George Carlin on English Language Usage

[Primal Curve]

Been finding a lot of quotes online that fit with conversations I've had recently:

I'm tired of television announcers, hosts, newscaster, and commentators, nibbling away at the English language, making obvious and ignorant mistakes. If I were in charge of America's broadcast stations and networks, I would gather together all the people whose jobs include speaking to the public, and I would not let them out of the room until they had absorbed the following suggestions. I'm aware that media personalities are not selected on the basis of intelligence. I know that, and I try to make allowances for it. Believe me, I really try. But still ⦠There are some liberties taken with speech that I think require intervention, if only for my own sake. I won't feel right if this chance goes by, and I keep my silence.

The English word forte, meaning "specialty" or "strong point," is not pronounced "for-tay." Got that? It is pronounced "fort." The Italian word forte, used in music notation, is pronounced "for-tay," and it instructs the musician to play loud: "She plays the skin flute, and her forte [fort] is playing forte [for-tay]." Look it up. And don't give me that whiny s***, "For-tay is listed as the second preference." There's a reason it's second: because it's not first!

Irony deals with opposites; it has nothing to do with coincidence. If two baseball palyers from the same hometown, on different teams, receive the same uniform number, it is not ironic. It is a coincidence. If Barry Bonds attains lifetime statistics identical to his father's it will not be ironic. It will be a coincidence. Irony is "a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was to be expected; a result opposite to and in mockery of the appropriate result." For instance:

        * If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck was delivering insulin, ah! Then he is the victim of an irony.

        * If a Kurd, after surviving bloody battle with Saddam Hussein's army and a long, difficult escape through the mountains, is crushed and killed by a parachute drop of humanitarian aid, that, my friend, is irony writ large.

        * Darryl Stingley, the pro football player, was paralyzed after a brutal hit by Jack Tatum. Now Darryl Stingley's son plays football, and if the son should become paralyzed while playing, it will not be ironic. It will be coincidental. If Darryl Stingley's son paralyzes someone else, that will be closer to ironic. If he paralyzes Jack Tatum's son that will be precisely ironic.

I'm tired of hearing prodigal being used to mean "wandering, given to running away or leaving and returning." The parable in the Book of Luke tells of a son who squanders his father's money. Prodigal means "recklessly wasteful or extravagant." And if you say popular usage has changed that, I say, f*** popular usage!

The phrase sour grapes does not refer to jealousy or envy. Nor is it related to being a sore loser. It deals with the rationalization of failure to attain a desired end. In the original fable by Aesop, "The Fox and the Grapes," when the fox realizes he cannot leap high enough to reach the grapes, he rationalizes that even if he had gotten them, they would probably have been sour anyway. Rationalization, that's all sour grapes means. It doesn't mean deal with jealousy or sore losing. Yeah, I know you say, "Well many people are using it that way, so the meaning is changing." And I say, "Well many people are really f****n' stupid too, shall we just adopt all their standards?"

Strictly speaking, celibate does not mean not having sex, it means not being married. No wedding. The practice of refraining from sex is called chastity or sexual abstinence. No f******. Priests don't take a vow of celibacy, they take a vow of chastity. Sometimes referred to as the "no-nookie clause."

And speaking of sex, the Immaculate Conception does not mean Jesus was concieved in the absence of sex. It means Mary was conceived without Original Sin. That's all it has ever meant. And according to the tabloids, Mary is apparently the only one who can make such a claim. The Jesus thing is called virgin birth.

Proverbial is now being used to describe things that don't appear in proverbs. For instance, "the proverbial drop in the bucket" is incorrect because "a drop in the bucket" is not a proverb, it's a metaphor. You wouldn't say, "as welcome as a turd in the proverbial punchbowl," or "as cold as the proverbial nun's box," because neither refers to a proverb. The former is a metaphor, the latter is a simile.

Momentarily means for a moment, not in a moment. The word for "in a moment" is presently "I will be there presently, Dad, and then, after pausing momentarily, I will kick you in the nuts."

No other option and no other alternative are redundant. The words option and alternative already imply otherness. "I had no option, Mom, I got this huge erection because there was no alternative." This rule is not optional; the alternative is to be wrong.

You should not use criteria when you mean criterion for the same reason that you should not use criterion when you mean criteria. These is my only criterions.

A light-year is a measurement of distance, not time. "It will take light years for young basketball players to catch up with the number of women Wilt Chamberlain has f*****, "is a scientific impossibility. Probably in more ways than one.

An acronym is not just any set of initials. It applies only to those that are pronounced as words. MADD, DARE, NATO, and UNICEF are acronyms. FBI, CIA, and KGB are not. They're just pricks.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle with this one, but I refuse to surrender: Collapsing a building with explosives is not an implosion. An implosion is a very specific scientific phenomenon. The collapsing of a building with explosives is the collapsing of a building with explosives. The explosives explode, and the building collapses inwardly. That is not an implosion. It is an inward collapsing of a building, following a series of smaller explosions designed to make it collapse inwardly. Period. F*** you!

Here's another pointless, thankless objection I'd like to register. I say it that way, because I know you people and your g**d*** "popular usage" slammed the door on this one a long time ago. But here goes anyway:

A cop out is not an excuse, not even a weak one; it is an admission of guilt. When someone "cops a plea," he admits guilt to some charge, in exchange for better treatment. He has "copped out." When a guy says, "I didn't get to f*** her because I reminded her of her little brother," he is making an excuse. If he says, "I didn't get to f*** her because I'm an unattractive schmuck," he is copping out. The trouble arises when an excuse contains a small amount of self-incriminating truth.

This one is directed to the sports people: You are destroying a perfectly good figure of speech: "Getting the monkey off one's back" does not mean breaking a losing streak. It refers only to ending a dependency. That's all. The monkey represents a strong yen. A loosing streak does not compare even remotely. Not in a literary sense and not in real life.

Here's one you hear from the truly dense: "The proof is in the pudding." Well, the proof is not in the pudding; the rice and raisins are in the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In this case, proof means "test." The same is true of "the exception that proves (tests) the rule."

An eye for an eye is not a call for revenge, it is an argument for fairness. In the time of the Bible, it was standard to take a life in exchange for an eye. But the Bible said, No, the punishment should fit the crime. Only and eye for an eye, nothing more. It is not vindictive, it is mitigatory.

Don't make the same mistake twice seems to indicate three mistakes, doesn't it? First you make the mistake. Then you make the same mistake. Then you make the same mistake twice. If you simply say, "Don't make the same mistake, " you'll avoid the first mistake.

Unique needs no modifier. Very unique, quite unique, more unique, real unique, fairly unique, and extremely unique are wrong and they mark you as dumb, although certainly not unique.

Healthy does not mean "healthful." Healthy is a condition, healthful is a property. Vegetable aren't healthy, they're dead. No food is healthy. Unlesss you have an eggplant that's doing push-ups. Push-ups are healthful.

There is no such thing or word as kudo. Kudos is a singular noun meaning praise, and it is pronounced kyoo-dose. There is also a plural form, spelled the same, but pronounced kyoo-doze. Please stop telling me, "So-and-so picked up another kudo today."

Race, creed, or color is wrong. Race and color, as used in this phrase, describe the same property. And "creed" is a stilted, outmoded way of saying "religion." Leave this tired phrase alone; it has lost its usefulness. Besides, it reeks of insincerity no matter who uses it.

As of yet is simply stupid. As yet, I've seen no progress on this one, but of course I'm speaking as of now.

Here's one you can win money on in a bar if you're within reach of the right reference book: Chomping at the bit and old stomping ground are incorrect. Some Saturday afternoon when you're getting bombed on your old stamping ground, you'll be champing at the bit to use this one.

Sorry to sound so picky, folks, but I listen to a lot of radio and TV and these things have bothered me for a long time.

[rivka]

I agree with some of those, and strongly disagree with others. Some prescriptivist I am!

[Porter]

Tell us which ones, Rivka!

[goofy]

momentarily

unique

celibacy

healthy
etc..

[Porter]

And your point, goofy?

[rivka]

Tell us which ones, Rivka!

Eh, I stopped a fraction of the way through. But while I entirely agree on forte, I somewhat disagree on irony (the sugar truck WOULD be ironic!) and completely disagree on sour grapes, prodigal, and celibate.

[goofy]

And your point, goofy?

My point is that he is wrong on a bunch of them.

[Porter]

Well, I don't think you've made your point.  He says over and over that "common usage" is wrong/stupid/etc..  It being in the dictionary doesn't make it right, by his argument.

[goofy]

Well, I don't think you've made your point.  He says over and over that "common usage" is wrong/stupid/etc..  It being in the dictionary doesn't make it right, by his argument.

How about this. He's saying these usages are wrong, but the only evidence he's giving is "because I say so." I trust the information in a good dictionary, written by lexicographers who have done the research, over someone's opinion. How else are we going to determine what words mean, if not by looking at how they are used?

[Porter]

A dictionary is only supposed to describe how the words are used, now how they should be used, neh?  

[Primal Curve]

goofy,

I don't think that's his point. His point is that the original meaning is different, but more accurate than its current usage. The further problem being that the usage is warped by under-educated media types.

[Porter]

I think there is some truth to that argument.  All else being equal, I'd say that the original meaning/pronunciation/etc. is probably more "correct".

[Noemon]

I've never heard "getting the monkey off one's back" used incorrectly.  Is it really a phrase that's often misused?

[Primal Curve]

Note that the context is in sports programming. When was the last time you sat through, say, a baseball game?

[goofy]

His point is that the original meaning is different, but more accurate than its current usage.

This is the etymological fallacy. If the original meaning is more correct, then silly should mean "blessed", nice should mean ignorant, bad should mean "homosexual", original should mean "ancestral", and meaning should mean "telling". and momentarily should mean "in a movement".

[Noemon]

Note that the context is in sports programming. When was the last time you sat through, say, a baseball game?

A year or so ago, but I'll freely admit that it's the only one I've ever been to.  I thought that he was arguing that sports people were ruining the turn of phrase, though, which suggests to me that he thought that their misuse of the term was spreading outisde of the bounds of the sports world.  Is that not what he meant?

[Primal Curve]

Note that the context is in sports programming. When was the last time you sat through, say, a baseball game?

A year or so ago, but I'll freely admit that it's the only one I've ever been to.  I thought that he was arguing that sports people were ruining the turn of phrase, though, which suggests to me that he thought that their misuse of the term was spreading outisde of the bounds of the sports world.  Is that not what he meant?

I'm tired of television announcers, hosts, newscaster, and commentators, nibbling away at the English language, making obvious and ignorant mistakes.

Though I think his concern is also that the widespread misuse of the term has caused people to misuse it also.

Though the next question is, how many people do you have regular conversations with who watch a lot of sports and would generally just ditto what the sports commentators say? I maybe have two or three people I know like this, but my eyes generally gloss over when they start talking sports, even though I've found myself enjoying the odd Brewers game and, as of last season, have become quite the Packers fan. They just don't say anything original or particularly insightful (and the conversation is usually laced with a lot of jargon), so my interest wanes and I doubt I'd catch even the most glaring of gaffs.

[Noemon]

Tons.  Pretty much all of my coworkers.  Like you, though, my eyes glaze over when they get started, so it would be pretty easy for me to have just tuned out the non-standard useage of the phrase.

I'll have to ask some of them about it and see what they say.

[goofy]

A dictionary is only supposed to describe how the words are used, now how they should be used, neh?

Yes. And people can come up with all sorts of weird opinions on how words should be used. A lot of the time they provide no evidence to support their claims. If I say that tomatoes are poisonous and should be avoided, it might be pointed out that I'm wrong. But if I make similar inaccurate claims about language, no one seems to care.

[Porter]

I think that's because saying that a particular usage of language is "wrong" doesn't really mean anything.  At least nothing concrete that you can nail down with certainty like you can with the poisonous attributes of members of the nightshade family.

[goofy]

I think that's because saying that a particular usage of language is "wrong" doesn't really mean anything.  At least nothing concrete that you can nail down with certainty like you can with the poisonous attributes of members of the nightshade family.

yeah... otoh it does mean something in that it's a fact that can be checked.

[Porter]

I'm not convinced that it does.

How do you check to see if a given usage is correct?  Appeals to authority or common usage are worthless for the sake of this discussion.

[goofy]

I'm not convinced that it does.

How do you check to see if a given usage is correct?  Appeals to authority or common usage are worthless for the sake of this discussion.

As I said, imo the only reasonable way to check whether a given usage is correct is to look at how the majority of your speech community uses it. And the easiest way to do this is to check a good dictionary.

[Porter]

It's certainly a reasonable way, but it doesn't work if it's not agreed that  common usage or the dictionary are authoritative.

[goofy]

It's certainly a reasonable way, but it doesn't work if it's not agreed that  common usage or the dictionary are authoritative.

My point here is that how we think about language is stuck in the past. We tend to take what the experts say seriously, even if they don't provide evidence or say "it's this way because I say so". In other fields, we use rational enquiry to examine the evidence. But when it comes to language, we don't, and this means that most discussions about language are doomed to failure.