Kel's previous Ozwords of the day...
New words Here are nine new words that have just been added to the Collins English Dictionary:
CAGR abbreviation for Compound Annual Growth Rate (perhaps you need to be an economist to use this one!)
capsule hotel a hotel that offers cheap accommodation in very small compartments. We’ve all seen the TV stories about such hotels in Japan—but there are also capsule hotels in Singapore, Malaysia and elsewhere. These are often (unlike Japan) not for busy workers who miss the last train, but for backpackers. There is even a capsule hotel in George Street, in Sydney.
crypto slang short for cryptocurrency (an obvious abbreviation that was bound to turn up sooner or later).
Dad joke a joke that is regarded as weak or corny, especially one involving a laboured pun. Do you have a favourite “Dad joke”? Here’s mine: I was standing in a queue at an ATM when the man in front asked me to check his balance. So I pushed him. His balance wasn’t good. Or if you don’t like that here’s another: I couldn’t understand why the frisbee was getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Then it hit me. Confession: I love those jokes. And to fit in with the definition, here’s one with a bad pun. I hired a limo and the driver who delivered it walked away. I said “Are you going?” He said, “Yes, the car doesn’t come with a driver.” So I’d spent hundreds on a hired limo and had nothing to chauffer it!
DeFi a system that enables financial transactions to be completed between individuals without the mediation of any financial institution. Word origin: from de(centralized) fi(nance)
Nelson cricket slanga score of 111, traditionally regarded as unlucky. Word origin: named after Horatio Nelson, who was erroneously believed to have one eye, one arm, and one leg. (This has been around since the 19th century but is only just now being recognised by the dictionary.) By the way, Nelson did lose and arm and an eye but he never lost a leg.
onion bag the netting between the goal posts in soccer, hockey, etc
tourist tax a tax levied on tourists, especially to discourage overcrowding in popular destinations
vacay US and Canadian informal short for vacation (not used in Australia because we almost never use “vacation”—we use “holiday” instead).
Socialism Today a note about political language. What does the word “Socialism” mean? The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English gives this definition: “An economic and political system in which large industries are owned by the government, and taxes are used to take some wealth from richer citizens and gives it to poorer citizens.” The Oxford English Dictionary says much the same thing in a more formal way: “A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society.” In other words, “Socialism” means governments getting bigger and bigger, and using public money (from borrowings or taxes) to do more and more, as it regulates more and more of the lives of its citizens.” The reason this matters (it seems to me) is because this is the direction that our governments (both state and federal) are travelling in response to the Covid pandemic—regulating more and more, and spending more and more. The result is that the public sector (the government sector) of life in Australia is getting bigger and bigger, and (as small businesses go bankrupt) the private sector is shrinking. If that is the direction that our nation is going its worth thinking about. And here’s my linguistic thought: I’d like to redefine the word “Socialism” in the following way: “Socialism means the belief that bureaucrats (the public service) are the smartest people in society.” Because that, I think, is what it comes down to in the end. That is the reality, the underling belief, the unexamined assumption behind this sort of government. We have elected government leaders telling us they “must” obey whatever Chief Health Officers (unelected bureaucrats, public servants) tell them to do. The problem is that there is no evidence that bureaucrats (public servants) are, on average, any smarter, or better trained, than the rest of us. But we are now under their orders. And if they are not all that smart, those orders will not necessarily be what’s best for us or the country. I suppose what worries me is this: why should the public service be in charge of life in Australia?
Gibber When I was a small boy a stone was called a gibber. In fact, a gibber was particular sort of stone – it was the kind of small stone that was suitable for throwing at gangs of other small boys in displays of swaggering infant masculinity in desultory battles that ranged up and down the street. This use of gibber is recorded in Sydney from 1790. In fact, the 1830s the Sydney district called “The Rocks” was nicknamed “the gibbers”. Gibber comes from the Sydney region Dharruk Aboriginal language. Stony parts of Australia have been called gibber country, gibber plain, or gibber desert. The community newspaper at Woomera is “The Gibber Gabbler”. But this remains a regional word, and elsewhere small boys used different names for the same small stones. Depending where you grew up in Australia you would have called these throwing stones “boondies”, “brinnies”, “gonnies”, “goolies”, “ronnies”, or “yonnies”. And a number of these names also came from local Aboriginal languages.
Rhyming slang A reader recently contacted me to ask about rhyming slang (you can read the letter on the Q and A page of this website). The story appears to be this—English is an ancient language (around 1,500 years old if you go back to Old English) but this rhyming slang is (in such a long history) quite recent: dating from only around 1840. It began among the cockneys of London where it still flourishes to this day. Interestingly, outside of the East End of London the place with the most rhyming slang in the world is Australia. Clearly it was brought here by cockneys who came either as convicts or free settlers—and because of the Australian enthusiasm for clever language, and playing with language, we took it up with glee. Here is a small sample of Australian rhyming slang…
After darks = sharks
Apple and spice = nice
Al Capone = phone
Apples and pears = stairs
Trouble and strife = wife
Bag of fruit = suit
Barry Crocker = shocker
Billy lids = kids
Blister = sister
Butcher’s hook = crook
Captain Cook = look
China plate = mate
Frog and toad = road
Jimmy Dancer = cancer
Ginger Meggs = eggs
Mutt and Jeff = deaf
Onkaparinga = finger
Pork pie = lie
Reg Grundys = undies
Steak and kidney = Sydney
It is common to only use the first word in one of these rhymes, leaving out the rhyming word—assuming that your hearer will understand. So, when you accuse some of “telling porkies” you are saying they are lying. Similarly, if you say “She’ll be apples” you are reassuring someone that everything is okay (“nice’). You can also say “G’day me old china” as a way of greeting a mate. And if you’re off colour and a bit sick you can say “I’m feeling a bit butcher’s today.” Years ago there was a (very good) ABC TV play about a radio star who got cancer (starring Gary McDonald)—the play was called “Jimmy Dancer.”
Can you think of other examples you’ve come across over the years?
Politics of fear We are told that premiers who impose lockdowns and slam shut state borders at the least provocation are playing the game called “the politics of fear.” Where does this expression come from? Well, it has not yet made it into the dictionaries—so it’s hard to find the first use of the phrase “politics of fear”. Most commentators say it goes back to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001. And that certainly made it a common expression and part of the current political language. And it’s true a book called “The Politics of Fear” by journalist Mark Danner was published in 2012. However, I suspect the idea—and the phrase—to be much older than that. President Richard M. Nixon is reported to have said (quote) “the people react to fear not love” and to have based both his presidential campaigns on that notion. And Nixon was just quoting Niccolò Machiavelli (who wrote in the 16th century) that “it is much safer to be feared than loved.” But the current phrase “politics of fear” is slightly different from Machiavelli’s idea of the feared leader—it’s more the case of a leader giving people something to fear (a pandemic) and them promising to keep them safe. But if Nixon’s version is correct then citizens will “react to fear not love” and vote for the leader who will supposedly protect them from danger—not a leader who will protect their freedoms.
Lockdown With 13 million Australians in lockdown at there moment, there is no doubt that the word of the hour is “lockdown”—so where does the word come from? Although “lockdown” was coined in the US in the 19th century its original meaning was to do with the timber industry—logs that were being floated down stream had to be in “lockdown” to make the rafting system work. HOWEVER, the meaning used by state premiers today only goes back to 1973 when it was used of the American prison system. When prisoners rioted or there was a violent incident the whole prison was put into “lockdown.” The word was first used in this way in Fresno, California, following a major disturbance in the prison. So when Australians are put into “lockdown” they are being treated like prisoners. And I must admit that I wonder if “lockdown” is linguistically even more sinister than that? When a “lockdown” in a prison is lifted the inmates are still prisoners! So when a Covid lockdown is lifted do the citizens still remain prisoners? Are citizens now prisoners of the knee-jerk reactions of medical bureaucrats? As citizens should we (like prisoners) assume that we have now lost such basics as freedom of movement and freedom of association? Are we all now prisoners of the Delta strain and is our neighbourhood now our prison which might be thrown into “lockdown” at the whim of the bureaucrats blaming Delta strain?
Box tickers Back on July 8 I wrote here about “race-shifters”—people who are born white and later claim to be indigenous. Well, this is another expression used to name the same phenomenon: “box tickers.” These words are used to name those white people who try to claim indigenous privileges just by ticking a box on a form. The good news is that some institutions are starting to push back at such behaviour. A regional Australian university will demand more proof that students are Aboriginal if they want to claim places meant for Indigenous candidates. Newcastle University in the Hunter Valley has introduced new measures to ensure Indigenous resources are going to those who need them. The university already requires students to provide documentary proof of their Indigenous ancestry if they apply to access particular programs and services. They must now also produce written evidence they are accepted by the community to which they claim to belong and have their identity assessed by a panel of experts. Newcastle University has one of the nation's most stringent vetting processes to reduce the number of so-called 'box-tickers' who falsely claim to be Indigenous. This expression “box tickers” points us to the important fact that it is often language that alerts us to what is happening in our society. One of the reasons language matters so much to us is not just that it is perennially interesting, but because it matters—it is like a thermometer taking the temperature of our society.
Attack Marine experts and conservationists in Australia are urging the public to stop using the word “attack” in reference to sharks, declaring that the majestic predatory fish has been unfairly stigmatized as deliberate killers. Instead, officials have suggested that violent run-ins with sharks be dubbed with more neutral words — such as “interactions.” “‘Shark attack’ is a lie,” said University of Sydney language researcher Christopher Pepin-Neff, who argued that a majority of what people call ‘attacks’ are merely nips and minor injuries from smaller sharks. Well, language researcher or not Pepin-Neff has got this wrong. The word “attack” has been part of the English language since at least 1576 and is borrowed from an old Middle French word. The core meaning of “attack” (both the verb which came first and the noun) is “aggressive action.” What these people are trying to do is hide the fact that sharks are aggressive. When someone on surfboard loses an arm it is an insult to call it a “bite” or a “nip”. When sharks bite or nip they are testing to see if what they biting on might make a nice lunch. It is the nature of sharks to be aggressive. On top of which, a significant number of the shark attacks being reported around Australia are not from smaller sharks but from Great Whites. A mere “nip” from Great White when you are swimming will mean you either lose your leg or your life—because the “nipping” action of a Great White is an aggressive action. Sharks are predatory by nature, which is why the victims of shark attacks are traumatised by the experience (if they survive it, that is). It is an insult to such shark attack victims to pretend that they were not attacked. This sort of playing with words is dangerous—it is minimising human suffering and preferring sharks over people. That is why it is a misuse of the English language to call it anything other than an “attack.”
Irritating words Rod Liddle is a columnist for that excellent weekly news magazine The Spectator Australia (confession—I write a language column for The Speccie as we call it). In a recent column Rod Liddle fulminated against a whole list of irritating words. And I agree with almost everything he says. For instance, there is the irritating use of “myself.” The one that drives me up the wall and makes my fingernails curl up is the expression that contains three personal references: “As for me myself, what I think is…” I suppose the speaker is making it clear that they are the most important person in the room and we mustn’t forget it. Similarly, the absurd use of “yourself” when the person on the phone from the call centre asks if “you yourself are happy with the service.” Also on Liddle’s list of verbal irritations is “today”—as when a waiter (sorry, “wait-person”) asks “how can I help you today?” Totally superfluous! Did they think I might need their help a week from now? Liddle puts the boot into the over-use of the word “vile”—overused so much, he says, it has almost lost its meaning. And the same applies to “toxic” when used to describe something someone has said. Liddle writes: “Stuff which is toxic includes Strontium-90, blue asbestos and nerve gas: not words.” Quite right! And calling someone who has suffered sexual harassment a “survivor” rather than a “victim” does them no good at all. It implies that a shadow has been cast over the rest of their life. To round off his list Rod Liddle points to that odious expression “my truth.” As he points out this is usually uttered by people who are refusing to face facts and deal with reality. Most of the Woke Left these days seems to be living in a fantasy, fairy tale world in which reality is meant to conform to their opinions, instead of the other way around. So, what are the expressions that most irritate you? Send me your thoughts through the contact page of this website, and I’ll publish a list…
Redefine masculinity According to a report in the Daily Telegraph schoolboys are being forced to have their fingernails painted bright pink or red as part of a so-called school “workshop.” The workshops have, apparently, been designed to “redefine masculinity.” Well, definitions are what we do at this website so let’s see if masculinity needs to be “redefined.” Here is the definition given by the Oxford English Dictionary of masculinity: “The state or fact of being masculine; the assemblage of qualities regarded as characteristic of men; maleness, manliness.” That’s what the word means. Fairly obviously the people running these so called “workshops” don’t really want to redefine masculinity—they want to reject masculinity. The theory seems to be that masculinity equals evil—so it needs to be got rid of. According to the newspaper article a Year 11 male student at Chatswood High was told that boys are both “privileged” and “violent.” That’s not “redefinition”—that’s an attempt to destroy masculinity. Whenever the Loony Lefties trot out this nonsense I always want to remind them of June 6, 1944. That was D-Day… when 132,000 young men (many of them only 19 or 20) charged up the beaches of Normandy into the teeth of heavy German machine gun fire. 10,000 of them died. That’s what masculinity (manliness) does—it defends freedom. If that manliness had not driven those young men up those beaches that day these Weird Woke folk might now be living under the Nazi boot-heel. Attacking masculinity makes no sense whatsoever. The OED definition is right. It doesn’t need changing. But don’t you feel sorry for this generation of boys who are being bombarded by this negativity? And why won’t some education minister have the courage to put a stop to it?
They In Victoria there is a 23-year-old law student named Bonnie Logan who is campaigning to have every law on the statute books in that state changed to take out the word “he” and replace it with the word “they.” Often legislation will refer to someone (“the offender” or “the police officer” or what have you) and then in second and subsequent mentions use the pronoun “he.” This, Bonnie claims is sexist. She is wrong, it simply embodies a time when “he” was used as a generic pronoun for human beings. And changing every act of parliament is just unnecessary, time wasting, and expensive. But, of course, there is a wider push to replace “he” with “they” in order to be gender neutral. So, what do I think of this? I’ll surprise you because, although I am a card carrying member of the NUP (the National Union of Pedants) I have no objection to such a change. Not for the reasons used by the Woke/PC mob but for what I think are two good, linguistic reasons.
(1) There are times when all of us would find a gender neutral second person singular pronoun useful. For example, if you wanted to say “If someone wins Lotto they should…” that (I believe) is preferable to the awkward “If someone wins Lotto he or she should…”
(2) The singular form of the second person pronoun “thou” was dropped several centuries ago: now “you” serves as both the singular and plural form. “Thou”—which came into English in the 13th century faded away, surprisingly rapidly, in the 16th century. That is the precedent. That is the model. What has happened to the second person pronoun could happen to the third person pronoun.
The English language is not carved in stone. It is a living language, flowing like a river, and changes are not necessarily“bad English” or violations of good language—they are changes, that’s all. Ignore the foolish reasons being promoted by the Woke/PC mob and just apply common sense and I think you might come to agree with me that such a shift (to using “they” as a gender neutral pronoun for both singular and plural) might be a useful addition to the language.
On the other hand you can contact me through the contact page on this website and tell me how wrong I am!
The Ghan The Australian passenger train service between Adelaide, Alice Springs and Darwin is called “the Ghan.” The current standard gauge line covers 2, 979 kilometres and a run from end-to-end takes 54 hours with a four-hour stop over in Alice Springs. This line has been in operation since 2004. Everyone agrees that the name “Ghan” is an abbreviation of “Afghan”. The first “Ghan” ran on a narrow gauge track from Quorn on the Pichi Richi railway in South Australia to remote Oodnadatta and, possibly, carried a population of Afghan camel drivers to their work. Or, according to some sources, the line replaced an earlier camel train covering the same route. From 1929 it was extended to Alice Springs. In 1957 the tracks were replaced as far Maree by a standard gauge line. This was later extended to the Alice, and finally to Darwin, creating the Adelaide to Darwin link. The Ghan is a legend, and has appeared in an episode of the British TV series Great Railway Journeys of the World.
Fisher’s ghost Perhaps the most famous ghost story to come out of colonial Australia. In 1826 a farmer and ex-convict named Frederick Fisher disappeared from his small holding at Campbelltown (now an outer suburb of Sydney). His friend George Worrall said Fisher had returned to England leaving all his property to him (Worrall). Four months later John Farley ran into a local hotel late one night in an agitated state. He had, he said, just seen the ghost of Fred Fisher sitting on the railing of a nearby bridge. The story spread and police began an investigation. In a deep pool under the bridge where the ghost had appeared they found the remains of Fred Fisher. Worrall was arrested, put on trial for murder, and executed on 5 February 1827. No mention of the ghost was made at the trial. The story was frequently re-told in books, newspaper and magazine articles and in bush ballads. In 1924 Australian film director Raymond Longford made a movie called Fisher’s Ghost based on the legend. Campbelltown City Council now runs an annual “Fisher’s Ghost Arts Festival” every November.
Consent The hot word of the moment is “consent.” We are told that sexual assault and sexual harassment happen because men don’t understand consent. NSW has a law before the parliament that would require proof of consent as a defence against a charge of rape. Classes are being launched in schools to teach the concept of “consent.” But does this make sense linguistically? “Consent” has been part of English since at least 1380 and means “to agree together” – the word “together” being the key part of the definition. How that can possibly be taught coherently to couples who might pass through stages of agreement and disagreement it’s hard to see. I am happy to sound like an old fashioned Old Fogey by saying a better word to teach would be: “promiscuity” – which the dictionary says means “the frequent, casual changing of sexual partners.” I have lived through an era that has seen the normalisation of promiscuity. The result is sexual assault or harassment resulting from the expectation of promiscuity. Would those schoolroom classes work better if they talked about commitment instead of consent? Instead of continuing the portrayal of sex as a meaningless, recreational activity would more be achieved by talking about sex as the fulfilment of a deep and serious commitment that has developed? Would that do more to help a confused younger generation and protect more women?
“aitch” versus “haitch” What is the correct pronunciation of the eighth letter of the alphabet: is it “aitch” or “haitch”? The sound the letter represents is called the aspirate or breath sound “h”. It stands initially only before vowels. Its power is that of a simple aspiration or breathing, only just audible before a vowel. It is also used to form sounds with other letters (sh, th, etc.) It is close to being silent. The dictionaries do not recognise “haitch” as the correct name of the letter (or as a word at all) but only “aitch.” So where did the “h” in front of the name come from? The names of most letters contain the sound they make (B “bee”, K “kay”, Z “zed”). This is the only letter that does not contain the sound it makes—so the wrong pronunciation may have been invented to fix that. Mind you, there has long been a story that this is the pronunciation taught in Catholic schools—especially Marist Brothers schools—but I know of no evidence to support that theory. Professor Pam Peters in her authoritative style guide says that it has sometimes been seen as a class indicator—the educated saying “aitch” and only the less well educated saying “haitch.”
Evolution Could the word “evolution” be the answer to the current pandemic hysteria? The word “evolution” has been part of the English language since at least 1616 (long before Charles Darwin applied it to biology) and comes from a Latin source that originally meant the unrolling of a scroll. It was later used to mean the unfolding of a flower or the expanding of an embryo or germ. The way Darwin used it in The Origin of Species (1859) gives it it’s now familiar biological meaning. So today, speaking of things such as viruses, biology says that “evolution” means that “population groups (or gene pools) change over time by interaction with their environment.” That is what the Covid-19 “population” of viruses is doing. And those members of the virus population group that have a survival advantage thrive while those that lack a survival advantage disappear over time. For example, a virus that kills its host does not have a survival advantage! Killing your host is a bad survival tactic for a virus! Hence, those variants of Covid that kill their host will disappear over time. And a virus that passes more rapidly from host to host does have a survival advantage. We can already see this in the so-called Delta variant—it passes more easily from host to host but is much less likely to kill the host. As the evolution of the Covid virus gene pool continues in this direction we can only hope that second-rate Chief Health Officers and hysterical politicians will wake up to the fact!
Stuntism New South Wales One Nation Leader Mark Latham says “there is a political condition called stuntism” where people do things to get themselves in the media. His comment came after Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe claimed she was being “silenced” on a parliamentary committee. “To silence an MP is a breach of parliamentary privilege ... but she’s becoming a perpetual whinger,” he said. I heard Mark using this expression “stuntism” for the first time with Peta Credlin on Sky News (just before I came on to do my weekly “Words Matter” spot). When I contacted Mark he said: “Recently I re-read Peter Walsh’s memoirs and saw his use of the term ‘stunting’ so I’ve adapted it to stuntism.” I would not be surprised if this caught on and began to be used more widely. So keep your eyes open. If it does catch on Mark Latham will join John Howard (who put “barbecue stopper” into the language), and Sir Robert Menzies (whose “the forgotten people” also became an Australian expression). Of course, some political leaders gave us expression they might have later regretted: as when Paul Keating talked about “the recession we had to have” and Malcolm Fraser said “Life wasn’t meant to be easy.” What will happen to Mark Latham’s “stuntism”? Well, we will wait and see. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see it become part of the Aussie political lingo.
Race shifting There is a strange phenomenon around the western world in which people born in one race decide as adults they belong to another race. In the US an Associate Professor of African and Latin American Studies at George Washington University, Jessica Krug, admitted she lied when she claimed she was black. She is, in fact white and Jewish. And she’s not the only one. Rachel Dolezal, an American former college instructor, grew up white and pretended to be black. She’s even written a book defending what she calls her “transracial” status. Famously Elizabeth Warren claimed to be part Cherokee. Here in Australia Bruce Pascoe grew up white but by the time he was 40 decided to call himself Aboriginal. Before Pascoe novelist Colin Johnson, who also grew up white, claimed to be a Nyoongah Aboriginal—a claim rejected by the Nyoongah community. There is now a term for this pattern. It’s called “race-switching.” Indigenous historian Victoria Grieve-Williams says the “race-shifting” phenomenon is pervasive and well recognised by Aboriginal people. From a linguistic point of view it is good to have a name for this strange phenomenon. We can talk more clearly about things we can name. As well as “race-shifting” other labels are sometimes applied: in Canada such people are called “Pretendians.” (Although I think that’s an ugly neologism and an unhelpful word.) And it’s sometimes called “box ticking”—because it can be done as easily as ticking a box on a form. This is now such a worldwide phenomenon anthropologists are starting to discuss it at their conferences. Apparently these “race-shifters” display a pattern of claiming to have had some sort life-altering experience. However, such people do not have the kinship network common to the genuinely indigenous. It’s important governments do not listen to the “race-shifters” when setting indigenous policy—only to the genuinely indigenous. But at least we now have a label that helps us name them: “race-shifters.”
“Nuclear” versus “nucular” Talking to John Stanley on 2GB, 4BC, 2CC and the Nine Radio Network this issue came up of the pronunciation of “nuclear”—and, of, course, the only correct pronunciation is newk-lee-ah. If you’re irritated every time anyone pronounces the word nuclear as nucularyou’ll be depressed to learn that this is listed as an alternative pronunciation the Merriam-Webster Dictionary – and has been since 1961. To everyone who protests the Merriam-Webster people send out a defensive 400 word letter arguing that they don’t list nucular as an acceptable alternative – just as an alternative, meaning it’s “a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable.” They go on to say they do this because of the widespread use of nucular among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, US cabinet members, and four presidents: Eisenhower, Carter, Clinton and Bush. My experience is that people who say nucular do so because they’re simply unable to wrap their tongue around nuclearand so resort to making it a parallel with words like circular and spectacular.
Federici’s ghost Frederick Federici was a handsome Italian bass baritone appearing in Melbourne in 1888 (at the height of the Marvellous Melbourne era). During a performance of Faust (in which he played Mephistopheles) he left the stage in a cloud of smoke, vanishing into a stage trap door. Under the stage Federici fell from the ladder under the trap door, and died a short time later. Before long the story began to circulate that Federici’s ghost was haunting the Princess Theatre. His spectral appearances were reported by staff working alone, late at night, in the dimly lit theatre. He was usually described as “a man in a top hat and a black evening cloak” who vanished into thin air the moment he was spotted (shy creatures these ghosts). Sadly, when a dental hospital was built next door to the Princess it blocked out the moonlight that filtered in through the high windows in the theatre – and without the misty moonlight reports of ghostly appearances all vanished. A rather prosaic end to for such a theatrical ghost.
Existential threat The Secretary General of the United Nations Antonia Guteres has called climate change an “existential threat” to humanity. As have many others – including Joe Biden. So, what is an “existential threat”? And does it make sense to talk of climate change using such language? The word “existential” is chiefly (says the Oxford) a technical word used in philosophy and logic. Although it was coined as long ago as 1656 it did not become common until the rise of the European existential philosophers – Heidegger, Sartre and the rest who opposed their “existentialist” thinking to both rationalism and empiricism. For them “existentialism” meant that philosophy must start with the existence of the self – for which we must create our own significance. But the climate hysterics have now taken this technical, philosophical term and misused it. They are now pretending that “existential” means “a threat to the existence of the human race.” But these people who claim to “follow the science” are ignoring the fact that “the science” (whatever that means!) does not say that human existence is under threat. There is no IPCC report or scientific paper that claims the human race is facing extinction. This lie is embodied in the name of the “Extinction Rebellion” organisation. The fact is that the use of “existential thereat” is both linguistic nonsense and scientific nonsense.
Pubbing I wrote about a bunch of new words—and here is another one: “phubbing.” This means phone snubbing. Imagine the situation where you are talking face to face with someone, their phone rings, and they immediately ignore you to respond to the phone. That’s phone snubbing—or “phubbing.” Now I happen to know something about this one because I was part of the team that invented it. A decade or more ago Sue Butler (who was editor of the Macquarie Dictionary at the time) gathered together a small group of us wordies at Sydney University go spend a day trying to invent a new word, and then get it into the dictionary by getting it used often enough in ordinary conversation. As well as Sue and myself I think Professor Pam Peters was there and David Astle, but I can’t remember who else. At any rate the word we came up with this word “phubbing.” It never realty took off. Thinking about it, I now believe it never really worked because it won’t work as part of the spoken language—it only works as part of the written language, and the spoken word has priority over the written word when it comes to getting a new word into circulation. So it never quite came off. But we tried!
New words I talked to Chris Kenny on Sky News about new words—new coinages that have come into the language and are being considered by Australia’s own dictionary, the Macquarie, for inclusion in a future edition. Here’s a sample: “drought child”—meaning a child born in the western districts during a long drought. Imagine a child born during a seven year drought—at the age of six that child has never seen water fall from the sky, and is astonished when it does. “Pawternity”—meaning leave taken to care for a pet. But does this ever really happen? “Thinkfluencer”—someone with a large online following but a narrow range of opinions. I suppose the idea is someone who tells their followers how to think. Both these last two words are too gimmicky (in my view) to survive for long. As I told Chris Kenny, they are likely to have the life span of a fruit fly. “Wokescold” is more useful—this refers to the person who reprimands you for not being Left enough or Woke enough. Sadly, there are too many of these arrogant, self-opinionated (and usually young) people around who think they are always the smartest person in the room, and probably smarter than any generation of human beings who have lived. We needed a word to label such people, and now we have one. Finally, there is “Teenior”—meaning a senior citizen who behaves like a teenager!
Newspeak The word “newspeak” was coined by George Orwell in his novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” published way back in 1949. Orwell used the expression to label the repressive propaganda language being forced on the subdued population in his dystopian novel. A reader of my website drew my attention to this word as his way of describing Google’s recently introduced updated rules for its Google docs platform encouraging what it calls more “inclusive” language. This includes saying that the pronouns “he” and “she” are transphobic and an expression such as “blind date” discriminates against people with disabilities. I replied on my website that such heavy-handed attempts at controlling language normally fail, because language is a democratic institution in which the users of the language determine what words they will use when they speak or write. But, can such attempts at language control ever work? Can a form of “newspeak” ever be imposed? The answer is that for “newspeak” to work it needs two things (both present in Orwell’s novel): (a) a cowed population, and (b) a totalitarian ruling class. Well, cancel culture and the abusive social media of the Woke suggest we have a totalitarian ruling class waiting the wings, completely intolerant of any disagreement. And there are major corporations that are cowering in fear and giving in to them. I guess if anyone is going to resist an imposed “newspeak” it will have to be us!
Language communists Talking to Peta Credlin on Sky News I coined a new expression—the “language communists.” Until now I have been calling those bullies who want to control what we say and what words we use “language fascists” but this new expression is more accurate. The totalitarian push to command us to drop spouse word “wife” and “husband” and replace them with “partner”, to demand that we called “Australia Day” “Invasion Day” that we use a range of bizarre new pronouns and all the rest of it, well that push doesn’t come from the far right but from the far left. It is people who call themselves Marxists or Socialists who become the language bullies. But I want to call them “language communists” because that is the historically correct label. Although the word “communist” was coined by the French in 1840 it would have bee forgotten by now except that Karl Marx took it up to label his own ideology. When he wrote a summary of his system, with his mate Friedrich Engels, he didn’t call it The Marxist Manifesto and certainly not The Democratic Socialist Manifesto—he called it The Communist Manifesto. That’s his chosen word. The left hate the word “communist” and avoid it like the plague. It exposes them for the would-be totalitarians they are. But “communist” conveys their intentions to ordinary people much more clearly than the abstract, academic-sounding word “Marxist.” So we should go back to calling them the “communists” they are. When they try to capture the minds of our children by hijacking the school curriculum; when they demand that corporation boards give in to their demands for “climate action” or “diversity” they are exposing themselves as the bullies and totalitarians they really are. And this is captured in the word “communist.” When it comes to language, their verbal bullying deserves the label “language communists.”
Lockdown There is no doubt that the word of the week is “lockdown”—with almost half of all Australians in lockdown at the moment! So where does the word come from? Although “lockdown” was coined in the US in the 19th century its original meaning was to do with the timber industry—logs that were being floated down stream had to be in “lockdown” to make the rafting system work. HOWEVER, the meaning used by state premiers today only goes back to 1973 when it was used of the American prison system. When prisoners rioted or there was a violent incident the whole prison was put into “lockdown.” The word was first used in this way in Fresno, California, following a major disturbance in the prison. So, when 12 million Australians are put into “lockdown” they are being treated like prisoners. And I must admit that I wonder if “lockdown” is linguistically even more sinister than that? When a “lockdown” in a prison is lifted the inmates are still prisoners! So, when a Covid lockdown is lifted do the citizens still remain prisoners? Are citizens now prisoners of the knee-jerk reactions of medical bureaucrats? As citizens should we (like prisoners) assume that we have now lost such basics as freedom of movement and freedom of association? Are we all now prisoners of the delta strain and is now neighbourhood now our prison which might be thrown into “lockdown” at the whim of the Delta strain?
Consent The hot word of the moment is “consent.” We are told that sexual assault and sexual harassment happen because men don’t understand consent. NSW has a law before the parliament that would require proof of consent as a defence against a charge of rape. Classes are being launched in schools to teach the concept of “consent.” But does this make sense linguistically? “Consent” has been part of English since at least 1380 and means “to agree together” – the word “together” being the key part of the definition. How that can possibly be taught coherently to couples who might pass through stages of agreement and disagreement it’s hard to see. I am happy to sound like an old fashioned Old Fogey by saying a better word to teach would be: “promiscuity” – which the dictionary says means “the frequent, casual changing of sexual partners.” I have lived through an era that has seen the normalisation of promiscuity. The result is sexual assault or harassment resulting from the expectation of promiscuity. Would those schoolroom classes work better if they talked about commitment instead of consent? Instead of continuing the portrayal of sex as a meaningless, recreational activity would more be achieved by talking about sex as the fulfilment of a deep and serious commitment that has developed? Would that do more to help a confused younger generation and protect more women?
Muck raking There is an old journalistic expression that keeps coming into my mind these days — “muck raking.” The expression appears to have been coined in the United States around 1900 to describe two types of journalists (a) those exposing corruption, and (b) and those making “a prurient inquiry into private morals” (that’s the Oxford English Dictionary’s phrase not mine). The question that keeps coming into my mind is about the possible presence of “muck raking” in Australian journalism these days – and, if so, of which kind? A worthwhile pursuit of corruption? Or a “prurient inquiry into private morals”? In the case of the 30-year-old allegation of rape against Christian Porter the ABC has now agreed that the evidence they collected would fail both criminal and civil standards – would fail both the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard” and the “balance of probability” standard. Plus there was no suggestion of corruption. Does that make such journalism mere “prurient muck raking”? And there are now attempts to show that Scott Morrison is tied to the Qanon nutty conspiracy theory because Jenny Morrison has a friend whose husband is a believer in the Qanon view of the world. What next? Blaming Morrison for the strange opinions held by his barber Since there is no corruption in having a friend with holds a strange belief, does this pursuit yet another attempt at prurient “muck raking” no in the public interest? “Muck raking” is a useful expression – and a blunt label that needs to be applied (loudly and often) to personal, mud-slinging journalism.
Vaccine hesitancy It will be December before the world’s dictionaries start announcing their competing choices for the “Word of the Year.” But, no slouch, I’d like to get in very early and nominate an expression that should be the winner (at least here in Australia). With the year only half over I propose that “vaccine hesitancy” has got to be in there with a flying chance of taking out the WOTY gong. It’s definitely a 2021 word, and just gets more and more currency with each passing week, and each new official fiddle with the vaccination rules. Because, in reality, “vaccine hesitancy” probably has more to do with “vaccine confusion” than anything else. The road signs keep changing and the warnings and assurances keep alternating. So the person the expression pictures as “hesitating” is actually just someone trying to understand what is being recommended at the moment. And I do wonder if “vaccine hesitancy” is limited to Australia? Does this also turn up in the US or the UK? And if not there, why here? Yes, definitely in with a hot chance of WOTY – “vaccine hesitancy.”
Eureka rebellion An armed conflict between diggers and government authorities on the Ballarat goldfields in Victoria in 1854. The diggers were protesting against excessive taxation (in the form of a gold digger’s licence) imposed by a government for which they had no vote, and which, therefore, did not need to respond to their protests. That makes it a “no-taxation-without-representation” battle for democracy. The actual battle, early on Sunday morning December 1st 1854, was quickly won by the troopers. But at the trials that followed juries refused to convict those charged over the rebellion, and a subsequent Royal Commission granted the diggers the rights they had battled for. Out of the rebellion came the Eureka flag based on the Southern Cross: a white cross with five white stars on a blue background.