language

All posts tagged language

Don’t touch those wires! Photo credit: NOAA – Public domain

New Word of the Day – Bombogenesis

Today’s new word of the day — a form of neologism* — is bombogenesis. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, bombogenesis is a noun meaning the development and intensification of a major storm. It comes from the recent tendency to describe a major storm as a “snow bomb” or “weather bomb.” Lisa Suhey has written an article for the Christian Science Monitor that explains the term bombogenesis and a few others, including blizzard. The weather service has been using bombogenesis for a while, and they even have specific criteria for it, including “when a storm’s area of lowest surface pressure experiences a rapid drop of more than 24 millibars in 24 hours.” Her article also clarifies what makes a blizzard, and it’s not just a lot of snow. To qualify as a blizzard, in addition to a lot of snow, there must be wind-driven snow that reduces visibility to zero for more than three hours, with wind greater than 35 MPH (56 KPH.)

*I differentiated “new word” from “neologism” because to get into my New Word of the Day series, the word must be in a dictionary as a new word, while a neologism isn’t necessarily in a dictionary yet. It might have just been invented by a witty punster or a schizophrenic.

Has any of my readers ever lived through a snow bomb?

rjb

Grammar of the Day – Epicene They

Some style guides are beginning to accept the epicene they. We’ll find out who, but first some groundwork. Epicene, in this case, means gender-free. English is a language with gender in its grammar. He-she, his-her, for example. This leads to clumsy or biased language. All the he/she, his/her, s/he, hir awkwardness has been unable to successfully replace the pretense that “he” can stand in for a gender-neutral pronoun. It is the third person singular pronoun that is a problem. We have the binary pronouns he and she for gender-specific third person singular application, and they for non-specific plural. But there is no gender-neutral singular pronoun for the job if the third person’s gender is unspecified.

English used to have a solution for the problem: the singular they. Beginning in the 14th century and continuing for 500 years, English speakers used “they” for the indefinite third person singular pronoun. Until this day it has continued in common speech and everyone knows what you mean when you use it. But in the 19th century linguists and grammarians took issue with it because they is plural. They decreed that we should use he, or even one.

Merriam Webster Dictionary – One common bugbear of the grammatical nitpicker is the singular they. For those who haven’t kept up, the complaint is this: the use of they as a gender-neutral pronoun (as in, “Ask each of the students what they want for lunch.”) is ungrammatical because they is a plural pronoun.

Oxford Dictionary – It happens when they, them, their, and themselves refer back to subjects that are grammatically singular.

“They” is making a comeback, and none too soon. It has been the correct choice in the case of indeterminate gender. “Does everyone have their life jacket?” Everyone is singular grammatically, and their is plural, but this usage is considered correct. Now it’s becoming more acceptable to use it to avoid assigning gender. “Do they have their lifejacket?” They and their are both ostensibly plural, but the subject is obviously singular. This usage, once frowned upon as ungrammatical and a sign of a lack of education, is returning to its proper and useful place. The result is a singular, non-binary they.

I’m glad because I made a conscious decision to use they this way when I began writing Green Comet.

This article on the Copyediting website discusses the Associated Press style guide moving toward accepting the singular, gender-neutral, third person they. The epicene they.

This Los Angeles Times article discussed the rise of the epicene they.

rjb

Get in the comments with your own Blanky McBlankface name. Then download my books. It won’t cost you a thing.

Boaty McBoatface was a mildly interesting cultural phenomenon. When the UK’s National Environment Research Council ran a poll to name their new research vessel in 2016, what began as a joke ended up being the most popular name. (Can you think of any other elections where a joke ended up winning?) With hundreds of thousands of votes for 32,000 suggested names, Boaty McBoatface came out on top by a wide margin, winning 124,109 votes, four times the runner-up. In the end this was too important to go along with the joke and they finally named the ship RSS Sir David Attenborough. That’s a good choice given what Attenborough has done for public awareness of nature and the environment.

This reminds me of a similar situation when a territory in the north of Canada was looking for a name and the internet came up with “Bob.” They also let reason override humor and settled on retaining the title, Northwest Territories. It has other names in local languages including Denendeh and Nunatsiaq in Athabascan and Inuinnaqtun respectively. Both Bob and Boaty show that polls are dandy, but not always the best answer for a serious question.

Now it’s the turn of a soccer club. San Diego, California wants to name its entry into Major League Soccer and opened it up to the public. The most popular name so far is Footy McFootyface with two-thirds of the vote. They got it wrong, by the way. It should be Footy McFootface, no “y,” to keep with the form of Boaty McBoatface. But hey, that’s how the language evolves. Somebody’s not paying attention and a little change sneaks in. Something like “The Olde” becoming “Ye Olde.”

That brings us to Bloggy McBlogface, which I thought would be a good title for this post, given the viral, trendy nature of those other two names. Who knows? Maybe it will generate a little traffic for this quiet little site. If it does, I have two requests for my new visitors: First, do me a favor and download my books. They’re free and unencumbered, and people seem to like them. So download them. Take at least one of every format. Then get all your friends to do the same. And so on. Second, let’s see how many names we can make up in the form of Boaty McBoatface. I started with Bloggy McBlogface, now you come up with something. Get thee to the comments!

Thank You.

rjb

Credit Steinhöfel-ESO - CC-BY

Credit Steinhöfel-ESO – CC-BY – Depicting the evolution of a main sequence star – tap for large image

Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. The Free Dictionary, definition 1(a).

Some years ago I published a series of articles about evolution in my local newspaper. It generated some interest and a spate of letters to the editor, and my publisher liked it. There was even a creationist who challenged me to a debate over it. I decided to reproduce it here. This is part one, which I called Evolving in Spite of Us. See also Part Two and Part Three.

When we think of evolution we usually think of life. It seems natural to think of Darwin’s “origin of species” as being what evolution is all about. After all, that’s what people are usually talking about when they talk about evolution. It’s good to remember, though, that not only life evolves. Pretty well anything you can think of is changing over time. Everything is in the process of transforming from one state to another. Since that’s practically the definition of evolution, it’s safe to say that everything is evolving.

For example, the interior of our planet Earth is gradually cooling over the eons. That means that there is less heat energy to drive the movement of the crustal plates, and therefore continental drift will gradually slow down. Eventually, if given enough time, Earth would cool enough to set and the continents would never move again. Fewer earthquakes. Fewer volcanoes. Less mixing of the various parts of the biosphere. The Earth is evolving.

Our Sun is also evolving. It’s much hotter now than it was when it was young. It’s been slowly heating up in the four-and-a-half billion years since it was born. If it follows the course of other stars of similar mass and composition, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t, in another four or five billion years it will be a red giant. This will likely happen before the Earth can cool down enough to set. By that time it will have burned Earth to a crisp, possibly even growing large enough to engulf it. Life on Earth has been adapting to the Sun’s increasing output, even to the point of actively adjusting the atmosphere to keep it in the right temperature range. Nothing is likely to compensate for being engulfed, though.

Even the universe as a whole is evolving. We can tell that it’s expanding, which implies that it used to be smaller. We know that the universe was different in the past, to the point where there were no galaxies or stars at all. In the past it was very small and very hot. After about 14 billion years of expansion it exists in a state which supports life. Unfortunately, the rate of expansion is increasing. If nothing happens to change things, the universe is going to grow increasingly cold and dark. Eventually it will no longer support life.

We may continually come back to life when we think of evolution, but evolution goes on regardless of life.

rjb

vocalid-certificate-1000-1024

I got another certificate! VocalID gave me a certificate to reward my efforts, and to encourage more. VocalID is an initiative whose goal is to provide unique voices to people who can’t speak on their own. They need devices that can synthesize a voice for them, and VocalID wants to let them choose their own rather than settle for one of the generic ones. See my original post on VocalID.

Watch Rupal Patel’s TED Talk and get inspired.
Visit VocalID’s website to see what they’re about.

rjb