Now taking suggestions for a new word

The protesters who were wrecking stuff were using black bloc tactics, complete with full black costumes. This does is a great favour semantically, because we can now call them "black bloc protesters", which is a clear and simple way to distinguish them from the majority of legitimate peaceful protesters.

What we need is a similar term for law enforcement who abuse their power. It needs to be clear, straightforward, and easily understood, so there are no barriers to using it every time you need to describe the concept. It will eliminate any ambiguity without making the speaker seem an apologetic for the police (which could hinder the speaker's perceived neutrality and/or credibility).

The word needs to be neutral, without casting any positive or negative connotations on the people it refers to. Black bloc is a specific protest technique, so people who engage in it can rightfully, neutrally, and unquestionably be called black bloc protesters. It's like how a person playing a vuvuzela can rightfully, neutrally, and unquestionably be called a vuvuzela player. Regardless of how you feel about the people being referred to, it is inherently non-judgemental.

(At this point, someone usually points out that the people in question deserve to be spoken of judgementally, but we can't do that properly unless we also have the option of referring to them neutrally, thereby making any aspersions case an informed and deliberate choice.)

Suggestions welcome. If any journalists or anyone else with broader reach than me would like to take this up, you're welcome to it. If your suggestion is clear, obvious, and justifiable enough that I can use it in translations, I will do so if the topic ever comes up.

Two perspectives on O Canada

As a Translator

One of the first things we learned in translation school is that the single best resource for translations is previous translations. Why re-do work that has already been done? You are being derelict in your duties if you don't search for previous translations when it is reasonable to expect their might be one. However, the very next thing we learned in translation school is not to perpetuate bad translations. If there are flaws in the previous translation and it's not being explicitly quoted in the target language, you are obligated to correct the flaws. The previous translator was fallible, just like you are. You are being even more derelict in your duties by letting a sub-optimal translation stand without improving it.

Another thing we learned in translation school is that when you cannot capture the precise connotation necessary, you should always err on the side of not making people look worse than they are in the source text. A profanity can't be translated by a stronger profanity. A slur can't be translated by a more hateful slur. Something that will cause the audience to react negatively can't be translated by something that will cause the audience to react more negatively. Clients have trust us to as their very voice, and taking their carefully-chosen words and turning them into something less tactful is unforgivable.

O Canada is a translation. It was originally written in French. The English version isn't a particularly close translation of the French, because the purpose of the text is to be a song, and it is more important that it serve that purpose (rhythm, rhyme, message) than that it capture every single nuance of the French meaning.

However, even given the latitude of literary translation, there are two lines in the English version that are problematic: "in all thy sons command" and "God keep our land glorious and free".

Both of these lines are exclusionary, and nothing similarly exclusionary appears in the original French. (There is "...il sait porter la croix", but that's not as strong as "God keep our land".) Therefore, the translation elicits a stronger negative reaction in the audience than the original. This is doubly unforgivable, because the audience in whom the text elicits the negative reaction are also the people in whose mouths these words are being put. We sing the anthem on our own behalf, so this suboptimal translation is forcing us to represent ourselves before the world with exclusionary sentiments. To do this simply because it has been done before is to perpetuate a flawed translation, and given the context and the importance of the text, to do so would be beyond the pale. If this crossed my desk and I let it stand, I'm quite certain I would be promptly relieved of all responsibilities where I have the final say on any text, because my employer could no longer trust my judgment.

As a Conspiracy Theorist

When I first heard they were considering making O Canada gender neutral, I assumed they were changing it to "in all of us command". It turns out they actually wanted to change it to "Thou dost in us command," which is unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce. Then they cancel the change because it's unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce.

This isn't the first time I've heard people choose the most awkward gender-neutral construction possible, then complain that "politically correct" language is awkward. "Firemen, er, and um firewomen? Firepeople?" Um, how about "firefighters"? "All of mankind! I mean, um, personkind?" How about "humanity"? I do find myself wondering if they do this on purpose.

When I point this out, people often tell me that it isn't malicious, it's just that other people aren't as good at thinking of words as I am. I find this difficult to believe (who hasn't played dumb every once in a while?) But if it actually is difficult and you seriously can't think of a suitable, neutral, non-awkward word, ask a professional like me, or look it up in Termium.

Things They Should Study: is ESL harder when both parties are ESL?

I overheard a conversation today between two people, from two different countries, both of whom spoke English as a second language, speaking to each other in English because it's the lingua franca here in Toronto. They seemed to be having some difficulty, and I wondered if it's because both of them spoke English imperfectly in different ways, and they weren't accustomed to each other's imperfections. I didn't hear enough of the conversation to tell if this was the case, or if they would have had as much trouble with a native speaker of English.

However, it also occurred to me that it might be easier when both parties are ESL, because both their vocabularies evolved the same way, from textbook English. I was once told (by an expert in my field) that the typical speaker of English as a Second Language in their professional life has an English vocabulary numbering in the thousands of words, whereas a native speaker of English has an English vocabulary numbering in the hundreds of thousands of words. Most of the time we don't notice this. If someone speaking ESL knows words like "good", "great", "excellent", "fantastic", "wonderful", native speakers probably aren't going to notice that they don't know "groovy", "copacetic", "the bees knees", "gnarly", etc. But native speakers can sometimes come up with words like that and confuse ESL speakers, whereas other ESL speakers most likely wouldn't.

When I was in Germany, there were exchange students from all around Europe there, and how well I managed to converse with them varied based on the quality of their German (and, I'm sure, the quality of my German.) I can't identify any general trends. (My other languages were basically canceled out by the German immersion. After two weeks there, I couldn't even speak French, even though I could still understand it perfectly. When I reached for a French word, it came out in German.)

It would be really interesting to do research on this.

I wonder if people will one day learn to read non-predicted text

I wanted to add my optometrist's office's phone number to my cell phone. I typed in the number, then for the contact name I typed "optometrist". Unfortunately, the contact name field doesn't have predictive text, so what came out was "mptndtpgpt".

We all see predictive text typoes every once in a while, in text messages and on twitter. For example, "me" and "of" are spelled with the same keys, and we've seen them get confused with each other often enough that we can generally tell what was intended. I wonder if one day we'll become familiar enough with them that someone will be able to look at "mptndtpgpt" and see that it was obviously meant to say "optometrist"?

Things They Should Invent: divide tone-deaf into two concepts

In general usage, tone-deaf is taken to mean you can't sing because you miss the notes. However, its literal meaning is that you can't hear the difference between notes. If you google for online tests of tone-deafness, they're really ear training tests - they test whether you can differentiate aurally between different notes.

However, there are people like me who can hear music and differentiate aurally between notes just fine, but can't hit the right pitch when singing. I know I'm not hitting all the notes, I can hear that I'm not hitting all the notes, I just...can't make it happen. Similar to how if I try to sink a three-point shot on the basketball court, I'm probably going to miss. I can see the hoop, I can see that the ball isn't going through the hoop, but I can't necessarily make it go through the hoop.

For lack of better ideas I suggest tone-mute for this concept, but I'm wide open to better ideas.

New words: anglotypical and francotypical

In English, if you search for something using the search engine Google, you say "I googled it." This construction is anglotypical.

In French, you'd say "J'ai effectué une recherche Google." This construction is francotypical.

These words aren't completely unknown (a few dozen google results each - "dozen" being an anglotypical word choice, with the francotypical counterpart being "quelques dizaines") but they're useful and ought to be more widely used. I went through translation school and half a dozen years as a professional translator, and have never heard them used.

They, of course, can be modified as appropriate for other languages.

Things They Should Study: do linguistic innovation and fashion trends diffuse along the same paths?

My only basis for this hypothesis is a very small sample of empirical evidence. If I pick up fashion ideas from someone, I also pick up word choices from them. I've also noticed that people who might be picking up fashion ideas from me (it sounds egotistical to assert definitively that they are, but there are one or two things I was definitely wearing first) also pick up word choices from me.

Of course, this is all complicated by multiple languages and genders and looks. I pick up all kinds of words and phrases from people whose clothes I'd never wear.

Application: I do not think it means what you think it means

I hadn't been following this super closely so I thought it was just some random bit of diplomatic businesses. But it turns out, to my shame, that the reason why Canada wants to require visas for visitors from the Czech Republic is because they say they're getting too many refugee applications from that country. This isn't the first time I've heard this government, in the context of immigration, complain that there are too many applications or too many unqualified applicants. And there's one issue here that I keep coming back to and just can't get past:

They're applications!

In general, in our society, the social contract surrounding an application is "You should totally apply!" If you think you might enjoy blogging about an island in Australia or standing on a plinth in London or having Google bring your most brilliant ideas to fruition, you should totally apply! If you're interested in an academic program or a scholarship or a job, you should totally apply, even if you don't quite have all the requirements. In fact, to fail to apply because you don't think you'd be accepted is generally seen as lazy - or, in the case of a job, irresponsible and lacking in due diligence. Meanwhile, applying even when you most likely won't get in is seen as positive, gusty, showing initiative. It's like the archetype of the little working class kid who convinces the neighbourhood grocer to let him stock shelves even though he's just a kid, and eventually grows up to own a whole chain of grocery stores. If you picture an employer sitting there with a stack of applications from applicants who don't meet the requirements, they'd be bemoaning the lack of qualified applicants, not the glut of unqualified applicants.

What's up with this total violation of the social contract surrounding the nature of application? I can't speak to whether previous governments have done it, but I've only noticed it recently. I know when I applied for EI six years ago, their explicitly stated policy is that if you're not sure if you qualify, you should apply anyway and they'll assess your application. That's how applications work. You have something desirable, applicants apply, you assess the applications. I've never before in my life ever heard of anyone dissing applicants for applying.

Are cultures with fewer social apologies less secure?

I previously wondered about socio-cultural variations in how people receive apologies.

Recently IRL, I had to deal with someone who (by my best diagnosis) was insecure in their own competence and therefore overcompensated by jumping down the throat of any interlocutor who showed the slightest sign of weakness - criticizing the interlocutor's methods, questioning their competence, etc.

Fortunately, on my side of the conversation I knew what I was talking about. You might have noticed if you've been reading my blog that I try very hard not to make unqualified declarative statements unless I'm certain - I always try to represent my certainty or uncertainty accurately. (I don't think that's a cultural thing per se, I've made a conscious decision to communicate that way.) In my conversation with this individual, I was able to rightfully use unqualified declarative statements at every point. This isn't false bravado or arrogance in confidence's clothing, I just happened to know exactly what I was talking about.

This individual was by some measures my equal and by some measures my better, and usually in this type of situation I soften or mitigate my declarative statements a bit out of respect. "I think perhaps it might..." or "I was wondering if..." when I mean "It is..." or "You should..." But knowing what this individual was like, I decided not to leave any room for argument by sticking to declarative factual statements. It worked relatively well. This individual doesn't like me and would very much like to question my credibility, but the fact of the matter is I'm simply correct.

So this got me thinking about people who take apologies as a sign of weakness. What if their motives are similar to those of the individual I was dealing with - what if they're insecure and looking for signs of weakness in their interlocutor? And, similarly, hesitant to throw out an apology as a social lubricant for fear it might betray their own weakness?

But sometimes apologies/lack thereof can be cultural. In Canada (or at least my corner thereof) you apologize when someone steps on your foot. The real meaning isn't "I beg your forgiveness for my foot having gotten in your way," but rather "I acknowledge that there was an occurrence and hereby express that my intention is not to be an asshole about it." But in cultures with less of a social apology, that may well be interpreted as the speaker honestly thinking that it's their fault for getting their foot in the way.

Similarly, when I normally mitigate my declarative statements when talking to my equals and my betters, my intention is "I acknowledge your expertise and hereby express that my intention is not to boss you around." If there's a cultural aspect to this (which I think there is - from what I've seen on British TV shows they mitigate more than we do), people from less-mitigating cultures might interpret it as a sign that I'm not confident in my statements.

So I'm thinking about all this, and I'm thinking about how I had to suppress my natural mitigation tendencies to communicate with an individual who is insecure and defensive about their own competence, and it occurs to me: what if people who live in cultures with fewer social apologies/less mitigation of declarative statements are less confident and/or secure? And, if this does end up being the case, which is the cause and which is the effect?

It's a longshot, I know, to make cultural generalizations about insecurity and confidence, but that's where this train of thought landed.

The problem with the constantly-evolving English language

I'm in a pet store looking at an adorable pile of puppies playing. They're an adorable pile of puppies and they're playing, so a small crowd has gathered. At one point, one of the puppies decides to lick his brother's genitals, to the general disgust of the audience. "OMG, that's sick!" I blurt out without thinking.

Some kids next to me look at me strange.

I look back at them, not understanding why they're looking at me.

They keep looking at me strange.

Then I realize what they're thinking. "Ew, no! I meant that in the Gen X sense of the word!"

Comparative stylistics

Writing that last post reminded me of something that my 2nd year French prof said. She said "French expresses abstract ideas better than English."

This is not true.

French tends to express ideas more abstractly, and English tends to express ideas more concretely. But we can't say that either way is "better", because it's always coloured by our mother tongue.

I find that when truly abstract ideas are expressed in the already-abstract academic register of French (especially French from France), they're practically meaningless to me. When reading them I glaze over, and when attempting to translate them I'm tearing out my hair because I need to truly grok what is being said - my standard technique of doing a close translation of the French and editing the English turns out pseudo-intellectual bullshit that is very nearly meaningless even to an Anglophone subject-matter expert. I find the more concrete English is better for expressing abstract ideas because it requires retaining a certain grip on reality.

This is totally because I'm Anglophone. Francophones might find an abstract expression of abstract ideas easier to understand, and a concrete expression might make their brain hurt for reasons I can't possibly conceive of but readily accept might exist.

And that's the point. Neither language is objectively better for expressing certain ideas. We simply understand ideas more easily when they're presented in the concept system we're most familiar with.

Things They Should Invent: language-neutral browser settings

A Google search led me to a French-language government page, and a dialogue box popped up helpfully noting that my browser settings had English selected as primary language and asking if I'd like to go to the English version of the page.

I can totally see how that would be helpful for normal people, but I was looking specifically for terminology that could be found on the French-language page.

I have the same problem with Google. It localizes its results to the user's interface language, with the assumption that if you're using Google in English you'd probably prefer English-language results.

Again, extremely helpful for normals, but hinders my terminological research. Every time I want to verify whether a term is idiomatic in a given language as opposed to being a calque from another language, I have to change my Google interface to the language in question.

Solution: a language-neutral browser setting. In the bit where you set your language preferences, there's a "Neutral" choice. Web sites read this and make no effort to accomodate your language preferences, instead letting you read whatever language you've landed on. Google reads this and delivers language-blind results.

The vast majority of people in the world could ignore this and go about their lives normally. But the few of us who need it could make use of it, and the result would be better quality translations, terminology, and linguistic research for everyone. It would also slow the anglicization of other languages because it would neutralize the annoying habit of US English being considered a default and enable us to land upon phraseology that is more idiomatic in other languages.

Things They Should Invent: opposite of decimate

The literal meaning of decimate is to kill 1/10 of the population, but it has taken on a figurative meaning of massive epic death. (My theory is that it has taken on this figurative meaning because it's a really scary sounding word, based on pure aural aesthetics).

We need another word - equally scary sounding - to handle the figurative meaning of decimate by having a literal meaning that's the exact opposite: to kill 9/10 of the population and leave only 1/10 alive.

Suggestions welcome.

Not that there's anything wrong with that

In society as a whole, the connotation still exists that suggesting that a man is gay or effeminate is a dis, or that suggesting a man is effeminate is a perfectly cromulent way of dissing him for being gay.

This keeps cramping my style.

For example, a while back someone in my office was going around asking people if they had nailpolish. (Q: Why? A: there was a tangle of wires and they needed something paint-like to mark them.) I later asked if I'd found any, and they said "I asked every woman in this office, and none of them have nailpolish!" My inner devil's advocate and my inner Eddie Izzard fan teamed up to come up with "Have you asked any of the men?" But my inner censor vetoed that on the basis that it could be misinterpreted as dissing the men for being gay. Even though none of the men wear nailpolish that I've seen, I don't think suggesting that they might have nailpolish implies that they're gay, and I don't think that implying they're gay is a dis. But an asshole would use those words with that implication, so I couldn't use them.

Then today I found myself wanting to describe someone as the grande dame of his field, but I had to censor myself because, again, it could be misinterpreted as a dis against his sexuality. But grande dame seems to be le mot juste - I can't think of any masculine or unmarked term that does that job, can you?

So my self-expression is limited because homophobes can't keep it behind closed doors.

Tamil

Let's talk about the word Tamil.

Tamil is an ethnicity. They are a people of shared ethnic origin who live in India and Sri Lanka. It is also one of the most, if not the most beautiful-looking languages I've ever seen.

The OED defines Tamil as follows:

a. One of a non-Aryan race of people belonging to the Dravidian stock, inhabiting the south-east of India and part of Sri Lanka. b. The language spoken by this people, the leading member of the Dravidian family. Also attrib. or as adj.

The concept is similar to Basque or Punjabi or Uyghur.

There is also a paramilitary organization known as Tamil Tigers. They define themselves as a liberation army, others consider them a terrorist group.

In any case, here's the important part:

Not all Tamils are Tamil Tigers.

It's probably safe to assume that most, if not all, Tamil Tigers are Tamil. However, not every Tamil is a member of the Tamil Tigers. In fact, I'd hazard based on pure demographics that the majority of Tamil people are not involved in the Tamil Tigers at all.

Analogies:

1. In Quebec, there is a political party called the Parti Québécois. In the mid-90s, they were working to separate Quebec from Canada. However, not all Québécois want to separate Quebec from Canada. (In fact, as I recall, 51% of them didn't).
   
   
2. In the UK, there is a political party called the British National Party that is opposed to immigration. However, that does not mean that every British person is opposed to immigration.
   
   
3. In Ireland, there either is or was an organization called the Irish Republican Army that would bomb things. However, that does not mean that every Irish person is into bombing things.

I know many of us first encountered the word Tamil in the phrase "Tamil Tigers", most often in something that was negative about the Tamil Tigers, so our first gut reaction upon hearing the word Tamil is "bad!" However, it is simply an ethnicity and, like all ethnicities, is morally neutral in and of itself and encompasses all types of people.

I wonder if Twitter makes people more likely to give others the benefit of the doubt

I've heard before people theorizing that twitter and texting make people rude because messages must necessarily be so terse.

I'm wondering if the opposite might be true - I wonder if extensive use of twitter and/or texting will make people more likely to give others the benefit of the doubt.

When you receive an ambiguous message on twitter, you practically have to assume the sender's intentions are benign specifically because of the restrictions of the medium. The whole thing would have imploded by now if people didn't. So I wonder if a person who is accustomed to that medium will be more likely to give people IRL the benefit of the doubt on statements that could be ambiguous.

There's something egregiously wrong with our classification system

A chihuahua and a St. Bernard can both rightfully be called dogs.

And yet a clemintine cannot rightfully be called an orange.

Is there sign language for "Excuse me"?

There was a group of people speaking (is speaking the right verb? If not, what is?) sign language and blocking the door to the subway station. I found myself trying to remember the sign for "Excuse me" so I could ask them nicely to move. Then I realized that if I could get their attention to sign at them, I wouldn't need to ask them to move because they'd see me trying to come through the door.

It then occurred to me that that would also apply for the "Please give me your attention" meaning of "Excuse me". You tap them on the shoulder or something, then you have their attention and the "Excuse me" isn't necessary.

So is there a sign for "Excuse me"? If so, when is it used?

Click?

The Simpsons is pronouncing clique as "click". I've always pronounced it "cleeeek".

How do you pronounce it?

Let's change the meaning of circumnavigate

Circumnavigate means to travel all the way around the planet. But how often do we need to express that concept - especially now that it can be readily achieved and is no longer any particular feat (except of general endurance)?

Circumnavigate should instead have a meaning parallel to that of circumlocute. It should mean to find a route around something so as to avoid that particular something. Example: "The subway is down and the shuttle buses are way overcrowded, so it's best to just circumnavigate Yonge St. entirely."

Normally we'd use "avoid" in that sentence where I used the word circumnavigate; the nuance requiring a different word is that circumnavigate would imply seeking out and finding a way to avoid Yonge St., rather than just not going on Yonge St. There's a slight connotation of initiative and achievement.