Agenbite of Inwit

Let's talk about using the wrong word.

You writers and public speakers out there are always striving for the right word, le mot juste.  But is the right word the most precise one which indicates the concept, or a more widely known one that comes close?  Is the right word perhaps the one which creates a visceral connection with the concept in the mind of the reader?

In his book "Ulysses", James Joyce occasionally uses the term "agenbite of inwit."  Let's look at why this is the wrong word and why Joyce was right to use it.

Agenbite of inwit is misspelling of ayenbite of inwyt, the title of a French treatise.  In 1340, a monk translated this treatise into English a bit too literally.  Agenbite, or 'again bite', is a sort-of English rendering of the Latin verb remordere (to bite again).  Inwit, inner wit, is the inner sense of morality, that little voice inside of you that knows right from wrong.  So agenbite of inwit is the nagging of one's conscience.

This is the "wrong" word because the title was poorly translated and Joyce's spelling is off.  But, it is the right word too.  Used in the context of Leopoold Bloom, the protagonist of Ulysses, and his day about Dublin, the phrase packs some very visceral punch.  Joyce's 'ayen' to 'agen' consonant change renders the word closer to modern English.  Once the reader understands this phrase, it is much more potent than writing "my conscience is nagging me" amidst Bloom's stream of thoughts.  Instead we get "agenbite of inwit."  And we know.   We're right there with him.

It was gutsy of Joyce to use this phrase throughout his novel, but I think it paid off.  He single-handedly revived this phrase and it is now used occasionally by modern authors.  It's not instantly recognizable to those who haven't previously encountered it, but it is oddly familiar and similar to common English words.  It's one of those phrases that gets into your head and doesn't want to come back out.  Perhaps when you're having an agenbite of inwit?

The Sword As A Metaphor

It's been a while since we talked about myth.  Let's take a look at the idea of the sword as a metaphor.

Since swords play such a prominent role in ancient literature, poetry, and fantasy, it seems fitting that we take a moment to examine this symbol.  A sword could easily be construed as a phallic symbol.  It is long and straight and directly related to its wielder's sense of power.

Young Arthur couldn't fully ascend to his position as a leader until he had become master of the blade, Excalibur.  When he is mortally wounded and can no longer wield the sword, he orders it to be thrown into the lake.

In Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings", Aragorn is the rightful king, but his sword is broken.  Narsil was the sword of his fathers, but remains broken after being shattered in battle.  It is only when the elves reforge Narsil into Anduril that he accepts his role as leader.  His sword is whole again.

In Star Wars, Luke Skywalker is a small town boy yearning for adventure.  When his guide (Obi Wan Kenobi) gives Luke his father's sword (albeit a laser sword), he learns to wield it and becomes a man.  Later, he uses his sword against his father, who chops off his sword bearing hand.

The sword as a phallic metaphor seems seems fairly obvious.  The danger is that of interpreting ancient symbols through a modern lens.  Perhaps a sword could more rightly be seen as the martial version of king's sceptor, a symbol of power, held by a ruler.  In this case, it is a warrior-king who holds the staff of the ruler. 

Irregardless

This one came as a surprise to me.  I was speaking with a colleague at work.  

I said something like "Irregardless of the cost..." and my colleague stopped me.

"There is no such word."  He said.

"Really?"

"Just use 'regardless'." He advised.

It made sense immediately.  The prefix ir- doesn't add any semantic weight to the word.  The tricky part is our natural instinct to add some negation, but regardless already contains the -less suffix.  This, of course, creates a double negative.

Merriam-Webster says that the word originated in American speech in the early twentieth century and has never been accepted as correct.  The common theory is that irregardless is a confusion of "irrespective" and "regardless".

I certainly learned something new today.  Regardless of what I thought, irregardless isn't a word I'll be using any longer.

How Much Does a Swear Word Weigh?

From time to time, I'll be engaged in a conversation about language with a non-native English speaker.  Actually, this occurs pretty frequently.  Sometimes another person will enter and say something like "I only know one word in your language" and proceed to say the equivalent of the "f word".

Reactions to this vary. 

 I always tell people not to swear in a foreign language until they are fluent in that language.  The problem is that it seems like a fun game to you.  You're saying a cute, little naughty word that doesn't carry any baggage.  For you.  To the other person, you probably just said something offensive or, at least, wildly inappropriate.

Imagine that the situation were reversed.  You're walking down a street in Italy, someone recognizes that you are an English speaker, walks up to you and says the following:

Mi dispiace, non parlo l'inglese ma F!@# you.

What part of that is going to resonate viscerally?  Now you know what it sounds like to them.

Further, each culture assigns a different weight to swear words.  In some cultures, one would never swear in a public setting.  In others, swearing might be considered a very mild issue.

Each word (or phrase) also carries an individual weight.  So just make sure that you know the potential impact of what you are saying before you say it.

Bona Zamenhof Day

Happy Zamenhof Day!  Bonan Zamenhofan Tagon!

Yes, today (December 15th) is Zamenhof day, the birthday of Ludwig Zamenhof. He is the man who created Esperanto.

This "holiday" stretches back to 1878, when Zamenhof first told birthday well-wishers about his new language.  Today, most esperantists celebrate by purchasing a book in Esperanto.

While Esperanto is hardly the universally spoken second language that it was intended to be, it is far and away the most successful constructed language with several million speakers.  And, more importantly, in an increasingly international world, where people from various cultures mix on a daily basis, the idea of a neutral auxiliary language has never seemed more apt.

Zamenhof grew up in a city divided by multiple languages, where the people mistrusted one another due to incomprehension.  His idea was to create this neutral second language for them so that they could begin to communicate.  He thought that most conflict arose from misunderstanding and from the fear produced by not communicating.

The discussion of English as a global language must wait for another post.  Today we simply acknowledge Zamenhof and his ideals.

Estu bone kaj havu bonan Zamenhofan tagon. 

Ending Sentences With Prepositions

First off, apologies for the long silence.  During the gap between this post and the prior post I changed jobs and bought a house.  Life has a crazy way distracting one from such pleasurable pursuits as blogging.  A big thank you to everyone who has been checking back for new posts and to all of those who have found the blog useful.

------

Today, let's talk about ending sentences with prepositions.  Your English teacher told you not do it.  Your textbooks told you not do it.  But, is this really a rule that you should follow?

It turns out that  a sentence ending preposition is a rather divisive issue.  Increasingly, people are questioning this basic rule of grammar.  The argument usually centers around the fact that avoiding a preposition at the end of a sentence really has nothing to do with the English language.  This practice comes from Latin.  Encouraging people to write this way produces a style that is closer to the style of Latin.  This is undoubtedly true.  

As many of you know, English has several roots, but the lexicon is primarily derived from Anglo-Saxon and French words.  French is a direct descendant of Latin.  Throughout the history of Modern English (and still persisting today) is a stigma against the blue collar Anglo-Saxon words.  Latin derived words are perceived as more intellectual and indicative of the upper class.  J.R.R. Tolkien was frustrated by the use of the word "autumn" (French) when there was a perfectly good word for the same concept, "fall" (Anglo-Saxon).  This is fodder for a separate discussion.  For now we just need to remember that this stigma exists and that several of our grammar "rules" exist to perpetuate this stigma.

Still, I'm not sure that this is reason enough to throw out this particular rule.  Is structuring a sentence like Latin such a bad thing?  In my opinion, a better argument against this rule is the fact that it applies only to written English.  I rarely end a sentence with a preposition when I'm writing, but, mindful as I am of the rule, I often break the rule when speaking.  There's something mildly unsettling about that kind of division.

In the end, what should you do?  That is, of course, up to you.  My advice is to try following the rule.  Like any rule of grammar, if you break it, break it consciously.  Being more mindful of how you are structuring your sentence can't be a bad thing.

Commenting on comments

You may have noticed that I disabled comments on this blog. This was mostly to protect the people posting comments from future embarrassment.

Each year, around the time that school goes back in session, I receive several helpful comments about the blog that insult me and make me question the time and effort that goes into making any future posts. I mention schools being back in session because I suspect that these comments are coming from students VERY early in their linguistics studies.

For example, not long ago a comment came that was so full of assumptions that I had to read it twice to make sure it wasn't a joke. To the person who posted that "ALL languages have..." and made assumptions about baseball and the like: linguistics is a science and one needs to develop scientific thinking. If you find yourself using words like "always", "never", "all languages", you probably haven't yet developed your skills of scientific thinking. By the way, you'll realize why you were incorrect when your class gets up to constructed languages.

Ah, the confidence of the neophyte.

Tonight, I received a comment calling me an "idiot" from a person who cannot tell the difference between Latin and Italian. Having lived in Italy for years myself, I can assure that your "correction" was indeed Italian. You kind of missed the point of the post, it seems. What stuns me is that he took to write and submit the comment demonstrating this fact.

I guess it might be better if a single one of these helpful comments had been spelled correctly or had correct grammar. And, I know that many people have found the blog helpful and interesting (thanks for those comments). But, sometimes I wonder why I take the time.

Thanks for listening to the rant- it was a long time in the making. Next time: back to real linguistics.

Which Language To Learn?

A colleague of mind recently told me that his daughter's school had asked her to choose which language to study for the next three years. Knowing my interest in language, he came to me for advice. What an interesting question, I thought. And it goes far beyond being a choice that only high school students face. University students attempting to pick up a language that will bolster their choice of career, adults wishing learn something new, people wanting to connect more with their heritage, people who are relocating, people wishing to keep their minds sharp by learning something new- all face this same question.

In this case, his daughter had the choice of Latin, French, or Spanish. High school students, perhaps, have an easier choice than most because the choices are limited to the few languages that the school actually offers. But, even here some interesting decisions must be made. Of the three languages above, one can obviously divide them in Classical Languages (Latin) and Modern Languages (French and Spanish). So the first decision might be whether she wants to learn a classical or modern language.

Classical languages can be more difficult to learn (especially at the beginning) for a couple of reasons. First of all, you cannot find stories, novels, DVDs, and popular music in that language. These are great tools for learning a language. Not only is understanding a culture a crucial aspect of truly learning new language (see the post on Language and Culture), but the desire to understand what you are hearing or reading is a great motivator. Desire is an important part of learning a language. Everyone performs better when they have a desire to learn instead of treating language learning as a chore.

Additionally, classical languages can be more difficult because they often use explicit case endings which involve a high level of memorization initially. These languages also sometimes lack modern language features such as definite articles, making them seem awkward to modern speakers. However, there can be a thrill when learning a language that reaches back into the history of humanity. Once mastered, modern languages which are based upon a classical language will be easier to learn. But remember, difficulty is an important factor when choosing a language. Difficulty can also be measured by how different the language is from languages that you already speak.

If she chooses to study a modern language, she still faces an interesting choice. Both French and Spanish are amongst the top ten most spoken languages in the world. And each of them is spoken in many countries around the world. Thus, they are both quite useful. Usefulness is a major factor when choosing a language.

Both of these languages could provide opportunities for employment or career advancement. Both of them have a huge pool of films, music, and literature to enjoy. Location might be a factor when choosing a language to study. Here in New York City, Spanish would be of more use than French as there are many Spanish speakers living here. However, I would caution against allowing one's current location to heavily influence the choice of a language. It's easy enough to move somewhere else or get transferred.

Regularity might be a factor when choosing a new language, but again I would urge caution. Some languages (like English) are riddled with exceptions and special cases. This can make mastering a language difficult (though might not be a factor for beginning students regardless of the language).

Finally, personal aesthetics are an important factor when choosing a language. Everyone has some language to which they've always been attracted. Maybe it's a language your family used to speak or it's the language of a country where you had a fantastic vacation. Maybe you don't consciously know the reason. But, you've always loved the sound of that language, always wanted to learn it.

So, we've looked at some factors to consider when choosing a language:

• desire
• difficulty
• usefulness
• location
• regularity
• personal aesthetics

My colleague said that his daughter's teacher was pushing her study Latin, but that she was leaning in the direction of Spanish. Between those two choices, I recommended Spanish as it was useful here in NYC and would be easier to learn. She could always go back and pick up Latin later, having a great head start from all of the common roots that the two languages share. Personally, I would have chosen French. Though less useful here in New York City, I love the way it sounds and I absolutely love reading in French. This would fall under the "personal aesthetic" category from above.

Ultimately she chose Latin. I wish her bona fortvna.

Adjectives

Adjectives modify nouns. This means that they decorate nouns by adding some characteristic. The adjective big can make the noun dog much more interesting when it becomes a big dog. Rabid, scary, and ghost might be interesting too.

Adjectives can never modify verbs or any other part of speech. They are crazy about nouns and don't have time for any other part of speech.

In some languages, adjectives change their endings to agree with the noun they modify. Often adjectives will agree in gender and number with the noun they modify. For example, in French feminine nouns end with an 'e'. So if I'm an adjective that's decorating a feminine noun, I too must end with an 'e'.

French nouns are made plural by appending an 's'. So, if I'm a French adjective modifying a plural noun, I must end with an 's'.

Many languages exhibit this type of noun-adjective agreement.

exercise #1: What are the first five adjectives that come into your head when you hear the word "water"? What about "fire"?

exercise #2: Does English have the kinds of noun-adjective agreement mentioned above?

Language and Culture: You Can't Have One Without the Other

Let's clear up a common a misconception. If you properly learn a language you will not (cannot!) forget it. You might get a little rusty and forget a few less common words, but you will not lose the ability to speak that language. Anyone who tells you otherwise has memorized words and phrases, but has not truly allowed that language to become a part of them.

So what do we mean by properly learning a language? Learning the grammar, the vocabulary, idiomatic usage, and... the culture. Learning a language means that you also learn a culture. Luckily for you, this means that you'll get to watch some films and listen to some songs. That's not so bad is it? How about food? Yep, you'll need to try some new recipes (or find a new restaurant). You've got to get in there and allow this new culture to become less foreign.

exercise #1: Try to find a DVD spoken in your chosen language. Set it to speak in the original voices and simply put the subtitles on English. Start to listen to the rhythm of the words and phrases. At first it will seem like a high-speed jumble, but eventually it will start to seem more natural.

Enjoy the film. How did the film differ from an American film?

exercise #2: Find the word for "bread" in your new language. From now on, that is your only word for bread. Your friends and family will get used to hearing you say it. Don't worry. Start using this word exclusively. Even if all of the other words you say are still in English, it will help your brain to associate the concept of bread to this new word. Words are only labels, after all. Attach a new label to the underlying concept of 'bread'.

Do the same thing for "milk" and "water". These are good words because the occur frequently in daily life.

exercise #3: Eat a meal at a restaurant which specializes in your target country's cuisine. If this is impractical for where you live, download a recipe. Enjoy the meal. Did you like the food? Do you think that people who live there eat that kind of meal of every day?

exercise #4: Find some songs from your target country. Order an album or purchase some tracks online. Enjoy the music.


The point of all of these exercises is to make the foreign culture seem less foreign. The words themselves will make more sense when you understand the people who speak them. Besides, a new perspective is never a bad thing. In my experience, every culture has some things that they do particularly well. Find those things. Allow the strengths from this new culture strengthen your own life. You never when something that you try for a few weeks while learning language might become a permanent part of your life.

Less and Fewer

This one is pretty straightforward, but I hear people getting these two words confused. Time for a quick review.

Fewer is an adjective. Period.
Less can be either an adjective or an adverb. I've never heard anyone mistake fewer for an adverb, so this is not where the confusion lies.

The question is which of the two adjectives to use when modifying a noun. Is it "fewer problems" or "less problems"? They both sound like they could potentially be correct. At least, neither adjective seems jarringly wrong.

Here's the rule:

Use "fewer" with countable nouns and "less" with non-count nouns.

What is a non-count noun? Anything which wouldn't normally be counted in individual or finite items. Water is an example of a (usually) non-count noun. You would ask for some water and not three water. This means that you would use "less" to modify water. For example, the tub holds less water (not fewer water). The same holds true for gas.

On the other hand, you don't want to use "less" to modify a countable noun. I heard an advertisement the other day state that something had "less calories". They really meant to say "fewer calories". It's not that they were incomprehensible. I understood what they meant, but they didn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Comma Confusion

Lately, I've noticed a few different species of comma users. It interesting to see the way people misuse them. Let's take a look at some of the groups of comma abusers that you might encounter in the wild:

1. Overusers - This group is probably the largest group of comma abusers in existence. They sprinkle extra commas everywhere. When in doubt, they always drop in an extra comma.

2. Abstainers - This group shuns commas entirely. Their motto seems to be: when in doubt, leave it out. Also, when you're sure, leave it out. It is a bit jarring to see an appositive phrase naked against the word it modifies.

3. Guessers - These people are very inconsistent in their comma use. They can't quite remember the rules. Each sentence is a new adventure with them.

4. Conjunctioners - This is a rare species of comma abusers. A conjunctioner will isolate each and every conjunction in a sentence with commas. (We'll look at this below)

So, when should one actually use a comma? Let's look at the most obvious cases and keep things simple.

When to use a comma:

1. To indicate a pause - This is the raison d'etre of a comma. Anytime you want to indicate a slight pause, use a comma. For a full stop, use a period.

2. To directly address someone or something - Use a comma before the person or thing being addressed. (see the post "Goodbye, Vocative" for a more detailed explanation).

3. Before a negating conjunction - Do not use a comma with "and" or "or". Use a comma with "but", which indicates a negation or exception to the previous clause.

4. Before a modifier - The "which" in the previous sentence is a good example. It introduces a modifier (in this case, a clause). For an appositive phrase (another type of modifier), use a comma both before and after the phrase. Look at the following sentence. Jane's friend, Billy, eats marshmallows. "Billy" is the appositive phrase.

5. Before a verb in the present progressive - A verb in the present progressive ends in "-ing". This is sometimes incorrectly called the "gerund", but a gerund indicates a nominal form (not a verbal form). An example of this usage might be: Susan walked into the room, eating a handful of popcorn.

The Words and the Bees

I learned a little Esperanto the other day (http://en.lernu.net). What a great community and a very interesting language. Speakers of one of the Romance languages will find it easy to learn as the lexicon derives heavily from Latin (in a more recognizable, Italian form). I wondered why Esperanto had never really caught on as an auxiliary language (i.e. a language that can be spoken between two people with different native languages). I suppose it's due to the fact that French and English have often filled that role. But, that is a whole other post in itself.

One of the discussion forums had a posting about gender in Esperanto. French and English aside, this might be the real reason that the Esperanto community isn't larger than it is. No, not because of it's handling of gender. Because of posts like that one. So many assumptions made, so many linguistic misunderstandings.

Let's step back a moment and look at gender in a language. First of all, words don't have gender. Or, let me put it another way: words don't have gender. Gender is a biological trait. For reproduction. Words don't reproduce.

Most languages, however, arbitrarily call one group of words "masculine" (the group which has endings that match the word for "man" in that language). Another group will be called "feminine" (the group which has endings that match the word for "woman" in that language). Sometimes there's even "neuter" (for words that fall into neither category).

But, the words themselves don't have any gender. It's just a term for convenience. It helps us to identify that group of words. The actual term in Italian would be "genere" which means "type". Words don't have gender. Look at one with its clothes off sometime if you don't believe me.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's look at the poster's complaint. The idea was that Esperanto is sexist because a few words have the suffix -in- added to them to indicate biological femininity. Of course, it's just as easy to say that all words in Esperanto inherently contain the -in- suffix and that the omission of the this indicates biological masculinity.

Even readers of this blog (I'm assuming a certain amount of interest in linguistics) will probably find this very arbitrary and semantic. And that, my friends, is the point. Nit picking like this raises a barrier around your community. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that these kind of assumptions and agenda pushing get in the way of the wider adoption of an interesting language.

The Common Era

This post addresses a question that I sometimes hear: what do BCE and CE mean?

CE (or C.E.) is an abbreviation for common era. The common era began roughly 2006 years ago with the year 1 (not 0). Thus, one could say that they were born in 1976 CE. This could be read aloud as "I was born in the year 1976 of the common era".

BCE (or B.C.E.) is an abbreviation for before the common era. This is for dates that occurred before the year 1 CE. Remember that the year 1 CE was preceded by the year 1 BCE. There was no year 0. For example, one could say that the age of the great philosophers in Greece was around 400 BCE.

Basically, these abbreviations replace the religiously loaded AD and BC and are rapidly becoming the accepted usage. This change is quite welcome because:

1. Most people incorrectly placed AD after the year, where it is supposed to come before the year.
2. The historical person of Jesus (upon whom the old system was based) was actually born around 4 BCE. Thus, the entire system was miscalibrated anyway.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Linguistic Balance

I've been thinking lately about the tradeoffs that different languages must endure. For any linguistic phenomenon, there is a balance. This is not to imply that the natural languages were created by some guy sitting in an office, or, worse yet, created by committee. But, over time each natural language displays certain linguistic traits.

Let's take a look at inflection. English is normally considered a not highly-inflected language (especially when compared with Greek or German, for example). But, some amount of inflection does exist.

The word "book" is a singular noun. How do we make it plural? By inflecting the word- in this case adding an "s".

Now compare this with Chinese (note- in this blog we'll take Chinese to mean Mandarin unless otherwise noted). Words in the Chinese language do not inflect. At all.

So how do we make a "book" into "books"? Chinese is able to avoid inflection through the use of small, modifier words. A contrived example might be translated as "many book".

Now, which method is better? To the Chinese, English's appended 's' is redundant. Look at this sentence.

There are three books on the table.

Given the word "three", do we really need that 's' to indicate that there is more than one book?

There are three books on the table.

What does that 's' give us that "three" doesn't?

On the other hand, in Chinese one is forced to use multiple words. In real life, we don't always respond to questions with complete sentences. Look at the dialogue below:

Person A: Did you want a book or books?
Person B: Books.

In this case, the inflected plural is more efficient. Here's the same, corny example translated from a hypothetical conversation in Chinese:

Person A: Did you want a book or books?
Person B: Many book.

A Chinese speaker is forced to use multiple words to reply to the same question.

So which is better? Neither. Like any linguistic "choice" each has its advantages and disadvantages. It's just fun to think about what those differences are.

Growing Symbols

I've been struck lately about the use of plants (specifically trees) as symbols in Mythology and Fantasy. I recently picked up a copy of Robert Graves "The White Goddess" at The Strand in Manhattan.

I've been busy lately, so I haven't had time to really start reading it in earnest yet, but I've flipped through it several times. Graves attempts to define a "grammar" of myth. He focuses primarily on the Celtic (and maybe UK-wide) myths and how they descended from the tree-based Germanic mythological tradition.

Graves goes so far as to offer tables and charts indicated the symbolic weight of the various types of trees.

His work has sensitized me to plants in literature. Thinking back, I've noticed that most of the works of fantasy that I've found truly effective have been seeded with plant references throughout.

When I was reading a novel over the weekend, I saw mention of a linden tree as part of the description. Why a linden tree, I wondered. Does it have some special significance? Why not some other type of tree?

Watch for plants (and especially trees) as you're reading this week.

Good is well

I've been busy this week, so today I'll write about a "classic" topic: "good" versus "well".

Some people think that these two words are interchangeable others are simply confused as to when they should use one or the other. Interchangeable they are not.

Good is an adjective. It modifies a noun. Only a noun.

That's a good painting. (modifies the noun "painting")

Well is an adverb. It can modify a verb, adjective, or another adverb.

How are you doing? I'm well, thanks.

In some situations (in modern usage), people use "good" instead of "well" to modify a verb- despite the fact that "good" can only modify a noun. Not only that, saying that "you are good" is a statement of morality and not well-being.

I asked some otherwise intelligent people about why there doing it and the replies average out to: everyone else is doing it. Is anyone else uncomfortable at that response? I hear jackboots marching down Maple Strasse in everytown USA. Everyone else is doing it. Indeed.

Of course, not everyone else is doing it. It doesn't cost anything to be correct in this case. The language is clearer. I urge each an every one of you to tell people that you are "well" and that things are going "well".

Thinking in Tongues

I recently read an article supporting the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This was refreshing. Too often I've heard people (always a person who speaks only one language, coincidentally) tell me that language doesn't affect thought.

At first glance, this is a clean, comfortable statement. If language doesn't affect thought, then there is no reason to spend all of the time and effort learning a foreign language, for example. It also fits well in the French and American ideals of equality. Denying that the language we speak affects the way we think protects us from the possibility of linguistic nationalism by claiming that the effect of a specific language is superior to that of another.

The objections to Sapir-Whorf have been given slight approval by the linguistics professors at MIT (though their reasoning tends to be very heavily Western-only, excluding other languages that would contradict their theories) and this is probably one of the reasons that I still hear these objections.

The problem is that it's not true. Language profoundly affects the way we think. Anyone who has been immersed in other cultures will know what I'm saying. Anyone who speaks multiple languages well enough to think in them and dream in them will know what I'm saying. People who have studied a language in school and are at a conversational level may or may not understand what I'm saying.

My wife and I often have certain types of conversations in a specific language. It not only feels more natural, it fits the conceptual model and tone of what we are trying to express. This is not to say that we couldn't express the same concept in English, for example. The question is how much word wrangling would be necessary to accomplish the same task.

A language does not emerge fully formed out of the vacuum. It carries weight and power of a culture's years with it. Its idioms and idiosyncrasies reflect and subtly transmit that culture along with the actual words and phrases that we utter.

In the end, it is good to be proud of one's native language, but a tragedy not to be able to think in others. It's like the world's best painter having only green paint. Sure, he can express any artistic concept on the canvas, but imagine the possibilities if wasn't constrained by monochromatic thinking.

Today's Object Subject

Today we're going to talk about subjects and objects. I've noticed that people who speak only English sometimes have difficulty with this concept- so it's worth a review.

English, like most languages, possesses several types of pronouns. The simplest are subject pronouns. A subject pronoun is a placeholder for a "real" noun and is the subject of the verb. In English, the subject comes before the verb and nearly always at the beginning of a sentence.

English Subject Pronouns:

I	we
you	you all
he, she, it	they

Now, the word that takes/receives the action of a transitive verb is the object. An object can either be direct or indirect. A direct object receives the action of the verb without the need for any intervening prepositions (functioning as case markers). An indirect object has the action of the verb done on its behalf: to it or for it.

English Object Pronouns:

me	us
you	you all
him, her, it	them

Let's look at a few example sentences.

I (subject pronoun) speak.

I (subject pronoun) hit him (direct object pronoun).

He (subject pronoun) speaks to me (indirect object pronoun).

This is fairly straightforward. The problem is that "me" has gotten a bad reputation. Somehow "I" appeals more to the common man and sounds superior to the mundane "me". Schoolteachers contribute to the stigma, perhaps not making the distinction clear to their students.

It is fine to use "me", but not as the subject of a sentence.

It is fine to use "I", but not as the object of a sentence.

The confusion seems to occur most frequently in compound subjects and objects, so let's have a look at some examples.

Harry and I chastised the monkey. ("I" is used here because it is part of the subject of the sentence).

Harry chastised the the monkey and me. ("Me" is used here because it is part of the object of the sentence).

If you hear someone incorrectly using "I" as an object, ask them if they would still use it outside of a compound object. They might (for some reason) feel comfortable saying: You can send the documents to Bill and I. But, they probably would feel awkward uttering the phrase: You can give the documents to I.

They should feel uncomfortable and, perhaps, a little ashamed at the abuse of the perfectly good object pronoun "me".

The Real American Heroes

I was thinking yesterday about the real American heroes. The word "hero" is taking a lot of abuse lately. It has been abducted for political purposes, and forced into meanings for which it was never intended. The end result is that the word has less weight when it appears in a sentence. When used properly it might confuse rather than impress the reader.

The heroes I have in mind and those who went on the hero's journey. Characters, perhaps based upon real-life people, who have become larger than life. These characters become types upon which we can model aspects of our own lives. This is the classic definition of a mythical hero.

So who were these heroes? Do the names Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, and Johnny Appleseed mean anything to you? (Not to mention more attributable literary heroes such as Huck Finn or Rip VanWinkle).

My fear is that these names don't mean anything to the average (or even extraordinary ) person under thirty. This isn't automatically a bad thing. Perhaps they have been superseded by newer heroes (it's always difficult when metaphors harden and become rigid entities unto themselves and cease being organic metaphors).

But, I hope that these heroes and their stories are preserved. Surely their ghosts still walk the streets in modern cities like Austin, Phoenix, and San Diego.