It's obvious that the Queen's English, Cockney, Canadian English, U.S. English, and Australian English are fantastically diverse languages (let's not even start on Indian English today morning).
But every now and then a new facet of the differences strikes me. Reading one small word in this article on an airport outbreak of war between two rival motorcycle gangles in Australia triggered that familiar "wait a minute..." feeling about our mutual (?) language.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090323/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_biker_brawl
Now, it seems there are already a lot of basic items in Australia that end in an "ee" sound, however spelled, whether it's a wallaby, a joey, or a budgie. In some cases though, those are shortenings of longer words (budgerigar) to a comfortable form. And comfortable forms have those ee's on the end more frequently than in U.S. English forms. Here in the U.S. an ie ending seems to have a connotation of something small, cute, childlike, harmless. Little Ann is Annie, little Rebecca is Becky, babies are ee's, and budgies are ee's, and hard core Star Trek fans struggle to be known as Trekkers instead of Trekkies in a desperate bid to be taken seriously, and so far we trend pretty well along the same lines. "ee" is a little more feminized in the U.S. as well, with women more likely than men to be willing to ee-ify any term they are currently using, whether it's sweetie for sweetheart, teenyweeny cutiewootie, or Dougie for Doug, as I heard a lady call to her friend last weekend.
But calling biker gangs "bikies" abruptly raises a flag that we are no longer on home turf. Either Australian English has divorced itself from the baby connotation of the "ee" sound, or in a country with poisonous radar-using furbearing egg-laying platypuses, stretches of hundreds of miles of nothing between dusty outposts, and giant toads that ooze toxins, methamphetamine-dealing biker gangs merely qualify as "cute." Oddly, the wide-spread use of "ee" forms which would be a feminine tendency in the U.S. becomes a back-to-front way of reinforcing the impression of all the testosterone inherent in Australia.
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Steampunk
Last weekend was my first "Steampunk" meet. We'll see if this is something I get into deeply since I don't tend to be fanatic about any of my hobbies. Good signs -
-Everyone was pleasantly kind about my sheer lack of clothing qualifications. While I might barely pass for acceptable in dress, the majority of the crew were quite well attired, and indeed I would note that a number were in outfits simply coruscating with brilliance. Fantastic outfits, splendid tailoring, excellent accessories and sheer pleasure in presentation.
- Everyone was also a sheer pleasure in terms of company. I had the honor of conversation with people who were intelligent, gregarious, and full of good humor, and that in itself is a great reason to appreciate this subculture. Members tend to be both creative and whimsical.
- I have not laughed that much in a long time. This subculture is also a very entertaining one for observation. Social norms include openness to new people, curiosity about craftsmanship and appreciation for skills and talents, and a tendency to easily express individualistic opinions.
Points of interesting cultural interchange:
1) People in shorts, tshirts and baseball hats staring at the people in corsets and skirts. Person in corset and skirt spots an older, overweight gentleman in a navy sweatshirt with a tai chi group, practicing rather limply and awkwardly with a tasseled sword. Person in corset being stared at dashes over to other girls to whisper "Did you SEE that GUY?" Yes, and he saw you too. ^_^
2) Extremely good cheer for silly things. Delight in taking photos of group running in "terror" from kraken (kite). It would have have been nice to get a shot of them all running after the ice cream van if the van hadn't gone past at high speed.
3) Appreciation of the skills of others highlighted by people who were very willing to share any information of how they accomplished their art or where they purchased their accoutrements.
4) Reaction of others - while the normal staring response of a person in common American culture to anything unusual was evident, it takes its own direction in Steampunk. Common American reaction to people in science fiction costumes that run along the lines of Star Trek, aliens, or similar items clearly discernible as part of that subculture is largely negative. In the case of the steampunk outfits, people were constantly coming up with interest in what the group was doing - we pointed one gentleman to the web sites he can search, and I got an email address from the clerk at the cupcake store to let him know of the next event. One young lady in an elegant off-the-shoulder blue dress was stopped in the street by a mother whose child wanted to be introduced to "Cinderella." General conclusion from this limited experiment: Apparently old-fashioned clothing and details appertaining to it is a delight to the average American, and a point of interest and inquiry, vs. futuristic or alien presentations which induce a mild phobic reaction.
5) I like any subculture which allows me to explore an entire range of the English language which has fallen into general disuse, much less make up more lovely twenty-syllable technical terminology both sonorous and somewhat delusional.
-Everyone was pleasantly kind about my sheer lack of clothing qualifications. While I might barely pass for acceptable in dress, the majority of the crew were quite well attired, and indeed I would note that a number were in outfits simply coruscating with brilliance. Fantastic outfits, splendid tailoring, excellent accessories and sheer pleasure in presentation.
- Everyone was also a sheer pleasure in terms of company. I had the honor of conversation with people who were intelligent, gregarious, and full of good humor, and that in itself is a great reason to appreciate this subculture. Members tend to be both creative and whimsical.
- I have not laughed that much in a long time. This subculture is also a very entertaining one for observation. Social norms include openness to new people, curiosity about craftsmanship and appreciation for skills and talents, and a tendency to easily express individualistic opinions.
Points of interesting cultural interchange:
1) People in shorts, tshirts and baseball hats staring at the people in corsets and skirts. Person in corset and skirt spots an older, overweight gentleman in a navy sweatshirt with a tai chi group, practicing rather limply and awkwardly with a tasseled sword. Person in corset being stared at dashes over to other girls to whisper "Did you SEE that GUY?" Yes, and he saw you too. ^_^
2) Extremely good cheer for silly things. Delight in taking photos of group running in "terror" from kraken (kite). It would have have been nice to get a shot of them all running after the ice cream van if the van hadn't gone past at high speed.
3) Appreciation of the skills of others highlighted by people who were very willing to share any information of how they accomplished their art or where they purchased their accoutrements.
4) Reaction of others - while the normal staring response of a person in common American culture to anything unusual was evident, it takes its own direction in Steampunk. Common American reaction to people in science fiction costumes that run along the lines of Star Trek, aliens, or similar items clearly discernible as part of that subculture is largely negative. In the case of the steampunk outfits, people were constantly coming up with interest in what the group was doing - we pointed one gentleman to the web sites he can search, and I got an email address from the clerk at the cupcake store to let him know of the next event. One young lady in an elegant off-the-shoulder blue dress was stopped in the street by a mother whose child wanted to be introduced to "Cinderella." General conclusion from this limited experiment: Apparently old-fashioned clothing and details appertaining to it is a delight to the average American, and a point of interest and inquiry, vs. futuristic or alien presentations which induce a mild phobic reaction.
5) I like any subculture which allows me to explore an entire range of the English language which has fallen into general disuse, much less make up more lovely twenty-syllable technical terminology both sonorous and somewhat delusional.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Language and Relationships in the U.S.A. Circa 2009
This post - http://www.good.is/?p=15549 - on GOOD got me thinking about language and our wide range of informal to formal relationship categories. This was already on my mind last week due to a friend who landed in the "Um-Friend" box in her current relationship and was quite irked, but reading this article brought it to the forefront since I think the article is missing a great number of relevant terms. To discuss just a few -
Partner is mentioned as one option for someone in a relationship, but this term has a context of longer-term connectivity that the article breezily omits.
It misses an entire category of verb constructs for relationships as well:
- My "date" is a one-time thing, but "we're dating" is a good way to say "we hang out and are thinking about getting more serious."
- "We're hooking up" is a good way to say "we hang out and have sex and so what about the rest."
- "We're seeing each other" means we're dating pretty often and will probably keep doing so for a while, but there aren't any plans specified at all about future developments.
We may not be secure enough to be nouns yet, but with any verbing we're pretty sure we're happy about what we're doing.
The article also misses some terms that are used to avoid the entire point of the question:
For instance, "my friend" is nice and noncommittal about pretty much everything, oh look at the pretty daisies. However, this kind of noncommittal response can have a real impact on the future direction of the relationship.
One of the worst examples of the noncommittal response, or at least most dangerous to a fledgling relationship, is "Um-friend." As in "She's my um... friend." When said to a third party about the relationship, it's clear where you're at and where you aren't, at least not yet. When said to a third party about the relationship in front of the Um-friend, however, it becomes clear that you're not even secure enough about things yet to verb the business and say "we're dating." Thereby the Um-friend becomes aware that they should not be secure even in the idea that you might show up for the next Um-date, and come to think of it, why are they even making another Um-date with you anyway?
Heaven help you if you ever utter something like "Um-wife" or "Um-husband."
"Honey, what was that hesitation?"
For those situations where someone might be significant and is probably something other than the "Showing up in a Tag-Team for any Major Event Other" you'd normally assume from the phrase, I like to cheerfully use the term "significant something-or-other." Yes, they matter, and can be much more secure than the Um-friend, but we're not sure yet where the relationship is going from here and we might as well ride the ferris wheel while we're here.
I must admit to an absolute lack of fondness for "my mate" as a description for anyone up to and including my husband, since there seems to be a connotation there that this is the monkey I'm having baby monkeys with, and while that's all nice and good, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the mental, emotional and physical support we give one another day in and day out. Independent is good. I'm independent. I'm also selectively dependent on someone I can trust to sleep in the same bed for the rest of my life without smothering me when I snore. "My spouse" I think is a better term for a generic husband-or-wife, as it allows for a wider range of implied bonding, but it is definitely a tepid term. I don't think that's a negative for me, as I've never felt a need to rub off my lurid magenta range of infatuation on a third party when describing my spouse in the first place, but it definitely has some undertones - it's the sterilized clinical term.
It is unclear to me why I would use the terms "my snookums," "my sweetie," "my boo" or anything remotely similar to a third party to describe my spouse in any case since presumably the purpose of any conversation where I would describe said spouse would be to clarify things, not to leave them in a state of muddled melted cotton candy goo with no measuring point for the relationship itself. "My lady" is romantic, but syrup-doused, and having anyone refer to me in this manner while wearing anything other than Victorian garb sets off brazen alarums indicating a person who spends enough time in alternate-timeline re-enactments (either physically or merely mentally) to be slightly divorced from the real world.
I don't believe there needs to be much more comment on the use of the term "Soulmate" from the article, except to point out that anyone who uses the term soulmate within one week of meeting another person is best subjected to a preemptive restraining order.
Partner is mentioned as one option for someone in a relationship, but this term has a context of longer-term connectivity that the article breezily omits.
It misses an entire category of verb constructs for relationships as well:
- My "date" is a one-time thing, but "we're dating" is a good way to say "we hang out and are thinking about getting more serious."
- "We're hooking up" is a good way to say "we hang out and have sex and so what about the rest."
- "We're seeing each other" means we're dating pretty often and will probably keep doing so for a while, but there aren't any plans specified at all about future developments.
We may not be secure enough to be nouns yet, but with any verbing we're pretty sure we're happy about what we're doing.
The article also misses some terms that are used to avoid the entire point of the question:
For instance, "my friend" is nice and noncommittal about pretty much everything, oh look at the pretty daisies. However, this kind of noncommittal response can have a real impact on the future direction of the relationship.
One of the worst examples of the noncommittal response, or at least most dangerous to a fledgling relationship, is "Um-friend." As in "She's my um... friend." When said to a third party about the relationship, it's clear where you're at and where you aren't, at least not yet. When said to a third party about the relationship in front of the Um-friend, however, it becomes clear that you're not even secure enough about things yet to verb the business and say "we're dating." Thereby the Um-friend becomes aware that they should not be secure even in the idea that you might show up for the next Um-date, and come to think of it, why are they even making another Um-date with you anyway?
Heaven help you if you ever utter something like "Um-wife" or "Um-husband."
"Honey, what was that hesitation?"
For those situations where someone might be significant and is probably something other than the "Showing up in a Tag-Team for any Major Event Other" you'd normally assume from the phrase, I like to cheerfully use the term "significant something-or-other." Yes, they matter, and can be much more secure than the Um-friend, but we're not sure yet where the relationship is going from here and we might as well ride the ferris wheel while we're here.
I must admit to an absolute lack of fondness for "my mate" as a description for anyone up to and including my husband, since there seems to be a connotation there that this is the monkey I'm having baby monkeys with, and while that's all nice and good, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the mental, emotional and physical support we give one another day in and day out. Independent is good. I'm independent. I'm also selectively dependent on someone I can trust to sleep in the same bed for the rest of my life without smothering me when I snore. "My spouse" I think is a better term for a generic husband-or-wife, as it allows for a wider range of implied bonding, but it is definitely a tepid term. I don't think that's a negative for me, as I've never felt a need to rub off my lurid magenta range of infatuation on a third party when describing my spouse in the first place, but it definitely has some undertones - it's the sterilized clinical term.
It is unclear to me why I would use the terms "my snookums," "my sweetie," "my boo" or anything remotely similar to a third party to describe my spouse in any case since presumably the purpose of any conversation where I would describe said spouse would be to clarify things, not to leave them in a state of muddled melted cotton candy goo with no measuring point for the relationship itself. "My lady" is romantic, but syrup-doused, and having anyone refer to me in this manner while wearing anything other than Victorian garb sets off brazen alarums indicating a person who spends enough time in alternate-timeline re-enactments (either physically or merely mentally) to be slightly divorced from the real world.
I don't believe there needs to be much more comment on the use of the term "Soulmate" from the article, except to point out that anyone who uses the term soulmate within one week of meeting another person is best subjected to a preemptive restraining order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)