting Leakey family, I traveled to Tanzania to interview Jane Goodall in 1987 at Gombe Stream National Park, where she studies wild chimpanzees. (Louis Leakey had helped Jane launch this project.) While there, I joined Jane and her research assistants on their chimp-watching forays. So many of the chimpanzees’ behaviors, facial expressions, and gestures were similar to ours that I found myself slipping and calling them “people” when describing to other human-people what I’d witnessed. One chimpanzee also involved me in his political schemes; and with Jane’s assistance, a young chimp deceived her elder. (I tell both stories in ANIMAL WISE.) The chimpanzees were clearly thinking, as well as experiencing and expressing emotions—yet Jane could not say this about them. She had to use indirect expressions: “The young chimpanzee behaved ‘as if’ she were deceiving him.” There was a bias at the time against animals having minds, and being capable of thinking or feeling emotions, especially positive ones, such as love. That trip, my discussions with Jane about animal minds, and my own experiences with my dogs and cats led me to investigate the science of animal cognition.

In Ancestral Passions, my book about the Leakey family, I reviewed what was known about the physical evolution of humans. But what about our mental and emotional evolution? There isn’t an equivalent fossil record, but clues to the origins of these abilities can be found by studying other animals. Happily, in the years since my visit with Jane, many animal cognition scientists have adopted a more Darwinian perspective. They no longer ask “do animals think” or “do animals have emotions”. Instead, they’re investigating “how” animals think and feel. For ANIMAL WISE, I joined many of these researchers and the animals they study to find out what scientists know about the minds of our fellow creatures.

EB: I’ve seen videos of Alex the Parrot and his use of speech is really remarkable. Was he special or are other parrots capable of using language that effectively?

VM: Alex had remarkable vocal skills—not because he was special, but because a special human, Irene Pepperberg, spent innumerable hours teaching him how to imitate English words, or “labels” as Irene calls them. Many parrot species have the ability to imitate sounds because they are, like us, vocal-learners. That means they learn calls (or in Alex’s case, words) by listening to others call, and then imitating those sounds. For instance, you can tell me your name: “Ed.” I listen, and I can repeat it back to you, even if I’ve never heard that sound before, because I am a vocal-learner. Most other species, such as chimpanzees, dogs, and cats, are not vocal learners. They make sounds and calls (and these do have meanings), but they cannot imitate the calls of others because they lack the anatomy required for this skill. But parrots and humans aren’t the only vocal learners. Songbirds, hummingbirds, elephants, dolphins, many whales, and harbor seals all have this talent. Although these species are distantly related to each other, they share similar pathways in the brain that make it possible for them to learn and reproduce the sounds they hear.

EB: Is there an ethical component to animal minds? Apology? Regret? Shame?

VM: Many animal species, such as dogs, wolves, dolphins, primates, and rats, have rules that govern how to behave and how to treat others in their social group. They may not have apologies in the same way that we do; but they have ways to ask others for forgiveness if they transgress. Sometimes, this is expressed as submission (think of a dog rolling on his back and exposing his throat to a rival). A chimpanzee seeking forgiveness from another will grimace and extend her hand, palm-up—just as we do when begging.

It might seem difficult to ask if another animal feels regret, but Japanese scientists showed through a clever experiment in 2011 that Rhesus monkeys regret making poor choices. And to confirm their discovery, the researchers also recorded the neuronal activity of the monkeys during the test. Guess what? The regions of the brain that are known to be associated with memory and regret in humans were also activated in the “regretful” monkeys.

Darwin considered “shame” and “embarrassment” to be special emotions, found only in humans, and I don’t know of any studies that have convincingly shown these in other species. Guilt, however, is a different matter. Darwin observed that primates, dogs, and wolves all exhibit the types of behaviors that are associated with guilt: averting one’s gaze, and keeping one’s head down. Guilty behaviors help reinforce social bonds by reducing conflict and encouraging tolerance. Most dog owners think that their dogs feel guilty if they do something wrong. Scientists have devised clever tests for “dog guilt”—but the results so far are mixed. Maybe the best answer comes from one of the great observers of animal behavior, Konrad Lorenz, who wrote that we can “assume with certainty that the [dog’s guilty look] hides a guilty conscience.”

EB: Seems to me that people come to the issue of animal minds with preconceptions? Did you find that? Where do those preconceptions come from?

VM: When I mentioned to others that I was working on a book about how animals think, many responded with raised eyebrows and a smirk: “Oh, animals think?!” At first, I reacted defensively. But I came to realize that their response was simply what they had learned; what our society taught them, and still largely teaches. They were also afraid, I think, of being considered soft or sentimental. The idea that animals are little more than animated objects has been around for centuries, but it became central to western thought through the writings of the 17th century philosopher, Rene Descartes. He argued that the mind and body are two separate entities—the body is material, while the mind or soul is immaterial. Because animals are composed only of material substances, they lack minds or souls, and have no capacity for reason. Biologists, however, have shown that the mind is situated in the material brain—so the old Cartesian dualism is no longer valid. Yet for much of the 20th century, another group of scientists known as “strict animal behaviorists” argued that it’s impossible to know what other animals are thinking. We humans are highly empathetic beings, and so it is easy for us to assume that other animals are thinking or experiencing emotions identical to ours. But proving scientifically—through experiments and/or observations—what is actually going on in another animal’s mind is extremely difficult.

I think that because we use animals cruelly in so many ways many people prefer to regard them as things. It makes us feel less guilty. If humans in Africa were being slaughtered as elephants are these days, no one would stand by idly. But elephants are only animals.

EB: Do animals have humor? How does it work?

Yes, they do. Dogs, dolphins, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, crows, ravens, and parrots have all been observed behaving mischievously, and getting a kick out of it. One of my favorite examples—because it is so human-like—comes from Jane Goodall. On several occasions, she’s watched two young chimp siblings playing together; one chimp is usually a couple years older than the other, and just can’t resist teasing the kid. He’ll trail a vine around a tree—just out of reach of his younger brother. And every time, the little guy almost manages to grab the vine, the older one jerks it forward. After awhile, the little one starts to cry—while the older one erupts in laughter –exactly like human siblings. I’ve also read about a natural historian who had a dog and a parrot. The parrot liked to tease the dog. He would call the dog’s name and then whistle—just like the owner. The dog would run dutifully into the parrot’s room, and the parrot would laugh. Alex the Grey Parrot had a rather sarcastic sense of humor. When Irene Pepperberg didn’t give him a nut right away for a task he’d accomplished, he spelled it out for her: “Want a nut. Nnn, uh, tuh.” You could imagine him thinking, “Hey, stupid, do I have to spell it out for you?,” Irene said. Ravens get a kick out of pulling the tails of wolves; dolphins yank the tail feathers from unsuspecting pelicans; many dogs love to play keep-away. Our Buck gets a kick out of prancing around the house tossing some forbidden object—usually, the kitty litter pooper-scooper. Even rats, an animal you might not think of as having a sense of humor, surely must because they laugh. For ANIMAL WISE, I met Jaak Panksepp, the scientist who discovered laughter in rats by tickling them; they have “tickle skin” just as we humans do. Their laughs are too high-pitched for us to hear (you can hear them if you have a bat call detector), and they laugh when they wrestle and play-fight with each other, and when they’re tickled. Panksepp also discovered that the neural circuits for laughter exist in very ancient parts of the mammalian brain—which means that play and laughter were already present in animals long before we humans came along with our verbal jokes and repartee. As Panksepp said, “Although some still regard laughter as a uniquely human trait, honed in the Pleistocene, the joke’s on them.”

EB: Will your book cause people to reevaluate their relation with their pets?

VM: I can’t say if it will or won’t. But I hope readers will come away understanding that their dog, cat, guinea pig, goldfish, or parakeet has a mind—one that benefits from being challenged just as ours do. The dog cognition researcher, Adam Miklosi, told me, “A dog is not a lamp. It needs something to do; it needs to use its brain.” So, I hope readers will spend more time playing games with their pets, teaching them new tricks, walking and petting them, and just being with them. Engage with them—just as you would a friend you value.

EB: What authors have influenced you both as a reader and a science writer?

I expect that like many science writers, I’ve been deeply influenced by John McPhee. His books are models for explaining a field of science, and drawing readers to arcane subjects via the scientists. Evan Connell’s masterful “Son of the Morning Star” has also affected my writing. I’ve read and re-read his quick, painterly sketches of even minor characters—and would love to think I’m able to give readers somewhat similar vivid descriptions of the scientists I met for ANIMAL WISE. I’m also drawn as a reader and writer to Diane Ackerman, Jonathan Weiner, Annie Dillard, Gretel Ehrlich, Francis Parkman, Ian Frazier, and Charles Darwin (especially his “Voyage of the Beagle”).

EB: I almost hate to ask this, but do you have a next project?

VM: I have several book projects in mind, but haven’t settled on the next one yet.

Posted in Interviews | Comments Off

Words of the World: A Global History of the Oxford English Dictionary

Sarah Ogilvie’s Words of the World: A Global History of the Oxford English Dictionary begins by describing her entry into the quiet world of the OED. She had come from of Australian branch of Oxford dictionaries, was a rare linguist among lexicographers, and quickly found herself fascinated by the OED archives, where she discovered some interesting facts about the OED editors. The early editors were not quite so fusty as many thought.

The question she focused on was this: how did the OED editors treat borrowed words? The simplified story that is often told is that the OED went from a tool of British empire-building to a repository of the world’s Englishes, evolving to preserve the flexibility and utility of English. It turns out that that story of progress is too simple. The early editors, especially Murray, Furnivall, and Onions, and were quite open to loan words (they essentially treated words used in an English context as English). And Robert Burchfield, editor of the OED supplement published in 1986, was not as inclusive as the reputation he cultivated. (In another context, John Updike has once referred to him as pleading the case of outcast words “like a left-wing lawyer”). Comparing the 1986 supplement to the 1933 supplement, Ogilvie found that the later supplement omitted many loanwords rather than marking them with as obsolete (with a dagger, naturally).

Was Burchfield making editorial choices (the words after all were still in the OED1) or lexicographic purging? It’s an open question but the press has sensationalized the story a bit, and Burchfield does seem to have overly hyped his own role. But, as Ogilvie makes clear, the story is really about the foresight of the early editors in deciding what a historical dictionary should do and how it should reach out to the English- speaking world.

Words of the World: A Global History of the Oxford English Dictionary is scholarly but readable and certainly changed the way I think of the OED.

Posted in History of Publishing Observations, Language, What People Are Reading | Comments Off

The Story of Ain’t

David Skinner’s The Story of Ain’t ain’t just about ain’t. It’s the tale of the making of Webster’s Third International Dictionary, the wonderfully controversial flashpoint in the cultural wars between realists and snoots. I wondered what Skinner would add to the well-known (at least by linguists) story of Philip Gove and the cultural battle over scientific lexicography and to the tale told by Herbert Morton’s The Story of Webster’s Third: Philip Gove’s Controversial Dictionary and Its Critics.

Quote a lot, it turns out. Skinner tells the stories of the dictionary and the linguistic and business issues that informed its creation—the use of the IPA, the process outlined in Gove’s Black Book of dictionary-marking, the work-day at the Merriam-Webster office in Springfield (no talking), the initial public relations blunder about ain’t (it said “ain’t gets official recognition at last,” setting Webster’s III up to be about permissiveness rather than progress). Skinner describes the attempted buy-out by the American Heritage publishing company. And he tells the stories of not just Philip Gove and Dwight Macdonald but the presidents of Merriam and American Heritage (Gordon Gallan and James Parton), and the linguists and critics of the day (Leonard Bloomfield, Charles Fries, Sterling Leonard, James Sledd, Bergen Evans, and more). H. L. Mencken and David Foster Wallace even make appearances.

Skinner treats Gove and linguists of the day fairly, explaining their thinking and hinting at the difficulty of their position: describing the realities of language in a society that often wanted rules not facts. The detail research and explorations of the lives of the principals made this a compelling intellectual drama, and a tale with a moral, but not the one you might think.

Posted in Language, What People Are Reading | Comments Off

MY YEAR OF NEW WORDS, PART 5: SUFFIXES

Making up words requires suffixes—word endings. In English, there are two major types of suffixes. Some endings INFLECT nouns, verbs and adjectives, and adverbs to show their grammatical forms: plural, possessive, past tense, comparative, superlative. And some endings DERIVE new words from old, like -ify which makes a verb out of a noun or –ness which makes a noun out of an adjective or –y, which makes an adjective out of a noun (and which got quite a workout in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series). As with prefixes, there are traffic rules. You can add –ness to clever, happy and sad but not intelligent, depressed and ecstatic. And we say curiousity or curiousness but verbosity rather than verboseness.

One suffix that’s puzzles me is –er. The vast majority of –er words are added to verbs to make them into one who ___s: teacher, farmer, professor (with the erudite variant –or). Lots of exceptions exist that involve implied or outright metaphor: lifer, looker, officer, lawyer, mother f***er. The –er words that are especially confusing to me are the words truther, birther, deather. And there’s a set of double –er compounds too: fixer upper, picker upper (check out early November for my attempt to add to this with breaker downer). I should have tried looker overer for the triple –er hat trick.

Some languages, by the way, use circumfixes and infixes too. English has a causative circumfixed em—–en, as in embolden or Homer Simpson’s embiggen. But we don’t use that technique much. And we have infixes for expressive purposes in polysyllables: like mathe-freakin-matics, or responsi-freakin-bitity.

Posted in My Year of New Words, Non-word of the Day | Comments Off

MY YEAR OF NEW WORDS, PART 4: PREFIXES

March was about prefixes. The un- of uncool, unknowable, unpredicatable, unintelligible, uninhabited, and so forth. Attached to adjectives, un- means not. It also means not when attached to nouns, like undead, uncola, and the great unwashed. But attached to verbs, un- means to reverse the effect of: to undo, untie, unfasten, unbutton. So there are rules for prefixes that are sensitive to the part of speech of the root word.

The same goes for ex-. You can have an ex-spouse or ex-friend or ex-president or be an ex-student or ex-employee. But you can’t ex-marry or ex-friend or ex-employ. Ex- goes with nouns but verbs. There is a grammar to prefixes (all fixes, really) and we call this grammar morphology.

Prefixes can be ambiguous just as words can. Take in-, for example. Semantically in- is sometimes like un- or ex- in words like indescribable, intangible, indefensible, infallible, incredible, inevitable, inept, inability (which is the noun form of unable, oddly). It means not. Of course, sometimes the in- changes its sound shape to homophonize with a following consonant: impossible, improbable, irregular, illegal, but that’s another story.

Sometimes in- just means in. As in indent, income, immigrant, and impediment. This brings us to the words ingratiate and ingrate, two unrelated words that sound like they should be related but aren’t. In ingratiate, you are trying to get in the good graces of someone. But if you are an ingrate, you are ungrateful (there that in-/un- switch again). And so course, this is why words like inflammable as confusing.

Is it not flammable or is it able to burst into flame? Words have an internal structure and if you correctly interpret inflammable as able to burst into flames you are treating the [inflame] as one part and able as added to that: [[inflame] able] if you adopt the other meaning you are putting flame and able together first, then adding in: [in[flammable]]. It’s a natural enough thing to do.

One of my students, by the way, suggested—in jest, I think—that implode meant not explode. It’s an unimpossible analysis, I think. I suppose that infallible could also mean able to fall into. Hmm.

Returning to the realm of the unimpossible, the same ambiguity arises with un- and –able. Things can be undoable, untieable, unbuttonable, and unzippable—able to be undone or not able to be done, etcetera. Not all prefixes mean not, by the way. But a lot do: a- and an-, un-, in-, de-, ex-.

Before we leave prefixes, I should point out the word defixes, that I introduced to refer to prefixes (or suffixes) that get promoted to words, like ex, bi, ism, and ish. A student suggested ishness, which uses the promoted prefix ish as the root. And this can work the other way too: words can be pressed into service as affixes (more next time).

Posted in My Year of New Words, Non-word of the Day | Comments Off

MY YEAR OF NEW WORDS, PART 3: CLIPPING

If you Febrify something, you reduce it by 1/15th or 2/30th. So for February it makes sense to introduce the technique of clipping. You shorten a word, from the front (auto from automobile, gas from gasoline, dorm from dormitory, exam from examination) or from the end (zine, burger, hood). You can even sometimes clip words from both sides at once: flu, from influenza, fridge from refrigerator or Lisa from Elizabeth. (Why yes, many nicknames are clippings).

Clipping can be tricky, by the way, and can blend into blending when you clip parts of two words and then blend them— WiFi (wireless + fidelity), hazmat (hazardous + material). If fact, most blends have a certain amount of clipping in them. Take nomophophobia (NO muh fuh FO bi uh) the fear of being without a cell phone or cell phone signal. It has a lot of internal clipping (no+mobile+phone+phobia) and manages to sneak in muh fuh as well.

Doubtcome from doubt + outcome and testosterantics from testosterone + antics also have that internal clipping. My favorite February clipping was venge, clipped simultaneously from avenge and revenge and kimpy from skimpy (kimpy, of course, is even skimpier than skimpy, see the discussion of tumble and stumble above).

Jonathan Swift didn’t care for clipping, by the way, complaining that “This perpetual Disposition to shorten our Words, by retrenching the Vowels, is nothing else but a tendency to lapse into the Barbarity of those Northern Nations from whom we are descended, and whose Languages labour all under the same Defect.” Then again, Swift also proposed eating babies.

Posted in My Year of New Words, Non-word of the Day | Comments Off

MY YEAR OF NEW WORDS, PART 2: Blending

Blends are words formed by taking two (or more) words and pushing them together, dropping some sounds and letters. So “smoke + fog” become “smog, breakfast + lunch” becomes“brunch”, “spoon + fork” becomes “spork”. You see what’s going on.

Lots of words common words are blends: bash (bang + smash), Muppet (marionette + puppet), dumbfound (dumb + confound), sitcom (situation + comedy), squiggle (squirm + wiggle), ginormous (giant + enormous), glitz (glamour + ritz), glob (gob + blob), guesstimate (guess + estimate) and of course hassle (haggle + tussle). Some blends can be quite clever, like bananus (banana + anus) for the brown part at the end of a banana or flempty (full + empty) for half full and half empty. Both are from the Urban Dictionary and good for a laugh in an introduction to linguistics class. Notice how empfuljust doesn’t work. Blends need to sounds like real words and be transparent in their meanings. And does anyone say knork (knife +fork)?

Blends, by the way, are sometimes called portemanteau words. A portemanteau was a “large suitcase with two halves that close together. It’s from Middle French porter (to carry) + manteau (mantle).

I tried to start the year with a triple blend resolvevolvolution from resolve + evolve + resolution. It doesn’t roll well off the tongue. But we have to start somewhere. One of my favorites was flossolalia, blending floss + glossolalia (speaking in tongues) to refer to unintelligible speech that occurs when you talk to someone while flossing your teeth (my wife wants me to make it clear that this is my vice, not hers).

There’s preventertainment for school programs featuring local celebrities warning about gangs, drug use, sex, drinking, etc. and flabricate meaning to lie about one’s waist size or weight. There’s snubbub for a noisy misunderstanding arising from a perceived slight and punxatognostication (PUNK-suh-TOG-nos-TIK-a -SHUN) for predictions made by a groundhog from (Punxsutawney + prognostication). I don’t expect that one to catch on, but I’d love to see news anchors try it.

I overheard (“witheard) a former student tweet hangry (to become angry due to hunger). Another student suggested movementum (the rate at which a popular, coordinated action proceeds). Dawndle (not getting out of bed when the alarm goes off), from dawn + dawdle, worked nicely but textumble (to fall up or down steps while texting, or the fall itself) was a head-scratcher: should it be textstumble from text + stumble ortext tumble from text + tumble (and why is stumble so similar to tumbleanyway?)

Posted in My Year of New Words, Non-word of the Day | Comments Off

MY YEAR OF NEW WORDS, part 1

\We love words. Some are short and sharp, like “cut” or “kick.” Some of are confusing, like “citation” (is it good or bad?) and “ogle” (is it AHgle or OHgle or UHgle). Some roll smiling off our tongues, like “Kalamazoo” or “googleganger”. And we love to make up words, as alliterative news catchphrases (“Superstorm Sandy)”, as advertising slogans [“coughsequences” (Robitussen), “millionize” (L’Oreal), “Februany” (Subway), “threemendous” (McDonald’s), DQrazy (Dairy Queen), “biggerer” (the Oregon lottery)], and as political commentary (from “Reaganomics” to “Clintonomics” to “Obamacare” and “Mittmentum”). Some television shows even make a practice of coining words. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, as my colleague Michael Adams has documented, has contributed “researchy, rampagey, freaksome, sighage”, and more.

Dictionaries, professional societies, and universities get in on the game as well, especially during the slow year-end news cycles. Merriam Webster and Oxford Dictionaries both promote a word of the year. Lake Superior State University offers its list of Words that Should be Banished…”.

The American Dialect Society has an annual Word of the Year vote—a raucous open meeting—with hotly contested votes in a number of categories: “Most Useful, Most Creative, Most Unnecessary, Most Outrageous, Most Euphemistic, Most Likely To Succeed, Least Likely To Succeed”. And, not to be outdone, the American Name Society votes on a Name of the Year as well and the “Trade Name of the Year, Place Name of the Year, Personal Name of the Year,” and “Fictional Name of the Year”.

Some wordwork is year round. Erin McKean’s Wordnik is an online dictionary/thesaurus site that includes meanings: context of the word, including usage and even photos and also allows users to add their own meaning and context. The Urban Dictionary, founded in 1999 by Aaron Peckham, allows users to define words and add citations. Now with (volunteer) editors, it’s becoming a much more serious contender. If the Urban Dictionary is the OED of new words (and I’m not saying it is), then comedian Rich Hall is the Samuel Johnson. He popularized Sniglets on the 1980s HBO Not Necessarily the News, offering a monthly on words that don’t appear in the dictionary, but should. The “New York Times Magazine” has taken over for Not Necessarily the News with Lizzie Skurnik’s “That Should be a Word” feature.

In terms of tracking actual new words, Paul McFedries’ WordSpy fills in some new gaps as does “Wired” magazine’s Jargon Watch. The American Speech Among the New Words column tracks new words each quarterly issue, with a bit of a time lag for scholarly steeping. And of course dictionaries are at it all the time. It’s their job. The online Oxford English Dictionary adds thousands of words each year. Writers invent and use new words—from Chaucer’s use of French words to Shakespeare’s and Twain’s neology to Lewis Carroll, George Orwell, Anthony Burgess to modern examples like M. K. Anderson’s “meg null” and “unit” or J. K. Rowling’s “muggles” and “disapparitions”.

How does a word get in the dictionary, you ask? According to Merriam-Webster, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time. Specifically, the word must have enough citations to allow accurate judgments about its establishment, currency, and meaning. Sarah Ogilvie reports on the OED practice:

    We hesitated to state an official policy for new words, but usually a word only got admitted if it appeared in written texts more than five times over five years, and preferably in a variety of sources (i.e. not just in newspapers but also in magazines and books).

Why should famous writers and dictionaries have all the fun? In the waning months of 2011, I decided to tweet a new word every day.

Some were words suggested to me by friends, from young children to retirees (a list of those deserving credit appears at the end). Many words I made up. On occasion I would try to think of new words as a went to sleep, like counting sheep, and other times I sat in meetings or presentations pretending to take notes but really brainstorming words. Sometimes I even jotted down an idea on a napkin while driving. The new words were curated too. I checked them on Google to be sure they weren’t already in the Urban or Webster’s dictionaries.

But why would I commit to tweeting 366 new words (yes, it was a leap year)? I had three reasons.
The first was just to have some fun. I recently came across a description of Groucho Marx by publisher Bennett Cerf. Cerf said that Groucho … “doesn’t look at words the way the rest of us do. He looks at them upside down, backwards, from the middle out to the end, and from the end back to the middle. Next he drops them in a mental Mixmaster, and studies them some more. Groucho doesn’t look for double meanings. He looks for quadruple meanings.”

I’m no Groucho Marx, but I appreciate wordplay and I’ve tried to approach non-words the same way: upside-down and backwards with quadruple meanings. I thought the best words to make up would be ones that had phonetic or visual joke… like “virony” (veiled irony expressed by females about or toward males)? Is it VIE-roni (like virtual + irony) or VIR-ony (from virile + irony). Or it is a “polyphone “(a word that can be pronounced in more than one way).

Sometimes though, the words tricked me. I’ve always been amused at the usage of “akimbo” to mean “askew” (as in “with arms and legs akimbo”). But “akimbo” means “with arms on the hips” so “legs akimbo” seems painfully wrong. I wanted a word that means any human body position in which the hands are not on the hips with elbows pointed outward. I imagined someone reading “akimbo” as “a + kimbo” like “amoral”, “atopic”, or “atypical”. But “kimbo” is already a word—and a name. So I went with “anakimbo”, using the prefix “ana-” which can mean “without.”

Well, having this kind of fun would be enough for me, but if I was going to justify this to my relatives, colleagues, and bosses, I needed a more academic reason. So you should think of it as a year-long opportunity to talk about words and promote some of the concepts of word formation. When I introduce the concept of word creation in classes, we talk about all the various ways that new words and meanings come about. Now I can illustrate these concepts with novel examples along with textbook ones. The dozenish essays that follow talk about the various types of word formation and meaning creation, from blending in January, to clipping in February to fixation, pre- and suf-, in March and April to verbing nouns in May, eponyms in July, and – well, just read on.

There’s a third reason too, and I’ll get back to that at the end.

Posted in My Year of New Words, Non-word of the Day | Comments Off