Abolish apostrophes?

As I worked to write a long email on my iPhone, I found myself skipping some apostrophes because the reader certainly would understand what I was trying to communicate. This made me wonder why we users of English don't organize and officially eliminate apostrophes in many contractions. How about writing "dont" instead of "don't"? How about "cant" instead of "can't" (no one will confuse it with the obscure noun or little-used noun, verb and adjective versions of "cant." Even without an apostrophe, we would instantly know what "doesnt" and "wasnt" mean. Arguments can even be made to eliminate apostrophes in possessives (we've actually done that in pronoun possessives (his, her, their, its).  The apostrophe, as used in contractions, was originally implemented to warn us that something is missing.  If it's already apparent what's missing, though, the apostrophe (at least in many cases) seems redundant. I checked to see whether anyone else has proposed to do away with many of our apostrophes and I found this article by Richard Nordquist, who offers many resources, including a link to the aptly named Apostrophe Protection Society. I know that what I propose will never happen.  That is the power of path dependency.  But perhaps it is already happening unofficially, due to the way many of us are taking shortcuts on our smartphones. I know that Im not the only one who doesnt like digging out those little apostrophes and I wont be inclined to change my ways.

Continue ReadingAbolish apostrophes?

No such people

Newt Gingrich recently asserted that the Palestinians are "an invented people," and that they are also "terrorists." Gingrich then offered this alleged history:

“Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire,” Gingrich told The Jewish Channel in an interview released on Friday. . . . [The] American Task Force on Palestine spokesman Hussein Ibish was quick to point out that “there was no Israel and no such thing as an ‘Israeli people’ before 1948,” when the Jewish state was established.
Glenn Greenwald has pointed out that the most damaging words tend to be those words like "terrorism," which have no clear meaning.

Continue ReadingNo such people

On defining “terrorism”

Glenn Greenwald once again finds that the United States defines its terms, in this case, "terrorism," in strangely specialized ways:

Few things better illustrate the utter meaninglessness of the word Terrorism than applying it to a citizen of an invaded country for fighting back against the invading army and aiming at purely military targets (this is far from the first time that Iraqis and others who were accused of fighting back against the invading U.S. military have been formally deemed to be Terrorists for having done so). To the extent the word means anything operationally, it is: he who effectively opposes the will of the U.S. and its allies. This topic is so vital because this meaningless, definition-free word — Terrorism — drives so many of our political debates and policies. Virtually every debate in which I ever participate quickly and prominently includes defenders of government policy invoking the word as some sort of debate-ending, magical elixir: of course President Obama has to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process: they’re Terrorists; of course we have to stay in Afghanistan: we have to stop The Terrorists; President Obama is not only right to kill people (including civilians) using drones, but is justified in boasting and even joking about it, because they’re Terrorists; of course some people should be held in prison without charges: they’re Terrorists, etc. etc. It’s a word that simultaneously means nothing and justifies everything.

Continue ReadingOn defining “terrorism”

What Most Sets of Commandments Get Wrong

I recently read Penn Jillette's 10 Commandments for atheists, written as a response to a challenge by Glenn Beck. Most of Penn's rules made good sense. But one went off the rails, I opine. He included one found in most mistranslations of the Christian Ten: "Don't Lie." Penn explicitly adds the caveat: "(You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)" But the premise is basically flawed. The original line in Exodus 20:16 (KJV) is Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. This is a very specific form of lie. Even too specific. Not only is it an injunction against perjury, but only against perjury against your landholding neighbor, as opposed to people from other places, or to property such as women and slaves. Of course we all must lie on occasion. How else can we answer, "Isn't she the most beautiful baby ever?" or "Honey, do I look puffy?" Would it be false testimony to confirm a harmless bias one on one? Yet I suggest that the proper commandment should be, "Don't bear false witness." Period. Don't testify to things of which you are not absolutely sure; that you have not personally experienced. Not in a public forum. Don't repeat "what everybody knows" unless you preface it with an appropriate waffle, such as "I heard that someone else heard that..." But this might make it difficult to testify to the all-embracing love of a demonstrably genocidal God. A Google image search of "Testify" gives mostly Christian imagery.

Continue ReadingWhat Most Sets of Commandments Get Wrong