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.
Other examples: I can call myself a "teacher" (Germanic) or an "educator" (Latinate). Would you rather be buried in a "graveyard" (Germanic) or a "cemetery" (Latinate)?
See, too, the attachment I sent you: "Death is Almost Fun These Days"
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)
21 comments:
1. I think the fact that the use of Latinate diction in the English language suggests exactly what George Carlin was trying to get at. That people soften their words so as to not hurt or offend people. I think that people do that because people are so consumed with their image and how they're viewed in society that they don't want to be seem in a negative way.
2. As far as I can tell there isn't really a problem with the progression from Germanic to Latinate diction. We should be careful though that is doesn't change the meaning of the phrase or change drastically how people feel about the word or phrase. But the progression of slang is a problem. But that's for another time.
I think Carlin was trying to emphasize the glorification of death in the modern day, by his use of lengthy Latinate diction. The methods in which we deal with our dead today do have many different names, or more like titles; they are less direct, as to avoid hurting one's feelings, as Ariane said. But Carlin doesn't really take into account the different ways in which the dead are put to rest - people have all different ways of saying goodbye.
1. I think the Latinate language we use makes us sound more educated. In many ways, I also don't think this is a bad thing. I think Carlin really doesn't like the idea of using complicated Latinate words that are more difficult to understand because he feels like it distances people. In a way it does. Using more complicated ideas does distance people because not necessarily everyone can understand the point.
2. I really don't think there is a problem with the progression of language that Carlin is describing. Take slang as an example. No one I know in California says "wicked," yet I say it all the time. "Sick" now means "cool." Neither of those words make sense. Being sick is not positive. "Cool" is an expression of temperature, not of something positive or of consent. Language is in constant evolution, and possibly our language will migrate towards being less personal, but that is the natural course of language. If you asked someone who was alive two hundred years ago what they thought of English today, I don't think they'd be overjoyed to see what had become of it. But it was a natural progression, which is inevitable and good for movement through time.
1. As Ariane M. and Cady T said, Latinate diction make words not so frank as to avoid hurting peoples' feelings. The words are very abstract and sound more educated. Carlin was getting at the idea that these words are actually making the ideas they represent not as true or honest as they really are.
2. I do think this is a problem. If people aren't honest with each other, then no one will actually know what the outside world is like. People will get too sensitive and in a world where everyone is so sensitive, so isolated as to what is really happening, then they will not want to talk about anything, not want to take any action. Carlin had said "post-traumatic stress disorder" is something that doesn't get as much medical attention as "shell shock," although they're both the same thing. Carlin is inclining at a future where no one will be aware of how serious situations are. Passing away is nothing compared to DEATH. This is a future we need to avoid.
1.) I agree with Ariane in that using latinate words does "skirt around" blunt and painful answers or comments people make about sensitive issues. Carlin's example of war related stress disorders and also the excerpt "Death is Almost Fun These Days" illustrates the idea that Latinate words involve less feeling. A reader can get lost in the fancy flow of it all.
2.) People these days have access to so much more information about the world, diseases, and tragedy. The only way people can turn on the TV and not cry is by hearing "The destitution in that province is appalling" as opposed to "the people are so poor and hungry they are dying in the millions". Taking care not to overuse "soft language" is the only real precaution I think that can and should be observed. You do not want your message to be lost behind fluffy words. Sometimes, just saying what you need to say- in this case if it means using more Germanic wording- you should just say it. Writing essay's and the like is a bit different depending on your audience.
1. I think that our use of Latinate diction nowadays suggests that we are sometimes more concerned with retaining a comfortable emotional buffer between ourselves and the subject matter, than exposing the truth. I also think that we are trying to sound and prove ourselves to be well educated.
2. I myself find myself using way more Latinate terms than Germanic in certain situations, like writing essays. But I think that using more lengthy vocabulary can become a problem when the intended meaning is lost. I agree wholeheartedly with Larissa's point about masking the truth, or making it more appealing to discuss, by hiding it with heavy, sugary words. I think that it's wrong to try and alter the truth just to soothe emotional responses.
Just a quick comment or two:
1. Thanks, all of you, for getting this started. Good points--and understanding--so far.
2. I like Larissa's example of "the destitution in that province is appalling"! If you come across any examples like these do share!
1. Carlin's observation of English becoming more Latinate suggests that people are becoming more sensitive. doctors who diagnose post traumatic stress disorder nowadays are concerned for the well being of their patients of course, but to a higher degree than when it was called "shell shock". they want their patient to get better, but they also do not want to stress out their patient with a disorder called "shell shock". basically, Latinate diction is used to make people happier or in some cases, just less sad. "death is almost fun these days" is a good example of trying to make people less sad. however, i think that post traumatic stress disorder is a good example of another reason why English has become more Latinate-based: it is more scientific. we want to categorize everything and scientific names are a part of organizing things into categories.
2. I think there are pros and cons to this issue. mostly, the evolution of medical conditions (like "shell shock" being renamed post traumatic stress disorder) and other professional language, is positive. as Kalista said, language is always evolving and i think the transition to mostly Latinate diction in professional fields is a perfect example of this.
on the other hand, Carlin's "death is almost fun these days" exemplifies a con to this evolution. i think that casual talk should be as true as possible, because euphemisms can take out some of the feeling in a situation, in a similar way to how the medical jargon in Perri Klass's essay numbs doctors to their work.
I completely agree with Sky's point about how the evolution of language is both positive and negative. I personally found the transition from "shell shock to "post traumatic stress disorder" to be acceptable, since it better characterizes the disease and includes a wider range of causes (not just sparked by involvement in battle but by any traumatic event).
Yet, like people have mentioned, using Latinate words excessively can drain a sentence of emotion. Although the euphemisms like "circling the drain" and "boxed" in Klass' piece are not especially flowery, they do illustrate how language can veil the true meaning of the phrase. However, might this "emotional buffer" be a necessary coping mechanism for people, like Klass, who deal with pain and tragedy every day? Is the use of such language justifiable for doctors, but not for the media? (just questions I was considering as I read other people's comments)
1. For me, Latinate diction is a way to "beat around the bush". It is a much vaguer way of speaking which has become much more popular due to the spread of political correctness in our society. This type of speaking, like Ariane said, ensures that people are not offended or hurt. However as George Carlin points out, the overuse of this language can become ridiculous. In the "Death is Almost Fun These Days" example, the second paragraph shows that the speaker has become so careful as to not offend anyone that the true meaning is lost from his words, resulting in an almost comical effect.
2. Although it is important to be considerate of other people's feelings when using certain language, I do not believe in "sugarcoating" the point you wish to get across. By this I mean overusing Latinate words when trying to express a point. I believe that in many cases it is important to minimalize one's use of Latinate words to avoid ambiguation and to remain honest and truthful.
Of course there are exceptions where using Latinate words are a necessity, such as the example brought up by Claire.
I like Claire's point about how the medical jargon is used to avoid being completely blunt about uncomfortable subjects such as sickness and death. This is a good example of a situation where using latinate diction, or in this case a new medical language, could be used to protect the doctors from having to endure the emotional pain that comes along with the death and illness of their patients.
Latinate diction in the English language is becoming more and more popular as time goes on. It also suggests that the Latinate can be used as an ambiguous way of saying unpleasant sounding things. Both are shown in the George Carlin excerpt that we read in class, with the progression from "shell shock" to eventually ending up at "post traumatic stress disorder." Both mean have the same meaning when boiled down, but the Latinate PTSD is sounds more like medical jargon and less like a silly phrase soldiers came up with to describe friends who can't cope.
I would take a middle ground on this issue. I believe that there is a time and a place for each type of language. For example I think that when a doctor is breaking the news of a family member's death, then it would be both appropriate and respectful to use more Latinate language in order to nicely break the news. In contrast, I believe that in situations such as politics and the media it would be beneficial to use more direct Germanic words.
I really liked Claire's question which brought up the idea of who is allowed to use language which could be considered disrespectful. I believe that there is a line, though it is a blurry one. I think that the informal and perhaps hurtful language can be used only if it is directly beneficial to the person using it, and does not harm the person who it is directed at. When people 'call names' in average life, it is not beneficial to the speaker, and is harmful to the audience, so it is not okay, while the doctor might mentally benefit from the jargon, while not affecting the patient.
As many people have said, I think that the use of Latinate diction in the English language shows how our culture, at least in the United States, has become increasingly sensitive. Political correctness is a much bigger issue today than it has been in the past and it is interesting to consider why that is. I think history has a lot to do with our sensitivity when it comes to phrasing. For the past few centuries, with the abolition of slavery, the civil rights and feminist movements, and reactions to events like the Holocaust discrimination is, fortunately, becoming less and less acceptable in society and because of that people are more careful not to offend others with their words. But there are certainly times when we are oversensitive about language. It is important not to use language that is offensive to another race or culture but I think that trying to "soften" the words we use to describe things like death is taking it a little too far. Replacing the word graveyard with cemetery doesn't make it any easier to bury someone you care about.
Like George Orwell said language corrupts thought just as much as thought corrupts language and I think that being oversensitive about how we phrase things causes us to feel oversensitive. When we become oversensitive about how people speak they become less inclined to share their opinions. So in that sense, this evolution towards sensitivity in language could be seen as negative.
On the other hand, I think that evolution in language in general is not necessarily a bad thing. They way we as a generation speak says something about the world that we live in today, and I like to think that every era leaves its own mark on the English language. The only real down side to that is that with every generation our language evolves further away from that used in classic literature, and eventually the English that Shakespeare used will be extremely difficult for modern English speakers to understand.
So interesting that Ellie brings up Shakespeare. There's an author with an intuitive grasp of diction and its levels--he uses a real mix of Germanic and Latinate, sophisticated and vulgar, metrical and prosaic, differentiating by speaker and by rank. The nurse and Friar have parallel roles as Juliet's and Romeo's confidants and enablers, but their diction and patterns of speech are so marvelously different!
I think that the variance in the ways that one can say something - such as using Germanic or Latinate words - actually represents a very favorable aspect of the English language itself. With this double vocabulary, we have the option to choose our style to match our context, and since equivalent Germanic and Latinate words don't mean exactly the same thing, we are able to refine what we say to get closer to our meaning. This way we can convey our feelings about a matter just by our word choice, and that makes a language a much more effective method of communication. How people, businesses, politicians, medical professionals etc choose to use this flexibility to their advantage is another matter entirely. The key is that the complexity of the English language makes it much easier to get our point across.
I completely agree with Larsen- I think that having both Germanic and Latinate words to write with is an advantage. Having such extensive choices not only makes writing more fun, but it also can make reading more fun. The mix of Germanic and Latinate diction in a story or poem can make reading so much more interesting, beautiful and informative (if you didn't know the word beforehand). Though i agree with Carlin in that we should be wary of changing the meaning of phrases, I think it is interesting to see the progression of the English language. As our world and society continue to evolve, our language will too- this is inevitable, so why not enjoy it?
I completely agree with Larsen as well- these two different types of language allow for writers to be unique and further diversify the writing in our society as a whole. While it is important to have your writing have a little boost (perhaps with latinate words), there is no point in using them if no imagery is created. The reader should not be pausing every few sentences to reread and try to comprehend your writing. Latinate words are not *bad* necessarily, but it is good to be cautious and use them in moderation.
On the topic of using latinate words to be more sensitive and sheltered, I think this idea mirrors our changes in society. Great strides have been made in the equality of race, gender, and sexual identity in recent years, which makes many people want to keep up this progress. I notice how in school many people will immediately shout, "That's racist!" if anything (even if it was unintended) may have sounded offensive. At least around here, it is the social norm to be conscious of these equalities. Certain subjects which writers touch upon can be very sensitive, so they must be extra careful as to not dissuade readers who might be offended.
1. Carlin was pointing out, and complaining about, the fact that latinate words are becoming more and more prominent in modern English vocabulary. This emergence of latinate replacements for simpler Germanic words is, in my view, a representation of the increasing sensitivity of our culture. Certain words that were once acceptable to use are now deemed inappropriate and politically incorrect. Latinate words have become ways to avoid possible offense that can come from this increased sensitivity to language.
2. I think and don’t think that this progression of language is as bad thing. When things began to become unnecessarily complicated and even pretentious, I think this is bad. But when it is serving the practical purpose of taking into consideration the peoples feelings of others then it can be good.
1. Latin words have become very common in our language for making ourselves sound more educated and sophisticated. Saying "you are going to dine" sounds much more formal than "you are going to eat". It also serves the purpose of making things sound less direct and harsh. Even though they mean the same thing, it changes the intensity of the situation.
2.Although I agree with Carlin's point that using Latin words takes away the shock and sense of reality that the German words allow for, I disagree that the use of Latin words in this situation is a negative. Using the Latin words makes the issue seem like more of a medical problem. The German words "shell shock" made it seem more like just a state of mind that can be easily addressed. In this case the Latin words gives the issue the seriousness it requires.
1. This observation suggests that Latinate diction is used to sugar coat the truth in the English language, to either as Ariane said, not offend people, dehumanize something, or belittle a problem. Also it can be used to make one sounds more intelligent than they actually are, because if one uses a common metaphor or analogy, they dont have to explain themselves as thoroughly.
2. No, there really isn't a huge problem with this change from Germanic to Latinate diction, however it should definitely be closely watched. Common acronyms and regional terms are used in todays English language and it really doesn't cause much of a problem. Howeve, some things such as the change from shell shock to post traumatic stress disorder may seem fine, but things like this happen when one is sugarcoating something, which is hiding one from the truth.
Carlin may be correct when he says that the use of Latinate diction is obscuring the central message, but we should remember that he is a comedian, not a professional pundit, and there is no such thing as a "garden of remembrance". And I agree with Larsen completely, the option of saying the same thing different ways, and for different audiences is an advantage. If we want to be blunt, we can say someone has died, but if we want to show respect and empathy we can say someone has passed on. In Spanish, there is the pronoun usted, which basically refers to someone you would address formally. We don't have that in English, so we make up for this with formal words and phrases built into the language. Rather than being a detriment, as Carlin implies, I think elaborate words are very useful, especially for things like resumes and poetry, where half the fun is figuring out what the words mean. The line being drawn in the Latinate vs. Germanic debate is purely coincidental--the origins of the words have nothing to do with the movement to take the edge off difficult situations/conversations. We just perceive this trend because it often holds true. And Carlin is not really talking about Latinate and Germanic, short and long, specific and nonspecific. He is talking about directness vs. indirectness, which I think is more of a societal problem than the rise in the use of Latinate words. Latinate words are often more descriptive than their Germanic counterparts, if haughtier. And haughtiness is entirely subjective, unlike the difference between shell shock and ptsd, which is practical.
Post a Comment