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.)
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.
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!)
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?
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...
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.
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!)
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?
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.