The English language is fluid, yes, so sometimes we see words get altered, tweaked or otherwise morphed in how we use them. For example, there was a time when you might be corrected if you used "media" as a singular thing. Many of us had doubts about the rigidity of that rule.
"The media is off-base" should be "the media are off-base" according to long-time standards. Many of us sensed, though, that in many cases "media" just didn't sound right as a plural thing. People comment on "the media" like it's a monolithic thing, let's say a thing that behaves as a singular organism or something we can generalize about.
So let's throw off the shackles. Let's forget about what formal teachers of English might say. Such people get paid to enforce rules. Some get carried away enforcing myriad rules, so if you really want to nit-pick, there is a way to attack anyone's writing.
A super example of this came forth on the national stage recently. A Fox News prime-time host who obviously has incentive to attack anyone of a progressive or Democratic bent, assessed Dr. Jill Biden's graduate school writing.
Through the lens of a quintessential nit-picker, Tucker Carlson came to the conclusion that the First Lady was "borderline illiterate." If you do not consume cable TV news - your mental health probably benefits if you don't - you'd have a hard time believing this commentary was shared to a national audience.
Couldn't Carlson at least show some chivalry? The First Lady isn't his enemy, Joe Biden is. Can't the conservative folks at Fox News at least be kind to a "lady?" They would like the term "lady," right? With the deference it suggests? Although I would view the deference as condescension.
Society has sort of backed off from the assertive "women's lib" that once floated around. What do I mean by this? As a long-time scribe in local media, I became aware that brickbats would come your way if you referred to a sports team as "Lady Cougars" or "Lady Tigers." Quite intense brickbats, I might say.
While this construction has fallen out of favor, the occasional lapse does not invite the kind of pushback that it once did. I think it's largely innocent now. Important note: I actually don't think I ever did it, but I was aware of cases where it happened and the warning lights that flashed.
I remember when national news guy Sam Donaldson got serious pushback for referring to a park ranger as a "rangerette." I confess I have to make a face on that one.
"Lady Tigers" and "rangerette" are terms from the development of our accepted U.S. language, derided to where their use is so limited we don't bother condemning those who cross the line any more.
You say potato. . .
All these thoughts are prompted by still another example of our language's fluidity. I came to focus on the subject today by the term "mainline." This word has evolved from its long-time meaning. The long-time meaning is tied strictly to drug use. In getting taught the dangers of drug use in high school, we learned of the dangerous "heroin" with its "mainlining" practice.
Why did a whole generation of American youth develop an aversion to fried eggs? This is amazing: it was because of the "this is your brain on drugs" PSA. The PSA showed eggs frying in a pan!
From the very start, I saw "mainline" in its allegedly misused form as being in place of "mainstream." It was the latter term that I thought should have been used all along. I don't see why it could not have been. But esteemed publications like our Star Tribune of Minnesota have gone the "mainline" route.
This I noticed most markedly with the Strib's articles about the decline of organized religion in Minnesota. It repeatedly referred to "mainline" churches. Ugh, why not "mainstream?"
Is this just laziness, not bothering to ferret out the most precise term? There is nothing awkward about using "mainstream," so it is not a matter of convenience. Our instincts would not point toward "mainline" in the way they would suggest "media" as a singular entity.
But "mainline" it is, I guess, based on repeated usage, just like we say "could care less" so often instead of the precise "couldn't care less." The "could" form gets heard so often, over time it gets accepted as OK. Hey, we all know what the speaker means, right? And isn't that what language and communications are all about? The original Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" can barely be understood by the people of today. Such is the evolution of language.
Mark Levin the extremely hard-edged conservative reactionary commentator, once said "could care less," whereupon a caller on the line pointed out the alleged error. "Stop and think about it," the caller said in a really nice way. "It doesn't make any sense." But Levin exploded on the guy. Cute.
Maybe I shouldn't care less about "mainline" instead of "mainstream." But "mainline" reminds me of my school classes of long ago that sought to scare us away from drug use. Well of course mind-altering drugs are bad. And I don't think John Lennon's songs were any better because of them. Lennon was simply a lifelong poet, lyricist and musician who had honed his skills over endless hours.
Mind-expanding drugs? Oh to hell with it - it's myth. But my generation was gullible at one time. Along with some other lapses we had. We're talking the "dark ages" of the 1970s, especially the early part. Through it all, I have liked fried eggs in the morning.
Addendum: Regarding Lennon's songs, how can we know when exactly all were written? Songwriters have a term: "bottom-drawer songs," referring to songs that are largely completed but put aside indefinitely. Maybe some will be polished later, others will be discarded. Some might be "pushed" to a friend or associate.
Maybe Lennon, who probably had 3/4 of the talent of the Beatles, passed along some material to George Harrison. Harrison's hits had the effect of making the whole group become more legendary. We just don't know when a particular song spark entered someone's mind, or how. Even the classic songs can be so brief and direct, it's not like a great amount of labor was invested, or time. The inspiration comes out of who knows where?
Experienced songwriters know how to cultivate this. But it's not like investing the countless hours required, for example, for developing a model train layout! Classic songs have been penned on a simple napkin or back of a receipt, any piece of paper that might be handy. And the rest is history. "Oh Lonesome Me." I think that was on the back of some motel stationery. Which is one of the reasons I'm fascinated with songwriting.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.conm
No comments:
Post a Comment