Your article is spot on. I can't tell you how irritated I get when corporate types refer to people as 'resources' and use 'leverage' when a simple 'take advantage of' or 'use' will do. And don't even get me started with made-up jargon. 'Trilemma'??? Seriously?
Language is a tool and can be used either to explain or to hide truths. You didn't discuss the need for words to have direct and uncontradictory meanings (e.g. "What is a Woman?"), but I think it's implicit that we have some stable foundation of meaning in order to communicate clearly and pursue, rather than obscure, truth.
(I wish I were a better writer so I could have phrased that clearer and shorter.)
Thanks, Simon! Well, there's some discussion about how we call chicken poultry (from old French poulet), but it will be noted that it's never used in the name of the dish! Lots of speculation as to why, but nothing conclusive.
As someone who, although not myself a medievalist, often hangs out with medieval historians, I find your account of the Norman Conquest a bit hyperbolic. Yes, that's certainly why modern English has so many words with French roots and why French-derived words are often associated with a higher language-use register than their Old-English-derived counterparts. The Conquest wasn't as brutal as you suggest, though. What evidence do you have that the Normans "killed off the local English rulers" rather than simply co-opt or replace them? That description doesn't even fit the Harrying of the North, probably the most violent episode of the Conquest. It seems as though you've taken the idea of the "Norman Yoke," an important concept in English and American republican thought, and juiced it up a bit.
Thanks Phil! Read this book earlier this year: "The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327" https://amzn.to/3PImUK8 which addressed the practices that were continued through the Norman Conquest and those that were stopped, along with the people who met their end in the years subsequent to 1066. In addition, it seems perhaps half of the English present at Hastings were killed, which was followed by several more defeats:
Jul 27, 2022·edited Jul 28, 2022Liked by Marc Cenedella, Author
I took a quick look at Marjorie Chibnall's chapter on the Anglo-Norman period for the New Cambridge Medieval History, and it doesn't seem like a fair way to characterize it. She writes: "In the twenty years after the Conquest a major redistribution of lands took place. Abbots and bishops were allowed to retain the bulk of their former church lands after making submission; but by the end of the reign Normans and their allies had been granted all but about 5 per cent of the land previously held by English secular magnates. The change, however, took place by stages. William had at his immediate disposal the royal demesne and the confiscated lands of the Godwine family, as well as the lands of the thegns who had fallen at Hastings. He was prepared to retain three of the former earls – Edwin, Morcar and Waltheof the son of Siward – and to preserve as much as possible of the administrative structure of the kingdom" (p. 199).
If you look at the life of someone like Earl Morcar, you see that he indeed retained his land after submitting to William. Even after rebelling in 1068, he was only imprisoned by William. Edwin, Earl of Mercia is the only English magnate that I could find who was killed in the immediate aftermath of the Conquest, after rebelling and being betrayed to the Normans. Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria, is (according to the Wikipedia article about him) the only English aristocrat to be executed during William's reign, and that was after he participated in a second rebillion, the 1075 Revolt of the Earls.
The implication from what Chibnall wrote is that it was a relatively small percentage. Given that the English casualties at Hastings are estimated from death rate among named participants, 50% would be the upper limit. Knowing that Harold marched south from Stamford Bridge with only a part of his army (his household troops, if I remember correctly), leaving the fyds of his northern thegns behind, that limits it even more. I'd be surprised if even 20% of the English nobility fell at Hastings.
I don't see my previous lengthy, "academic" comment... I wanted to add an Normand-French versus Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) observation: while the PIGS were in the pen-- before they became PORC on the Normand lord's table-- they were SWINE. (You can't get more German than that!)
I'm also a little frustrated with the how people are acting as if current nation-state borders were intact then and understood the same. Not to mention linguistic ones. The Normans spoke Anglo-Norman not "French" which influenced Langue d'Oil but was not yet the same. Many of the Plantagenets spoke Langue d'Oc which far from being a obscure language was the important (non-latin) language of its time. Langue d'oil didn't become the sole French until the Revolution. Much of what we think of as France now, wasn't France then.
And while William the conqueror did some court stuff in Anglo-Norman the real power language in both countries was Latin because that was the language of the church. It is also where words like imbibe/converse come from.
It is weird to attack the French and French language (who happen to be America's oldest allies) and ignore the language of power of the time and for thousands of years prior (if for different reasons) Latin.
Thrilled to have a linguist among my 1+ million subscribers, but perhaps you’ll understand that introducing concepts such as Occitan and Church Latin in a 1,000-word Monday newsletter to a wide readership is beyond the scope of American Ambition. Heck, I didn’t even include 1066, Battle of Hastings, or a discussion of the Magna Carta in order to keep things moving along!
Thank you for your precise attention and contribution in these comments!
Thanks for the sarcasm, sir. Always so welcome. The point isn't to talk about every detail but not to talk as history existed one way when it existed another. I hardly think the idea of Latin as the language of power via the church and before that Rome is beyond the scope of this essay or your readers. Even if they don't go to a church whose officials still use Latin, they've seen enough TV about demons/exorcisms to pick up the link. (My daughter, a supernatural superfan, knows little about the bible but she knows the language you excorcise demons), And frankly, there is a much better case to be made regarding how the church used latin and fancy words than how various French and Anglo-Norman speakers did. In the simple words you feel people can grasp on a Monday morning: The elite were taught latin in school. The common people were not.The church ran the services in a language the people did not speak in order to keep the power with the clerics. A key point in the protestant reformation was holding services in a language people spoke. There see. Nothing our simple minds could not grasp. Nothing in fact I wasn't taught in my 7th grade history class--my public school history class.
This entire attitude is why I am suspicious of articles like this about simple words (and even more about screeds against the French, America's first and most loyal allies). People who talk this way are always sure people can't understand more.
So... where is my (fairly) lengthy (mostly) academic comment I wrote that includes the three (3) levels of discourse in English-- e.g. "to solicit information" in Latin (INTERROGATE), in French (QUESTION) and Germanic/Anglo-Saxon (ASK), inter alia-- which bespeaks the vast richness of English Language vocabulary, that I previously posted?
The French also have different words for live animals, such as vache, cochon, cerf. This is of also true of Germanic/ Nordic languages, I don't know about others. It's probably a way to create distance so people don't have to think about the animal cruelty inherent in their food choices. French was the international language of diplomacy for hundreds of years, but apart from that it seems practical to have it on the US passport as English, Spanish, and French are the languages spoken on our borders.
I think the reason for the French in the passport (you will notice that the fields like name, etc. are translated into French as well) is because a) French is (or used to be) the official language of the transportation industry (look at some forms from your local post office - they are usually in both English and French) and b) because foreign customs / border security authorities look at it and therefore having it in multiple languages was probably a good idea?
I really don't think that the purpose of French in the passport is to hide something or to sound high and mighty?
Thanks Chris. French was also widely used as the language of diplomacy in the 18th century, replacing Latin and German. It remained so through the early 20th century.
But the reason it was added back to the American passport almost certainly has, as a root cause, it's historic position as a higher register language within the Anglosphere.
Sure, but the underlying question is why did the United States adopt this recommendation in 1976 when many other countries did not? I posit that our linguistic reverence for French drove the decision, whether those making the decision knew it consciously or not.
I tried to track down full image copies of Type III, Type VII passports, etc., but was unable to find online. Thanks for searching!
Our closest neighboring countries and the Caribbean islands include sizeable populations who speak French and Spanish as first and second languages. Mexico and Canada are two top destinations for American tourists. It's good sense to make the most important info for the passport-holder's safety clear in the most likely two languages of the officials a typical U.S. traveler is going to encounter. I promise your passport doesn't include a French translation just to make you feel bad.
As a 10-year-old I had the opportunity in a town hall to ask Newt Gingrich why the President could fire air traffic controllers for going on strike, but not the postal workers who were also on strike, though both are government employees.
Gingrich spent a long time, and many equivocating words, his hand going back and forth, until finally a man sitting two rows behind me stood up.
He yelled "Just answer the damn question! He's just a kid!"
Even still, NG never gave me anything that made sense.
Great article.
Makes loads of 'horse sense'
I have worked many years with my hands and also with my brain.
I like things that need both.
Your article is spot on. I can't tell you how irritated I get when corporate types refer to people as 'resources' and use 'leverage' when a simple 'take advantage of' or 'use' will do. And don't even get me started with made-up jargon. 'Trilemma'??? Seriously?
Language is a tool and can be used either to explain or to hide truths. You didn't discuss the need for words to have direct and uncontradictory meanings (e.g. "What is a Woman?"), but I think it's implicit that we have some stable foundation of meaning in order to communicate clearly and pursue, rather than obscure, truth.
(I wish I were a better writer so I could have phrased that clearer and shorter.)
Interesting article to brighten a Monday morning...
Also interesting that chicken is the same in the coop and on the table...
Thanks, Simon! Well, there's some discussion about how we call chicken poultry (from old French poulet), but it will be noted that it's never used in the name of the dish! Lots of speculation as to why, but nothing conclusive.
As someone who, although not myself a medievalist, often hangs out with medieval historians, I find your account of the Norman Conquest a bit hyperbolic. Yes, that's certainly why modern English has so many words with French roots and why French-derived words are often associated with a higher language-use register than their Old-English-derived counterparts. The Conquest wasn't as brutal as you suggest, though. What evidence do you have that the Normans "killed off the local English rulers" rather than simply co-opt or replace them? That description doesn't even fit the Harrying of the North, probably the most violent episode of the Conquest. It seems as though you've taken the idea of the "Norman Yoke," an important concept in English and American republican thought, and juiced it up a bit.
Thanks Phil! Read this book earlier this year: "The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327" https://amzn.to/3PImUK8 which addressed the practices that were continued through the Norman Conquest and those that were stopped, along with the people who met their end in the years subsequent to 1066. In addition, it seems perhaps half of the English present at Hastings were killed, which was followed by several more defeats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings#Aftermath Fundamentally, little to none of the prevailing Anglo-Saxon nobility were in leadership a generation later.
Summarizing as the local rulers were killed off seems to be a fair abridgement of a long and bloody period, no?
And thanks for the pointer to Norman Yoke, which had not been top of mind for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_yoke
I took a quick look at Marjorie Chibnall's chapter on the Anglo-Norman period for the New Cambridge Medieval History, and it doesn't seem like a fair way to characterize it. She writes: "In the twenty years after the Conquest a major redistribution of lands took place. Abbots and bishops were allowed to retain the bulk of their former church lands after making submission; but by the end of the reign Normans and their allies had been granted all but about 5 per cent of the land previously held by English secular magnates. The change, however, took place by stages. William had at his immediate disposal the royal demesne and the confiscated lands of the Godwine family, as well as the lands of the thegns who had fallen at Hastings. He was prepared to retain three of the former earls – Edwin, Morcar and Waltheof the son of Siward – and to preserve as much as possible of the administrative structure of the kingdom" (p. 199).
If you look at the life of someone like Earl Morcar, you see that he indeed retained his land after submitting to William. Even after rebelling in 1068, he was only imprisoned by William. Edwin, Earl of Mercia is the only English magnate that I could find who was killed in the immediate aftermath of the Conquest, after rebelling and being betrayed to the Normans. Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria, is (according to the Wikipedia article about him) the only English aristocrat to be executed during William's reign, and that was after he participated in a second rebillion, the 1075 Revolt of the Earls.
Terrific! Well done and thank you very much. How many / what % of nobility is accounted for in "the lands of the thegns who had fallen at Hastings?"
The implication from what Chibnall wrote is that it was a relatively small percentage. Given that the English casualties at Hastings are estimated from death rate among named participants, 50% would be the upper limit. Knowing that Harold marched south from Stamford Bridge with only a part of his army (his household troops, if I remember correctly), leaving the fyds of his northern thegns behind, that limits it even more. I'd be surprised if even 20% of the English nobility fell at Hastings.
OK, you've persuaded me! I've updated the wording from 'killed off' to 'knocked off'.
Thank you so much for the assistance!
Good article. I found myself nodding in agreement at several points. LOL
I don't see my previous lengthy, "academic" comment... I wanted to add an Normand-French versus Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) observation: while the PIGS were in the pen-- before they became PORC on the Normand lord's table-- they were SWINE. (You can't get more German than that!)
Online Etymology has swine has the Old English native term: https://www.etymonline.com/word/swine
Interesting!
I'm also a little frustrated with the how people are acting as if current nation-state borders were intact then and understood the same. Not to mention linguistic ones. The Normans spoke Anglo-Norman not "French" which influenced Langue d'Oil but was not yet the same. Many of the Plantagenets spoke Langue d'Oc which far from being a obscure language was the important (non-latin) language of its time. Langue d'oil didn't become the sole French until the Revolution. Much of what we think of as France now, wasn't France then.
And while William the conqueror did some court stuff in Anglo-Norman the real power language in both countries was Latin because that was the language of the church. It is also where words like imbibe/converse come from.
It is weird to attack the French and French language (who happen to be America's oldest allies) and ignore the language of power of the time and for thousands of years prior (if for different reasons) Latin.
Thrilled to have a linguist among my 1+ million subscribers, but perhaps you’ll understand that introducing concepts such as Occitan and Church Latin in a 1,000-word Monday newsletter to a wide readership is beyond the scope of American Ambition. Heck, I didn’t even include 1066, Battle of Hastings, or a discussion of the Magna Carta in order to keep things moving along!
Thank you for your precise attention and contribution in these comments!
Thanks for the sarcasm, sir. Always so welcome. The point isn't to talk about every detail but not to talk as history existed one way when it existed another. I hardly think the idea of Latin as the language of power via the church and before that Rome is beyond the scope of this essay or your readers. Even if they don't go to a church whose officials still use Latin, they've seen enough TV about demons/exorcisms to pick up the link. (My daughter, a supernatural superfan, knows little about the bible but she knows the language you excorcise demons), And frankly, there is a much better case to be made regarding how the church used latin and fancy words than how various French and Anglo-Norman speakers did. In the simple words you feel people can grasp on a Monday morning: The elite were taught latin in school. The common people were not.The church ran the services in a language the people did not speak in order to keep the power with the clerics. A key point in the protestant reformation was holding services in a language people spoke. There see. Nothing our simple minds could not grasp. Nothing in fact I wasn't taught in my 7th grade history class--my public school history class.
This entire attitude is why I am suspicious of articles like this about simple words (and even more about screeds against the French, America's first and most loyal allies). People who talk this way are always sure people can't understand more.
I’m not being sarcastic. I really appreciate your contribution, but want you to know why I elided some details in the original post.
Comments are a great place to dig deeper into the article and have further conversations, and you’re welcome to visit and share anytime!
So... where is my (fairly) lengthy (mostly) academic comment I wrote that includes the three (3) levels of discourse in English-- e.g. "to solicit information" in Latin (INTERROGATE), in French (QUESTION) and Germanic/Anglo-Saxon (ASK), inter alia-- which bespeaks the vast richness of English Language vocabulary, that I previously posted?
I’d love to read it! Maybe you didn’t hit “post?”
Terrific article combining research, history, clarity and , common sense.
The French also have different words for live animals, such as vache, cochon, cerf. This is of also true of Germanic/ Nordic languages, I don't know about others. It's probably a way to create distance so people don't have to think about the animal cruelty inherent in their food choices. French was the international language of diplomacy for hundreds of years, but apart from that it seems practical to have it on the US passport as English, Spanish, and French are the languages spoken on our borders.
I think the reason for the French in the passport (you will notice that the fields like name, etc. are translated into French as well) is because a) French is (or used to be) the official language of the transportation industry (look at some forms from your local post office - they are usually in both English and French) and b) because foreign customs / border security authorities look at it and therefore having it in multiple languages was probably a good idea?
I really don't think that the purpose of French in the passport is to hide something or to sound high and mighty?
Thanks Chris. French was also widely used as the language of diplomacy in the 18th century, replacing Latin and German. It remained so through the early 20th century.
But the reason it was added back to the American passport almost certainly has, as a root cause, it's historic position as a higher register language within the Anglosphere.
According to an unofficial but plausible-sounding web page, French was introduced in conformance to International Civil Aviation Organization recommendations for passport standards: https://www.us-passport-service-guide.com/french-translations-in-us-passport.html
Unfortunately, though, that page doesn't provide an citations.
Sure, but the underlying question is why did the United States adopt this recommendation in 1976 when many other countries did not? I posit that our linguistic reverence for French drove the decision, whether those making the decision knew it consciously or not.
I tried to track down full image copies of Type III, Type VII passports, etc., but was unable to find online. Thanks for searching!
Great article Marc. Thx
Our closest neighboring countries and the Caribbean islands include sizeable populations who speak French and Spanish as first and second languages. Mexico and Canada are two top destinations for American tourists. It's good sense to make the most important info for the passport-holder's safety clear in the most likely two languages of the officials a typical U.S. traveler is going to encounter. I promise your passport doesn't include a French translation just to make you feel bad.
How easily we forget. The French helped us against Benedict Arnold and his ilk.
ICYMI, here is the difference between a capacitor and a resistor:
R= V/I
C= Q/V (integral form) or C= I / time-rate-of-change of V (differential form)
Can't get any plainer than that. Vous ne pouvez pas, pouvez-vous?
Sic transit gloria mundi:
If you don't like this sermon,
Please come back next Sunday.
As a 10-year-old I had the opportunity in a town hall to ask Newt Gingrich why the President could fire air traffic controllers for going on strike, but not the postal workers who were also on strike, though both are government employees.
Gingrich spent a long time, and many equivocating words, his hand going back and forth, until finally a man sitting two rows behind me stood up.
He yelled "Just answer the damn question! He's just a kid!"
Even still, NG never gave me anything that made sense.
Wordsmithing seems to be a very Liberal and convenient exercise to those that can get away with ruining a language.