I am interested in language. Some things are said better than others. Word choice can either add to an idea, or detract from an idea.
Tis a paradox, the communication industry is so large, and varied in this country; yet, there is so little oratory broadcast. So much is invested in getting the message out, and there is so little in the message. Now, a great percentage of the volume is advertising, and as F. Scott Fitzgerald told us "Advertising is a racket, like the movies and the brokerage business. You cannot be honest without admitting that its constructive contribution to humanity is exactly minus zero". This speech for commercial gain is highly suspect, and the trickery therein has been picked up by others.
I heard a priest (eastern-rite) speak, a daughter of his studied brain neuro-science. As many academics, they hold conferences...public conferences. One would expect other academics to show, medical doctors, and such. The military, and the advertising industry come. Foolish me, i would expect those interested in biology, and anatomy to be there; but no, they are joined by those wanting to influence behaviour. This is unnerving. Knowledge wants to be free, but there are individuals who want that knowledge to control others.
On a less grave note: i am a user of oldspeak, and stubbornly so. The modification of our inherited, communal speech should not be changed to promote the political, and economic interests of those wishing to control us. If one speaks eloquently of truth, and beauty. That is language that enrichens us, and is an artful and beneficial use of our communicative commonweal.
Management dictates. In the post office, employees are not permitted to say 'junk mail'. Junk mailers are big customers. The term that is required is "unsolicited bulk business mail", or in that military style shorthand that has invaded language practices "UBBM".
Business management not only require employees to repeat their verbal deceit, they require their benefactors (customers) to do so. Attempt ordering food, or drink in a chain establishment using standard language. The order taker will miscorrect you, or lack comprehension.
The vocabulary imposed by feminists for supposed inclusive, or gender neutral language has crept beyond formal situations, into private conversations. Now, one should know the common, or unitive gender of our, and many other languages, is masculine. Yesterday, i referred to Marcy Kaptur as a congressman, and i was automatically corrected as if i accidentally misspoke. I did not. Marcy Kaptur is a Congress woman, yes, but she is also a congressman. "Congressperson" is a rubbish term. Of course, i would have no problem voting foe either her, or Betty Sutton, or Marcia Fudge. Kaptur is running against a circus act under the pseudonym of "Joe the Plumber"; Sutton against a crooked millionaire; and i have no idea who is against Fudge. Well, here is an interesting point: although we are prescribed to use this language, i hear girls, and young women using the male appellation towards females in an unitive fashion. Some do it always. They use the term 'man', 'guy', 'guys', 'dude', et cetera exclusively when addressing, or referring to females. Is this very common colloquially now? because formally it is verboten, and is this a popular recognition of the correctness of unitive gender? or are young women thinking masculinely? Someone with letters after their name will print a study [if there is not one available].
No comments:
Post a Comment