Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘The Blogfinger Grammarian’

By Charles Layton

I’ve posed this question before but never received an adequate answer. What do you call a person who lives in Neptune? I’m not originally from here, and I honestly don’t know, but I have some thoughts about it.

I grew up in a part of the country where the suffix “ite” is used a good deal. We Texans have Houstonites and Dallasites and Austinites. “Ite” is sort of our default setting. However, it’s a big state and we have plenty of exceptions. (For some reason, people in Paris, Texas, refuse to refer to themselves as “Parisites.”)

Neptunite

“Neptunite” would be my automatic choice for a Person From Neptune (a PFN) except for the distracting fact that neptunite happens also to be the name of a rare mineral. Like our township, it is named for the Roman god of the sea. Unlike our township, it is mainly found in scattered parts of Asia and North America but not, I believe, in New Jersey. I don’t think a PFN should be called that.

So how about another common suffix, the one we apply to people from Ocean Grove, from New York, from London and from (I believe this is true) Hamburg. The trouble is, “Neptuner” sounds as if it should be spelled Nep-tooner, and as if it ought to designate an old-time cartoon character: Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd, Petunia Pig. To my ear, it just lacks dignity. Plus, it reminds me of the Looney Tunes theme song, which then sticks in my mind and torments me for days. (“Th-th-that’s all, folks.”)

So if Neptuners doesn’t quite work, we’re stuck with the following options:

Neptunians. — No good. It suggests alien invaders from a giant frozen planet.

Neptunans. —  Something to do with tuna fish? Sounds like it.

Neptuner

Neptunistas? — Well, hey, that has a ring to it. Anybody want to second that?

Ocean Grover

Read Full Post »

Y'all

All y'all

You

By Charles Layton

The plural form of I is we. The plural of he/she/it is they. But the plural form of you is just you.

Spanish changes usted to ustedes to make it plural. Most other European languages also have a separate plural form for “you.” But not English. We’re deprived.

When I joined the Army I’d never been north of the Texas-Oklahoma border, so I’d never heard anyone say youse before. When I got to basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, a sergeant got on the company squawk box and bellowed, “I want youse to listen up!” This sounded so ignorant to me that I burst out laughing.

But I shouldn’t have. The sergeant was from Yankeeland, where some people said youse for the very legitimate purpose of specifying the plural. I should have understood that, coming from a part of the country where people said y’all 60 or 80 times a day.

In spite of all formal teachings to the contrary, we-uns in the South have always had this perfectly good, time-tested second-person plural pronoun, and we’ve put it to good use. Regardless of what some people think, y’all is correctly used only as a plural. I agree with the Urban Dictionary when it says, “Only an absolute idiot would use y’all as a singular pronoun.” In the South, when an individual customer enters a hardware store or diner or tractor dealership or bail bond agency, the clerk or hostess or salesperson or bondsman says, “Can I help you?” Not “Can I help y’all.”

Some Yankees get mixed up about this because they’ve heard Southerners say “all of y’all” or “all y’all” or “all a’ y’all,” as if y’all were the singular and all y’all the plural. But that’s wrong. Let me explain.

In my high school, the cheerleaders would exhort us at pep rallies: “ALL Y’ALL YELL!” Which was correct usage. One would not say “all y’all” when addressing two or three people. In that situation, the proper term is “y’all,” the simple plural. “All y’all” is the all-inclusive plural. It comes into play when the group being addressed is so large that one would want to spread one’s arms as a gesture of inclusivity. However, say you’re addressing five people, two of whom are going to the rodeo and three of whom are staying home. You’d say, “Y’all are going” addressing the two “and y’all are staying” addressing the other three. Only if all five were going would you say, “All y’all are going.”

So, you see, Southerners have evolved the usage of this friendly little pronoun to a highly nuanced state of sophistication. The North has nothing to compete with it. Northerners might say “you guys” in one of the above situations — or “youse guys” — but then the masculine guys is forced to apply to people of both sexes. Y’all, being gender neutral, avoids that awkwardness. Plus, y’all has an elegant, easy-to-use possessive form: “That’s none of y’all’s business.” “Where is y’all’s ammunition?” (The possessive of youse is pretty clumsy by comparison.)

Up here in Yankeeland, I almost never use the word y’all (or its more dignified and stately variant, you all), because up here y’all are so confused about it. But last month, when I was in Florida, I found myself reverting to y’all a time or two. And I have to say, it felt comfortable, like meeting a very close friend after a period of separation.

English once had a solid distinction between singular and plural forms. Thou was singular and you plural. But, for some reason, thou dropped out of usage except in formal public prayer and in Amish country. So then you occupied the singular position, doing double duty. When y’all came along, you gave up its original plural spot (in the South, that is) and became just singular. E pluribus unum.

In Yankeeland, you still plays a double role, and an ambiguous one. It doesn’t seem quite right.

Read Full Post »

 

Ocean Grove. July 4, 2013. Paul Goldfinger photo. ©

Ocean Grove. July 4, 2013. Paul Goldfinger photo. ©

By Charles Layton  (Originally posted on BF in 2012)

Are the Democrats democrats? That question arose this week when the leader of the Neptune Democratic Club tried to prevent a group of Ocean Grovers from expressing their opinion at a Club meeting. One of those Grovers said later that the meeting was “undemocratic.”

But here are two other questions: Are Republicans democrats? Are Democrats republicans? While the answer to that first question may be unclear, the answers to the latter two questions are, for the most part, “yes” and “yes.”

What am I talking about?

I’m talking about what the names of our two major parties actually mean. Here’s some history. In the beginning, the United States was non-partisan – that is, it had no political parties. The writers of the Constitution didn’t want parties to take root here, as they had in England. George Washington was not a member of a party while he was President.

But because of a policy split within Washington’s administration, we soon had a Federalist Party (led by Alexander Hamilton) and then a Democratic-Republican Party (led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson). After the Federalists went into decline, there arose the pro-Andrew Jackson Democrats and the anti-slavery Republicans, and although the policies of those two parties have altered in various ways over time, the names have stuck. But what do those names mean? What did they ever mean?

Well, a republic (notice the lower-case “r”) is a government that’s not a monarchy or a dictatorship, but rather is run by officials elected by the “public.” After the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had completed its work, a group of citizens gathered around Benjamin Franklin and asked him, “What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

A democracy (again, small “d”) is technically a government in which all the citizens make public policy. But really, it’s almost always a “representative democracy” rather than a “pure” one, which is to say we elect people to make laws and run things, and if a majority of us don’t like the way they do that, we kick them out. Not much distinction, really, between that and a republic.

In a 1964 convention speech, President Lyndon Johnson, quoting Jefferson, said, “We are all Democrats. We are all Republicans.” But Johnson misquoted Jefferson. What our third President actually said, at his 1801 inauguration, was this: “We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists.” (Federalism refers to a system in which power is shared between a central authority, the “federal” government, and other units within that – states or provinces).

What I say is, we are all republicans, we are all democrats, we are all federalists. But what I also say is, Jefferson and Johnson both had their capitalization wrong; they were referring to republicans small-r, democrats small-d and federalists small-f.

And that is today’s language lesson: when you’re referring to members of the Democratic Party, it’s upper-case D. When you’re referring to “democrats” meaning people who believe in “democracy,” the d is lower case.

Thank you, my fellow federalists.

JOHN DENVER:

Read Full Post »

By Charles Layton

QUESTION: In a recent story about a photo exhibit, Blogfinger wrote: “Here is a photograph of Geanna’s.” Isn’t this use of an apostrophe S incorrect in combination with the word “of”?

ANSWER: In olden days, when grammar and punctuation rules flowed down from Mt. Olympus to school teachers and thence to the rest of us, this usage was condemned for being superfluous. The possessive in English could be formed in one of two ways, by using “of” — as in “the voice of reason” or “the snows of Kilimanjaro” — or by using an apostrophe S. Using both was like using a double negative (“I don’t have no shoes”). Although the meaning was perfectly clear, putting it that way made one sound like Li’l Abner. (Note to younger readers: Li’l Abner was a character in a newspaper comic strip. A newspaper was … oh, forget it.)

As the gods of Olympus lost their grip, people more and more ignored this injunction against the double possessive. Now, if you still care about the issue or if you fear the frowns and sneers of persnickety nitpickers like The Blogfinger Grammarian, just say “Geanna’s photo” and you’re home free.

In informal situations, of course, you can usually get away with “the photo of Geanna’s.” Such small transgressions aren’t nearly as bad as parking inside the yellow-lined rectangles on Mt. Hermon Way. Just don’t try slipping such expressions into a legal brief, a scholarly article or a proposed amendment to the New Jersey Constitution.

I would argue that traditional “correctness” is usually to be preferred, though, whatever the context. It costs nothing and has no down side. And even though Zeus is dead, preserving small linguistic distinctions still has value, because losing them can make the language less precise. I have read that the Latin tongue became less precise in just such ways when the Roman civilization moved from its classical into its decadent phase. You know what followed that.

-0-

Ed. note: If you have a question for “The Blogfinger Grammarian” you may submit it via pg1425@verizon.net. We won’t answer every one, but we will choose those that seem of the greatest general interest — or maybe just those that happen to ring our bell.

Read Full Post »