Book Review: Geoffrey Nunberg's Going Nucular

1 September 2004

This month we review a book that could have been included in last month’s “Summer Reading” review list (except I hadn’t finished reading it at that time).

It is Geoffrey Nunberg’s Going Nucular: Language, Politics, and Culture in Confrontational Times. Nunberg is a professor of linguistics at Stanford and the book is a collection of his radio commentaries on language that he gives regularly on National Public Radio’s Fresh Air.

Going Nucular comprises some sixty-five short essays on language and usage. The essays were all delivered on the radio during the period from 2001 through 2003 and many deal with the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 and how we altered our use of language to describe the attacks and their effects. (Nunberg includes the date the essay was delivered on the radio. This allows the reader to associate the topical subject with the appropriate period. One only wishes that other authors of compilations, like William Safire, would do the same.) Individual essay topics include the history of the word appeasement, use of the word Gallic and French bashing, the use of the language of courtly love in business writing, whether infidel is used appropriately to translate from the Arabic, and, of course, the pronunciation of nuclear.

But despite the backdrop of terrorism and war, the essays are hardly dark and foreboding. Nunberg’s essays witty and his humor a bit droll. He describes the Web, for instance, as “a tool that enables people who have a life to benefit from the efforts of those that don’t.” His essay on whether to call those resisting the US in Iraq as guerrillasinsurgents, or resistance is titled “We’ll Always Have Kirkuk.”

The title essay is what it hints to be, an examination of the pronunciation of nuclear, especially how several recent presidents have pronounced the word. Eisenhower pronounced it /nuc-u-lar /, probably on a model with molecular and particular. The word was a new one for Ike, learned in his middle age, and he probably looked to these other words for guidance on how to pronounce it. Other presidents have not had this excuse.

Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer by training, learned the word as a young man. He tended to pronounce it as / new-klee-uh /. This is more likely an artifact of his Georgia accent rather than mis-education.

Our last two presidents have pronounced it / nuc-u-lar /. (Clinton used both the / nuc-u-lar / and / new-clear / pronunciations about equally; Dubya limits himself to / nuc-u-lar /.) Both men are well educated and don’t have the excuse of not knowing how to pronounce it. Clinton went to Georgetown, Yale, and Oxford. Dubya to Andover, Yale, and Harvard, and his parents never used the / nuc-u-lar / pronunciation.

In the case of the latest two presidents, Nunberg suggests two hypotheses. The first is that it may be a “faux bubba” pronunciation used to make them seem more like good ol’ boys. Clinton has less reason to do this; he is legitimately from poor, Southern roots. Bush, while raised for significant portions of his childhood in Texas, was sent to elite Eastern prep schools at an early age and even while in Texas, as the son of a wealthy politician and oilman, would have had little contact with the “bubba” class.

The second is that they adopted this pronunciation to distinguish themselves from the military and national security professionals. By deliberately mispronouncing the term, the presidents were demystifying the power of nuclear weapons and asserting that they, the ones with their fingers on the nuclear button, could pronounce it any way they pleased.

Which, if either, is correct, is unknown. An important clue would be to see how Dubya pronounces the phrase nuclear family. Unfortunately, no one has caught him using this term.

If you are looking for profound or in-depth insights into the English language, however, you won’t find them here. While the essays are interesting and deftly written, they are too short and Nunberg, while a keen observer, usually doesn’t delve beyond the superficial. Still, the essays are a fun read and avoid the misinformation often found in essays about language.

Hardcover; PublicAffairs Publishers; May 2004; $18.95.

Prescriptivist's Corner: The Subjunctive Case

1 September 2004

The Prescriptivist’s Corner is back after a hiatus. This month, we are addressing one of the most misunderstood aspects of English grammar, the subjunctive mood. A mood is a form of a verb that affects the meaning of a sentence. English has three moods, the indicative, the imperative, and the subjunctive.

The indicative mood is the most common, used to express factual conditions, e.g., God helps us. The imperative is used for commands, e.g., Help us! And the subjunctive governs the hypothetical, wished, proposed, or demanded, e.g., God help us!

The subjunctive mood was common in English until about 1600, when it started falling out of use. It had all but disappeared when, around 1900, the subjunctive began staging a comeback. This comeback was first witnessed in American English, then in Britain and in other forms of English.

It is more often found in formal writing than in regular speech. In ordinary speech, with the exception of some idiomatic constructions, the indicative is usually used. Because of this, there is some question about the viability of the subjunctive’s resurgence. It could be a last hurrah before it fades into grammatical oblivion.

In English, with its lack of inflections, the subjunctive is chiefly seen by the dropping of the s in the third person singular present tense:

Tony wears concrete overshoes. (indicative)

Vinnie suggests that Tony wear concrete overshoes. (subjunctive)

And it is also formed by the use of be and were to replace am/is/are/was:

Vinnie’s consigliore is a fine strategist. (indicative)

Vinnie wishes his consigliore were a fine strategist. (subjunctive)

Other forms of the subjunctive include placing were or be at the head of a clause:

Were Vinnie to increase the payout, his numbers game would be more competitive with the state lottery.

In American English one also can form the subjunctive by placing not before be and following it up by a past participle:

Vinnie knew that Tony was a rat when he insisted that he not be followed to the meet.

The subjunctive is used in the following situations:

Counterfactual conditions. One uses the subjunctive when describing a condition that does not actually exist.

If it weren’t for an infusion of cash from his Vegas operation, Vinnie would have had trouble making his monthly payment to the Godfather.

Wishes. One uses the subjunctive to describe something one hopes to happen.

Vinnie wished that Tony the Rat leave the family feet first.

Demands and suggestions. One uses the subjunctive when describing requests, demands, and suggestions.

Vinnie insisted that the watches be real Rolexes and not knock-offs.

Statements of necessity. One uses the subjunctive to describe actions mandated by a particular situation.

The party going on next door made it necessary that Vinnie use the silencer.

Idiomatic expressions. Certain fossilized expressions are in the subjunctive:

  • be that as it may

  • so be it

  • come what may

  • far be it from me to

  • so help me

  • perish the thought

  • powers that be

  • serve you right

  • suffice it to say

  • woe betide

  • as it were

Sometimes people use the subjunctive when there is no counterfactual or hypothetical condition:

Vinnie asked Tony if he were apprehensive about the meeting.

This is an example of hypercorrection and the indicative should be used instead:

Vinnie asked Tony if he was apprehensive about the meeting.

The concept of the subjunctive is not difficult to grasp and the grammatical forms are fairly simple. Using the subjunctive properly in formal contexts will lend a credibility and gravitas to your writing. But you may want to avoid it in ordinary speech as it can label you as a pedant.

Sprechen Sie Fraulein?

1 September 2004

The Langenscheidt publishing group, a leading German dictionary publisher, plans to publish a guide it says will help men translate the subtexts of female conversation. The guide is written by comedian Mario Barth, famous for his stage show Men are Pigs…but so are Women.

Langenscheidt, best known for its yellow foreign language dictionaries, will launch sales of a 128-page book to translate such baffling female banter as: “Let’s just cuddle” into “No sex tonight please!.”

“Each themed chapter offers men behavioral tips and exposes hidden messages transmitted by women in everyday situations, such as on holiday or during shopping trips,” said Silke Exius, chief editor at Langenscheidt.

Other examples in the German-Woman/Woman-German “dictionary” due out in October include explaining why a woman asks a man to take interest in the pair of shoes she may be trying on.

She wants him to look because he’s about to pay for them.

Word of the Month: Labor

1 September 2004

In the United States, the first Monday in September is Labor Day, a day to celebrate and reward the achievements of the American worker. The holiday was originally proposed by the labor movement in 1882. In 1884 the holiday was moved to the current place on the calendar and it received its first government recognition by municipal governments. In 1887, the state of Oregon became the first to declare it an official state holiday. By 1894, 24 states and the federal government had recognized the holiday.

In honor of the holiday, our word of the month is laborn.; physical exertion that supplies the material needs of the community; the body of people who provide this work. The term is from the Old French and originally meant simply physical exertion, a sense that survives today. The first sense listed here dates to 1776 when it was first used by Adam Smith. The use referring to the collective body of workers dates to 1839.

What follows is a glossary of terms associated with the organized labor movement:

agency shopn.; a place of employment where the union represents (is the “agency” for) all workers, whether or not they are members of the union. Non-members must still pay union dues or, sometimes, are allowed to contribute an equivalent amount to a charitable organization. 1952. Cf. union shop.

apprenticen.adj., & v.; a worker who is learning a craft or trade, to work as an apprentice; 1362, from the Old French aprendre, to learn.

arbitrationn.; a method of resolving disputes where the parties submit the matter for decision to a neutral judge; 1634, from an earlier 14th C. sense meaning an capricious decision, ultimately from the Latin via Old French. Binding arbitration is similar, except the parties agree to abide by the decision before it is made.

at-willadj.; employment terms where an employee has no contract and works at the pleasure (“will”) of the employer.

black-legn. & v.; British term for one who works for an employer currently being struck, a strike-breaker; to work as a strike-breaker; from an older sense of the word meaning a general term of opprobrium; 1865. Cf. scab.

blacklistn. & v.; a list of workers known for union activities who are not to be hired by an employer or employers in an industry; 1888, from a 17th C. sense meaning a list of criminals or undesirable persons.

blue collaradj.; denoting a laborer or the working class; 1950, from denim work shirts commonly worn on the job, Cf. white collar.

blue flun.; labor action by police or other government workers not permitted to strike where large numbers take sick leave at the same time; from the blue uniforms worn by police. Cf. sick out.

brotherhoodn.; a union, esp. a railway union; 1883.

boycottv.; to refuse to engage in commercial transactions with a business, in the context of labor until that business unionizes or otherwise reforms its labor practices; 1880, after Charles Boycott, an English land agent in Ireland who was subjected to the treatment for refusing to lower rents.

bumpv.trans., to take the job a less senior employee; intrans., to lose one’s job to a more senior employee. 1941.

closed shopn.; a place of employment where only union members are employed; 1904. Cf. union shopopen shop.

collective bargainingn.; means of negotiating an employment contract where a group of employees negotiates as a single entity and all receive the same terms of employment; 1891.

company storen.; a store owned by the employer where employees are required to shop, usually at exorbitant prices; 1872.

company unionn.; a union that exists only within a single company, with no connections to workers at other firms; 1917.

company townn.; a town owned by a company where employees are required to live, later used metaphorically to denote a town dominated by a single employer; 1933.

craft unionn.; a union where all members are engaged in the same type of job, e.g., the Teamsters; also horizontal union; c.1926

dead timen.; time when a worker is not actually engaged in work because preparations for it are underway, e.g., while waiting for delivery of materials; 1909.

escalator clausen.; an element in a contract that requires an increase (or decrease) in pay or other benefits when certain conditions are met, e.g., a cost-of-living increase.

featherbeddingn.; the employment of superfluous staff, usually required by a union contract, hence the use as a verb meaning to be paid without having to work; 1921, from the metaphor of a comfortable place.

free ridern.; a worker who benefits from a union’s collective bargaining without joining the union; 1941.

fringe benefitn.; a perquisite of employment that is granted by the employer in addition to wages, e.g., a restaurant worker who gets free or discounted meals; 1952.

general striken.; a strike by all workers in an industry or by workers in key industries across a nation; 1810.

guildn.; a medieval association, often of tradesmen, formed to promote the interests of the group; before 1000, from a coalescing of several Germanic roots into a single Old English word; starting in 1827, the word was revived for the naming of modern organizations.

hiring halln.; a union-run placement center where employers would register jobs which would be assigned to members by the union by either rotation or seniority.

hot cargon.; goods produced by a plant that is under a strike or by an employer that refuses to hire union members; some union contracts permit union members to refuse to handle such cargo.

hot goodsn.; goods produced in violation of labor laws.

independent unionn.; a union that is not affiliated with a national organization and not organized by the employer.

industrial unionn.; an organization of all the workers in a particular industry, regardless of their craft, e.g., the United Auto Workers; 1923; also vertical union.

informational picketingn.; picketing to draw attention to a labor dispute without going on strike.

job actionn.; activities undertaken by workers as part of a labor dispute, can include work slowdowns and strikes.

journeymann.; a skilled tradesman who works as an employee of another; 1463, from the itinerant nature of such work.

local unionn.; a chapter of a national union.

lockoutv. & n.; to shut down a plant in response to a strike; 1868.

mastern.; a skilled tradesman who employs apprentices and journeymen; Old English, from the Latin magister.

mediationn.; intercession by a third party to resolve a dispute; before 1387, from the Anglo Norman mediacion.

minimum wagen.; the lowest wage that can be legally paid to an employee.

open shopn.; a business where employment is not conditioned on union status. Cf. closed shop.

outlaw striken.; a work stoppage that violates a collective bargaining agreement that is currently in force.

picketn. & v.; a group of striking employees who patrol the premises of a business to deter others from working or doing business there, to act as a picket; 1867 in the labor sense, from the military sense of a sentry, ultimately from the French picquet, a pointed stake used to mark a boundary or form a fence.

pork chopper, n.; an employee of the union, from the sense that they are well fed by the dues of the rank and file members.

raidv.; to attempt to enroll members already belonging to another union.

recognizev.; to accept a union as the legitimate agent for collective bargaining.

right to workadj.; term used to describe laws prohibiting the requirement to join a union as a condition of employment; 1958.

sabotagen.; the malicious destruction of an employer’s property as part of a job action; 1910, from the French sabot, a metal shoe used to hold railroad tracks in place, uprooted during railway strikes.

scabn.; derogatory term for a worker who takes the place of a striking worker; 1777 in the labor sense, in use as a general term of abuse since c.1590, metaphorical use from the sense of a pustule or crust over a wound. Cf. black-leg.

secondaryadj.; used to denote action against a third party used to bring pressure in a labor dispute, e.g., a secondary boycott might target a firm’s customers, a secondary strike a firm’s suppliers.

shop stewardn.; union member in a shop or department elected to handle union matters and act as spokesman for that group; 1904. Steward is from an Old English term for an official who manages the affairs of a manor or household.

sick outn.; job action where employees feign illness and do not report for work; 1970; formed from an analogy with walk out.

sit-downadj.; used to describe strikes or protests where the strikers or protesters occupy the premises; 1936.

solidarityn.; unity of interests and aspirations, esp. of trade unions; from the French solidarité, 1841. Also recently used to translate the name of the anti-communist Polish trade union movement founded in 1980.

strikev. & n.; to cease working in protest of pay or working conditions; 1768, originally a reference to sailors striking, or lowering, the yards on ships to prevent them from putting to sea.

sweatshopn., place of employment that demands long hours and provides low pay; 1895

sweetheart contractn.; derogatory term for an agreement that grants concessions to the employer or benefits to the union at the expense of the rank-and-file members; 1959.

sympathetic striken.; a work stoppage by employees at one firm or plant done in support of a work stoppage at another.

unionn.; an association of workers that promotes the general welfare of all members; 1833.

union shopn.; a place of employment that requires union membership as a condition of employment; 1904.

whipsawv.; to engage is a series of surprise work stoppages against an industry, striking at one employer after another.

white collaradj.; denoting non-manual labor; 1919, from the collars of shirts worn by clerical workers. Cf. blue collar.

wildcat striken.; a work stoppage that is not sanctioned by the union; 1937, from a 19th C. sense of wildcat meaning a rash or risky venture.

work to rulev.; to scrupulously observe the terms of one’s contract and nothing more as a form of job action; 1950.

yellow dogadj.; opposed to trade unions, e.g., a yellow-dog contract prohibits workers from joining a union; 1904.

Book Review: Summer Reading List

1 August 2004

This month in our book review section we take a look at three books that will make for some interesting summer reading. All three address word origins and all three consist of bite-sized sections that make for good commuter reading.

The first is the most interesting of the three, Paul McFedries’s Word Spy: The Word Lover’s Guide to Modern Culture. An offshoot of his excellent web site, www.wordspy.com, this is a book about neologisms and slang terms that denote the new facets of our ever-changing world. From accelerated culture (rapid cultural change) to wine porn (magazines and literature written for wine lovers), McFedries takes us on a linguistic excursion through our culture.

Word Spy starts out with a brief opening chapter on how words come into existence, an excellent overview of the topic that provides the theoretical underpinnings for understanding the rest of the book. But after this brief introduction, McFedries dives into the heart of the subject with twenty-one more chapters, each dealing with one aspect of our culture and the neologisms we have coined associated with it.

The chapters run the gamut of modern, post-industrial culture. McFedries gives us, for example, one on advertising, one on fast food, another on the dot-com boom and bust, and one on baby boomers. Each chapter is further divided into sub-sections that contain the neologisms. The chapter on activism includes terms like green collar worker (professional environmental activist), Frankenfood (genetically modified agricultural product), techno-strike (electronic attacks on the computer systems of an offending company or organization), lactivist (an advocate of breast feeding), and, of course, NIMBY (acronym for Not In My Back Yard, descriptive of activism aimed a preventing a socially important, but locally undesirable, institution or activity from setting up shop in one’s neighborhood).

The chapter on relationships and marriage treats us to fleshmeet (a face-to-face meeting of a group that knows each other from the internet), batmobiling (erecting emotional defenses before a relationship becomes intimate), bridezilla (a bride-to-be who in her eagerness for the perfect wedding becomes intolerable), and postmortem divorce (a stipulation that one is to be buried separately from one’s spouse).

The chapter on the modern workplace shows us cube (a semiprivate workspace), prairie dog (a verb meaning to stick your head above the walls of your cube out of curiosity for what is going on outside), ego wall (a wall hung with awards and photos of the employee with famous people), virtual office (a employee or business with no fixed address, operating with mobile phones and laptops), and corridor cruiser (an employee who spends his day going from one meeting to another).

Punditocracy (the collection of political commentators), theocon (a member of the religious right), push poll (a means of advertising by asking loaded questions in the guise of a pollster), and trial balloon leak (revealing a planned policy in an attempt to gauge popular support while maintaining deniability) are all dealt with in the chapter on politics.

Most of these terms come with usage citations and the book is indexed, making it a useful reference in years to come.

While all of them are recent coinages, most of the terms in the book were probably obsolete when the book was published, if they ever had wide currency in the first place. Such is the nature of slang in our accelerated culture. But that doesn’t mean that they are not fun to read about.

If only more word books were like Word Spy. McFedries has given us a well-researched book, yet one that is readable and fun. Nor does it fall into the trap of alphabetic organization—which is useful for reference books, but makes it difficult to see relationships and patterns in the words and phrases. Any word lover is going to enjoy this one.

Paperback; 432 pages; Broadway Books; February 2004; $15.95.

The second of our books is Words to the Wise: A Lighthearted Look at the English Language, by Michael J. Sheehan. This is a collection of questions and answers about words and language that Sheehan has been asked and has answered on his weekly radio program of that name. The program airs on WTCM in Traverse City, Michigan. The author is a retired professor of English.

Sheehan’s topics are from the entire spectrum of language and linguistics. He answers etymology questions, ones on usage, spelling, grammar, style, writing tips, and just about anything relating to language. His answers are brief, a paragraph long or two at the most.

And unlike some books of this nature, the answers in Words to the Wise are well-researched and based on a solid foundation of scholarship. Sheehan doesn’t fall for the linguistic urban legends that many others do and he is not afraid to say that the answer is unknown. His responses are brief, but correct. Where he is prescriptivist, his advice is sensible and recognizes that language changes and that a writer shouldn’t be straitjacketed by the past.

If the book has a drawback, it is a lack of organization. There are no chapters or sections. The book is simply a long string of questions and answers. This is enjoyable as an eclectic potpourri, but can be frustrating if you are trying to find a particular answer. Sheehan does, however, provide an index.
All in all, this is the ultimate in commuter reading. Keep a copy in your car for those moments when you are waiting for someone. The bite-sized Q&A are perfect to fill those wasted moments.

Paperback; 240 pages; Arbutus Press; May 2004; $15.00.

Our third and final book is Is That What It Means?: A Treasure Trove of Word Origins, by Max Oppenheimer. In many ways this is similar to Sheehan’s book above. Oppenheimer is also a retired university professor, this time a professor of foreign languages, and the book is a collection of articles that originally appeared in another format, here articles that originally appeared in a language column in the Sun City, Arizona Daily News and in Arizona Senior World. Oppenheimer’s articles are longer form than Sheehan’s, typically two pages each.

The book is more focused than Sheehan’s, dealing almost exclusively with etymology. Oppenheimer’s research is solid, at least when he sticks to straight etymology. His etymologies are well-researched and he makes some interesting associations between seemingly unrelated words. His ability to address cognates in a wide variety of languages is novel. Few are experienced in enough languages to attempt this consistently, and in this respect the book is particularly valuable.

It is where he strays from straight etymology into the wider realm of linguistics that Oppenheimer runs into trouble. He is clearly a fluent speaker of many languages, but he does not have a good grasp of basic linguistic theory (not surprising for a foreign languages professor, whose focus would be on grammatical instruction and literature). He is not a linguist and it shows. He occasionally delves into criticism of linguistics that he clearly does not understand. He also betrays a prescriptivist and curmudgeonly bent now and again. Fortunately, these incidents are few and the bulk of the book is solid.
Still, this is a minor flaw and Is That What It Means? will make a welcome addition to any summer reading list.

Paperback; 222 pages; Sunflower University Press; February 2004; $15.95