In the excerpt that I shared with you, George Carlin traces the evolution of our description of a soldier's frayed nerves--from "shell shock" (WWI) through "battle fatigue" (WWII) and "operational exhaustion" (Korea) to "post-traumatic stress disorder" (Vietnam to the present).
If you investigate the etymology of each of those words, you'll find that both "shell" and "shock" have Germanic origins. All the rest are derived from Latin directly or via French.
In class I raised two questions:
1. What does this observation suggest about the use of Latinate diction in the English language?
2. Is there a problem with the progression of language that Carlin is describing? (He thinks there is. Do you?)
Post your comments by clicking on the link below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Hi everyone,
So I know we talked about how Latinate diction sounded more sophisticated than Germanic diction, but, in class George Carlin excerpt opened up the negative side of the fact.
About the use of Latinate diction:
When I first looked at the packet with all the Germanic and Latinate words, I was thinking about the next essay I would write. I thought it would be a good idea to substitute any Germanic words with Latinate words, but after completing the exercise where we wrote our own stories, I realized that it wasn't such a good idea. Some words sounded nice with the story, and others just sounded awkward.
The nice thing about English is that we have so many words to pick and choose from to describe ONE thing. I can't say that the use of Latinate diction is bad or beneficial, because it depends on the situation. I do think that the use of Latinate diction in the English language is becoming increasingly common, especially among the more learned in America.
About the Problems of Latinate diction:
This was already mentioned in class, but the big problem with Latinate diction is that it takes away the feeling from whatever is being described. Carlin gave good examples when he was talking about the evolution of the term "shell shock" to "Post-traumatic stress disorder". It turned what used to be a case of mental shock into a disorder that can supposedly be taken care of through therapy.
Latinate diction is being used more and more commonly in the naming of sicknesses like PTSD. Is that really a bad thing? Especially these days, there is a name for almost every abnormality: Doctors today are much more wary of mental illnesses than they were during the WWI era. Knowing the name for every disease doesn't necessarily make someone any more humane, but I don't see how the increased use of Latinate diction has been bad for our society.
1.) What does this observation suggest about the use of Latinate diction in the English language?
We’d all like to think of ourselves as well educated people, and simply thinking this isn’t enough for the doctors treating PTSD according to the excerpt by George Carlin. They would like to express their erudite ways of thinking by suggesting pointless and additional names for diseases which already have a sufficient Germanic name to be referred to by. Carlin suggests that these Latinate translations in the English language were solely made for the purpose of boasting a wider knowledge of the subject.
2.) Is there a problem with the progression of language that Carlin is describing?
As a developing nation in medicinal studies, the U.S.’s jargon used for communicating the topic must also develop, to keep up with the many new discoveries made every day. The amount of accumulated knowledge about PTSD or “shell shock” in 1914-1918 was significantly smaller than the vast collection of information we now have about the subject. Over the century, researchers and doctors have most likely found categories that the general mental disease named “shell shock” could be split into, and each of these new categories needed a specific name. In order for doctors to know which distinct disease they were talking about they would need the exact name, rather than a generic term representing every category of the disease it could be split into.
Relating to this weekend’s homework assignment, the essay “She’s your Basic L.O.L and N.A.D.” demonstrates a relationship between two levels of languages used in the modern medicinal society in America, which is very much similar to that of Germanic and Latinate diction. Hypothetically, if two doctors had been discussing a PTSD stricken patient’s condition in the same room in which he/she was resting in, an uncomfortable aura would come about if the mentally unstable patient knew about the seriousness of his disease and the danger he/she could be in. There is no problem with this progression of language because it allows doctors to talk freely about the patient’s condition without making him/her feel uncomfortable, by using an obscure Latinate term which the patient had probably never heard of in his/her life. The situation is better explained by Perri Klass in paragraph 17 of the assigned reading.
To start off, I believe George Carlin's views on euphemisms were not entirely represented. A couple years back I read a book of his called "When will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?" (I realize books should be underlined or italicized, but this site will not let me do that.), which dealt a lot with euphemistic language, primarily in advertisement and politics. Though most of this book was critical of euphemisms, for he felt they concealed the reality of what was being said, he did acknowledge there were times euphemisms were beneficial. I no longer possess the book, since I had borrowed it from a friend, so as much as I'd like to, I can't provide you with a quote. (I'm pretty sure most of the relevant quotes were wildly inappropriate anyways.)I just wanted to point out we got a very exaggerated summary of Carlin's opinions. He was a comedian, and thus it's easy to find hyperbolic statements. From what I recall of his book, he did greatly dislike euphemisms, but only when they took away from important issues in people's lives and in the world. He seemed to condone of euphemisms that made little, seemingly unimportant daily routines and items seem better.
Personally, I agree with that. I'd rather a doctor told me flat out what was wrong rather than spit out a ton of fanciful medical euphemisms that I couldn't follow. And in reference to Carlin's bit about death, euphemisms seem to take away from acceptance of death and just leave death unacknowledged. In this context I rather dislike euphemisms. They seem to subtract from the reality of aspects of life that we'd rather not think about, such as death and disease. But as far as euphemisms go, I feel the euphemisms that don't take away from the seriousness in life are alright. It's probably easier accepting the serious bits of life as they are when little, unimportant things have nice sounding, fluffy names.
People react poorly when these names are taken away. I remember when I was little I went to the grocery store, and while walking by the meats, I saw there was a sign saying "SALE on Pig Ass". We came back the next day having forgotten to buy something, and the sign had been taken down and replaced with "SALE on [insert correct cut of meat]". (I've never eaten pork, so I wouldn't know). This really connects back to a point Carlin had made in "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops". He talked about how the names of foods are one of those little euphemisms that don't take away from seriousness. As a vegan I'm a little inclined to disagree in the case of calling a pig "pork", but that's not the point. The point is that people would rather hear someone say whatever the name of the cut of meat is than it's less friendly counterpart, for if we lived in a world of grotesquely named objects and chores, we might have greater trouble dealing with the serious parts of life. That is if we can see past all of the euphemisms.
Sorry, the person who responded as AJ was me (Anna Rogers, I think I changed my name correctly, but just in case I thought I'd list in this comment). I don't know why this was set to my initials.
A couple of comments on the posts so far:
1. Nice job, Dan, making the connection to Perri Klass's essay. I do want us to talk about medical jargon in class on Monday. Think about the overlaps between Klass and Carlin on language.
2. I'm glad Anna brought up "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops", Carlin's last book (I think). About 30% of it is dedicated to euphemisms--and I'll be happy to share a few more excerpts from it in class. But here are a few examples of the kind of things he talks about:
a. food: "Patagonian Tooth Fish" became "Chilean Sea Bass"
b. advertising: "used cars" are now "certified pre-owned vehicles"
c. health and advertising: "constipation" is now "occasional irregularity"; "impotence" is now "erectile dysfunction"
d. careers: "store clerk" is now "sales associate"; "secretary" is now "administrative assistant"; and so on
In regards to Germanic vs. Latinate diction, I agree with some of what Selam wrote. During the class activity, the stories with Latinate words seemed much more impersonal and detached from emotion. While the Germanic words could be thought of as offensively blunt, they convey a much more impassioned version of each word, and in turn the whole piece of writing. The Latinate words, because of our ancient biases about their aristocratic use, seem to be too lofty in many situations, often coming across as pretentious. This makes them seem much more distant from not only emotion but reality.
Dan's connection to the essay "She’s your Basic L.O.L and N.A.D." reminded me of how this is true for the medical jargon that Perri Klass described. It, too, is made up of euphemisms that detract from the reality and emotion of a situation. Using C.T.D.,or "circling the drain," as a way to say "dying" is a good example of why this detachment from emotion can be important. If doctors became too emotionally attached to their patients, every death would wear on them and they would not be able to continue in their profession.
In general, however, I agree with George Carlin. Euphemisms that take the passion out of words suggest that our society is headed towards a very bland future. I think that in certain situations, this is necessary, but overall, we should try to keep using words the way that we do. Synonyms just don't have the same connotations.
Hello all,
1. In the English language, we often view Rome as the "Pinnacle of wisdom and culture," and this is reflected in out language. If I were to say that something was "stupendous" that has a much more positive connotation that had I said that it was "good." Granted, the definition of stupendous is better than the definition of good, but that would have to have originated from somewhere. Because the Romans and later the French/Normans later conquered England, their language became the language of the ruling class, the language of intellectuals or betters. This is not only present in the large number of synonyms in the English Language, but also in what meaning each word is charged with.
Latinate diction, because of where it originated - the ruling class- has maintained an air of superiority over the words derived from Germanic Diction. In the modern society, people try to make their actions of beliefs sound more intellectual, more aloof and professional by deferring to Latinate Diction, and because of our perceptions of language, this works. However, the article raises the point that the overuse of Latinate Diction in places that it should not be creates problems, and potentially makes the rhetoric less effective.
However, the worst thing that it has created is the idea that it is wrong to be direct, and that one must always be considerate, aloof and understanding in their choice of words. The "Native Americans" most often refer to themselves as Indians. This clinical attitude has changed how we speak officially or in any work-related setting, changing "We need to do this." to "We believe that it would be in the best interests of all present if we were to implement the following plan." Both say the same thing, but the second is far longer and less direct. Seeing how much shorter the Germanic phrasing is, how much faster do you think that tasks could be accomplished if it were more widely used or at lease culturally acceptable? I am not trying to say that Latinate diction is wrong or its use is incorrect, but it would be similarly false to say that our dependence on it was entirely beneficial. The presumption that by saying it with more syllables says it better is pervasive in our society, and I find this quite annoying. I honestly think that if we continue to "formalize" our language and thoughts at the rate that we do now English will become two separate languages, one for business and one for reality.
2. One place that I found that belief to be particularly annoying was when I was a delegate to the Model United Nations. When the time for resolution-making came along, I was shocked at the need for preambulatory clauses, since they effectively did next to nothing. Child soldiers in Africa? "We recognize that there is an issue of the abduction of children for the purpose of their impressment into the rebel armies. We understand that the countries cannot effectively police this issue on their own. We regret..." and so on and so forth. Moving on to the operative clauses, I was again bewildered by the fact that though these were supposed to announce actions taken by the UN, I could not find a single one that would do so. "Accepts, Affirms, Approves, Authorizes, Calls, Calls upon, Condemns, Confirms, Congratulates, Considers..." These were the words with which we were to change the world, and the list goes on. I believe that Latinate diction has its place, but when the social constructs that it has created- the desire to remain inoffensive and detached- interfere with necessary action, it should be ignored.
In the excerpt given in class, Carlin brings up a valid point that the softening of language does prevent people in dire need of treatment from being treated. I most definitely agree that this change in language is for the worse, but really what Carlin is trying to say here is that people are becoming cowards. It is already unfair to blame the mistreatment of thousands of post-war patients on something insentient like language, for language must be changed by the people using and manipulating it every single day. Throughout the years, language has changed, but not by accident. For example, Noah Webster in 1828 published Webster's Dictionary to establish a more clear "Americanized" version of the English language to promote nationalism and establish a clearer national identity opposite to that of Britain. It is not as though one is can be a victim to changes in language, for theoretically, one can speak in any way they personally choose. It says we have a freedom to speech, and I'm pretty sure we can speak in gibberish if we fully feel we must. Hence, I don't think Carlin is justified in blaming language as the perpetrator of the lack of treatment of PTSD, but rather we should display humility start "man-ing up".
*we should display humility and start "man-ing up".
When we were in class I thought that Carlin was right. That we were bringing forth a more meaningless approach to the English language and I then I thought about how I percieve English. I like things to be drawn out and elaborated and not so nailed to the point. I think that this ability to make things seem less abrupt is actually quite nice. I think our ability to accept this type of drawn out language is really something remarkable. We do not want ourselves to be abrupt and harsh we rather see things from a more considerate point of view. So I am now in disagreement with Carlin. I think this new evolution of language brings on a society of more appreciating and kind hearted people and not people that are curt and rude.
1. What does this observation suggest about the use of Latinate diction in the English language?
I see the point that Carlin is implying through the excerpt of his book that Latinate diction disconnects the true meaning from a matter, or "takes the life out of life." However, I also agree with Ashley's point, that Latinate words can sometimes elaborate ideas in a way that is enjoyable and more interesting to read, rather than a blunt definition or opinion of a concept. While Latinate words may not always be necessary, they can also completely change the direction or tone of one's ideas.
2. Is there a problem with the progression of language that Carlin is describing? (He thinks there is. Do you?)
Going back to the previous question, Carlin makes a valid point that I did not completely agree with. Latinate words may elaborate terms and ideas in ways that can be beneficial or even beautiful to audiences if used in association with a connotative meaning, however they certainly sugar-coat matters more than necessary. As Carlin points out in his essay, the use of Latinate words may distract people from what is being conveyed. In many cases, Latinate words are used to cover up serious matters that could potentially offend or hurt people, which can sometimes prove helpful. However, Carlin makes the arguement in his essay that, "If they had still been calling it 'shell-shock,' some of those Vietnam veterans might have received the attention they needed." This situation concerning the use of Latinate words can apply to many other situations, especially those that relate to one's well being or life.
Hey F Block,
Just a few thoughts:
1) As all the other students have said so far Latinate words are more "sophisticated," but as we discussed in class they do not do the job of being and to the point. On the other hand Germanic words are best described as blunt. With Latinate words one can dance around a sticky subject and create a type of barrier between what they are implicitly saying and what they explicitly saying. This way a writer cannot be blamed for having a direct thought, or held accountable for being in the wrong. With Latinate language ideas are eluded to but actual opinions may be concealed; keeping what they are saying neutral. This ties in to what our class was reading about today and being PC. It seems to be that Germanic words are used to describe something to the best of their ability while Latinate words are used to please, without offending anyone. Thus they suffer from losing their power and meaning and are just added fluff.
2)I would agree when Carlin says that this progression of English is a problem. While I understand that there are more pressing issues in the world today I would say that he made a valid observation. If people were strait forward and simlpy said what needed to be said perhaps there would be less confusion and misunderstanding. Paul Farmer wasn't worried about being PC and look how much he was able to accomplish. Latinate words are not bad but I would say some are used at the wrong time and don't always help a writer be as clear as s/he may wish to be. If you want to share a thought or make a piont don't lose your audience along the way.
1. In the English language, the use of Latinate diction has come to be known as a way of wrapping harsh content in layer upon layer until it is almost unrecognizable. Carlin notes this with his "shell shock" to "battle fatigue" to "operational exhaustion" to "post-traumatic stress disorder" example. As opposed to Germanic diction, Latinate diction seems soft and comfortable. As we well know, comfort is what most Americans seek. “Visually Impaired” sounds less painful, more comfortable than “Blind” just as hearing the words “Between Jobs” is a little easier to take than “Unemployed”. Many people use “Politically Correct” Latinate words to spare themselves any uneasiness or possible embarrassment. Carlin explains that he believes that using Latinate language in everyday language is like taking the wimpy way out, lightening the impact of the severity of some words.
2. Carlin seems to believe that there is a problem with the way that the English language has and will continue to develop. I am not sure that I agree with him. I really like what Salam said about how “The nice thing about English is that we have so many words to pick and choose from to describe ONE thing.”. I believe that what makes English such a strong language it’s variety. So, though sometimes the use of inflated language can blur content, it can also make it more clear. It is true that our language has developed into one that softens the blow of reality, but because of our many choices of words, doesn’t the variety free us with the precision of true expression? There may be a problem with big language, but that problem lies in the context in which it is used. Language is only lofty if the writer/speaker makes it that way.
1. The progression of "shell shock"(a 2 syllable phrase) into PTSD (an 8 syllable phrase) shows the continual and increased integration of latinate diction into the english language. The use of latinate versus the use of gramanic language is beginning to create a divide between classes. As Robert stated before,he made a point about the english language developing into two different languages, one for business and another for reality. In response to this, I agree that there is a rift forming between the use of germaic and the use of latinate lanugage, however I do not believe it will develop into two completely different lanbguages. I believe this growing divide will(and already is) becoming a distinguishing factor for upper and lower classes(as it has in the past).
In response to Virginia's point about Latinate language leading to more confusion I agree. As numerous other students have already stated, the stories we wrote in class using the two types of language are a perfect example. The first, Germanic , story was just that, a story, easy to follow and understand. However, once the germanic words were replaced with latinate words, the story's "plot" fell apart. It was no longer easy to follow the chain of events and often, the words were used in incorrect tenses, forms, and they sounds awkward when read aloud. As Mr. McKnight stated in class today, there is a time and a place for latinate diction. When used correctly it can increase the effectiveness of a piece of litarature. However when used incorrectly, it corrupts the flow and presentation of an idea.
1) I think this suggestion says that the progression from “shell shock” to “pstd” was simply for the benefit of making our language and this problem sound more official and sophisticated. He suggests that it is unneccessary for people like doctors to hide the truth and the seriousness of something by changing its name. He is unhappy with the idea that language has progressed to hiding the actual meanings of things.
2) I think there are some problems with the ways that language can progress but I don’t believe that some of this progression does not make sense. For instance, when we talked about the progression from “shell shock” to “ptsd”, I think the transformation from Latinate to Germanic is interesting. While shell shock is more direct and obvious, ptsd might make more sense to doctors as a way of communication and for symptoms.
Similar to this idea, I think there is somewhat of a problem because the use of euphemisms can definitely confuse people especially in their use of medical jargon. When we talked about this in class I thought more about it from both perspectives, the doctor and the patient and their family. However, I understand that it may be easier for the doctors to communicate with one another with these abbreviations, I also feel that for the patient would want to know what these phrases meant if they were to hear. Also from the patient’s standpoint they may feel mocked or made fun of by these phrases. However I don’t think these abbreviations are meant for that, while they may be humorous, I think they are a part of the ways in which doctors deal with the draining medical cases they face everyday.
I find euphisms in everyday careers a bit undermining because they try to hide the truth. For instance store clerks are simply not “hospitality workers” or something like this. I think though the idea is to make these simple jobs sound better than they actually are. However they seem to degrade the actual person in the job because they seem to mock the simplicity of their job.
I feel it’s important to use both germanic and latinate words in a balance and to truly consider whether the use of euphisms meets their goal.
Hey everyone,
It’s been interesting to read about people’s opinions on the use of Latinate or Germanic diction, and to see how strongly the members of our class differ in opinion.
Although I understand Carlin’s points, and agree that the “softening” of language is not always a good thing, I can’t commit myself completely to one point of view or the other. I feel that words of both Germanic and Latin origin have uses that cannot be overlooked. We can’t simply praise one group of words for being direct, or condemn the other group for being too “soft.”
The words used to describe a situation or process let the reader or listener know what type of environment they are in or reading about, and how they should react. Robert brought up the example of Model U.N. I think that the official sounding Latinate words set the tone of the conversation, keep all participants in place, and ensure that they comment and respond with the same sense of calmness as their predecessors. If someone were to open a discussion with a comment such as “we need to get ‘em to help us…” the responses would be similarly casual, and it would be easy for the conversation to go off track or become an argument.
In the opposite realm of language use and misuse, if a story written to “grab” the attention of the reader, it would be a huge mistake to use too many words of Latin origin. By the time the reader processes the tangle of clauses words and syllables, they could potentially lose interest. In example, if an author wrote about a high speed car chase, or a gruesome fight with Latinate diction, they reader could be so disinterested by the end of the first sentence that they place the writing piece down, never to return to it.
Additionally, I don’t think the progression in language that Carlin describes in negative because as long as a formal language and set of words exists, so will its simpler more direct counterpart.
1) To start off, I would like to say that I completely agree with Ashley's point about how Latinate words allow us to express ideas in ways that Germanic words do not. They allow us to express our thoughts in a pleasant way, instead of being so to the point that we lose the meaning behind the language. The way that we use Latinate words today lets us be creative and original with so many words to choose from. It gives us the opportunity to write down our ideas in a way that would be difficult using only words of Germanic origin. Imagine if Shakespeare had eliminated the descriptive Latinate words from his work, leaving only the basic plot with no greater meaning. What would have been left would never have been as amazing as "Romeo and Juliet" or "Hamlet". I realize that Shakespeare is neither American nor modern, but he did use many of the same English words that we use today, including some Latinate words that he made up himself.
As for Gabby's point about "Visually Impaired" and "Blind" people, I disagree that this change in terms is used to hide the truth. I believe that there actually is a distinction between these two as many "visually impaired" people may be legally "blind", but not completely unable to see. When you say that a person is blind, you assume that they can't see anything, so in this instance it may be better to say that a person is visually impaired, as that phrase is more specific. This is true in other cases as well when a person uses Latinate words to decribe something in place of their Germanic counterparts.
Referring to what Robert said about the Model UN, the use of those verbs was not an example of the degeneration of the English language because the UN is peace-keeping organization. It is not designed to take action - it has no military. It can't use those verbs of action because it can't really take action in the way that a single country can.
2) I don't believe that there is a problem with the progression of language because I believe that language must progress. The Latinate words that have come to replace many Germanic words are in many cases necessary. Over time, words glean new connotations that alter the original meaning of the word. A sale used to only mean that a store was selling its products at a lower price. It still retains this meaning, but it has also gained the negative implication that people who need to look for sales are poor, as opposed to the people who "take advantage of 'events'." Though some Latinate words may be misused, Orwell points out that this is just bad writing. When used correctly, Latinate words can bring new meaning to boring plotlines and stories. So the fact that the meanings of words change over time, simply means that new words and phrases must be created that don't carry those negative implications to replace the old ones. I believe that this evolution that language undergoes is absolutely essential.
My last comment is about what Amanda said. I disagree that new terms for simple jobs are demeaning. I actually think that the original term such as "clerk" implies a lowly worker, while "sales associate" seems less unimportant. Although the new titile may be a bit misleading, it also removes the assumptions attatched to the position of "clerk".
Hi guys,
The part of this discussion that caught my eye the most was the bit about "shell shock" versus "post-traumatic stress disorder". Personally, hearing "PTSD" has been much more helpful to me. Who would understand the seriousness of PTSD if it was called "shock"? "Shell shock" sounds like, at least to me, jumping at the sound of a bomb. The name changed as doctors learned more about the problem- paranoia, depression, panic attacks, night terrors, and in the worst cases hallucinations. PTSD reminds me more of these things than “shell shock”. The name, if anything, was changed to more accurately describe the condition. If longer or impressive sounding titles are what it takes to make people stop and listen more often, I don't see anything wrong with that. I think the real tragedy that Carlin and others are feeling is that it takes a certain kind of title in the first place for us to be able to face a painful, important subject, or bring attention to one. It’s not as much about problems with renaming things as it is that we need to rename things to function. We can’t give the attention deserved to certain problems until they sound good enough- until there’s no way of getting away with ignoring them. It all comes down to actually listening. No matter what the title, we should all be listening. I’m not sure of the current situation with Congress and PTSD, except that too many soldiers have gone without government paid treatment. I’m also not sure of the situation between World War I and Vietnam, but if anything I’d think that the PTSD situation has gotten better. I’m certain nobody received payments for shell shock treatments in the early 1900s. But I do think that this is a problem with humanity, not with language. No matter what the name, the government had a responsibility to listen to veterans and their families asking for help, and to listen to doctors about the actual problem. It’s their fault, not the title’s, as it is in so many situations. Asking human nature to change feels like too big of a challenge, so blaming the titles for the way people respond can be soothing, especially in politics. But this is a problem with humanity. No more name blame!
I think I’d like to start by asking everyone who’s posted to examine their own comments. Did you phrase them eloquently? Was your language especially erudite? I’m afraid that most of you, regardless of the actual content of your posts, will find that you turned to Latinate language without even noticing, especially the early posters. This isn’t especially good or bad—it’s just habit. To impress the reader, everyone (myself included) will instinctively begin to use more sophisticated words and phrases, instead of simple ones. While it may be foolish of us to do so, I think everyone will agree that in this case, Latinate words are necessary in order to make a good impression.
For example, think of college applications. You wouldn’t want to hand in an essay with a thesis like “Andrew Jackson was a good man because he helped America get better,” would you? Instead, the same sentence would be phrased along the lines of “Despite his flaws, Andrew Jackson was a positive figure in American history because his influence caused the country to become what it is today.” This is not, of course, purely due to Latinate language, but the point itself still stands—more sophisticated language does have its place in society. Several of you have brought this up already, and I think I have to agree.
On the other hand, Germanic language has its uses as well. Conversations would be much stranger if they contained lines such as, “And what incidents occurred in the aftermath of his departure from the festivities?” It would be better phrased as “What happened after he left the party?” Although—returning to my previous point—this obviously isn’t good in every case.
The development of euphemisms in our language is something else to consider, which can be both good and bad. Of course, it takes the raw emotions out of some key phrases, such as shell shock, but like Abbie said this has its uses—post-traumatic stress disorder is a more descriptive term, after all, that tells you exactly what the illness IS. It stretches beyond the battlefield and into the realm of all other kinds of trauma. This way, it can be better treated and understood by medical professionals all over.
This turned out longer than I meant it to, sorry.
I agree with Gabby's point that people use "politically correct" & Latinate words to protect themselves against certain harsh realities in our modern world. I had never really thought of this act as selfish before reading Carlin's piece and discussing the topic in class. However,now I understand that the use of "poltically correct" language is meant to shield the person using it rather than the person being described by it (I hope that makes sense). This realization reminded me of a point raised in one of the summer reading books. In Mountains Beyond Mountains, Paurl farmer describes sacrafices as "a way to ease some sort of physcic discomfrot" (not a direct quotation). Farmer believes that sacrafice, much like the use of "PC" language is an entriely selfish act. People preform these acts to make themselves feel better within their own lives.
In conclusion, it's interesting to think that many of our "unselfish" actions are actually rooted in selfish behaviors...
1. In class, when we first transformed our paragraphs written mainly in Germanic language to Latinate, I thought the new paragraph would sound much more sophisticated and intelligent. It is clear that I had been brainwashed into thinking that the bigger, complicated words are always better. Then I realized that our transformed paragraphs were so unclear that the original message was lost. This kind of "sophisticated" Latinate language is often vague and unclear. The language reflects the apparent need for English speakers to use "prettier" and more sugar-coated language to describe everything. It is now becoming more accepted that vague Latinate language is better to describe anything slightly unpleasant than direct, matter-of-fact language.
2. The increased use of Latinate language is also reflected in the increased need for political correctness. At the beginning of the year, one of our Socratic seminar questions related to political correctness in America and the way that Paul Farmer ignored it. The use of Latinate and more "flowery" language hides any terms that are not political correct and/or offensive to some. Farmer, however, did not worry about needing to be politically correct or using sophisticated language and yet, he has been incredibly successful.
The use of vague language covers any issues in order to make the world seem like a better place. Unfortunately, this takes away from the reality of many problems. These issues may be overlooked if they sound better than they are, when actually, we may need to be concerned.
I'd like to jump in for a moment--to comment specifically on a point that Amanda, Sonia, and Abbie brought up.
There is an argument to be made in favor of terms like "post traumatic stress disorder" over "shell shock", and it has to do with accuracy. (Sonia's point about "blind" versus "visually impaired" sums it up well). There is an accepted effort in science and medicine to label conditions with greater and greater accuracy: "cardiac arrest" is, technically, more precise than "heart attack". And, as Abbie argues, a more accurate diagnosis makes more effective treatment possible.
This phenomenon is especially significant in the realm of mental health--an aspect of medicine that was revolutionized in the 20th century. Most of us take it for granted, now, that conditions like "shell shock", depression, anxiety are medical conditions. But as recently as the mid-20th century, we didn't really know what to do with such afflictions, and we housed the afflicted in massive state institutions (most of which now stand empty). Referring to the "baby blues" as "post-partum depression" takes an unfortunate side-effect of birth and makes it a treatable condition.
(And in this regard--and maybe this regard only--I think Carlin was wrong: we provide far more treatment for PTSD than we have in the past, regardless of what it's called. But let's remember--Carlin's a comedian, and his point there is largely a political jab.)
So, in regards to the recognition of mental disorders as medical conditions, I'm all for this progression of language.
And yet, in terms of the language itself, I feel ambivalent. There is an ugliness about a term like "post-traumatic stress disorder"--that disconnect from the experience itself that must be of little comfort to the shell-shocked veteran. (The overuse of that term "disorder"! "Attention-deficit disorder", "Obsessive-compulsive disorder", etc.) Perhaps in attempting to come up with an accurate term to fit a range of symptoms, we can end up saying nothing at all. Why not just call it "trauma"?
Perhaps as long as we leave such terms to the medical profession, we don't have to water-down the power of our words.
I think it's important to realize that our use of words from Germanic or Latinate origin ought to be dictated by the purpose for which these words are being used in the first place. The development of the English language has broadened (not narrowed) our ability to describe things. Mr. McKnight pointed out a while back in class that neither one nor the other, but a mixture of the two, should be our choice. Obviously we can't write argumentative essays with a relaxed, conversational tone with a touch of humor. And on the flip side, 'sophisticated' language just sounds out of place in so many situations. Consider carefully your purpose, and let that influence your word choice. I don't think that there is any sort of 'battle' going on between Germanic and Latinate diction. That simplifies our beautiful language a bit too much. The fact is that there is always going to be more than one way to say something, and that is where the creativity of the author comes into play. This reminds of of George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language." He suggests that, far from simply subscribing to a type of written language filled with pre-ordained phrases that link together to form a meaningless chain of rhetoric, as writers we ought to be saying what we mean in the most effective, powerful way possible. That can involve incorporating flowery language into our writing, and that can also mean using simple words to get across our meaning. Neither is right, because there is no right or wrong when it comes to the materials an artist uses.
(I know this is late but I felt like pointing it out anyway.)
1) Carlin's observation is that with the further integration of Latinate diction in to our accepted vocabulary, the less we truly talk about something, rather than talk around it. Rather than come right out and say that there are these soldiers with completely frayed nerves due to the stress of battle, most would rather say it's "post-traumatic stress disorder". That phrase doesn't have a form, it is only a loose idea, therefore we can't humanize it. It is really a coping mechanism for the user of the word.
2)There is something very wrong with this progression. We no longer express ourselves directly as much, we tend to leave many things up for interpretation. This can leave people you talk to have ambiguous feelings about what you were saying, even if you feel like you stated your points clearly. However, this veil of ambiguous confusion is overused by politicians and public speakers, as so that they don't offend anyone, due to their statements being hazy on meaning, they can warp it any which way they want.
I agree with Lance's last comment. It reminded me of a very important trait of the English language, and that changed my perspective on Latinate vs. Germanic diction.
The fact is, the English language is expanding. With every new decade or generation, comes new words, phrases, and terminology. It's easy to forget because that aspect of English is different from any other language. In order to speak English, one must be constantly learning the language. For example, we're all more or less fluent in English, but we're all still learning it at the same time. English today is not the same as it was 50 years ago. Even within the past 10 years, words like 'legit' have come to be known and used as actual terms and internet lingo such as 'LOL' has become common-speak (through writing).
In order to speak English to its whole potential, the speaker must have an open mind to accommodate all the linguistic changes that have come with time. I feel that open-mindedness is something that George Carlin lacks, and that is what drives him to not be fond of the use of Latinate diction.
First off I apologize if my response is in any way redundant because there have been so many posts already and there is a good chance that there might be.
The observations that George Carlin made and presented of the transition of vocabulary to describe war conditions reveals the places of latinate and germanic diction in the english language. Of the obvious differences between the two roots, Germanic is shorter in length and uses harsher sounding consonants. The latinate words are polysyllabic and include more varied phonetics. This difference simply arises from Germanic words being the concise, expedient language of the common-folk in England whereas the latinate words were the tongue of the official French elite.
The subtler difference between the two is the connotation conveyed within the words. Germanic words like, "Shell Shock" are more transparent in terms of meaning the the diction used for the same symptoms in latter wars. "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" is rather vague in contrast. The reason for this switch in root and corresponding switch in meaning reflects the cultural and societal prospectives of the time. As the wars went on, for one reason or another the public thought the need to curtain the harsh reality of war conditions with confusing language. This shift is discernable in all aspects in society such as funerals, politics, and any official business. Just as the French used more sophisticated language as elites, the powers that be in the US are similarly upholding the jargon of the privileged. However, it is crucial to note that these are only a few examples of this trend and by no means is it universal, or even widely accepted. It is simply an acceptable theory based on one man's obsevations and my inferences.
George Carlin seems to take issue with the shift of English diction from Germanic to Latinate but I see no serious potential problems. The only risk with this latinate vocabulary is that the meaning of the term will be lost in a heap of jewelry and glitz that is modern latinate diction at times. I do not foresee this as a major quandary as I and many I know easily see through the accoutrements of professional jargon. In addition, this change never can be complete as evidenced by the essay, "She's your basic L.O.L. in N.A.D." In hear the fancy lingo used by medical personnel has been reverted to simple acronyms, which are similar in style and purpose to Germanic roots. Society is a constantly evolving entity and it is important not to augment the reality of these new trends before solid evidence of them exists. All examples hereof have been based on hearsay and until we can be sure that this switch is truly occurring everywhere do we have to evaluate its end result.
Beginning in the 20th century, Latinate diction began to gather a reputation for being the language of intellectuals. Many believed that if someone did not talk or write without using words such as "parsimonious" and "adumbrate", that it meant they were uneducated. This trend continues through the 21st century and shows little sign of slowing down. I myself sometimes replace Germanic words with Latinate ones thinking that they will make my writing more sophisticated but many times it only contributes to polluting my writing and prevents me from making solid points. This seems to be happening around the country and causes ideas one is trying to state unrecognizable. Though it may sound eloquent, such diction is actually causing our language to digress. Politicians consistently insert cumbersome words into speeches to make themselves sound more knowledgeable on a subject. For the most part, many Americans go along with their Latinate diction and truly believe that the speaker is an expert on everything from the Azerbaijani governing body to the ecology of Antarctica. Some people are beginning to loathe this style and yearn for a less vague English language again. Herman Cain, a republican running for the 2012 nomination has vaulted to the front of the polls in part because many working class Americans enjoy his simple style of speaking and the absence of lofty language in his speech and debate separating himself from many of the other candidates. This could be a sign that the United States is slowly turning away from Latinate diction after its pinnacle and people will once again talk using a higher percentage of Germanic language.
Hello,
1.) So I think that judging from Carlin's observation, the use of Latinate diction isn't always used to sound more sophisticated, but in some cases used to obscure the harsh truth about something instead. Germanic diction gets to the point, and many of the words, along with sounding brutish, are also harsh in the way that they convey the truth how it is, and the truth hurts. Latinate diction, by being more obscure, leaves more readers lost in it's complexity and can muffle this harshness.
2.) I agree with Carlin's opinion that the now common use of Latinate diction detracts from our language, because writers can no longer get across what they are trying to say due to a lack of choosing the right word in an attempt of sounding sophisticated. Whereas I once thought that large and encumbering words improved writing significantly, if they are used incorrectly then they can make a fool of the writer and make his work meaningless.
Post a Comment