MY YEAR OF NEW WORDS, Part 11: WORDS THAT DIDN’T MAKE IT

As the year wound down, I had two choices. Continue making up words indefinitely or stop and retain my sanity. I choose to stop. But I found that I had some spare words left over—and I had a small pile of word that didn’t make it, because they were too obscure, too partisan, or too explicit. And there were a number of words I wished I had made up, but was beaten to. I’ve already mention bananus and flempty, but there’s also virality, angster, spamglish, thoughtsicles, and bedoozed (a favorite of H. L. Mencken’s)
The Urban Dictionary beat me to the punch more than once, with mirrow (reflective surface used by a boastful, self-conscious male) reGoogletate (to conduct research by cutting and pasting from whatever Googled sources come up first), dimpse (twilight) bormal (between boring and normal), redund (meaning to state a redundant fact and in doing so admit its redundancy), cudge (between a hug and a cuddle), proodle (a female from an affluent background who is a tease with her sexuality) extroduce (to close off a topic), gnart (gnarly fart), napnea (the inability to sleep at night due to short naps taken during the day), pranky (prone to joking), thumple (fallen socks) tofurducken (thanksgiving meal with three types of embedded tofu), blandsome (blandly handsome) exote (the act of explaining one’s emotions), hoogle (a human google), junuary (sarcastic reference to an extremely cold summer day), sargasm (deriving far too much satisfaction from glibly berating another with sarcasm.)
Here are some of the non-words that didn’t make it:
commadify (to make a commodity out of punctuation)
ryanize (to lie about your Marathon times),
to biden (to make malarkey sound like bullshit)
slimfidel (to fall off a diet), cleverth (false cleverness)
spurrito (a vegetarian burrito)
sailgate (to come up behind in a boat)
trumpadump (to fire someone publicly)
propounce (to correct someone’s speech)
parenthesmileys (emoticons)
matrimonetize (to turn getting married into a big business)
benefiction (feel good fiction), also malefiction
paramental (obsession with changing parameters)
aftclosure (backwards foreclosure)
youbris (false pride given away by malapropisms)
awkwarding (to misedit)
sparsify (to make less)
catacombover (a failed combcover with gaps)
mangofication (to garnish with many mangoes)
smotherism (to parent overly maternally)
saphazarded (a hazard most people would avoid)
effortful (hard)
hissticuffs (an arguments that almost makes it to a fight)
demonstration (a protest involving dropped pants),
nearonyms (words that are almost homonyms, like busyness & business),
bananza (see mangofication),
scattoo (to perform scat), snOCD (to obsessively check to see if there is a snow closure),
immortality rate (percentage of the population over 100 years of age)
anti-Hamitic (to be prejudiced against Arabs)
disorientalist (one who confuses others)
pretential (pretending to have more potential than warranted)
forforgivness (to forgive in advance)
fabrigas (the smell that remains on clothing after expelling flatulence
frusterbait (to annoy someone purposefully to the point of frustration)
frusterbate (unsuccessful self-satisfaction)
inhumanies (the arts and sciences)
refreshen (a redundant blend of refresh and freshen)
ignomify (to call someone names)
I’ll leave it to you to figure out why these didn’t make it.

Posted in Language | Comments Off on MY YEAR OF NEW WORDS, Part 11: WORDS THAT DIDN’T MAKE IT

An interview with fact-checker Melissa Swank

Melissa Swank was the fact-checker for the award-winning Oregon Encyclopedia, a peer-reviewed reference work with over 1,000 entries by hundreds of authors. She has almost completed her master’s degree in history from Portland State University, with a specialization in Public history and Native American history and has also worked as a researcher at the Washington County History Museum and as a research assistant for the Confluence Project. In 2012, she was the first recipient of PSU’s Gordon Dodds Endowed Fellowship for the study of Pacific Northwest history.

EB: What does a fact checker do?

MS: Most simply put, a fact-checker does what I call “reverse research.” As a fact-checker, I begin with an entry submission that an author feels is complete. From that point, each statement or “fact” is checked against existing sources, primary evidence and secondary scholarship, to confirm that the information is either correct or that there are discrepancies in available information. If there is conflicting information it is noted and sent back to the author for clarification or revision.

EB: How did you become a fact checker? Background? Training? Personality?

MS: After my first year in the master’s program at Portland State University, I was selected as one of seven GTA’s (Graduate Teaching Assistants) for the following year. Having Bill Lang as one of my near and dear professors opened up the possibility of filling the GTA position through the Oregon Encyclopedia Project. When Bill approached me about the position I didn’t hesitate to accept.

EB: You are also a historian. Can you tell us a little about your interests there?

MS: As an historian my passions lie in research. I love research! It’s all the joy of being a detective with the flexibility of determining my own studies. Currently my work focuses on the Chinookan-American families in and around Pillar Rock, Washington near the mouth of the Columbia River. I am most interested in blended, bi-cultural and bi-racial families and the ways in which these families shaped the social, economic, and political life in the area during the nineteenth century.

EB: What attracted you to the study of history?

MS: I was attracted to history through an amazing high school history teacher. David Nieslanik was one of those rare and inspiring teachers that helped his students recognize how significant each and every event in history, and really how each life, impacts the world today. I wanted to be as inspiring to others as he was to us.

EB: What sorts of facts need checking?

MS: Everything! Everything from dates, directions, opinions, names, spellings, etc. needs to be fact-checked. In addition, the fact-checker insures that entries are free from plagiarism and original documents appropriate to be published in the encyclopedia.

EB: How long does it take to fact check an encyclopedia piece? Or does it vary?

MS: Since our entries vary in length and stylistic preferences, some entries are definitely quicker and easier to fact check than others. Also, over the past two years I have become more efficient in correlation with increased experience. In general, shorter entries take about an hour while essays can take up to three or four hours.

EB: What are your go-to sources for fact checking for the Oregon Encyclopedia?

MS: Ironically enough, I usually start with a Google search. From there I filter out my sources. For example, the National Park Service digitizes submissions to the National Register of Historic Places. These documents are usually prepared by trained historians who have spent much time in archives, libraries, and in the field to insure accurate information. Also, Google Books and Amazon have search functions for scholarly secondary sources which speeds up the fact check. It’s essential to evaluate the source. To have a peer-reviewed monograph published by a university press outweighs the accuracy of say a small, local newspaper. The more high-quality sources that agree with any given fact, the better I feel about the fact check.

EB: Do you fact check in your spare time? Like reading the newspaper? At movies? During elections?

MS: While I’d like to say that I do not fact check in my spare time, I truly feel that historical work in general is not only what I do, but part of who I am. So while I do not actively fact check, I have a naturally investigative and inquisitive mind that is just drawn to do such.

EB: Should publishers be doing more fact checking?

MS: I think this varies from source to source. Although published documents undergo a more thorough review than something that is self-published or published through a popular press, each and every one of us has the capability, and I might add responsibility, to check the accuracy of the content. If something seems to not line up, that’s probably because it doesn’t.

EB: What’s the hardest fact you’ve checked? Or the weirdest?

MS: Hmm. The hardest entry that I fact checked was my first one. I was absolutely clueless and had no on-the-job training really. I was teaching myself what it meant to fact check all while checking an entry that was absolutely inaccurate! I honestly thought I was being tested to see how many errors I would pick up on and how I handled the mistakes. It turns out it was simply not well-researched.

The strangest fact check by far was on Edmund Creffield and the Brides of Christ. Creffield and the Brides of Christ were an extreme charismatic sect of early twentieth century Oregon. The story involved kidnappings, nudist gatherings, and murderous activities. Because the story is so dramatic and outrageous, the fact check was very difficult. I do not believe it was ever published.

EB: Thanks for talking with us.

Posted in Interviews | Comments Off on An interview with fact-checker Melissa Swank

Pictures from the 2013 Ashland Book and Author Festival

Poet Amy Miller's poetry boxes

Organizer Paul Adalian

David Churchman, author of WHY WE FIGHT

Mystery writers Donald Ball, Lorena McCourtney and Tim Wohlforth

Michael Holstein's handmade books

Mary Z. Maher and Alan Armstrong

Poet Gary Lark

Sophia Bogle of Red Branch Book Restoration

Posted in Literary Events in Southern Oregon | Comments Off on Pictures from the 2013 Ashland Book and Author Festival

Epicene Third Person Singular Pronouns a guest post by Rio J. Picollo

Epicene Third Person Singular Pronouns by Rio J. Picollo

Rio Picollo is an English major at Southern Oregon University. She enjoys reading, juggling, and worrying about future career prospects.

Over the last few decades, a reform movement has been underway with the purpose of standardizing a gender-neutral pronoun. The English language’s most common and largely uncontested third person singular pronouns – he, she, and it– denote the gender of the individual in question. This can be problematic when a singular pronoun is is intended to refer to either sex.

Grammatical gender is one of the most basic components of many languages. Nouns can be classified as masculine, feminine, or neuter with corresponding inflections (though some languages, such as French, have only masculine and feminine classifications). Words are categorized arbitrarily rather than by biological sex (Wheeler 531). For example, the French word vagin meaning “vagina” is a masculine noun even though a person who has one is likely to be female. Old English had a functioning system of grammatical gender, but the practice died out during the Middle English period. The few remnants of grammatical gender in Modern English are based largely on biological sex.

Words like blonde/blond and brunette/brunet have maintained a questionable status as grammatically gendered, but by-and-large, gender is reflected only in pronouns (Wheeler 528). The continuing debate over epicene pronouns is, in part, a quest for social justice. Grammatical gender influences cultural perceptions of biological sex, which in turn affects an individual’s perception of the world (Perniss 227); therefore, grammatical gender may allow gender bias to permeate through our cultural consciousness. The feminist and queer rights movements have sought to reform language in order to reflect our society’s commitment to eliminating discrimination based on sex (Berube 170).

They are small changes overall, but may have a marked impact on the cognitive processes of future generations. Many occupational titles that once used a compound ending in -man (such as fireman) or a feminine suffix like -ess (stewardess) have been replaced with gender-inclusive terms (firefighter and flight attendant) in order to reflect the acceptance of women in the workplace, and many writers favour the term hero as a gender-neutral alternative to the feminine heroine to avoid differentiating between male and female bravery (Berube 170).

Though largely an issue of civil rights, the absence of an epicene singular pronoun also poses a practical issue to writers and grammarians. English lacks a universally-accepted pronoun that can refer to an antecedent whose gender is unknown. In such cases, it would be conjecture to suppose the gender of the referent, but there is no standardized pronoun to account for this problem. Various options exist, but none are considered perfectly suited for the task. Here is an overview of several of the options that are currently in use.

Generic he

English’s lack of epicene third-person pronouns prompted the acceptance of the gendered pronoun he as a generic referring to both males and females. It’s believed that the androcentric state of grammatical study was largely responsible for this Parliament proclaimed that the generic he a grammatically correct and gender-inclusive pronoun in 1850, though its usage as such dates back much farther (Berube 174). He was commonly used in legal practice and formal writing, including the King James Bible (Clason 23), but its popularity has waned in recent decades due to its sexist implications. Studies have shown that the use of he may reinforce gender bias (Fisk 481), which suggests that its use is incongruous with our modern sensibilities.

A generic she has been proposed as a way to combat the generic he. Rather than solve the issue, this merely inverts the inequality of power that he suggests; she is often used a generic specifically to draw attention to the issue of female subjugation throughout history. Some writers prefer to alternate between he and she in order to appear gender-neutral. This practice offers a balance between the two, but it could be said that this practice needlessly spotlights gender just as much as she (Berube 177-78).

Singular they

They is the oldest alternative to the masculine generic (Berube). Although it’s most commonly prescribed as a third-person plural pronoun, it’s widely accepted as a singular pronoun. Indeed, people have responded to the use of they as a gender-neutral singular pronoun more readily than any other (Jochnowitz 199). Its informality lends itself to common speech. Sentences like Someone forgot their keys sound natural and often goes unnoticed. The main drawback is that they, being a plural pronoun, doesn’t adhere to standard conventions regarding pronoun agreement. When used in conjunction with an indefinite pronoun that semantically implies plurality, such as someone, this disagreement is usually overlooked. But not as easily so when used in reference to a non-distinct singular antecedent. The American Heritage Usage Panel has found that sentences like A typical student will do their homework the night before it is due are seen as grammatically incorrect by an overwhelming majority (Berube). It can pose a problem for a writer by making them uncomfortable with using a pronoun that can easily be misconstrued as an error.

One

The use of one as a pronoun dates back to the thirteenth-century (“One”). As such, it has the benefit of being an established gender-indefinite pronoun, and is in concordance with prescriptive rules regarding pronoun-antecedent agreement, unlike the singular they (Carlton 157). However, one is perhaps most widely used to refer to a non-human object, as in Their dog died, but they’re planning to get a new one. This poses an issue of civil rights, as one may be seen as an objectifying pronoun when used with a specific human referent. Moreover, when used to describe human, one sounds overly formal and hypothetical, such as in the sentence One would do that if one were wise, which can easily be reworded to form a more concrete statement by switching to first- and second-person: I would do that if I were you. As a result, the use of one as a gender-neutral pronoun has never garnered much popularity in common speech (“One”).

He or she, she/he

Periphrastic constructions such as these are a more modern solution to the gendered pronoun controversy (Jochnowitz 200) . Originally proposed in the 1800s, the he or she construction was dismissed in favor of the generic he. In recent years, these sorts of forms have garnered more support. They allow the sentence maintain grammatical accuracy while encompassing both binary gender orientations. However, they can be clumsy when used repeatedly, as in Every employee must wash his/her hands before he/she begins his/her shift.Furthermore, there is no standard pronunciation for these backslash constructions; his/her may be pronounced “his or her”, “his-her”, or “his-slash-her” depending on the reader’s preference.

In regard to reader’s preference, the he/she she/he forms pose yet another issue, as they may be considered gender-biased. By necessity of its construction, one gender must come before the other, which implies one is superior to the other. Alternating between he/she and she/he forms can resolve this problem, but tends to exacerbate the confusion created by repeated use. Transgender or genderqueer individuals that don’t identify as either he or she may also take issue with these types of pronouns.

Invented Pronouns

Another modern epicene suggestion has been the adoption of an invented pronouns. Standardizing an entirely new pronoun set would effectively resolve the grammatical issue, as well as account for those individuals who don’t wish to identify with either of the gender-definite third-person singular pronouns. Many such pronoun sets have been proposed over the centuries, such as the Spivak (ey, em, eir, emself), Humanist (hu, hum, hus, humself), and a litany of others (Berube 174).

One of the most widely known of these invented pronouns is ze and its inflected forms zir, zirs, zirself (also hir, hirs, hirself) which arose during the 1970s. It is derived from the German pronoun Sie meaning both she and they (Williams “Modern Neologism”). Using this construction, a sentence such as He went to the pharmacy to get her prescription for her could be written to Ze went to the pharmacy to get zir prescription for zir.This may cause confusion as to which antecedent the pronouns refer, but the same confusion currently exists when two individuals signified by the same pronoun interact.

One of these neologisms could suffice as effective gender-neutral pronoun if it were to become standardized. However, none have garnered enough support to warrant its introduction into the canon. Most individuals are understandably resistant to the idea of adding an entirely new pronoun form into their working vocabulary. So far, reforms geared toward adopting one of these invented pronouns has been an exercise in futility.

It’s evident that none of these options are perfectly suited for the position of a standardized third-person singular pronoun for one reason or another. It is important to remember everyone has a different threshold for what constitutes sexist language, so catering to every audience is an impossible task. Choosing which pronoun to use is a matter of taste in most instances. If in doubt, it may be wisest to construct a sentence that eliminates the need for any of the above-mentioned options: A typical student completes his their ones his/her zir] homework the night before it is due. The sentence is grammatically correct and connotes the same meaning without the pronoun. In most cases, it’s possible to rewrite the material in a way that neutralizes the problem component.

This is a good way to avoid the issue, but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem. We’ve made great strides toward reforming sexist language, but there are still hurdles to jump. Opinions are divided over this particular issue, and likely will be for the foreseeable future. Currently, any of the options highlighted here are viable options with varying degrees of acceptance. One may use whichever third-person singular pronoun he/she prefers as long as zir consistent. To each their own.

Works Cited

Jochnowitz, George. “Everybody Likes Pizza, Doesn’t He or She?” American Speech 57 (Autumn 1982): 198-203. Print.

Berube, Margery S., et al. The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996. 170-85. Print.

Wheeler, Benj. Ide. “The Origin of Grammatical Gender.” Journal of Germanic Philoshophy 2 (1899): 528-45. Print.

“one.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2013. Web. 30 May 2013.

Fisk, William R. “Responses to ‘Neutral’ Pronoun Presentations and the Development of Sex-Biased Responding.” Developmental Psychology 21 (1985): 481-85. Print.

“Modern Neologisms.” Gender-Neutral Pronoun FAQ, John Williams: 2004. Web. 3 June 2013.

Clason, Marmy A. “Feminism, Generic ‘He’, and the TNIV Bible Translation Debate.” Critical Discourse Studies 3 (2006): 23-35. Print.

Perniss, Pamela, et al. “Speaking of shape: The Effects of Language-Specific Encoding on Semantic Representations.” Language & Cognition 4 (2012): 223-42. Print.

Posted in Ideas and Opinions, Language | Comments Off on Epicene Third Person Singular Pronouns a guest post by Rio J. Picollo