Words and Politics: Homicide Bomber

1 May 2002

On 12 April, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer used the term homicide bomber to describe what had previously been called suicide bombers. “The president condemns this morning’s homicide bombing. […] These are not suicide bombings. These are not people who kill just themselves,” Fleischer said. “These are people who deliberately go to murder others, with no regard to the values of their own life. These are murderers.”
Fleischer is not the first to use the term. Various conservative political groups have been using it since at least March.

Political opinions aside, the linguistic question is how successful the White House will be in redefining the lingo of terrorism, and whether or not their choice is a sensible one.

Associated Press correspondent Terry Anderson coined the term suicide bomber in October 1983 in reference to the bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. The term is apt because it describes the salient difference between a traditional and a suicide bombing. Terrorists traditionally favor bombs because they can be planted and the bomber can be long gone when the bomb explodes. With suicide bombings, this is not the case. The bomber has no intention of escaping.

Further, the choice of homicide is not one that suits the White House’s political purpose. Homicide is a morally neutral term. It simply describes an act that results in the death of another person. Homicides can be justifiable, and a state commits homicide when it executes a criminal. The words that express moral outrage at homicide are murder and manslaughter. The term that Fleischer was looking for is murderous bomber.

But the larger question is whether Fleischer, or anyone else, should attempt to deliberately alter the linguistic landscape. For the most part, such attempts are doomed to failure. Neologisms are successfully coined when the term fills a linguistic void. Suicide bomber was one such term. There was a need to distinguish a bomber who deliberately takes his or her own life from the traditional, anonymous kind.

There isn’t any such need for homicide bomber. While it’s not strictly redundant, bombings are all too often homicidal in nature. And the term bomber on its own carries opprobrium. Bucking the linguistic trend of the English language is rather futile.

It is highly unlikely that the term homicide bomber will enter the general vocabulary and have life beyond last month’s Sunday morning talk shows.

Book Review: The Etymological Bookshelf: Starter Set

1 May 2002

This month we’re doing something a little different with the book review. Instead of reviewing a single book, we’re going to cover the basic books that should be on the serious amateur English-language etymologist’s shelf. These are the fundamental research tools.

There are many great etymological books out there that are not listed here. Simply because a book is not covered here doesn’t mean it’s not a good source or that it isn’t useful. The books covered this month are the basic ones—the “go to” books that are the first off the shelf when an etymological question arises.

The first source isn’t actually a book at all and it won’t take up any space on your shelf. It’s the Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com. (See our complete review of the OED Online in the March 2002 issue.) The OED is the single best source for information on the English language. It contains over half a million words and over 2.5 million usage quotations. It is by far the greatest dictionary in the world. The online version consists of the second edition (1989), the three volumes of the Additions Series, and updated entries for the future third edition.

Whenever an etymological question arises, the first place to look should be the OED. The answers to most questions are only a few keystrokes away.

You can, of course, buy print copies of the second edition and the Addition Series—but not the updated third edition entries, which are only available online. But that’s a lot of book to be lifting on and off the shelf and you don’t have the keyword search capability that the online version provides. And we can’t overemphasize the importance of the search function. The OED site has an extremely powerful and flexible search engine—yet one that is also easy to use. (Which is rare; usually power and flexibility mean user unfriendliness.)

The chief drawback to the OED Online is price. The $550/year retail subscription price is prohibitive. If you don’t have access through an institution, you can get reasonably priced access through such places as the Quality Paperback Book Club (http://www.qpb.com). [Note: QPB no longer offers access to the OED.]

As great as the OED is, it is not perfect. It won’t answer all your questions. Its chief deficiency is in slang terms, especially American ones.

To fill this gap, the next on our list is the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, J.E. Lighter, editor. This comes in two volumes (so far). Volume One covers A-G and Volume Two covers H-O. Meticulously researched and including usage citations, RHHDAS is the best source for information on American slang expressions, at least from the first half of the alphabet.

Unfortunately, the demise of Random House’s dictionary division means that this work is probably not going to be completed. It is my understanding that Dr. Lighter is pursuing other publishers, and hopefully someone else will pick up the project. But for now, the second half of the alphabet is in limbo.

To find the answers to American slang expressions M-Z, the best place to look is Mitford Mathews’s Dictionary of Americanisms. Mathews’s work is a single volume. As such, it’s not as thorough as RHHDAS, but it’s still a very good research tool. Its chief drawback is age. Originally published in 1951, it obviously omits many recent slang expressions. Also, given the era it was published, it omits many profane and otherwise unsavory expressions.

Mathews is also out of print, but it’s readily available through used-book outlets, both online and in bricks-and-mortar stores.

That covers American slang, but there is still slang from Britain and the Commonwealth. The OED, as one might expect, does a better job with British slang expressions than it does with American ones, but it still falls short. The place to go for British slang is Eric Partridge’s Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, 8th Edition.

Partridge, a New Zealander transplanted to Britain, penned an enormous number of books on slang in the middle of the 20th century. His research, especially regarding dates, is notoriously sloppy and often inaccurate, but he remains the only source for the origins of many slang expressions. His posthumous editor, Paul Beale, has done much to correct Partridge’s errors in the DSUE’s 8th Edition.

That about covers it. Between these sources you should be able to find the answer to almost any etymological question. Some selected books on jargon, place names, and other highly specialized fields may need to be consulted for certain arcane expressions, but these cover the basics.

I would be remiss if I did not mention one other source, the Dictionary of American Regional English, Frederic Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall, editors. It’s not one of the basics because it is somewhat duplicative with RHHDAS. It does, however, have a slightly different focus. It doesn’t so much deal with slang, although many slang expressions are found in its pages, but it focuses on expressions that are used in particular regions of the United States.

The first three volumes of DARE cover A-O, and a fourth will be published later this year.
If you’re going to expand your bookshelf beyond the basics, these volumes should be among the first acquired.

Word of the Month: Intifada

1 May 2002

The word of the month is: Intifada, n.; uprising, revolt, specifically the Palestinian uprisings in the West Bank and Gaza from 1987-93 and again from 2001-present; from the Arabic meaning jumping up, to be shaken, to shake off (1985).

The original intifada began on 9 December 1987 and lasted until late 1993. The proximate cause of the revolt was an 8 December incident where an Israeli Army truck ran into a group of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, killing four and injuring seven. Many Palestinians believed that it was deliberate, done in retaliation for the death of a Jewish salesman in Gaza two days earlier. The revolt ended with the signing of the Oslo accords and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1993.

The second, or al-Aqsa, intifada began in September 2000 when Ariel Sharon, the new Israeli prime minister, visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, also the location of the al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam.

The current crisis and its predecessors have introduced or popularized several terms into and in English. Among these are:

al-Aqsa, prop. n. and adj.; from the Arabic Masjid Al-Aqsa, literally the farthest mosque; the current “al-Aqsa intifada” began with Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount and al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem in September 2000; also the name of an armed Palestinian group loosely affiliated with Yasser Arafat’s al-Fatah organization.

Commando, n.; orig. a raiding party, a member of such a party, and later a soldier specifically trained to engage in raids behind enemy lines; from the Portuguese (1791); used in South Africa to refer to parties of Portuguese and Boer settlers who engaged in raids against the natives; in the Boer War (1899-1902) a Boer militia unit; adopted by the British in 1940 to refer to highly trained soldiers used to raid German positions on the continent.

Envoy, n.; a diplomat sent on a special or temporary mission, also a narrower sense of diplomat ranking below an ambassador but above a chargés d’affaires (1660s).

al-Fatah, prop. n.; dominant faction within the Palestine Liberation Organization, headed by Yasser Arafat, founded 1957; reverse acronym for harakat tahrīr Filasīn or movement for the liberation of Palestine; the reversed acronym is vocalized as fath, or the Arabic word for victory, as opposed to the straight acronym which is vocalized as the Arabic word for death.

Fatwa, n.; religious edict; from the Arabic; English use dates to 1947, but popularized in 1989 when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of writer Salman Rushdie.

Gunship, n.; originally referred to a naval vessel (1841); the name was applied in 1964 to the US Air Force and Army programs to develop, respectively, the AC-47 “Spooky” fixed-wing attack aircraft and the AH-1 HueyCobra armed helicopter; subsequently used to refer to armed, attack helicopters.

Hamas, prop. n.; name of a Palestinian resistance group; from Arabic acronym Harakat al-Muqāwama al-Islāmiyya or Islamic Resistance Network and from hamās meaning valor, zealotry; founded 1987, appearance in English texts from 1988.

Hezbollah, prop. n.; name of various revolutionary groups operating in the Muslim world since 1960, especially a Shiite Muslim political/military group, founded in Lebanon in 1982 to resist the Israeli invasion of that country; from the Persian hezbollāh and Arabic hizbullāh meaning party of God.

Islam, n.; religion founded by Muhammad in the 7th century; from Arabic meaning resignation, surrender; English use as a noun meaning an adherent to that religion from the 17th century; English use as the proper name of the religion from 1818.

Israel, n.; the Jewish people; also the State of Israel founded in 1948; English usage is from the Latin and Greek and ultimately from the Hebrew yisrāēl, meaning he that strives with God, the name given to Jacob; found in English back to c. 1000.

Jihad, n.; struggle, specifically a religious war for the propagation of Islam, figuratively a crusade or struggle to the death; from the Arabic jihād.

Middle East, n.; a vaguely defined term in use since 1902; it usually refers the region from Egypt to Iran, inclusive. Compare to Near East and Far East.

Palestine, n.; territory on the eastern Mediterranean coast; from the Latin Palaestina, the Roman name for the province; the name was officially revived in 1920 as the name of the British mandated territory that eventually became the State of Israel and the West Bank. Cognate with Philistine.

al-Qaeda, prop. n.; name of Osama bin-Laden’s terrorist network; from Arabic for the base.

Shuttle Diplomacy, n.; diplomatic activity involving a mediator traveling between various locations; originally referring to Henry Kissinger’s attempts to resolve the Middle East crisis in 1973-74.

Suicide Bomber, n.; the term dates to the 1983 bombings of the US Embassy (April) and Marine barracks (October) in Beirut Lebanon; coined by Associated Press correspondent Terry Anderson on 23 October 1983.

Tank, n.; an armored, tracked military vehicle with a gun mount; name coined in December 1915 as a secrecy measure to disguise what was being manufactured.

Terrorism, n.; the use of force to achieve political intimidation; from the French terrorisme referring to the 1793-94 “Reign of Terror;” English use dates to 1795 in reference to revolutionary France, from 1798 generally. The form terrorist also dates to 1795 in reference to the Jacobins, but only from 1866 generally.

Prescriptivist's Corner: Foreign Plurals

1 April 2002

English borrows words like no other language. All languages borrow words from others, but English is as close to a polyglot as any major language can be. While this borrowing adds to the richness and power of the language, it does present certain grammatical problems.

One of these problems is how to form plurals of borrowed words. Do you use the standard English plural of -s/-es? Or do you use the foreign plural?

In general, the rule is that when a word enters common use in English, use the English plural. If the word is still considered a foreign one, use the foreign plural. When in doubt, use -s/-es. Hence, it’s sopranos, not soprani, focuses, not foci, and forums, not fora.

But there are exceptions. It’s crises, not crisises, criteria, not criterions, and theses, not thesises. In some cases, both forms are acceptable as plurals. Both honorariums and honoraria are correct, as are millenniums and millennia. Gradually, the foreign plurals will be edged out of the language, but for now either can be used. How do you identify these words? Look up the proper plural forms in a dictionary.

In some cases both plurals are acceptable, but in different contexts. Sometimes the differentiation marks who is using the word. A botanist will say fungi, while general use prefers funguses. A zoologist or physician will say ova, most others will use ovums. Biologists use stimuli, but stimuluses is in general use.

In other cases, the differentiation marks different senses of the word. Groups of people are phalanxes, while finger and toe bones are phalanges. Protozoans are used to count individual organisms, while classes of those creatures are protozoa. Only in the context of religious miracles is it stigmata. In all other cases it’s stigmas. In music it’s staves, everywhere else it’s staffs.

Before using a foreign plural form, make sure that it is the proper plural. The proper Greek plural of octopus, for example, is octopodes, not octopi. In English, use octopuses as the plural. It’s viruses, not virii. This type of error is known as hypercorrection.

These rules apply to other languages, not just Latin and Greek. The proper French plural of bon mot is bons mots, but in English the plural is bon mots. In French it’s chaises longues, in English it’s chaise longues. In English it’s cul-de-sacs, not culs-de-sacs. When the words are not commonly used in English, they retain the original French plural. So it’s chargés d’affaires and bêtes noires.

So how does one keep all this straight? It’s actually very simple. Remember, the dictionary is your friend. Finding the proper plural form is simply a question of reaching over to the nearest bookshelf or clicking to a new website. (Don’t trust Microsoft spell checkers. They’re usually right, but software engineers are notorious for their linguistic inadequacies.) And when in doubt, use -s/-es.

Words on the Web: www.sportscliche.com

1 April 2002

Crash Davis: “It’s time to work on your interviews.”
Ebby Calvin “Nuke” LaLoosh: “My interviews? What do I gotta do?”
Davis: “You’re gonna have to learn your clichés. You’re gonna have to study them, you’re gonna have to know them. They’re your friends. Write this down: ‘We gotta play it one day at a time.’”
LaLoosh: “Got to play… it’s pretty boring.”
Davis: “’Course it’s boring, that’s the point. Write it down.”
—Bull Durham, 1988

The sports cliché has been around as long as there have been sportswriters. Ever since Wee Willie Keeler told a reporter that the secret to batting success was to hit ‘em where they ain’t, the cliché has been unbreakably linked to sports. From poetry in motion to he tattooed that one, sports clichés abound in American discourse.

www.sportscliche.com records and archives these clichés. The site defines a sports cliché as “an expression that has been used in and around sports with sufficient frequency over a protracted period such that it is ‘tired’ at best and meaningless at worst.” The site also concludes “that nothing of any importance has ever been said in a halftime analysis.”

The site is basically a series of lists, categorized by sport (baseball, football), location (winner’s locker room, loser’s locker room), and special categories (clichés devoted to John Elway). There’s even a page on the music that is played too often in stadiums and ballparks. Features include search function and quiz.

The site is pretty Spartan though. It could use some sprucing up, like making the quiz interactive. But it serves the basic function of identifying these phrases for what they are.