Nunc et in hora mortis nostrae

When I was young, Vatican II was a household subject. I don't remember ever not knowing what Vatican II was, and I don't remember ever asking. I came from a very old, very Catholic family.

People always talked about the Latin Mass. I didn't know what it was for a long time, I only knew it was outlawed, and I knew it was for good reason. 

Then, my church put on a Latin Mass. I remember the buzz and the crackle; the classical radio station came and brought their giant microphones and my parents telling me Latin Mass was OK this once. It was for special. A Big Deal. And boy was I excited. And then the service began, and then began the most abject boredom I'd ever experienced. What was the point of having a special Latin Mass if they were going to have the whole thing in another language? This was a big deal? This was forbidden?

The Catholic church didn't conduct Latin services because they believed Latin was the language of the enlightened. They didn't do it to be exclusive or intellectual. The word "catholic," with a lower-case "c," means "embracing all." The church wanted to have all masses said in Latin so that anyone could go to any church anywhere in the world and understand the language - so that everyone could be included.

Of course, that didn't go quite the direction it was supposed to go, and instead of everybody understanding, nobody did. And it only took the church a few centuries to figure it out and give up the ghost. Which is really quite quick, for Catholicism. 

Interesting note: Universalism is a faith that believes all souls are saved; everyone has a chance to reconcile with God. Universalism is new and open and ever-changing. Catholicism is staid and sturdy, rich with tradition. The faiths are as vastly different as country mouse and city mouse, yet the lowercase words "universal" and "catholic" are synonyms. Cool, huh?

post

We're all mad here

I hate it when people accuse my favorite writers of having been drug users - as if people who are creative and intelligent enough to come up with something so thrillingly original must be using performance enhancing drugs. As Stephen King has said, "The idea that the creative endeavor and mind-altering substances are entwined is one of the great pop-intellectual myths of our time... Substance abusing writers are just substance abusers -- common garden variety drunks and druggies, in other words." He goes on to say that writers who claim that they need to be high to write are just making excuses for their behavior.


However, would the Late Beatles have existed if not for drugs? The pre-drug Beatles wanted to hold your hand. The post-drug Beatles changed the definition of rock and roll. Paul McCartney has said that drug use was so very much more innocent then. He says today's drugs are a different breed, they destroy lives and kill people. But would The White Album have been The White Album if not for the green? Would the cultural revolution of the 60s and 70s have been as revolutionary? 


On a completely tangential note, the more I hear Revolution 9, the more sense it makes to me. That worries me. It kind of makes me think that the subject of the song is wandering through a train station that is also his life, his history and his future and a voice constantly pestering him to move on. Or it could just be that The Beatles said "Hey, let's make 9 minutes of incomprehensible garbage and see if people are suckers enough to listen to it and think it means something." I suspect some modern artists and poets of doing the same.


Heath Ledger supposedly got hooked on drugs while taking stimulants to enhance his creepy jittery performance as The Joker. I loved the man and the performance, but do people who take performance-enhancing drugs deserve Oscars for it? Maybe you do need drugs to understand some characters. Maybe that's why I didn't cut it as a theatre major. That and, you know, the painfully embarrassing over-acting.




And I don't know about you, but I can barely write when I'm very sleepy. Drunk Brigid writes things like "There are some things you  can only undersand when youre durnk. ill tell you later." Stoned, I don't think I could hold a pen.

This is a picture of what my cat would probably look like if you were high. I haven't tested this out, so fair warning.

Regionalisms

Have you ever noticed that Ohioans pronounce "Akron" and "Canton" with a short "i" sound instead of an "o"? What's more interesting to me is that most people outside of Ohio do pronounce the "o," particularly noticeable if you call 411. 

In the movie "Needful Things," the evil Leland Gaunt claims to have come from Akron, Ohio, but pronounces the "o" sound. I wonder if that's supposed to be a clue that the character is not who he says he is, or if it's just that no one making the movie knew that it's pronounced "Akrin."

I've further noticed that people from Canton often drop the "n" and "t" out of the middle of the word and say something that sounds more like "Ca-in." I've noticed I've started calling it "Ca-in" as well. Similarly, it seems about half the people I talk to say "Cuyoga" instead of "Cuyahoga."

Some folks around these parts also drop the middle consonants out of "technically," so it sounds like "teh-nicly." I wonder if that's a regionalism, or if it's just something people naturally do because they're too hurried to pronounce all the sounds in the sentence.

Around here, if something is dirty, we say it "needs washed," rather than "needs to be washed" or "needs washing." I had no idea that was considered grammatically incorrect until recently.

Here in Ohio, we call the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street a "tree lawn," and I didn't know until college that that's not what everybody else calls it. Apparently, people in most regions call it "the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the curb," but in some regions it's called a "parking strip" or "tree belt," among other things. None of those terms are particularly accurate, come to think on it. I mean, sometimes that bit of lawn has a tree in it, but most don't. And you're certainly not supposed to park on a tree lawn. I would know. When I first got my license, I was so bad a parallel parker that I parked on a street with half the car on a tree lawn, and I got a ticket for parking in a "landscaped area." My parallel parking skills have not improved, by the way.

Hair splitting

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, each time expecting a different result. Isn't that the definition of hope? Perseverance? Seems to me every baby who tries to walk and falls down would be insane to try again, by that definition.

Fun with Fundamentals - Exemplum Primum

Everybody knows that a huge number of our English words come from Latin, some surprisingly intact, considering how far they have come. What a lot of people don't know, or at least what I didn't know until I took History of the English Language in college, is that almost none of the Latin words that have found their way to us come directly from Latin.
The English language is comprised almost entirely of the languages of people who have conquered the British isles. We don't know much of anything about the folks who lived on the island of Britain before everybody started conquering it, only that it was a loose confederation of primitive folk with primitive vocabulary, who apparently liked very much being invaded.
The Romans started showing up around the late BCs and hung around until the early ADs. The Romans are the ones who name the island "Britain," we don't know what folks called it before the Romans showed up, but I expect that it was something like "Dreary Rainy Rock that Wants Conquering." And really, one must wonder what the Romans were thinking, striking out from the warm sunny Mediterranean with its roads and plumbing and winding up in such a tiny, cold place. Maybe that's why the Romans left after a couple hundred years (I hear it has something to do with the fall of Rome, too). What's a bit surprising is that when they left, they took the Latin language with them. Only a tiny handful of words stuck around. The only one I can think of off the top of my head, aside from Britain, obviously, is castra, the Latin word for "camp," which survives in place names that end in "caster" or "chester," (e.g., Manchester).
Most of the Latin that's part of English now doesn't show up until (say it with me, class) 1066 AD when the Normans decided to eschew croissants for scones and took over. The Normans are far too busy running the country and watching snobby art films to learn a new language, so French becomes the official language of Important People, like royals and priests and stuff, but the peasants still speak Old English (which oddly enough, they didn't call Old English at the time). Over time, the peasants, probably trying to sound hoity toity to impress their friends, start picking up the language of the upper classes.  Now since French is exceptionally close to Latin, the Latin language sneaks in the back door of English over the next several hundred years. And that's how it happened.
The neatest part about all this is how many words came from Latin to French to English totally intact. Back in ancient Rome, just like here, a culinary genius might fill her villa with the intoxicating aroma of citrus and asparagus, and serve it to a senator with a big ego, but great acumen as a legislator. That's kinda awesome.

Also, I got like, straight Ds in Latin class, so take this entry with a grain of salt. I added a bunch of new sources to the bibliography, which is the first post in this blog.

On Civility

Do you remember when people debated politics without name-calling and screaming hyperbole? Yeah, me neither. Perhaps Pepperidge Farm remembers. But seriously. What set me off is this Facebook group:

DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN

Remember when this stuff wasn't OK? When it was un-American? Remember when we respected the office, if not the man? (Remember when the Dixie Chicks were crucified just for saying they were ashamed of the president?)

So what I'm trying to nail down is, what changed the dialog? What changed our words from "I think this is awful" to "EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A FACIST BABY-KILLING EVIL IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!11!!!"

I think the assault on civility came from two fronts. The 24-hour news cycle brought down the walls and the Internet burned the countryside. 

You see, most days, there's not quite enough news to fill out every hour of every day. Some people watched it all day, and they didn't want to see the same thing over and over, so they brought in pundits. Suddenly, the suits once relegated to Sunday mornings were left to run amok all over the ever-multiplying news channels, until you couldn't tell where news ended and punditry began. Over time, the pundits became anchors and shrieking harpies became pundits.

And then, the Internet comes along. Now anyone with a keyboard could reach an international audience in a mouse click. And they did. And here's the thing. You know how, as soon as you get behind the wheel, every other driver instantly becomes a moron, and you shout things out your window you'd never shout to anyone's face? I think it's because you can't see their face. They're cars, not people. You don't have to be polite to machines, and you forget there are humans inside of them. That's sort of how the Internet works. You don't see people when you're online, you see words on a page. And if you don't agree with those words, you can tear the speaker down in a manner you'd never use in person.

I'm just saying I miss civility. I'm saying I'd love to hear a Republican say "I think this health care bill is disastrous for the country, and here's why." I'd love to hear a democrat say "Let me explain why I think this legislation is a good thing." Instead we've become a nation of chimps and apes, futility flinging poo into the void. 

Is civility dead?

Look for another post later defining the vocabulary of the debate. And perhaps one about the exclamation punctuation proliferation. 

Pic from the Cleveland Zoo. Eagle is sad.

Book like me?

Our local Border's has a special section for African American literature. Dude, our bookstore is segregated.

Acceptable by virtue of ubiquity

One of the things I love about the English language is the way it grows and changes, sometimes in unexpected ways. The following is a list of words and expressions that have been used incorrectly so much that most people don't know they're technically incorrect.

Hopefully: Dude, I say this all the time and always in the wrong way. Hopefully is an adverb, meant to modify a verb, as in "We prayed hopefully." It's technically incorrect, then, to say "Hopefully we'll have enough gas in the tank to get us to church." In that, the word "hopefully" isn't modifying the verb "have"; the correct way to phrase this sentence is "I hope we'll have enough gas."

Alright and alot: Should be "all right" and "a lot," but I've had English teachers who didn't know that. Most spell-checkers don't even flag "alright" as a misspelling anymore.

Macchiatto: A macchiatto is an espresso with a dollop of milk or foam. However, Starbucks sells a drink called a macchiatto which is, in fact, a caramel latte. When I worked at Caribou coffee, folks were constantly complaining that we made our macchiattos incorrectly.

Speaking of espresso: The word is spelled and pronounced "espresso," from the Italian for "quick." There is technically no such thing as "expresso." I must rant a bit about the fact that I ordered an espresso, and the waitress "corrected" my pronunciation. I'm a live and let live kind of girl, but don't force your mispronunciations on me, yo.

Ninjas: Technically, the plural of "ninja" is "ninja." Also, since ninjas were typically assassins, spies, and such, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were not, in fact, ninjas.

Daylight Savings: It's actually Daylight Saving time.

TV's: The plural of TV is TVs, without an apostrophe. This is true of any other initialism as well.

Speaking of initialisms: "Acronym" has come to mean any abbreviations formed from the first letters of the words in the phrase, e.g., "AIDS" and "ATM" Actually, it's technically only an acronym if the letters combine to form a word e.g., "AIDS," "Scuba," "DOS." If it doesn't spell a word, e.g., "ATM," "CPR," "AA," it's an initialism.

Speaking of e.g.,: The initialisms e.g. and i.e. are not interchangeable. "E.g." comes from the Latin exempli gratia and means "for an example." "I.e." comes from the Latin id est and means "that is."
So e.g. would be used in a sentence like: He has many kinds of hats, e.g., baseball hats, porkpie hats, top hats.
I.e. would be used in a sentence like: He likes to wear stuff on his head, i.e., he likes hats.
Also, including "e.g." at the beginning of a sentence and etc at the end of a sentence is redundant. You've already said that the list consists of examples, denoting that these examples are several of many.



Is this entry as boring and stuffy as it looks?

And the word was God

Kurt Vonnegut talked in his speeches about the fact that Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses." Vonnegut explained that when Marx wrote those words, opiates were the only options that a lot of people had to deal with illness. Some people abused opiates, but opiates also allowed some people to function despite debilitating pain. So, Vonnegut contends, Marx wasn't saying that religion was a bad thing, he was saying that religion is like medicine for people who are oppressed and suffering. Religion did not cure the problem of oppression, but it helped oppressed people cope with their suffering.

Think of all the damage done, all the rights crushed, over a mistranslation. Not that the communist regimes that oppress religious folks are otherwise the fuzzy, permissive sort.