The Film Noir Experience » Language

States vs. Actions

Kate — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:45:08 +0000

So, one of this month’s resolutions (in my year of resolutions) was to continue playing Health Month. I updated my rules so that this month I’m keeping a food journal, drinking 62 glasses of water a week and eating greens every day. I like the format of the site and following my rules I’ve noticed some interesting things about food and myself that are probably completely obvious to everyone else. I feel less tired when I’ve had enough water. Eating too many carbohydrates makes me sleepy. It has been a nice little run and I think one of March’s resolutions is going to be to keep playing and to expand out from only 3 rules.

I think the most interesting thing about the whole health month experience, though, isn’t playing the game and following the rules but a small rhetorical thing that seems to be true. We talk about “being healthy” like its a state. I can say, “My goal is to be healthy” and there is this sense that what I mean is I want to have (and maintain) this thing called “healthy”. But, I think this is the wrong way to look at it. I think treating it this way, as if it is a place I can go or something I can have misses the point. Healthiness is a series of actions that are meant to maintain a certain state. In effect, you have to “do healthy” in order to “be healthy”. And, while this to might be completely obvious, I find it a little game-changing. The thought that health isn’t an endpoint but a process that must consistently be engaged in is both empowering and comforting.

Notorious!

Kate — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:12:17 +0000

So, In the class that I teach last week, we were learning about semantics and how senses of a word can change. We had the word, ‘notorious’ as an example. Now, the OED tells us that ‘notorious’ means, “a. Of a fact: well known” and the first cited usage with this meaning is around 1495. Later, this word came to mean ” b. Of a reprehensible action, fact, etc.” And, like with all the examples I put up, I try to make a discussion out of it, if possible. (I’ve been using the “think, pair, share” technique. It would seem those education seminars I’ve been attending have been worthwhile.) The exercise is pretty basic, I’m going to pick one of you to answer how it has changed and why you think your answer is correct, so convince your neighbor.

It turns out with this word that the later definition may be becoming dispreferred. I use notorious to mean, “of a reprehensible action, fact, etc.” but a few of my students stated that they only ever used, “of a fact, well know.” So, the negative connotations that this word has picked up over time may be dropping off. And, I wonder if this has anything to do with this word’s usage in association with famous rappers (most notably the Notorious B.I.G. but it has also been used by Lil Kim and probably others.)

There is a drawback to having these discussions with my students, though. Since this came up in class (and I’ve been meaning to post this since last Thursday), whenever I think of this or share it with someone knew, I end up with the Duran Duran song stuck in my head.

Verner’s Law!

Kate — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:00:15 +0000

In the class I am teaching, we have been talking about Grimm’s and Verner’s laws (or the first sound shift, if you will.) I was looking for some more examples to show my students and I found this:

Amazing!

Victory!

Kate — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:17:27 +0000

So, I feel like I had a little victory yesterday. I was walking from one part of campus to another with new of the students in the class I’m teaching on the history of English and we were chatting. In the first class we talked bout the history of three different words in English that are synonymous (or at least partially so): ersatz, faux and fake. We looked at the earliest cited usage and some collocates and their roots. They both said that they had never seen ersatz before I wrote it up on the board in class.

And, then one of them said that she was reading a book for fun and came across it. She was pleased that she knew what it meant. And, I am pleased that I’m a nerd who likes words and that I was able to share it with her. It is a little thing, I know, but sometimes little things make you smile.

Oh, sweetie, not that kind of love.

Kate — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:31:25 +0000

So, I’m teaching a class on the Roots of English. Today, we looked at the morphology of English. One of the books I’m using is English Vocabulary Elements. And, at some point in the book it mentions that the morpheme “phile” in “bibliophile” and “pedophile” both mean “love”. They come from the same place. But, the words take that meaning in different directions. People who are bibliophiles really enjoy books. They love them. People who are pedophiles…well, they really enjoy children; they love them. *shiver*. They just love them in a way that is illegal and, in my humble opinion, wrong (and more than a little gross.)

And, this made me think. “phil” is a root we get from Greek, and I thought it meant a “brotherly sort of love”. The kind of love that is romantic is “eros”, where we get our word for “erotic”. So, shouldn’t “pedophile” be “pedoerotic” or “eroped” or something like that?

Elements of vocabulary…English Vocabulary.