Kris Spisak's Blog, page 6

Writing Tip 419: “Unorganized” vs. “Disorganized”

Unorganized? Disorganized? Maybe the owner would say neither. Maybe she knows exactly where every single title is. Maybe you just don’t understand her system. What’s your reaction?

So close yet oh so far away once again, eh, English language? I think you enjoy keeping us on our toes, but we’re ready for you. We know “unorganized” and “disorganized” are near-synonyms but not exact matches, but what’s the difference between these two words? And what do their different pre-fixes accomplish? What can history tell us?

Oh, yeah, let’s go there.

Will this conversation be messy? With these two adjectives, it’s entirely possible, but we’ll make it through.

Perhaps the most fascinating way to start the “unorganized” vs. “disorganized” conversation is to begin with the difference between “unease” and “disease,” which shows off these same two negative prefixes in action. There’s a clear difference, and it traces back to the subtleties of “un-” vs. “dis-.”

(This is where I want to insert the Jeopardy! music while you see if you can detect it.)

Got it? Maybe? No?

Here it is:

Frequently, while both “un” and “dis” are used as negative prefixes, “dis” implies not only the negative but a reversal. Thus, one who was once at ease might have a “disease.” A room that once organized might now be “disorganized.” If Alice’s White Rabbit was once there, it might “disappear.” It’s not just the opposite but a reversal.

Thus, the difference between “unorganized” vs. “disorganized” is that:

“Unorganized” means to be in disarray, a mess, uncategorized, or otherwise unordered.“Disorganized” implies that something or someone was once organized and that the organization is gone. A disorganized person might have taken things that were organized and allowed them to fall into confusion.

“Un-” is the older prefix, having come from Old English, and “dis-” came to the English language in a wave of Latin and French influence upon Middle English (also see the prefix “de-” in the same era). Specifically, “Unorganized” has been an English word in its present form since 1653 , and “disorganized” has been in use since 1801.

Do these “un-” vs. “dis-” reversal distinctions always ring true? Of course not. As endlessly noted, the English language is bad at following its own rules. Look at the word “discomfort.” If you experience “discomfort,” you are “uncomfortable.” Sigh. (Yes, this is me sighing at the discomfort the English language creates when folks simply want to learn the cut-and-dried rules, though if you want to hash out the reversals in “comfort” vs. “discomfort” and the simple negativity of “comfortable” vs. “uncomfortable,” I’m more than willing to have that conversation.)

Those who have ever been to one of my Grammartopia events might know that questioning an audience member about whether they are “disinterested” or “uninterested” in learning the subtleties of grammar is one of my favorite side conversations.

Wait, is it possible to have a favorite grammar conversation? Perhaps not. And that’s not a matter or being disorganized or unorganized. It’s just a matter of the endless curiosities provoked by proper language use. Who’s with me?

Happy writing, folks!

Sign up for my monthly writing and editing tips and trivia email newsletter for more  like this.

The post Writing Tip 419: “Unorganized” vs. “Disorganized” appeared first on Kris Spisak.

#36 – Are You With’t? Contractions & the Latest in Words You Should Know

A few stolen minutes out of your day to talk words and communication, because our daily lives are surrounded by the evolution and influence of words. Forget the grammar police. There is so much more to this conversation.

Episode #35 – Are You With’t? Contractions & the Latest in Words You Should Know

Approximate transcript:

Welcome to episode number 36, where we’ll revel in the glory of defying every teacher who ever told you to avoid contractions in formal writing. The line’s not quite so black and white, and history lends so much more to this discussion. But first…

The Latest in Word, Language & Writing News

One trend I’ve been noticing lately is the popularity of “grammar.” Yes, you heard me right, and I’m not just saying this as the author of a grammar book. I’m saying this because the concept of “grammar,” as in the core structure of things, has recently been hijacked—no, too strong of a word, let’s go with “borrowed”—in conversations across so many different areas of expertise.

Phys.org, among many others, recently published an article about the “grammar” of DNA. Atlas Obscura recently published a piece on “Food Grammar, the unspoken rules of Everyday Cuisine.” As much as the concept of “grammar” might sound either boring or remind us of ferocious red ink marks all over past tests and essays from school years, it’s something we need. It’s something we crave. Structure, methodology, knowing the rules of the game so we can all play it well together.

And, as click bait for you, just take a moment with this line from the mentioned Atlas Oscura article: “Technically, spaghetti and meatballs is bad grammar.” All of these links, of course, are in my show notes.

Two other quick language news stories to mention:

First, let’s go with a story that made me do a double-take. In trying to understand language processing and how our brains function, Yuchen Liang, a Ph.D. student in Computer Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, along with his colleagues and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, have created a simulated fruit fly brain, which has learned to perform natural language processing tasks. This is not a stand-alone device. They literally hacked a fruit fly’s brain. To quote from the article, “It matches the performance of artificial learning networks while using far fewer computational resources.” Yep, the brain is a magnificent thing. The human brain. The fruit fly brain. My brain is slightly blown by this research, and, again, to quote the article, “the first time a naturally occurring network has been commandeered in this way.”

You can read more via Discover Magazine, the link, of course, in my show notes.

And lastly, returning to the idea of the imperative nature of correct grammar, a case was just decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because of the usage of the phrase “a plurality of” followed by a series held together with the word “and” versus the word “or.” So to be clear, we’re talking about the difference between “the plurality of A, B, and C” versus “a plurality of A, B, or C.” Also in this debate, the changing of meaning with the inclusion of the article “the.” I won’t go into all of the details of this case, SIMO Holdings, Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited.  Follow the links for more details, where the findings refer specifically to how the “plurality of each recited component was at odds with the claim language based on the application of grammatical rules.”

Words matter, folks—spoken, written, or however you’re communicating.

English Language History & Trivia

And we’re not going into legal communications today, but we will go into the formality of our language use. Specifically, let’s talk contractions. If you’re writing a legal brief, as one example, those teachers you had in middle school were absolutely right. That’s not the time or place for contractions; however, are contractions something you should always avoid? What about business emails? What about dialogue in your fiction? What about the antiquated ones like ‘tis and ‘twas or regionalisms like y’all and you-uns? What does Shakespeare have to say about all of this?

William Shakespeare loved contractions. Just looking at contractions including the word “it” alone, we have “’tis, ’twas, ’twill, ‘twould. “ Sure, their modern counterparts would be “It’s” “It’ll” and the less popular but still used “It’d.” But many of his contractions are ones we still commonly use, for example those linked with forms of the verb “to be,” like “she’ll,” “we’ll,” “there’s,” “he’s,” and “I’m.”

But while we often speak of Shakespeare when we’re talking about the roots of our present-day English language, we need to go much, much further back, all the way to the days of Old English, before English was even written in Latin letters. Because remember, Old English was originally written in the runic alphabet.

Now, if you’re reading along in the transcript of this episode, please forgive that I’m not writing any Old English in the runic alphabet, because I’ll be clear, I don’t know it. I’m guessing you don’t either, though, so I’m hoping we’ll all be okay with the modern-alphabet versions of these words. Don’t you love disclaimers?

Anyway, even Old English gives us contractions. “’Nis,” for example, is the contraction of “ne is” or “is not” or “isn’t” to a modern English speaker. The Old English word “n’olde” came from “ne wolde,” meaning “would not” or “wouldn’t.” And oh yeah, that “l” is in this form of the word “would” even then.

Middle English has plenty of contractions too. Just looking at Canterbury Tales, a go-to for Middle English usage, we have “n’oot,” a contraction of ne woot, meaning “knows not,” and “n’ere,” a contraction coming from ne were, meaning “were not” or “weren’t.” There’s some contraction gems in there too like “th’ilke,” from “the ilke,” meaning “the same,” and … wait for it … “sit’” from “sitteth,” as in to put one’s backside down, yes, the same definition of sit as today.

So long story short, please don’t be tricked by the common misunderstanding that contractions are simply signs of contemporary language laziness. Are they appropriate in all situations? Perhaps not. If you’re writing for an academic audience or a cover letter to be attached to your resume for a job application, these may be instances of slipping the tightened form. But this is equally true for other reduced forms, like clipped word forms, “pro” for “professional,” for example.

And a note for the historical fiction writers out there: please don’t try to sound “old-fashioned” by dropping all of your contractions and writing your dialogue more formally. It often comes off as more stilted than authentic. And it’s not historically accurate.

Fun fact: “Ain’t” was actually considered fine English until the Victorian period, so the 1800s. This is when a lot of the contractions started to seem “lesser,” “lower class,” or “less educated.” Oh, Victorians. Come on, y’all.

And speaking of y’all, which originated in the American South in the 1800s and moved out west, we can also look at other tightenings like “you-uns” or “yins,” not quite contractions with apostrophes involved, but on the same wavelength, came to be in the early 1800s in what’s sometimes called “the American Old Northwest,” as in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Some contractions might require a moment more of pause in their written use, like “she’d’ve,” for “she would have,” something one might not even notice when spoken but that looks a bit complicated on paper, “S-H-E” apostrophe “D” apostrophe “V-E.”

Let’s wrap this up with an Elizabethan contraction I argue we should bring back: “with’t,” as in “with it.” If you wanted to be really with it—or should we say “with’t”—you should know when and how you can use your contractions. Yep “with’t,” that’s “W-I-T-H” apostrophe “T.” Was that Shakespearean slang? Let’s be clear. It wasn’t. But maybe we can bring it back with a new twist? Feeling with’t?

Okay, maybe not. But we do live in a fast-paced world. Does our using of contractions speed up our communications even more? Who knows? But it’s good to know the legacy of our language.

Language Challenge

Do you want to use contractions in your communications? Are you wont to do so? Are these two words in these two sentences spelled the same?

Let me repeat that:

Do you want to use contractions in your communications? Are you wont to do so?

Are they spelled the same? Or are they different.

The answers, as always, can be found on my website.

Personal Update:

I don’t know what it is about this moment, whether it’s the fact that it’s cold and bleak wintertime, whether it’s the fact that the pandemic is still hitting hard, or whether it’s just a coincidence, but I’ve had the joy of past fiction editing clients reaching out to me, en mass, in the past week or so. The creative drive is there. Stories are inside of us. And it’s time to get them right and send them on their way out into the world, whatever that route happens to be for any given writer—traditional publication with literary agents pitching top publishers; indie publishing with grit, savvy, and tenacity; or anything and everything in between.

Now the editorial relationship, at least for me, always feels like a deeply personal one. I have the opportunity to explore the ideas hidden in the wrinkles of my client’s brains and to help their projects evolve into the projects we both know they can be. But something about the past week or two. What is it? The 2021 groundhog prediction claims we’re in for a longer winter—thanks for that Punxsutawney Phil—but the spark of creativity endures. It’s heating up. It’s on fire in so many of us.

Let’s all keep going, whatever that spark may hold for you.

Ne’er a day may pass that I’m not inspired by the storytellers. ‘Tis true. Am I going to far? Or just too far back in time? What’s your take on contractions in your own writing? Or what’s your own mid-winter creative spark? Get in touch. I’d love to hear all about it

Sign up for my English language tips and trivia email newsletter for more articles and podcasts like this.

If you like what you’ve been hearing, don’t forget to subscribe to this podcast (via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Android, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, or RSS) so you’ll never miss out on another word you should know. Many thanks to those of you who have taken the time to rate my show wherever you listen.

Words. Language. Communications. We’ve got this.

The post #36 – Are You With’t? Contractions & the Latest in Words You Should Know appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 418: “Conscious” vs. “Conscience” (& “Conscientious”)

If all of this has you thinking about nirvana, I have an entirely different question for you about the word “nevermind” (or is it “never mind”)? A special shout-out to those who see the connection!

We should perhaps be conscious of listening to our conscience. There’s mindfulness, integrity, and so much more as a part of this conversation, right?

What’s always fascinated me, though, is that a “conscience” is not necessarily the most science-focused of ideas. It’s not quite research-based, and the idea of “con-science” sounds a bit like “fake truth,” so that’s definitely not helpful either.

So many questions:

How can you tell “conscious” vs. “conscience” apart?How is “conscience” related to “science”?And how is “conscientious” related to these terms?

Here are your answers:

“Conscious” is an adjective, meaning to be awake and aware.“Conscience” is a noun, meaning a sense of understanding about right and wrong, or awake in a moral sense.

These two words trace back to the Latin word conscius, which in itself comes from from com, meaning “together,” and scire, meaning to know. The difference is simply a matter of knowing right versus wrong or knowing the physical world around you. Or if you’d like to think of it in another way, it’s a matter of a noun (conscience) versus an adjective (conscious).

One can have a conscience (noun). One can be conscious (adjective).

Are these words tricky to spell? Absolutely. But if you remember that “science,” a noun, is hiding inside of the noun “conscience,” it might help. It also might help to remember that science is all about asking questions. A “conscience” keeps you asking questions too, only a matter of morality questions rather than traditionally “scientific” ones.

“Conscientious” is just here to keep you on your grammatical toes—or perhaps the English language doesn’t have intent, but approaching it in this fashion sometimes makes the challenge more of an adventurous quest, doesn’t it?

“Conscientious” means to be careful and/or thoughtful, particularly in regard to matters of right and wrong.

Yes, it has the same Latin root as well, though it appeared in rough 1603, while “conscious” entered English a few years earlier around 1600, and “conscience” entered the English language way back in the 1200s.

Are you conscientious about listening to your conscience? Are you now conscious about the difference between these three words?

Here’s hoping so. Good luck, everyone!

Sign up for my monthly writing and editing tips and trivia email newsletter for more  like this.

The post Writing Tip 418: “Conscious” vs. “Conscience” (& “Conscientious”) appeared first on Kris Spisak.

#35 – AI Innovation, Unprecedented Presidents & the Latest in Words You Should Know

A few stolen minutes out of your day to talk words and communication, because our daily lives are surrounded by the evolution and influence of words. Forget the grammar police. There is so much more to this conversation.

Episode #35 – AI Innovation, Unprecedented Presidents & the Latest in Words You Should Know

Approximate transcript:

Welcome to Episode 35.

The Latest in Word, Language & Writing News

If language AI models like GPT-3 are becoming advanced enough to understand both the grammar and intent of sentences, or you could say how the working parts correctly fit together and what is being communicated, what if you took this kind of language processing tool and applied it to the challenge of virus mutations? You need to understand the building blocks of what’s there and how they relate to reach other, as well as how they communicate with, say, human cells?

This was the idea of Brian Hie, of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Even this idea in itself fascinates me, cutting-edge technology meeting the study of language itself, but the fact that it’s being put into action and actually producing results is awesome. And when I say “awesome,” I don’t just mean, “cool,” though that’s true too. I mean something that I’m in awe over, something bordering on miraculous, no?

This AI language processing technology has been brought to HIV research, influenza research, and yes Covid-19 mutation research. An artificial intelligence tool built for natural language processing put to use for medical breakthroughs in this especially difficult time. This is problem solving on an entirely different plane.

And in a related text meets technology story, natural language processing AI algorithms are also being used to detect trends with and to diagnose childhood asthma. More depth on this science and how it relates to language understanding can be found in my show notes on my website.

But, of course artificially intelligent language tools are advancing in themselves, not just in medical fields. If you’re interested in what GPT-3 can do, go back to the “Words You Should Know” podcast, episode 29, where I discussed recent developments with this tool as of September 2020.

There’s so much more to cover, from inherent biases in the written word data these programs are built upon to ethics questions and beyond, but I’ll stop here for today. More on this topic will be coming soon, though so stay tuned!

As our final news story of this episode, let’s turn to a language debate initiated by newly inaugurated President Joe Biden. Specifically, Biden proposed that the word “alien” be changed to the word “noncitizen” in U.S. immigration policy documents and laws, because of the inherent negativity, dehumanization, and “otherness” of the word “alien.” Legit point worth pursuing? Not worth the government’s time and energy? The heat is rising on this language debate. What do you think?

With that question lingering on your mind, we’ll turn to the focus of today’s episode, the meaning and history of the word “presidency” itself.

English Language History & Trivia

We live in unprecedented times, but that doesn’t mean that our spelling has to be unprecedented, even if we’re talking about someone being unpresidented—wait, strike that. “Unpresidented” isn’t actually a word, just kidding.

You know that:

“Precedent” means something done or said, or even a person or thing, that serves as a model of how things should be. For example, an action can set a precedent for future actions to come.“President” means an appointed or elected leader.“Unprecedented” means having no precedent, something that’s never happened or been seen before.“Unpresidented,” as noted, is not a word.

The etymologies of these words, “precedent” and “president” aren’t related.

“Precedent” is related to “precede.” Both of these two words come from the Latin combination prae, meaning “before,” and cedere, meaning “to go.” Thus, it’s clear how “precede” means “to go before” and how  “precedent” gained its meaning of the accepted standard because of what’s come before.

“President” comes from a different direction, though—one that is more closely linked with “preside.” These words again share the Latin prefix prae, meaning “before,” but this root is joined with the Latin sedeō, meaning “to sit.” Thus, the Latin word praesident is quite similar to our English word “president,” one who sits before.

Do I know how to correctly pronounce Latin? I do not. But I’m trying, and if you’re a Latin scholar listening, I welcome tips on how I can do better.

But you aren’t listening for just definitions and etymology. Here’s the fascinating history. Interestingly, when the Founding Fathers of the United States were trying to decide what to call their leader, the discussion didn’t begin with simply “the president.” The term existed, but it was more akin to “foreman” or “chairman,” nothing as formal or as significant as the leader of a country. And they were used to a king referred to as “your majesty.” The colonial governors were referred to as “your excellency.”

But even when “president” was decided, calling upon this etymology of one who “sits before” the people, there was the matter of what to call George Washington when he stepped into his new role.

The Senate agreed upon the title, “His Highness, President of the United States and Protector of Their Liberties.” But the House wanted nothing more than “The president of the United States,” arguing anything greater would be recreating a new monarchy with a leader who was set to be worshipped.

According to Kathleen Bartoloni-Tuazon, author of the book For Fear of an Elective King, this was the first Constitutional debate in the history of Congress. Ultimately, the House won the argument, arguing that the presidency should come from a place of modesty and equality with the people. Thus, “the president of the United States,” with no more grandiose title than this, still stands today.

Isn’t history fascinating?

Of course, today, many countries have “presidents” as their leaders, but much of this title’s tradition goes back to the debate and decisions about what this word really meant in early America.

The president. One who sits before. Etymology has some weight to it sometimes, doesn’t it?

Language Challenge

Turning to today’s language challenge, let’s make this a simple yes or no question this time. As I record this episode, a new president has just come into office in the United States.

Think of the words, “succession” and “success.” Are they etymologically related? Do they share the same root? How about the word “secede” and “secession”?

The answers, as always, can be found on my website.

Personal Update:

Concerning my personal update: you’ve heard me talk about my virtual story stop tour events with indie bookstore and local literary community partners, because storytelling, sharing, and recording or own truths leads to empathy, greater understanding of ourselves and each other. Indie bookstores remain at the core of my story stop model–such as Story Stop: Savannah, Georgia, coming up this week (January 28, 2021) in partnership with E Shaver Books, and a virtual story stop style workshop with Changing Hands Bookstore in Arizona, coming up in mid-February (details and registration for both of these on my website); however, it is just beginning to expand. Live social media events are now a part of this tour, such as one scheduled with the founders of the Bookish Road Trip Facebook group on February 11th, but my Story Stops will also be coming soon to historical societies, community groups, and beyond.

Conversations about the power of sharing our words, ideas, and stories? This is one little way we’re changing the world.

What’s your story? Will it be written with the help of AI, whether speech to text software or something else? Will it be about encounters or ideas about presidents, or your own leadership history?

Only time will tell. Predictive text can do a lot, but where you and your words go next is up to you.

Sign up for my English language tips and trivia email newsletter for more articles and podcasts like this.

If you like what you’ve been hearing, don’t forget to subscribe to this podcast (via Apple Podcasts, Android, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, or RSS) so you’ll never miss out on another word you should know. Many thanks to those of you who have taken the time to rate my show wherever you listen.

Words. Language. Communications. We’ve got this.

The post #35 – AI Innovation, Unprecedented Presidents & the Latest in Words You Should Know appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 417: “Want” vs. “Wont”

Are you wont to want to make wishes?

You can want for nothing or be found wanting; you can endure on your quest to understand the English language, as I might be wont to do, or just throw up your hands, as might be your wont. No matter the case, won’t you join me in this discussion of “want” vs. “wont” so we can finally all get this one right?

Hint: “wont” is not a typo.

Here’s what you need to know:

“Want” is most commonly a verb, meaning “to have or feel a need,” or “to desire,” but it can also be a noun, as in “something that is needed or desired.”“Wont” can be a verb, a noun, or an adjective. (You know, just the English language keeping things simple.) As a verb, it can mean “being in the habit of doing something.” As a noun, it can mean “that habitual way of doing things,” and as an adjective, it can mean “inclined” or “apt.”“Won’t” is a contraction of “will not.”

“Wont” is an incredibly old English word, having been in use since before the 12th century. How long before is unclear, but no matter the answer, you can rest assured it’s been around for a long time. Its Old English form is wunian, which is realted to the Old High German word wonēn, meaning both “to dwell” and “to be used to.” These seem to trace back to the Sanskrit word vanoti, meaning “to strive.” (Interestingly, “to win” also goes back to this same Sanskrit word.)

“Want” entered English in the 13th century, so even with centuries of use behind it, it’s the younger word. “Want” came from the Old Norse word, vanta, meaning “to lack.”

And if you’ve ever been curious, contractions like “won’t” have been around for hundreds of years. They aren’t just modern sloppy words. All audiences might not approve of them or call them appropriate (hello, academia!), but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a history. “Won’t,” specifically, has been in use in writing since the 1560s.

Meanwhile, is anyone else excited to talk about Sanskrit and Old Norse? Not that I don’t love Latin etymology stories, but these seem much more common in our conversations. You could say we’re much more wont to talk about Latin roots than Sanskrit, but that’s hardly the end of the English language conversation!

Are there any other language questions you want answered? Don’t hesitate to let me know.

Sign up for my monthly writing and editing email newsletter for more tips like this.

The post Writing Tip 417: “Want” vs. “Wont” appeared first on Kris Spisak.

#34 – The Origin of Those -Isms & the Latest in Words You Should Know

A few stolen minutes out of your day to talk words and communication, because our daily lives are surrounded by the evolution and influence of words. Forget the grammar police. There is so much more to this conversation.

Episode #34 – The Origin of Those -Isms & the Latest in Words You Should Know

Approximate transcript:

Welcome to Episode 34.

The Latest in Word, Language & Writing News

Before we get to all those “-isms” that fill our brains and fill the headlines (e.g., Patriotism, Heroism, Feminism, Consumerism, Textisms, Egalitarianism, Meliorism)—I’m just talking about language here, folks, including the fascinating history of this ‘ism suffix—let’s talk the latest in words, language, and writing news.

Here’s your update.

When I first saw this article, I smiled. Now that we’re a couple weeks into 2021, I’m wondering if I actually agree…

Fast Company recently published an article arguing that the interrobang should be revived in 2021. Of course, if you can’t imagine what an interrobang is, imagine a question mark (?) and an exclamation point (!) on top of one another. It’s a little-known punctuation mark that represents excited disbelief. What‽ Seriously‽

It was invented by New York ad executive Martin Speckter of Type Talks Magazine in 1962, when he decided there should be a mark to replace the pairing of multiple question marks and exclamation points side by side used to effect a certain tone (???!!!). The interrobang did go as far as being included in some typewriters, but its moment seemed to have faded away. Until this year‽ Seriously‽ Well, it does strike a certain frantic incredulity, which might be fitting. I’ll hold it still under consideration, though.

In other news, neuroscientists have recently published findings sharing that people’s words alone can actually shape the makeup of your brain and influence physical reactions in your body. Words have power. We know this.

To quote Lisa Feldman Barrett PhD on TED.com, “Ultimately, your family, friends, neighbors and even strangers contribute to your brain’s structure and function and help your brain keep your body humming along.”

Yes, we know an internal reaction is provoked if I ask you the question, “Did you unplug that iron?” Or if you receive the spoken, hand-written, even texted message “I love you,” your body will react. But your actual brain structure? Fascinating. The details to the full research are in my show notes.

And I’ll close out my news with a question. CBS news says that Joe Biden’s dog, Major, is having his own “indoguration.” Not “inauguration.” “Indoguration.” Playful banter? Too far? Discuss amongst yourselves. You’ve got to find the humor these days, right?

English Language History & Trivia

There are so many debates going on in the world today, between friends, neighbors, politicians… oh, this is where heat rises and emotions churn—what it’s all doing to our brain structures, I don’t know, but I’m curious. But get ready for lightbulbs to flick on in your minds. Well, at least in terms of how the English language deals with big belief systems.

Let’s talk Isms, the origins of the “-ism” suffix, and how it’s popped up in fascinating ways throughout history.

In the beginning, of course, the I-S-M ending that is added onto words came from the Greek suffix -ισμός (-ismos), which was added to the end of words to create abstract nouns of action, state, condition, or doctrine.

I’m sure if you try, you can think of a lot of Isms: Calvanism. Buddhism. Agism. Sexism. Autism. Baptism.

They’re everywhere.

Now, the first known -isms were used in English in about 1680, and big ones soon jumped into our vocabularies. Thank you, Enlightenment-era philosophers.

However, did you know that in the mid 1800s, a political movement in the American South built an entire platform on being anti-Ism? No, I’m not leaving out any part of that word, actual phrasings just referred to these “isms” as if this was a stand-alone word, synonymous with radical lofty beliefs.

On September 5th and 9th, 1856, a newspaper, specifically Richmond, Virginia’s Examiner, ran editorials on “Our Enemies, the Isms and their Purposes.” Now this writer or these writers were responding to big ideas in the spotlight in the day, like slavery abolitionism, pacifism, transcendentalism, spiritualism, and new in about 1848ish, feminism. There’s a fascinating and honestly disturbing political cartoon published in 1956 that you can find in my show notes that speaks to this fear of Northern Isms in relation to the presidential campaign of Republican nominee Freemont, who was running against Democrat James Buchanan and Know Nothing nominee Millard Fillmore. Perhaps it was partially that campaign against radical Republican “isms” that allowed for Democrat James Buchanan’s victory.

There’ so much historical context to add in here. Yes, Republican and Democratic parties have had dramatically different leanings over the years, and yes, “the Know Nothing party” was a real political party. They were formally known as the Native American party, though “Native American” at this time meant descendants of colonists and early settlers rather than indigenous Americans as we would define “Native Americans” today. They were a nativist party, which began as a secret society and later had chapters in nearly every major city in the country. And yes, this Know Nothing Party nominee in 1956 was Millard Fillmore, who had already been president of the United States, elevated from his position of Vice President in 1850, when President Zachary Taylor died of Cholera. But the Whig party he had claimed as his own had dissolved, so the Know Nothing Party it was!

The “Know Nothing” nickname came to be because members of this party were to respond that they “knew nothing” if asked about their nativist organizations. There’s so much more, from xenophobia over the waves of Irish and German immigrants entering the county during this time to conspiracy theories and beyond. Truly, fascinating. Thought provoking. Especially these days. I have extra articles from the Smithsonian and Britannica in my show notes for those interested, but back to those ‘Isms…

But perhaps we should wrap up this conversation about -isms with George Eliot. Not only was she a highly respected author, even if she was writing under a male name, she also coined the term “meliorism,” or the belief that the world’s suffering is healable if we could all work together, sometimes defined as the belief the world tends to become better over time. Meliorism is in that space between optimism and pessimism, with a degree more hope than what a “realist” might claim.

That’s an -ism I can absolutely get behind.

Language Challenge

Today, let’s go with two quick follow-ups to George Eliot’s ideas. Spelling bee time: do you know how to spell the word “camaraderie”?

Think on it for a moment. It begins with the letter C, but what comes next? Can you do it?

If you can, I’ll say marvelous, but oh no! How do you spell that word? Marvelous. Marvelous. Is there one L in marvelous? Or two? Hmm…

The answers, as always, can be found on my website.

Personal Update:

For my personal update, happy New Year to those of you who are listening as this new episode is released! I’m recording this on January 12, 2020.

2020, as I’ve noted, was a big year for me in terms of my own books. Get a Grip on Your Grammar, which had first been published by Career Press in 2017 in paperback, was released in hardback in 2020, and it was also published in India with a partnership with Harper Collins India. My two workbooks also released in 2020, The Novel Editing Workbook and The Family Story Workbook, both projects that I have been overjoyed to see take off. I do have another book or two that I plan to start pitching in 2021, but for now, my focus is the continuation of my virtual book tour for The Family Story Workbook.

These times are so strange, so challenging, yet so revolutionary. Because of live-video event possibilities, I’ve teamed up with writing organizations and indie bookstores to have events across the U.S. (from my own home-base, of course). But Richmond, Virginia, Austin, Texas, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Savanna, Phoenix… I can’t wait to see where else this all goes. I love connecting with readers and writers and leading writing and editing workshops, so this virtual tour isn’t something I’m planning on stopping anytime soon. Stay tuned for the launch of StoryStopTour.com. Soon. Not Yet. Maybe for those listening at a later date, it’s already there. Ooh, the magic of audio recording.

Are these words affecting your brain waves? Because you know that your words can take you absolutely anywhere too? Well, maybe not physically in this COVID-19 era, but when it comes to ideas, absolutely.

There are so many -Isms worth exploring, right? Maybe you’ll invent your own -ism too. What’s your philosophy, of the moment, of the year, of your life’s mission? I can’t wait to hear what you come up with.

Sign up for my English language tips and trivia email newsletter for more articles and podcasts like this.

If you like what you’ve been hearing, don’t forget to subscribe to this podcast (via Apple Podcasts, Android, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, or RSS) so you’ll never miss out on another word you should know. Many thanks to those of you who have taken the time to rate my show wherever you listen.

Words. Language. Communications. We’ve got this.

The post #34 – The Origin of Those -Isms & the Latest in Words You Should Know appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 416: “Forbid” vs. “Forebode” (& “Verboten”)

Even if entering this house is forbidden, a brave kid on a mission might dare to defy the rules (Story prompt? Go for it.) But if it’s verboten, that kid might not dare. They might have an adventure getting to the source of why it’s verboten without actually going in. (Ooh, there’s another story prompt for you!)

If something is foreboding, there’s something a bit ominous about it. Maybe that foreboding place is also forbidden. Maybe it’s verboten. That word raises the stakes a bit, doesn’t it? Do you know the difference?

First things first, yes, these are all English words, though if you want to argue “verboten” is German, you would also be correct. Like “angst” and “doppelganger,” “verboten” is a borrowed word; however, it has been in English dictionaries for over one hundred years. The English language is indeed full of borrowed words normalized over time. That’s one way it’s troublesome fascinating, right?

But back to today’s discussion…

Here’s your reminder on “Forbid” vs. “Forebode” (& “Verboten”):

To “Forbid” means to declare something is not allowed or to prohibit it. If something is “forbidden,” it is prohibited.
To “Forebode” means to give an impression or clue of a future negative event or to portend something ominous (as “portending” usually is negative, of course). If something is “foreboding,” it evokes this negative feeling or apprehension. Note, some dictionaries accept the spelling of “forbode” and “forboding,” but these are not the standard spellings.
“Verboten” is a close synonym of “forbid,” (hello, German equivalent that entered the English lexicon in the 1910s), but it’s often considered a more formidable word, as if it carries more authority or severity. Note, it has nothing to do with the word “verb,” which comes from a different etymological direction, specifically French and originally Latin.

What is the past tense of “Forbid”?

Forbade

What is the past tense of “Forebode”?

Foreboded

What is the past tense of “Verboten”?

Um… adjectives don’t have past tenses. But you knew that, of course.

Both “forbid” and “Forebode” do have adjective forms of their own, though, “forbidding” and “foreboding” respectively.

We’ve discussed the German root of “verboten,” but “forebode” specifically comes from the Old English word fore, meaning “before” combined with boda, an Old English word for “herald” or “messenger.” The Old English equivalent, forebodung, meant “prophecy.” Cool, huh?

In the end of all of this, of course, the English language should never be foreboding. Cheers to you and your ongoing pursuit of its mastery, whether it’s already your native language or otherwise.

Happy writing, folks.

Sign up for my monthly writing and editing email newsletter for more tips like this.

The post Writing Tip 416: “Forbid” vs. “Forebode” (& “Verboten”) appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 415: “Marvelous” vs. ”Marvellous”

What do you think about when you hear the word “Marvelous”/”Marvellous”?

I don’t know about you, but I’m trying to think positive thoughts these days, positive thoughts like peace, unity, health, and the pursuit of happiness. And today, all this leads me to a very important question:

What is the correct spelling of “marvelous”/”marvellous”?

Well, it depends on who you ask.

“Marvelous” is the standard spelling in the United States.
“Marvellous” is the standard spelling in the United Kingdom.

Looking at global English usage in texts up through 2019, it’s a fascinating–dare I say “marvelous”–debate that has been going on for quite a while. Teaser: after about 110 years, “marvellous” has recently taken back the lead. Yes, you read that spelling correctly.

But this isn’t the end of this “marvelous” vs. “marvellous” conversation, because some other rather lovely, optimistic words are closely connected here too. You likely already understand the underlying relationship between “marvelous” and “marvel” (concerning superheroes and beyond), but did you know that “admire” and possibly even “smile” are etymological cousins of “marvelous”/”marvellous” too?

So much traces back to the Latin word mīrābilis, meaning “to cause wonder.” To become the “marvelous”/”marvellous” word we know today, this root jumped through French before moving into the Anglo French word merveille and later the Middle English word merveile, sometimes spelled mervayle. Only then did things become “marvelous” and by “things,” of course, I mean this modern English spelling. But, taking a different direction, mīrābilis with a prefix of  ad, meaning “toward,” is the root of “admire.” And while “smile” is a bit of a mystery (yes, its mysteries go back much further than the Mona Lisa), some researchers think that the Latin word mīrus, as in “remarkable or amazing,” is an early root. As noted in other discussions, “l”s and “r”s have been known to interchange themselves–right, “colonel” and “glamour”?

So here’s to thinking happy thoughts, marvelous thoughts even, because that’s where the magic begins, isn’t it? At least that’s what I’m arguing. Forget the grammar police. There is so much more to this language conversation.

Happy writing, folks.

Sign up for my monthly writing and editing email newsletter for more tips like this.

The post Writing Tip 415: “Marvelous” vs. ”Marvellous” appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 414: “Comradery” vs. “Camaraderie”

What the world needs now is love, sweet love. Yes, it does seem to be the thing that there’s just too little of, especially these days. Thank you for the reminder, Jackie DeShannon hit of 1965.

We don’t need to all hold hands and sing around a campfire, but a bit more comradery and/or camaraderie would be a good thing these days. Step one of this mission: figure out how to spell this word!

Hint: if you’re simply sounding it out, unfortunately, you’ll likely be wrong.

Remember:

The standard English spelling is “camaraderie,” (C-A-M-A-R-A-D-E-R-I-E).

But this isn’t the end of the story.

The standard spelling of “camaraderie” comes from French, so thinking of how to spell “comrade” won’t actually help–though it does enlighten us on the connection concerning the “comradery” spelling. There are two interlinked etymology stories in action here, folks.

“Camaraderie,” as noted, comes from French, specifically the word camaraderie and another earlier still camarade, meaning “a spirit of friendship and mutual trust” (just as in English) and “friend”/”companion,” respectively.

But the French word camarade is also the origin of the English word “comrade.” While “camaraderie” came to English in roughly 1840, “comrade” came to English in the 1540s. Following language patterns similar to “ancestor”/”ancestry” and “citizen”/”citizenry,” “comrade” began to take a new form with an “-ry” suffix starting in roughly 1862–logically influenced by “camaraderie” but using an older English word choice for the root. Thus, “comradery” was born, with the same meaning as the already existing “camaraderie.”

So, we do have a standard spelling, but the alternate form has been around for a long while. Some dictionaries have officially accepted it as an approved form of the word; however, many still note it as either a mistake or as a nonstandard spelling.

How about you? What is your preferred form? Does knowing the history and the official answer change how you respond?

Oh, words, even they have their own stories. And I love it.

Sign up for my monthly writing and editing email newsletter for more tips like this.

The post Writing Tip 414: “Comradery” vs. “Camaraderie” appeared first on Kris Spisak.

#33 – The Glamour of Grammar (Yes, Seriously!) & The Latest in Words You Should Know

A few stolen minutes out of your day to talk words and communication, because our daily lives are surrounded by the evolution and influence of words. Forget the grammar police. There is so much more to this conversation.

Episode #33 – The Glamour of Grammar (Yes, Seriously!) & The Latest in Words You Should Know

Approximate transcript:

Welcome to Episode 33.

The Latest in Word, Language & Writing News

Starting out, as always with the latest in word, language, and writing news, here’s your update, as of this recording in early December 2020.

The “Word of the Year” lists have started to come out, folks. Sure, some industries have the best financial quarter of the year; wildlife photographers have the best snapshot of the year; sports fans have their top play. The dictionaries have their top words—and 2020 has been a big one for words. No light choices like “w00t” here (that’s W-zero-zero-T, thank you, 2007).

Some of my favorites on this year’s lists include “unmute” a top 2020 word according to Oxford Dictionaries, so applicable, right? I know you’re with me. And while “Pandemic” won top word of the year over at Merriam Webster (yes, yes, logical, timely, and historic) my favorites are in the runners-up, like “kraken,” “icon,” and “malarkey.” (We’re just going to ignore the fact that Merriam Webster also officially added “irregardless” as a word in their dictionary this year and that this nonsensical mistake-turned-casual-usage was just given its own seal of approval. Oh, English language, you evolve in such strange ways. (I think this is where I’d add the shrug emoji if I were writing a text. Think fast: do you consider emojis forms of writing? So many questions, so little time…)

Rounding out the lists, the Collins Dictionary named “lockdown” as its word of the year, but again, my favorites are in the runners up: “Tik-Toker” and “mukbang” (am I saying that one right?). The latter is one of the few words borrowed from Korean and brought into the English language, and it means, of course, a video or webcast where someone eats a large quantity of food for the entertainment value. Right. We really don’t know what to do with you, 2020.

Interestingly, Collins also points out that new verbs formed this year. From “socially distant,” we now have “to socially distance,” and while “self-isolating” did already exist as a verb, this verb form has apparently overtaken “self-isolation,” the noun form, in popular usage.

It’s been a wild year, and I know you can think of so many better adjectives for this year than wild. Here is your fill-in-the-blank opportunity. What descriptor would you attach to it?

English Language History & Trivia

Since we’re talking year-end summaries, let’s wrap up this last podcast of 2020 on an English language history and trivia note that might both surprise you and warm your language-loving heart.

Let’s talk about the glamour of grammar—no not tossing pearls onto semicolons or diamonds onto Oxford commas. I’m talking about the words “glamour” and “grammar.” Did you realize that these two are etymological siblings?

Here’s what you need to know.

Both of these words, “glamour” and “grammar,” both seem to trace their ancestry to the classical Latin word, grammătĭc, which involved the methodical study of literature and languages, but as time and cultures evolved, this concept of grammătĭca came to be known not only as the study of Latin. By the Middle ages, it came to be known as learning in general. The masses didn’t have access to education. Latin grammar, as with all other things, wasn’t available to most of European society, so the word evolved into a bigger scope.

Because education in general was mysterious to many, with common ideas that studying subjects like science was akin to studying magic and the occult, the idea of grammar took another twist. In fact, an old French word related to grammar was used to describe the occult sciences of magic and astrology. An obsolete English noun, “gramarye,” means occult learning and necromancy as well as learning in general.

So yes, in the Middle Ages, “grammatica” meant “scholarship and learning,” but the idea of the occult in learning lingered.

But then where does “glamour” come in?

Well, mysteries of this pair do remain, but it seems commonly accepted that “glamour” is a Scottish twist on the word “grammar,” holding onto the idea of magic and allure and dropping over time the relation with education.

There’s a precedence of “l” and “r” swaps in the English language. For example an army “colonel” is pronounced like a “kernel” of corn, with an “r” but there is no “r” in “c-o-l-o-n-e-l” colonel.

Of course, some argue that “glamour” is a mixing of “glimmer” and “grammar,” but that’s a less popular theory among the etymological researcher set.

If you ask me, there’s a lot of glamour in grammar, no matter how they’re connected, but somewhere deep in my grammar-loving heart, I do love this connection so much.

Language Challenge

For today’s language challenge, let’s talk magic, or more specifically sleight of hand. Think fast, how do you spell that word “sleight” in this phrase?

And as a second question, let’s talk glamour. If something has a certain “cachet,” how do you spell that word?

Ooh, are these questions tricky today? The answers are in the show notes.

Personal Update:

2020 has been a year that has made us all stop and reflect on so many levels and for all of us to count our blessings.

As of this recording, my third book, The Family Story Workbook: 105 Prompts & Pointers for Writing Your History, has officially launched into the world, and my virtual book tour is well underway, with stops in Richmond, Virginia and Austin, Texas behind me, and stops from New York to Georgia to Arizona to Pennsylvania ahead, among others. And I should also share that my first book, Get a Grip on Your Grammar: 250 Writing and Editing Reminders for the Curious and Confused, is now being distributed in India via a partnership between my publisher, Career Press, and Harper Collins India.

I say this as an update on my work in this moment, but also as a moment to pause and reflect. We all use our words every day. We all have stories. We all have voices. Everything I do is centered on empowering writers’ words, whatever they may be. So as we’re wrapping up the year, take a moment to ponder what you’re working on and what you have to say. How are you going to do it? I can honestly say I cannot wait to find out.

Tweet at me on Twitter, @KrisSpisak, or send me an email. I am cheering you on every step of the way.

Sign up for my English language tips and trivia email newsletter for more articles and podcasts like this.

If you like what you’ve been hearing, don’t forget to subscribe to this podcast (via Apple Podcasts, Android, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, or RSS) so you’ll never miss out on another word you should know. Many thanks to those of you who have taken the time to rate my show wherever you listen.

Words. Language. Communications. We’ve got this.

The post #33 – The Glamour of Grammar (Yes, Seriously!) & The Latest in Words You Should Know appeared first on Kris Spisak.