Stupid lexicon analysis or the art of insulting someone’s intelligence

 

[bunny*]

Vocabulary development among languages is neither evenly distributed or uniform. Yet, people around the world appreciate the art of a good insult, especially of another person’s intelligence. Simply put, calling someone stupid or an idiot or whatever the word in the local language, simply does not cut it. The audience, if not the victim, expects creativity and style. In practice, the approaches to questioning other people’s intellectual ability primarily involve making remarks about the material between their ears, the ability to process information, medical conditions and any resemblance to somethng or someone considered unintelligent as well as a few wonderful lexiconic inventions. I will provide a small sample of such terms from English, French and Hebrew as well as present my favorites.

A common way of explaining stupidity is speculating on the lack of grey matter between the ears. In English, it may appear that the interlocker is a blockhead , meathead or dope, a thick soup in Dutch. If we believe there is nothing, an airhead is appropriate. If we know that there is something but its nature is unclear, nitwit, an older word for a drink with unidentified ingredients, can apply.  Possibly, the person may be just dense, i.e., too solid for the brain to function. The French seem to focus less on this aspect. Cul (ass) implies that an error occurred in anatomical placement while cloche, a clock, applies a hard outside but hollow inside. Modern Hebrew, despite its relatively young age, places such materials as floor tiles, cabbage and sweet potatoes between the ears as in the expressions ראש בלטה [rosh balata], ראש כרוב [rosh kruv] and ראש בטטה [rosh bottata], respectively. Of course, it the head is filled with beech wood בוק [bok], thoughts also do not come easily. All these are material insults.

Sometimes, the problems appears to be how the information is actually processed. If a person is dull, half-witted or simpleminded, thinking is not an easy task. Nitwit, a word actually derived from Yiddish, a language particularly rich in insults, implies no ability at all. The French consider being heavy, balourd, blocked, bouché, and off-angle, obtuse, excellent causes of stupidity. In Israel, having a room that is sealed off is a positive feature during a war but having a brain that is אטום [atum] is a definite handicap. For such people, even when there is a will, there is no way.

Of course, medical conditions do affect mental activity. Despite the fact most people cannot identify such conditions and, even if they do exist, they are not the fault of the person, off-handed diagnosis makes for great insults. Calling someone retarded may be true statement but not in most instances.  The French use of the word crétin technically refers to chronic iodine deficiency, a rare condition today.  As for sanity, the words sot and abruti cast doubts about the mental stability of the individual. The Hebrew curse פוסטמה [pustema] comes from a word for pus, whatever the connection is. טוםטום [tumtum] is a term to describe ambiguous physical sexual identify. which may or may not be obvious to the casual observer. On occasions, anybody can become a doctor.

Of course, metaphors are both direct and creative. Somehow, Anglo-Saxons think birds are not very intelligent, which may explain the term birdbrain. (The raptors of the world may be angry at this comparison). For that matter, asses, the animal, are very adept at surviving unlike humans accused of being like them. The French compare idiots to both animals, bêta, and lower-class people, rustre, agricultural workers with low intelligence. Hebrew sources comparisons come from all period of the history of the Jews.  אוויל [avvil] is simpleton in the Bible;  גולם [golem] is a unfinished Frankenstein-like creature from medieval myths; and דפר [dapar] is one of the initial psychotechnics tests that the IDF gives to new recruits. Apparently, a very low grade implies stupidity. These metaphorical comparisons can be very nasty.

As for my top three choices, picked on the basis of creativity and sheer weirdness. In English, I now appreciate dunce for its amazing history. Originally, people considered the 13th century theologian John Duns Scotus and his followers very intelligent but rudely rejected them their approach several centuries later, regarding them and their hats look as quite stupid. The French duconneau literally means from Conneau. Apparently, somebody was not very bright in that family or area. Finally, in Hebrew, in a TV commercial, one of the banks used the expression לא עיפרון חכי חד בקלמר [lo ha’iparon hachi chad b’kalmar], meaning not the sharpest pencil in the pencil box. Now, that’s a witty insult.

Please be assured that I never use such terms directly to a person as I am very polite but in the privacy of our own brain, we can think what we want. As Pascal said, man (and woman) are thinking reeds. He did not discuss how much critical thoughts dominate. The fact is that human beings love to criticize other people, especially their intelligence. One of the beauties of human thought is the level of creativity and innovation we apply in doing it. Insulting is an art.

 

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

Shoe-sing names – a foot-long lexicon

 

[two foot soles*]

Many years ago, I translated a lease agreement between French and Israeli opera companies involving the performance of a certain opera in Tel Aviv. The contract part was quite standard but the appendix at the end was a killer: a list of the clothing, some of it typical of the 17-18th century, to be included in the lease, including a list of shoes, specifying their style type. That was my introduction to the complexity of shoe names. For those that may have thought that, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a shoe is a shoe is a shoe, the reality is far more complex. from minimalist to maximalist, shoes take on many different forms, use many different materials, serve many different purposes, have many different origins and thus have many different names.

Sandals

[flip-flops on beach]

are the simplest and most ancient of all footwear, dating back at least to Persian times and existing in one form or another in all cultures. Originally made of wood (sandal wood), often constructing from leather, even rope and more currently from plastic, sandals cover the sole of the foot and contain enough over-foot blinding to keep the sole attached. Country-specific versions include opanci and opinga (Balkans), huarche (ancient Mexico), zori (Japan) and bast shoes (Finland). Beachgoers can put on thongs, bangers, flip-flops and jandals, depending on where you are from. All these shoes protect your sole.

[slippers]

For those that also worry about their toes, the major option is a slipper, which is open-healed in order to allow you to “slip in” to it easier. My wife enjoys hers fur-filled in the winter, which keeps her toes nice and warm. Local versions include Peranakan beaded slippers (Malaysia), galesh and kiveh (Iran) and Cantabrian albarkas (northern Spain), to name a few. Clogs and sabots are made of wood and are solid if noisy. These shoes are home comfort and convenient.

[pair of canvas shoes]

There are many varieties of light full shoes. Espadrilles, made of rope, originated in the Pyrenees but now can be found everywhere. Jelly shoes are plastic, far more modern obviously. Likewise, people can purchase moccasins worldwide. Boat shoes, made from canvas or leather, are also prevalent. Some more local versions are Peshawri chappal (Himalayas) and tiger shoes (China). Sneakers (or trainers in the UK) are omnipresent and received their name because they allowed to children to sneak, i.e., make no noise, as compared to leather shoes. These are perfect for warm weather.

[pair of hiking boots]

For reasons of length, ignorance and discretion, I will slip the seeming endless list of types of standard shoes and boots for men and women. The nomenclature is simply far too long and dynamic, almost to the level of the pain they may cause us when we wear them. Instead, it is more interesting to consider the number of vocation-specific shoes. For example, boating shoes have features that allow them to grip and repel water. Steel tip and pointe shoes have reinforced tips, albeit for different reasons. Rock climbing shoes remove all reinforcement and feature sticky soles. Jazz shoes are lighter but have a small heal in order to facilitate dance. Sea boots are waterproof, a very useful property at sea, while snow boots have a similar feature but more appropriate for walking. Hiking boots are strong all over and protect the foot from the punishment of rocks and long days on one's feet. To get exotic, Chinese women with bound feet wore lotus shoes while, in more modern times, diabetic shoes can help with food circulation. On the field, players can wear football-style or soccer-style shoes, depending on the length of the cleats with cross country and tennis players each having their own forms. Running shoes are for runners, obviously, with extra reinforcement in the appropriate areas. Today, every activity has its shoe.

As I discovered then, the sheer variety of shoe types is enough to drive any person crazy, aside possibly from late Imelda Marcos. If the significance of an object to society can be measured in the number of words to describe it, apparently shoes are of great importance in most societies. Walking into a shoe store is confusing not only due to the rainbow of colors and shapes but also for the plethora of styles. The lexicon of shoes styles is far longer than a foot. I only wish that the number of comfortable options was as long. People can be quite shoe-sy.

* Picture captions allow the blind to fully access the Internet.

Picture credits - Pixabay

Jeffersonian language drivers

George Carlin, a man obsessed by the search for truth, had a notable routine about the common misuse of phrases. In itself, it is quite interesting.  Among the phrases he mentions are the terms sour grapes, cop out and get a monkey off your back.  He points out that these terms have specific meanings that have been misused by public speakers. For example, a person with sour grapes is not jealous but instead rationalizes a failure. Likewise, to cop out is admit some guilt, not to find an excuse. A team cannot get a monkey off its back by stopping a losing streak since the monkey in this case is an addiction that controls its life. Nobody actually seeks to lose, rendering the expression inappropriate in the circumstances.  The full video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn9elWR13Z4.

Aside from the cleverness and information in this video, it raises a much more profound issue. Specifically, is correctness determined by a small group of educated people or, to paraphrase Carlin, the mass of idiots out there? In other words, the unspoken debate, as in Ibsen’s Enemy of the People, is whether truth, linguistic in this case, is objective or subjective.

On the one hand, I would agree that poor language cannot be justified by the quantity of Google hits. As an English lecture, I insist on the non-use of but in the beginning of a sentence despite its frequent use there in journalism. Likewise, I correct effect to affect when it is used as a verb although countless native speakers don’t know the difference.  So, I support the insistence on language standards and calling a spade a spade.

Yet, when it comes to vocabulary meanings, I am not Don Quixote fighting the windmill of common use. People have always used terms as they sit fit even if the genealogy of the word did not justify such use. To take a modern example, the gay 90’s (1890’s) were happy times, supposedly, as compared to the gay 90’s (1990’s) when homosexuality became more accepted. The people of each period understood the term as they chose.  Beyond that, I even embrace the dynamics of language. Language defines each generation in terms of its thinking and technology. Cloud technology existed a half century ago but was used for creating rain as compared to today. The dynamics of language development is fascinating and legitimate even if it is driven by a bunch of “assholes” as my brother would say.

So, while I sympathize and appreciate the efforts of Carlin and others to maintain standards in a language, when it comes to lexicon, I am not in the camp of Hamilton but in that of Jefferson.  To explain, the meaning of the words is to be decided by the people, however uneducated they maybe, not by the elite, however superior they may be. Let the revolution continue, not that anybody can stop it.