I know absolutely nothing about the Minions; it was only recently that I learned to associate the word with those images of cylindrical yellow creatures I occasionally saw around the internet. However, for obvious reasons I was absorbed by Eva Jaber’s Guardian story about their language and its influence on the slang of Youth Today:
I was four years old when Despicable Me was released in cinemas and the banana-coloured, overall-clad Minions took the world by storm. By the time I was seven, my siblings and I were using The Official Minion Manual to teach ourselves Minionese.
Minionese is, of course, the made-up language spoken by Kevin, Stuart, Bob and company, which consists of a combination of melodic gibberish and variations on genuine vocabulary from a diverse array of world languages. When the Minions shout “kanpai” (“cheers” in Japanese) or “para tú!” (a variation on the Spanish “para ti”), it might remind you of how gen Alpha slang, which primarily consists of nonsensical words such as “cap” and “mogging”, also draws on world languages. Consider the Bulgarian scat origins of “skibidi”, for example.
In anticipation of the forthcoming Minions & Monsters movie, which for the very first time includes a 15-minute sequence spoken entirely in Minionese, join me in breaking down the parallels between Minionese and gen Alpha slang. Next time you hear a minion shout “bello” on the big screen, appreciate how what Illumination originally intended as an endearing comedic tool has grown to embody a trend of embedding sociolinguistic diversity in the youth vernacular.
Let’s start with some Minionese lines from cherished Minions moments, many of which have roots in Spanish, English, Italian, Tagalog, Russian, French and Indonesian. One of the most beloved moments in the Minions canon is Bob’s brief stint as king of England, which concludes with the queen giving Bob a tiny crown for his teddy bear, Tim. Bob repeatedly expresses gratitude by yelling “terima kasih”, which is “thank you” in Indonesian. Linguists classify these bits of real world languages in the midst of Minionese as “loanwords”.
My personal favourite moment from Despicable Me 2 is when Dave the Minion, looking dapper, celebrates Gru and Lucy’s wedding by singing a Minionese cover of All-4-One’s I Swear, which he begins by sighing “ah, lapo da”. This moment is a sneakier example of Spanish influence in Minionese, as the phrase is phonetically identical to “ah, la boda”, which means “the wedding” in Spanish. From verbatim loanwords to clever easter eggs, Minionese is surprisingly representative of world languages and ties a seemingly random consortium of vocabulary and gibberish together quite seamlessly.
Perhaps the most obvious bridge between Minionese and gen Alpha vernacular is the embrace of Italian as a language full of words that have proved uniquely fun to roll off the tongue. Take, for example, the Minions cover of YMCA that concludes Despicable Me 2 (which, I will shamelessly admit, I regularly play in my car on the way to work). This cover is full of onomatopoeic lyrics, with the occasional “bokka linguini banaki loto” and “li le carbonara” sprinkled in. The Italian dishes “linguini” and “carbonara” hidden in here are an odd addition, but they undeniably fit, and they make the song more fun to sing along to. […]
Now moving fully over to gen Alpha slang, you would be surprised by how much unfamiliar jargon tweens shout these days is, like Minionese, derived from a creative and cross-cultural manipulation of language. One popular gen Alpha term is “sussy baka”, a noun used to call someone out for acting comically strange or suspicious. At first glance, the term seems nonsensical – but it is in fact a combination of the English “suspicious” and Japanese “baka”, meaning fool. Gen Alpha slang has their own loanwords, too, like “wallahi”, which has become their version of gen Z’s “on God”. The word “wallahi” – which translates from Arabic as “I swear by God” – having made its way into the gen Alpha vernacular is yet another way the linguistic patterns of gen Alpha slang resemble those of Minionese.
Great stuff; thanks, Nick!
The voice actors for the Minions in the Italian dub are Internet famous (example). Is Italian Minionese more Italian than English Minionese?
About to comment, but I was thinking of a special language in the Moomins. Never mind.
@Stephen G.: Moomins are my childhood; Minions are my daughters’ childhood. (Don’t think my sons, who are younger than my daughters, have necessarily encountered either.)
Feel free to talk about Moomins — there are no topic police around here!
Did Moomin-speak influence Minion-speak?
“Minion” always reminds me of when the French penfriend of my then-teenage brother came to stay with us; on one occasion she described him as mignon, which did not go down too well when he found out what it meant.
Kawaii!
@de
I think your brother was in with a chance, I would take this as affectionate and more a comment on some general delicate manner, rather than just physical size (unless she was a good deal larger). TLFI has “Qui charme par sa délicatesse, sa petitesse.”
general delicate manner
This is not how teenage boys want to be seen.
@hat
Ok. As a teenage boy, I took what I could get, usually this was nothing.
Oh, me too, but I still wouldn’t have wanted to be described that way.
I’m glad the “nonsensical” in the second paragraph got revised to “seemingly nonsensical”.
But I am now trying to imagine minions appearing in the Moomin world.
I dreamed of usually getting nothing.
My 18 year old says „yallah“ and „habibi“ all the time but I assume that’s modern Viennese, not global gen Alpha. „Suka blyad“ was also popular for a while in his school due to some viral TikTok video. That may have made it to the U.S. as well.
Going the other way, I have heard 9 year old Romanians use the „six,seven“ meme (in English). That really went global in a way that would have been fully unimaginable 10 years ago.
Wow. This world is getting weirder.
Skibidi, anyone?
As mentioned in the post (second para)!
I confess I did not know it was from a Bulgarian song.
Skibidi, anyone?
Love to, but I forgot to pack my travel set.
@Vanya,
“suka blyad” is now a part of international gamer vocabulary, I am assuming this is due to the prevalence of Russian-speaking gamers. Back in my Starcraft II days, I would sometimes join games and when we would introduce ourselves in the lobby, often the question “from” would be asked. Whenever I replied with “Slovakia”, no matter where my team mates would be from, they would reply with “suka blyad”. I responded “that’s further East, I’m from a ‘kurva piča’ country.”
So I finally watched Skibidi. Well, among further developments of Gangnam Style, I prefer this one.
Qapla’!
Sorry but I’m almost 31 and I’m stuck on « was four » when the film came out.
she described him as mignon, which did not go down too well
I don’t know what connotation it has now or whenever this happened, but when I was a teenage exchange student in France in the early ’90s it wasn’t something a boy would have been offended by, far from it. It was like calling someone (male or female) “cute” around the same time in the US, if one was that age. No real connotation of delicacy that I recall, just not as emphatic as gorgeous; if she’d called him beau or canon it would have sounded more explicitly flirty than she may have wanted to be with a pen friend. But if she said it in front of him, she was probably still flirting a little.
Slang expressions materialize with successive generations, and vanish until the next young generation creates its own argot. It was adeptly employed by Anthony Burgess in his dystopian novel “A Clockwork Orange”. He employed a unique argot known as Nadsat, which is a blend of English, Russian and Cockney slang. It’s a linguistic register that sets the protagonist, Alex, apart from the adult world, which is the modus operandi by youth culture to use language as a rebellion against societal norms.
Analogous to this topic is the infantilization of language, which can lower intellectual standards and undermine the seriousness of discourse.
“Recent studies have developed… that the languages we speak profoundly shape the way we think. Infantilization is increasingly becoming one of the major trends in contemporary society. A remarkable feature of social trends is that they could influence changes of language. The changes driven by growing infantilism of speakers…” Irina Martynova
The traditional expression “dumbing-down” is quite sufficient, I find.The term “infantilization” is an attempt to seem more objective and scientific. Taking psychology to be a science, I guess.
Like that manipulatively well-intentioned woman with the saggy eyes and raised eyebrows who does couple therapy on tv (Orna Guralnik. “The Jewish TV healer we need right now”.) I’ve seen excerpts on insta. She makes my skin crawl.
The traditional expression “dumbing-down” is quite sufficient, I find.
Maybe not. It was noted for quite some time now that in WEIRD societies childhood and adolescence extend further and further later into ones life. Does it mean that development and use of teenage slang and similar age-marked linguistic features also continue for longer? Someone should have researched that!
France in the early ’90s
The episode took place in the early 1970s, when men were real men, women were real women, and lizard people from Alpha Draconis were real lizard people from Alpha Draconis.
the languages we speak profoundly shape the way we think
No, not really. There is a lot of literature on this. To say the least …
Neoteny.
Like, even in adulthood we are still curious and capable of learning:)
Irina Martynova – the chief complaint of Russian women at Russian men is “they’re infantile!”
I mean, seriously, in Russian I hear this adjective quite often (compared to other languages). Mostly from women. Often in the context of romance.
Whether you call it dumbing-down or infantilization, and no matter whether “language” is doing some profound think-way-shaping thing here – I always have an eye on the sly performances of experts in public.
Here in a parody is the oh-so-judicious Dr. Orna from “Couples Therapy” at a Pride festival. This neatly captures her smug thoughtfulness. Nice to see I’m not alone in wanting to take her down a notch.
Dr. Orna with a teenage boy and his mom. “Austin, can we just zoom out for a second ?”
“the languages we speak profoundly shape the way we think”
“𝑁𝑜, 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠. 𝑇𝑜 𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 …”
Yes, really. There is a lot of literature on this.
DE spoke about “intimate connection between language and culture” (in The Grammaticon) again with reference to “whole literature about this”.
I don’t think there is a contradiction, but I don’t understand what exactly are “the ways we think” (shaped or not by langauges) and “cultures” (connected to them).
These posts from “Jean-Antoine” are AI-worthy. I ain’t knockin’ it ! Props ! The first one in particular resembles what you find on Substack.
Substack AI tools empower anyone to imitate an average intellectual. The style is both punchy and deliberative, so as to have general appeal. The vocabulary is curated top shelf, not over-the-top as with William Buckley of olden times.
The content is what chaps ass. Every topic under the sun, trite or obscure, gets brief mellifluous mention. There is no development of ideas, but just one damn thing after another.
The person behind “Jean-Antoine”, if any, seems to be using AI tools as some say these are intended to be used – to improve your pitch. Hardly anyone these days pays close attention to what is said, so that is easier than it used to be.
These posts from “Jean-Antoine” are AI-worthy.
Well fingered. They seemed immediately to me not quite right.
The Irina Martynova quote seems to be from here. I’m not quite sure what a ‘University of Economics’ would be about. It has a wikip entry and a home page. Founded 1931, its mission statement could equally be AI slop — except that it’s not quite English; so it’s translated-from Russian AI slop?.
Well fingered.
Yes, and much appreciated — I will cease being annoyed by him/it and simply appreciate the artificial peacock display.
I don’t think there is a contradiction
Unsurprisingly, I agree with you …
My position is (mostly) that language intimately reflects culture. Fairly intensive efforts to show that which language you speak alters how you think have come up with the underwhelming answer, Yes it does – marginally. (For example, people with lots of core colour terms tend to be slightly quicker at differentiating colours.)
You’d have thought that a moment’s reflection would have shown the ludicrousness of the idea that childish speech creates childish thoughts (as opposed to vice versa.) Apparently not …
People love just-so stories.
“𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 “𝐽𝑒𝑎𝑛-𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒” 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐴𝐼-𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑦. 𝐼 𝑎𝑖𝑛’𝑡 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛’ 𝑖𝑡 ! 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑠 ! 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘.”
A backhanded compliment,but in actuality a refutation to what I submitted. The message is what should be discussed, not about who initiated the presentation.
“𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑑 “𝐽𝑒𝑎𝑛-𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒”, 𝑖𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑦, 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝐼 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑-𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ.”
There is no person behind me but the message. Regardless, I am only reiterating what others have stated, with which I agree. Also, I am a verifiable luddite, meaning, I am opposed to technology, but unfortunately must rely on it for work, and as an expeditious tool for seeking information. Needless to say, I’m not a fan of AI, nor would I ever use it to compose any of my writing. I suspect that Clayton’s faulty presupposition is motivated more by my message rather than who or how it was written.
Well, your message is bog-standard prescriptivism, Old Fart division (“the infantilization of language, which can lower intellectual standards and undermine the seriousness of discourse”), so there’s not much to discuss.
I’m not a fan of AI, nor would I ever use it to compose any of my writing.
I’m curious how you came across the Irina Martynova paper. As @Hat says, the claim is bog-standard; there’s far more notable academics (if not actual Linguisticians) you could have cited. Martynova hasn’t published much on (Socio-)Linguistics. It’s like AI Assistant dredged up this paper first; you didn’t go on to the second page of search results.
The message is what should be discussed, …
Voluminous discussion already on this site. And any Undergrad course on Linguistics would cover it. If you want a survey, wikip links to some good articles by Geoff Pullum.
J-A writes: A backhanded compliment,but in actuality a refutation to what I submitted.
Refutation ? That makes absolutely no sense here. Somebody needs to put another quarter in the word vending machine.
This is looking more and more like a mere human caught in a scam above their station. Like the wizard behind the curtain as exposed by Toto.
Just as the best SF representation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (so-called) is the altogether wonderful Babel-17, the best SF depiction of the opposite is provided by Gene Wolfe’s Ascians; their totalitarian society has imposed a norm in which the only possible form of speech consists of political slogans, but human linguistic ability Finds a Way nevertheless.
There’s a bravura passage in The Citadel of the Autarch where an Ascian prisoner tells a story, helpfully translated for us by a bilingual; examples:
In times past, loyalty to the cause of the populace was to be found everywhere. The will of the Group of Seventeen was the will of everyone.
“Once upon a time…”
…
The people meeting in counsel may judge, but no one is to receive more than a hundred blows.
“He complained, and they beat him.”
How are the hands nourished? By the blood. How does the blood reach the hands? By the veins. If the veins are closed, the hands will rot away.
“He left that farm and took to the roads.”
Where the Group of Seventeen sit, there final justice is done.
“He went to the capital and complained of the way he had been treated.”
(It’s not supposed to be stark realism, K? Any more than the Delany is … But you get the idea.)
[Taken from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascian_language
though I think the author of the WP page hasn’t really understood what Wolfe is up to.]
I once had a copy of a late Hoxha-era History of the Party of Labor in Albania (in English). Although it was supposedly a history, with different things and events over a period of decades, I could not distinguish any page from another. The jargon overwhelmed the contents.
That’s what it was like trying to read Pravda back in the day. You had to be a party insider to extract any meaning at all.
“𝐼 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 ℎ𝑖𝑚/𝑖𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑐𝑘 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑦”.
What annoys you is what you think I represent, and please elaborate on the meaning of my peacock display. Also, in your introduction you stated that you try to avoid personal attacks; I must assume only for the people on your team, but not the people who challenge your prevailing views.
“𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑜𝑔-𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑚, 𝑂𝑙𝑑 𝐹𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 (“𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑔𝑒, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒”), 𝑠𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒’𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑠.”
It seems that you rely primarily on labeling (prescriptivist) and ridicule( Old Fart division), which are rhetorical devices rather than substantive rebuttals. I understand that I have established myself as a prescriptivist, but solely based on my comments; therefore, I am immediately castigated to persona non grata.
Regardless, the study of the infantilization of language is argued from an impartial viewpoint. It is not firmly associated with prescriptivism, nor is it associated with age. I am younger than you, but I would not associate your descriptivist viewpoints as “ Old Fart Division”
The link below is a thorough study on language infantilism; the fact that you do not agree with it does not invalidate its merit, but the fact that you denigrate it undermines your validity.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5571/075ef3fdd5bc2f48dcdaf0961f97ded5a414.pdf
Regarding languages that profoundly shape the way we think.
“𝑂𝑛𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑔𝑒, 𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑎 𝑑𝑜𝑔𝑚𝑎 𝑖𝑛 𝑝ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠 𝑝𝑠𝑦𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡’𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒. 𝐼𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡. 𝐼𝑡’𝑠 𝑎 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡.”
Noam Chomsky
“𝐼’𝑚 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐼𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟. 𝐴𝑠 @𝐻𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑦𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚 𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑜𝑔-𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑; 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒’𝑠 𝑓𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑠 (𝑖𝑓 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠) 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑.”
I came across the study through research.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5571/075ef3fdd5bc2f48dcdaf0961f97ded5a414.pdf
If you read the study you would find many references to notable academics and linguists referred to in the study. It is not a bog-standard study as you’ve implied.
“𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐿𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑤𝑜̈𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑟 (𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠) “𝑚𝑜𝑚,” “𝑑𝑎𝑑,” 𝑎𝑛𝑑 “𝑘𝑖𝑑” 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑢𝑝
𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑠 “𝑚𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟,” “𝑓𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟,” 𝑎𝑛𝑑 “𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑” 𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑛 [𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛]”.
(Shapiro 2009)
Michael Shapiro Professor Emeritus of Slavic and Semiotic Studies, Harvard University, A. M. in Slavic Languages & Literatures, 1962;
Ph. D., 1965 (dissertation: “The Stress of Derived Substantives in
Contemporary Standard Russian;”
“𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑎 ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑛’𝑡 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑛 (𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑜-)𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠. 𝐼𝑡’𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝐴𝐼 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑝 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡; 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑛’𝑡 𝑔𝑜 𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠.”
The study was published in 2015, AI was not as fully developed as it is today and it certainly was not implemented in Martynova’s study. I have no idea why you would think that it was.
“𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑦 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑈𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑡. 𝐼𝑓 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑦, 𝑤𝑖𝑘𝑖𝑝 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑏𝑦 𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑚.”
Guide me to the “voluminous” discussions on this site about the infantilization of language.
Citing Chomsky approvingly on this blog! Someone wants to be eaten alive. Honestly, why are you promoting a paper by Martynova and Glukhov? It’s ridiculously underresearched. Even in Samara State University of Economics, if it were a student work it should have received no more than 4 (B in American reckoning). They cite only one researcher familiar to me, Lera Boroditsky, but the quotation is fake. Check it out here. And it is not a research paper, it is Scientific American.
To think that Martynova and Glukhov paid £185 to publish a 5-page paper, which could be condensed to a half a page (including the argument that “wanna” is infantile)… Not a very good deal.
Anyway, I’m infantile and proud of it, so there (as we would say in elementary school).
the argument that “wanna” is infantile
In my experience, only adults say “wanna fuck?” And definitely not because they are childish or childlike, or want to appear to be.
Also, in your introduction you stated that you try to avoid personal attacks; I must assume only for the people on your team, but not the people who challenge your prevailing views.
I have not attacked you personally, I have said (in essence) that your ideas are silly and not worth arguing against. You are in the position of someone who comes into a mathematics forum and says that imaginary numbers don’t exist and it only makes sense to work with real numbers, because they’re real. All you can tell such a person is “learn some mathematics,” and what I will tell you is to learn some linguistics. Go take a course or two and then we’ll talk. Right now you’re talking out of (excuse me for being infantile) your ass; like so many people with large vocabularies, you think your ability to write impressive prose exempts you from knowing what you’re talking about.
Go take a course or two and then we’ll talk.
To illustrate:
In my Philosophy of Language 1.01 course (~1975, jointly taught by the Philosophy and Linguistics departments), the Linguistics lecturer felt duty-bound to bring something from the only Linguistician most of us would be likely to have heard from. (This was in Britain, which has never been as awed by C as US academe was at one stage.)
I’m not sure that was the exact quote; the sentiment was the same, though. All us Philosophers were just grinding our knives (and teeth) ready to tear this to shreds. The lecturer’s only comment — *Linguistics* lecturer n.b. — was to the effect: I won’t waste your time or insult your intelligence by trying to defend this.
Citing Chomsky approvingly on this blog! Someone wants to be eaten alive.
Just in case J-A (or anyone) is going to take away that the Hattery has blind prejudice against C:
* Note the amount of evidence cited in those three prefatory lines (that is, none).
* Note the dissing-in-advance (“dogma”) of anybody (carefully not named) who should be so foolish as to hold the commonplace commonsense notion.
* Note the ex cathedra “It seems that” pronouncement.
The big danger in citing early Chomsky is that any such claim might be similarly dismissed by Chomsky (~1975)’s biggest detractor, namely Chomsky 1980 or Chomsky 2000 or Chomsky 2015. Already by 1975 the One Truth of Syntactic Structures had been overturned by the One Truth of Aspects. Not that there’ll be a direct cite or take-down; rather some contrary One Truth will be elaborated as if it was the only ever truth.
So the prejudice is not blind; derives from sound academic principles.
languages that profoundly shape the way we think.
Known as (some version of) the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis — not that either of those names should really be attached to it — as you’ll see at the wikip article. (Which mentions Boroditsky quite a few times, though obviously not a pot-boiler Scientific American piece. See also there “A failure to replicate an experiment from Boroditsky et al. 2003”. )
Pro tip: if Martynova/Glukhov are just regurgitating Boroditsky (and dig no deeper than a SciAm piece), go look up some Boroditsky to cite, and in context of any caveats.
I might point out that we’ve had friendly and enlightening discussions with Chomskyites who understand why people object to him and are willing to engage on a respectful basis; do a site search on “Norvin” for examples.
Responding to AntC: The Chomsky quote was transcribed from a discussion relating to thought and language from a video platform.
As I predicted you cherry-picked most of what I said. Again, I am just the messenger, but whom must I agree with, you, who are virtually unknown to me, or Chomsky, or Michael Shapiro. I can provide a list, but this isn’t a discussion on who has more accreditation. Your comments are criticisms and opinions rather than conceptual critique.
The paper from the Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences is certainly not a foundational work, and it is fair to criticize its methodology. However, it is not simply inventing the idea. It explicitly builds on earlier work in sociology and discourse analysis concerning infantilization.
Responding to LanguageHat :
“𝐼 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦…”
Actually, you have, by using indirect ad hominem attacks on my credentials and character rather than addressing the content of my position. It’s a diversion.
“…𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡”
First, as I have already stated, these are not my ideas. They are ideas advanced by academics, linguists, and educators with which I happen to agree. Simply categorizing these ideas as “silly” and “not worth arguing against,” without addressing their substance, is itself an expression of opinion rather than an argument.
“…𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠.”
A faulty supposition. I’ve learned enough about linguistics to understand that Language evolves; it is axiomatic. Linguistics is very good at telling us how English is used, but it does not, by itself, determine how English ought to be taught, what standards should govern formal writing, or whether particular changes in usage constitute improvement or decline. Therefore, the claim that “language evolves, therefore concerns about correctness or decline are invalid” does not follow. It is not, on its own, a refutation of prescriptive criticism. It describes change; it does not determine how that change should be evaluated.
The concept of linguistic infantilization is not unique to that paper. It appears in sociological work by Neil Postman, Benjamin Barber, and Frank Furedi, while psychologists have long studied infantilizing speech in contexts such as ‘elderspeak.’ The study I cited extends those general discussions to current public discourse. One may disagree with its conclusions, but dismissing the concept as ‘silly’ overlooks a substantial body of scholarly work.”
Neil Postman, Benjamin Barber, and Frank Furedi
None of them linguists; all three highly politically motivated figures with an axe to grind.
Furedi is one of those Living Marxism people; like others, he has moved from Marxism to the far right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism
“Elderspeak” seems to be the opposite of what you are taliking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elderspeak
Or is your thesis that language is “dumbing down” because of younger people talking to the elderly?
More to the point, your claim appears to be that “infantilised” speech causes infantilised thoughts (rather than reflecting them.)
This presumably explains why mothers are stupid. (And, to a lesser degree, why those of us with younger siblings are stupid.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_talk
“𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐿𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑤𝑜̈𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑟 (𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠) “𝑚𝑜𝑚,” “𝑑𝑎𝑑,” 𝑎𝑛𝑑 “𝑘𝑖𝑑” 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑢𝑝
𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑠 “𝑚𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟,” “𝑓𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟,” 𝑎𝑛𝑑 “𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑” 𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑛 [𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛]”
This, on the other hand, accounts for the often-remarked-upon stupidity of the Welsh (tad “father”, mam “mother.” Sadly, we had to borrow our word for “child” from Latin, which kind of proves the point, I suppose.
Contributors seem to be assuming that infantilisation is a continuous process. An alternative would be “punctuated infantilisation”. One mechanism capable of causing a sudden sharp increase in an individual’s degree of infantilism is the well-known IQ-2000 bug, whereby when the IQ surpasses a critical threshold, it resets to zero. Some contributors may be in danger of undergoing this unfortunate transformation, or may even have done so in the recent past.
I keep my own IQ at 1900 (thus allowing a safe margin of error) for that very reason.
Hah! I long ago switched over to an imaginary IQ, which opens doors you puny mortals can’t even imagine. Iä! Iä!
Another solution is to be born with an IQ of over 2000, but then you risk your IQ being reduced to the critical point by early exposure to motherese.
“Learning the difference between an ad hominem and an insult has been life-changing [sic.].”
Why the [sic.]?
Normally, a compound adjective is not hyphenated when used predicatively.
Hmm. I wouldn’t change it here, but I don’t remember the details of the relevant rule(s).
Is there, in the conceptual world of classical rhetoric, no argument ad feminam ? Maybe women were regarded as infra dig, or perhaps above reproach? Or as just men without pens ? Who bothered to argue with women anyway, right ? They always got their way in the end.
Think I’ll dash off a note to Butler about this.
“Life-changing” is lexicalized with the hyphen: MW, also in OED (entry created March 2009). It’s correct as it stands.
Homo is “person”; “man” is vir.
The more advanced languages, like Latin and Kusaal, routinely make this distinction: nid “homo”, dau “vir”, pu’a “femina.”
[By Eddyshaw’s Law, persona does not mean “person.”]
I dunno, still seems like a fig leaf.
Brett: Normally, a compound adjective is not hyphenated when used predicatively.
This is why English will never become a major international language.
On L homo, Forcellini has (in a long, very long article) the following:
But the following subsection is “De femina”, with a lot more examples for homo being used for women.
Joyce preferred compound adjectives to spelled as one word.
@Brett: Normally, a compound adjective is not hyphenated when used predicatively.
The version I’ve heard for that applies only to compounds of adverbs (mostly “well”) with past participles. White played the well-known king’s gambit, and Black replied with Fischer’s defense, which is almost as well known.
Yes, JF has it.
Homicide is “killing of a human being”, not “killing of a man”, i.e. it means the same as Kusaal niŋkʋʋr.
Mid ka ya kʋ nid. “Don’t y’all kill a person.” Exodus 20:13*
Daukʋʋr would be “viricide” (which exists, but sadly seems only to mean “killing of a virus”), and the barbarous “femicide” would be pu’akʋʋr.
* Dunno why “you” got pluralised in the Kusaal version. Misled by the ambiguity of English “you”? But the translators don’t usually make errors like that, and anyway, you’d expect them to be familiar with the KJV. Singular in the Mooré Bible: Ra kʋ ned ye.
Come to think of it, why is it singular in the Hebrew? God is presumably not just telling Moses not to murder, steal, commit adultery etc … (though Moses had in fact murdered someone.)
why is it singular in the Hebrew
It’s addressed, like all the other commandments, to each individual.
Some of the Mosaic law is addressed to the second person, some to the third person, some in the singular, some in the plural. I don’t know why.
Was this a genre thing? Are Akkadian law codes (for example) couched in terms of commands/prohibitions addressed to one person? (My very vague recollection is that they are third-person: “if a man does … then …”, but there are Hatters Who Actually Know.)
@Jerry Friedman: That is almost definitely not a version of the rule I have ever encountered in a style guide. I remember one guide using this specific pair of examples of correct hyphenation:
@DE: Interesting switches between singular and plural “you” in the introduction to the Deuteronomy version of the Ten Commandments ( Deut. 5, and I know you don’t need the word-for-word translation, but some here might like it).
@Brett: OK, you’re talking about a different rule. For the case of adjectives, the linguist John Lawler has called it The Eleven-Year-Old Boy Rule. Modifiers of one word precede the noun, modifiers of more than one word follow it, so if a modifier made of more than one word precedes the noun, it has to be hyphenated.
I don’t think there’s a general rule that requires unhyphenating, though. An adjective that’s compounded of two adjectives, such as “blue-green”, is always hyphenated (or always open or always solid, for Kids These Days).
I tend to follow a rule that if a combination of words is playing the role of a different part of speech, it gets hyphenated. “The English language” (noun) but “an English-language film” (playing the role of an adjective). That doesn’t work well in either of your examples. I’d always hyphenate these compounds of a direct object before a participle, no matter their position in the sentence, maybe because in English objects normally come after verbs. But that’s just thinking out loud. Maybe I’ve seen the same dictionaries ktschwarz looked in.
Anyway, I’d write “Learning the difference… changed my life.”
Again, JF has it. If I wake up enough and am ambitious enough to overcome heat-inspired lassitude, I will provide an appropriate style-manual reference.
Me: I’d always hyphenate these compounds of a direct object before a participle
At one time that came after a sentence about “life-changing”, not “face-to-face”.
By the way, “coal mining” or “coal-mining” is different from “life-changing”, I believe, since it can be read as “mining of the coal type”.
Found out on a recent visit to Beijing Universal Studios theme park that Minion is 小黄人 xiǎo huáng rén (little yellow person). Just hoping this is relevant.
I’m impressed by Jean-Antoine’s subversive crusade against markup. A preterhuman commitment seems necessary to compose entire sentences in Unicode Alphanumerical Symbols instead of simply tagging italics like all of us squares around here.
»𝕯𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖚̋𝖈𝖍𝖊𝖗 𝖎𝖓 𝖑𝖆𝖙𝖊𝖎𝖓𝖎𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖊𝖓 𝕭𝖚𝖈𝖍𝖘𝖙𝖆𝖇𝖊𝖓 𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖊 𝖎𝖈𝖍 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙!«
𝒪𝓉𝓉ℴ 𝓋ℴ𝓃 ℬ𝒾𝓈𝓂𝒶𝓇𝒸𝓀
Markup is infantile, and prolonged use of it will reduce your intelligence. Alas, many of us here stand as Awful Warnings of the dangers. (Before I started using markup, I was a brain surgeon and a rocket scientist.)
Z̵͎̯̳̬̻̝̟̘̞̮̓͐̍̑̀͊̄̐́̋͌̽̎̆́̔̾̏̌̍͊̾̈́ͅą̴̪̠͙̤͑̍̎̃͐̄̉̇͌̓̇̓͊̈́́̆̽̅̕͝͝͝ļ̵̛̛͍͖̘͈̺͉͇̦̰̤̬̙͕̱͇͖͐̀͊́̄̄̾̓͌͛͒̇g̷̥̫̼̞͕̥̿͐̍̐̆͒̈͂̕ǫ̸̢̦̩̙̯̜̠͕̯̺͕̙̠̒́́̈̀̓̔̿ ̸̩̹̪̤̤͑i̴͔̦̝̦̼̺̲͔͍̫̱̤͙̹̤̘͈͕̳̱̹͌͆̏̄͑̓̎̓̕s̴̡͙̰̪̹̈͠ ̷̣͔̩̮͎̜͙̦̿͋̒̈́̽̔̇̃́̍̔͊̍͒̆̀͋͘̚͝͠a̶̡͇̥̣͎̹̦̮̰͑̎̆̂̏͒́̉͜l̵̨̛̗̤̲͍̦̬̰̞̍̇̋͒̾̅̋̎̄͂͆̚̕͝ļ̴̛̞̦͚͕͎͓̱̹̠͎̟͖͔̺͖̦͖̭̀̆̍̇̈́͋̿͘͜͝ ̷̜̭̙̞͔̳̠͛̈́͌̊́͌͋͑̅̆̇̊̅͛̂͒͛͂̔͊̈́̚͝͝t̵̜̫̼̟̼͉̳̹͓̺͂͑̓̌͒͘̚͠͝ḥ̴̨̺̪͎̙̱̥̤̖̬̻̙̖̜͓̖͙͈̫̦͎̟̽͛̾͜͝ę̸̢̡͚̙̮̗̼̬͊ ̶̧͖͙̭̖͔̟͓̍̑̅̌̊͛̂̄̔̇̂̎͒̇̈́̍̂̄m̸͈̖̟͚̜̖̊̎͒̅̐͊̒͌̀̉̑a̸̝͑̀̐͌̃̓͒̔̃̔̑͌́̃̓̌̆͜͝r̶̪͕̰͎͓̙̆͂͒̈́̋̆̓̆͠͝ͅķ̸̫͙̖͍͇͈̱̬̬̞̙͉̩͚͇̆ͅü̶̺̰͉̻̮̼͉̮̇̈́p̸̛͇̦̼̈̿͂́̽̽͒̈̓̓̆̌́͐͊͆̚̕͝͝ ̴̧͉͕̹̦͓̦͍̮̪̤̩̦͔̗͕͚̙̹̪̦̿̎̓̃͌͑͆͆͊̉́͐̈͌̚͜͜͝ͅỷ̶̛͉̦̭̟̺̥͖̠̖̖͍̎́̋̍̿͆̈́̎̾̏́̈̆̊̚͘͝͝͠ó̵̡̞̙̞͓̻̹̣͈̘̱̦̙͓͎͎̦́̉͜͠͠ų̴̡̱̗̥̫͔̻͇̪̮͙̲̲̥̖̩̜̺̈́͛͂͝ ̶̡̠̭̲͍̟̫̘̲̀͂͘͝n̷̢̼͙͖͙̱̮̩̬̗̜͎͍͔͇͖̣͇̺̪̘̘͓͛̚e̶̢̡̛̥̗͖̣̘̱̠̠͚̙͚̮̥̘̣̋́̚͜ͅë̵̠̱̺͚̺̗̙̘̞̙̦͕̰́͛͒̄͒͑̽́̌̅͊͂͒͑̈́͊̈́̇̊̈͘̕͝d̴̨̧̨͖̣̤̭͔̝̼̗̭̟̞͙̝̥̀̒̾̿ͅ.̸̡̢̣͇̪͍̩̯̻̲̈̄̿̒̓̿̓̆́̍͂̏̓͊͑̔͘̚͜
Rather late in the game this thread’s title reminds me of one of Bob Dylan’s more weirdly-incompetent (from a strictly literary perspective, although there are other angles) compositions. E.g.
Three bodies lyin’ there does Patty see
And another man named Bello,* movin’ around mysteriously
“I didn’t do it,” he says, and he throws up his hands
“I was only robbin’ the register, I hope you understand
*That’s Alfred Bello, whose status as an alleged eyewitness, and/or possible alternative suspect, in the actual non-fictional murder in question is the subject of a voluminous literature.
Yersss …
Pity that the Nobel Prize Committee felt that they had to do that Trendy Vicar thing. Managed to diminish both the Nobel Prize and, somehow, the recipient (as I suspect he himself felt.) Like giving an Olympic gold medal for synchronised swimming to Peter Higgs.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DUJFfG0wXmk&pp=0gcJCWQCo7VqN5tD
The immediate association of “Bello” for me in English is actually the male aspect/persona/manifestation/whatever of the madam Bella Cohen in Ulysses; this probably shows that I am a depraved liberal of some sort, intent on undermining “Judaeo-Christian values.” It’s a fair cop, guv’nor.
@J.W. Brewer: I actually really like Dylan’s “Hurricane.” The instrumentation is very strong, and the song has an especially good hook—which can be hard to write in a long narrative song—although I admit that the lyrics are not really the best. I would like to do “Hurricane” for karaoke, but for obvious reasons that’s not possible.
The music is a bit herky-jerky but yes, my criticism is indeed that the lyrics are not really the best and are in fact kind of intermitently terrible. I do not understand why it is obviously “not possible” for Brett to do the song in a karoke context if he wishes. is there a taboo word (attributed in context to characters who might well have plausibly uttered it in historical context)? The earth will not immediately open up and swallow him.
ᴛʜᴇɴ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ’ꜱ ꜱᴍᴀʟʟ ᴄᴀᴘꜱ…
Responding to Eddyshaw:
Neil Postman, Benjamin Barber, and Frank Furedi
“𝑁𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠; 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑥𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑑.”
And your argument is not politically motivated. Moreover, you’re dismissing their arguments based on their political affiliations, which is a genetic-fallacy. Keep in mind, my position is not purely linguistic. Linguists are experts on language structure and use; that does not make them the sole authorities on educational policy, rhetoric or cultural criticism. Whether language is becoming more informal, more expressive, or less expressive is not exclusively a linguistic question. It also involves rhetoric, education, literature, and cultural analysis.
“𝐸𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘” 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔[𝑠𝑖𝑐] 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡.”
I think you misunderstood why I mentioned it. I did not cite elderspeak as evidence that society is becoming linguistically infantilized. I cited it because it falls under the umbrella of language infantilization, even though it specifically refers to speaking to older adults.
Analogous to this discussion:
“𝐵𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒, 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑟𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚. 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑚𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤, 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑎 𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒. 𝐼𝑓 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠, 𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑠ℎ 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠. 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑛, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠: 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑛 (1994) 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡-𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛, 𝐸𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 (2003) 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑,𝑇𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑦 (2004) 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 (2008) 𝑏𝑜𝑦-𝑚𝑒𝑛. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦: ℎ𝑢𝑠𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜 𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑓𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛’𝑠 𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑒, 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠, 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒. 𝐼𝑛 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙, 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠, 𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 INFANTILIZATION 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑚𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜.” * 𝐋𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐝.
Jacopo Bernardini: PhD in Social and Political Theory and Research PostDoc Position at University of Perugia.
And reverse
̇ ̇ ̇uopəɥdoɹʇsnoq
̸̩͇̲̬̅ ̶͈͚͝ ̸̖̻̈́u̷̘̳͋̈́̋̑o̴͎͓̔̔͝p̶̡̭͑ə̷̡̤͉̌̇̃͠ɥ̵̗̜̱̟̑͝d̸̻̬͗̉o̶̥͚̺͆̔͘͘ɹ̷̨͚͐͐ʇ̶͓̗͚̞̂͂s̶̝̫͎̪͌̀͌̓ṋ̸̦͖̭̉͑̀̋o̶̧̗̣͍̽̉͠q̵̠́͗ ̷̭̽͗̏͝z̴̲̓͐͂a̷͔̬̠̎l̶̖̬̺̐g̶̡̖̺̻̉͛o̴͎̞̽̈́
If we’re freely associating about “Bello!” (which is of course a natural and unremarkable thing to say in Italian) I’m going to quote in its entirety Rodari’s memorable Un signore di Venezia.
It comes with an also memorable Luzzati illustration that I don’t dare link to but which is easily found online.
I actually really like Dylan’s “Hurricane.”
I’m a Dylan fan myself. But I still think the Nobel Prize was bonkers.
Peter Higgs was Nobel-worthy, but he wasn’t any good at synchronised swimming. At least, I don’t think he was any good at synchronised swimming …
In Germany, Bello is a stereotypical dog name, because bellen means “bark”.
@Hans: “because” is a bit of a stretch here. That comes across to me more as a dad joke than a sustainable etymological claim. If people “stereotypically” created dog names in that way, I would have expected names like Knurri, Winsi, Jauli, Pupsi to be commonplace. But they ain’t – at any rate they don’t exist in the dog park which I have frequented as an escort for 13 years.
Well, sure, I assume that the name started off with its original Italian meaning. But I think that it’s reasonable to assume that it spread due to its association with bellen. And maybe even the first German-speaking persons using that name for their dogs were already tickled by that pun.
Most other dogs in the park have names so boring that I can’t remember them. There are no signs of their owners having been tickled. That’s a good thing, actually. I don’t want dog names weighing on my mind, in addition to everything else.
The luminous exception is the female Basenji named Marley.
The lyrics of “Hurricane” have the virtue of consistency in their awkward shonkiness. More irritating is “Idiot Wind”, which right at the start, almost making me skip the track, has “Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out quick / But when they will I can only guess”
I love “Idiot Wind,” but I confess I don’t pay much attention to lyrics.
The bit mollymooly specifically objects to is immediately followed by the glorious “they say I shot a man named Gray” bit, so yes rather inconsistent. But I guess you can say that inconsistency has been a consistent feature of the man’s career?
I think Dylan’s coherence is adversely affected by trying to express something specific. When he’s freewheeling conceptually, his lyrics are just fine.
coherence is adversely affected by trying to express something specific
That’s true of what people in general say, and so of its AI-regurgitated form as well. At any rate, specific things don’t need to make sense, or be “coherent” with each other and with other things. Coherence is provided by generalization, which discounts specifics.
Ah, but Nobel Literature Prize winners have (or ought to have) the rare gift of being specific and coherent. Ideally, this gift would also be present in the writers of instruction manuals.
I may have bad news for you, Stu, about the creativity of naming a dog “Marley.”
Only fair-to-middling bad, Brett. The film dog is a standard barker, whereas Basenjis sing and don’t bark. That’s what I like about the name.