The government of the tongue has been elaborated on for centuries. Richard Allestree would belong with the recognized scope of religious thought. There would be a resource stern in criticizing the liberty of the tongue; freedom of speech would stand close to blasphemy and atheism in the writing. The book would be ascribed to Richard Allestree.

The text of the book “Government of the Tongue”

There are things that change about the humanity over time. There are respects with which humanity remains invariable.

We humans are mortal and realize this. No one may assert that he or she knows what happens after his or her death. Faith is not knowledge; no knowledge is all-encompassing. Therefore, the non-believer and believer would not be strict opposites.

The non-believer would not necessarily claim there is no God; he or she may decline concluding on the universe entire. Importantly, the believer would not propose a holistic resolve, either: religion does not offer a picture of the cosmos. The non-believer may live and work without a yearning for God’s existence as well as non-existence. The believer will live and work without God being his or her very focus a proportion of the time.

The resolve on belief or non-belief would remain equally with the individual. A non-believer, one might not be forced to deliberate on existence of a being not believed. A believer, one might feel that the comprehension on existence would remain with the very deity understood to have originated gnosis altogether.

Here are a few Greek words on existence, as for the matters that happen to change from time to time,

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?type=begin&q=exist&lang=greek

Therefore, a non-believer myself, I still do not intend to propose a resolve on God’s existence. The purpose of this post is to discuss freedom of speech in the light of the notion of the government of the tongue as derived from religious resources. My perspective will be philological and I will refer to the resource as “The Government”, since the book does not figure in the bibliographical notes for Richard Allestree.

The text attempts to support its fierce treatment of freedom of speech with frequent invocations of king Solomon. Let us look at two examples.

The Philosopher and the Divine equally attest this: and Solomon (who was both) gives his suffrage also;

Solomon tells us Death and Life are in the power of the Tongue, and that not only directly in regard of the good or ill we may do to others, but reflexively also, in respect of what may rebound to ourselves. Let Moses then make the inference from Solomon’s premises, Therefore choose life, Deut. 30. 15. a proposal so reasonable, so agreeable to nature, that no flourishes can render it more inviting.

These would look definitely denominational, compared with the matter of the Gospel.

⁴² The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here (Matthew 12).

²⁷ Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. (Luke 12)

The irresistible philological temptation is to compare the above with Wycliffe.

²⁸ And of clothing what ben ye bisye? Biholde ye the lilies of the feeld, how thei wexen. Thei trauelen not, nether spynnen;²⁹ and Y seie to you, Salomon in al his glorie was not keuered as oon of these. (Matheu 6)

⁴² The queene of the south shal rise in doom with this generacioun, and schal condempne it; for she cam fro the eendis of the erthe to here the wisdom of Salomon, and lo! here a gretter than Salomon. (Matheu 12)

Let us stay with temptation for a while. “The Government” would have “good” words and “bad” words. Temptation would be one of the “bad” words:

A man secluded from company can have but the Devil and himself to tempt him …

At the same time, the book would advocate memorizing texts,

But sure tis a pitiful pretence to ingenuity that can be thus kept up, there being little need of any other faculty but memory to be able to cap Texts.

Therefore, the text would advise memorizing what is good and what is bad, keeping guard:

The Tongue is so slippery, that it easily deceives a drowsy or heedless guard.

… so the childish parts of us, our passions, our fancies, all our mere animal faculties, can thrust our tongues into such disorder, as our reason cannot easily rectify. The due management therefore of this unruly member, may be rightly be esteemed on of the greatest mysteries of Wisdom and Virtue.

The relativism would blame language, not the language user. Speech is described as the force of all our other depravation, quoting the Old Testament. Fluency is outwardly condemned,

David uttered a bloody vow against Nabal, spake words smoother than oil to Uriah, when he had done him one injury, and designed him another. Twere endless to reckon up those several instances the Old Testament … amidst the universal depravation of our Faculties, there is none more notorious than that of speech.

Philologically, one notices a broken argument:

Other blasphemies level some at one Attribute, some another; but this by a more compendious impiety, shoots at his very being; and as if it scorned those piece-meal guilts, sets up a single monster big enough to devour them all: for all inferior profaneness is an much outdated by Atheism, as is religion itself. 2. Time was when the inveighing against this, would have been thought a very impertinent subject in a Christian nation, and men would have replied upon me as the Spartan Lady did, when she was asked what was the punishment for adulteresses, There are no such things here.

Whether adulteresses would have been things, or there would not have been punishment, the adversely influenced discourse would show most weakness in its treatment of the negative,

Secondly, it does not suffice that I do not know the falsity; for to make me a true speaker, tis necessary I know the truth of what I affirm. Nay, if the thing were never so true, yet if I knew it not to be so, its truth will not secure me from being a liar: and therefore, whoever endeavors to have that received for a certainty, which himself knows not to be so, offends against truth. The utmost that can consist with sincerity, is to represent it to others as doubtful as it appears to him: yet even that how consonant soever to truth, is not to Charity.

Now to apply these practices to our rule of duty, there will need no very close inspection to discern the obliquity.

The geographical interpretation on James’s stanzas would resound a grudge against Vespucci and Columbus, Europe having stood for the world entire to many people, before the discovery of America and other territories:

… it doth indeed pass all Geography to draw an exact Map of that world of iniquity, as St. James calls it.

Let us invoke the strictly metaphorical use in the Gospel, along with the figurative reference on adultery “The Government” would be missing,

⁶ And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. (James, 3:6)

Patrick J. Hartin would say, Here one is using the tongue not to pray, but to make evil requests of God in prayer. Mr. Hartin’s discourse would not be lacking in the interpretation of the term “mochalides”, “adulteresses”:

The word moichalides (“adulteresses”) is used in the figurative sense of the biblical tradition, where Israel is the bride of God … (James: Sacra Pagina Series, Patrick J. Hartin)

Denying atheists conscience, “The Government” would be making selfish attempts, indeed:

Human spite is usually confined within some bounds, aims sometimes at the goods, sometimes at the fame, at most but at the life of our neighbor: but here is an accumulation of all those, backed with the most prodigious insolence. Tis God only that has power of annihilation, and we (vile worms) seek here to steal that incommunicable right, and retort it upon himself, and by an anticreative power would unmake him who has made us. Nay lastly, by this we have not only the utmost guilt of single rebels, but we become ringleaders also, draw in others to that accursed association: for tis only this liberty of Discourse that has propagated Atheism.

Their most bold Thesis, That there is no God, no judgement, no hell, is often met with an inward tremulous Hypothesis, What if there be? I dare in this remit me to themselves, and challenge (not their consciences, who profess to have none, but) their natural ingenuity to say, whether they have not sometimes such damps and shivering within them. If they shall say, that these are but the relics of prepossession and education, which their reason soon dissipates, Let me then ask them farther, whether they would not really give a considerable sum to be infallibly ascertained there were no such thing …

Importantly, the word atheist does not come from the word thesis. It relates to the Greek word “theos”, god. Perseus also shows the lexical items referring to theses. An affirmed atheist would not place disbelief with a term categorically to refer to theory. As I have already stated, I do not intend to resolve on the matter.

Returning to the “Government”, language deficit to be equaled with waging war on God,

I Begin with those which relate to God, this poor despicable member the tongue being of such a gigantic insolence, though not size, as even to make war with heaven. Tis true every disordered speech doth remotely so, as it is a violation of God’s law,

Wycliffe’s mirth is yet not to be taken even with such an attempt:

A Third sort of impious discourse there is, which yet is bottomed on the most sacred, I mean those profane paraphrases that are usually make upon the holy Text, many making it the subject of their cavils, and others of their mirth.

Wycliffe’s Bible front matter with the authors

King James Version translators relied for quality on Wycliffe’s Early Version.

Why did they do this? Simply put, in countless passages of the “Early Version”, both the poetry of the language and fidelity to the original Greek text are superior to that found in the “Later Version”, not only the Bible Gateway says.

With many regards, one may not agree to the status of language as only a tool to serve the “traffic and interchange” for “the notions and sentiments of a reasonable soul”, “the instrument to manage a commerce between the rational yet invisible powers of human souls”, as “The Government” would purport.

The Internet Archive also has Wycliffe downloads.

“The Government” front matter does not name the author. There is a circumstantial remark on a late Author within the text:

Men are indeed in all instances apt to speak ill of all things they understand not, but in none more than this. Their ignorance of local customs, Idioms of language, and several other circumstances, renders them incompetent judges, (as has been excellently evinced by a late Author).

Book titles happen to be the same, and “The Whole Duty of Man” itself has happened to be ascribed to 27 people so far. Therefore, my final comment will be that the text presents serious logical flaws and limited language functions in the interpretation of the figurative content of the Bible. This makes it not recommendable linguistically — I leave the parish to  the parishioner.

Government of the Tongue second impression

The First Amendment shall remain an excellent piece of legislation, certainly not violating religious guidance.

“Looking to Wycliffe” is another of my projects, strictly philological, intended to show English as a live tongue:

978-1-304-02730-6

The word “Bible” comes from the Greek “byblos”. The Greek “byblografia” was a “writing of books”. Regardless of who had odds or ends with papyrus, the question may remain — what is the word of God?

Natasha Kampus, Jaycee Lee Dugard, Elizabeth Smart — among many others, got kidnapped, the abductors claiming guidance coming from God. Could one really get such guidance on this Earth?

The Bible is made of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Greek “telemation” and “eschaton” would have denoted lasting. The Old Testament Book of Job, recounting on ordeal, foretells a new arrangement between the god and the humanity.

There are four New Testament books by the four Apostles to tell about the life of Jesus Christ. This is the original Christian matter, the name “Christianity” coming from Christ. However, the word of God, Christ’s words, remain reported.

Importantly, the New Testament affirms the Old with the respect: the Old Testament also reports on God. The God did not write it himself. More, the Old Testament is not all about God’s advice. It is intended to tell a parable about the beginnings of human kind.

Lot left Zoar to live in the mountains. The older daughter spoke to the younger then (Genesis 19:31). The older daughter would have mothered the Moab. The younger would have brought fourth the Ammon, dependants of Assyria.

God does not tell you what to do. You may seek counsel with the Bible, your conscience — as well as your learning and comprehension — being your responsibility.

So much for now about reading books.

Some time ago, it might have been revolutionary to criticize Shakespeare as hardly anyone had done it before. Today, holding the Bard cheap would be like crediting an outlook of a dweller of an imaginary sleepy town, where everyone would wear the same clothes, eat the same food and, as a result, have the same dreams. Naturally, one would need to imagine that there would be a formula for making dreams merely out of garment and viands.

Washington Allston coined the phrase “objective correlative” in his Lectures on Art. His primary tool being his painter’s brush I could hardly imagine used to the graceful Impressionist effect ever, Allston would have looked to vegetables, judging on human emotion.

Mont Sainte-Victoire by Paul Cézanne

Take an example from one of the lower forms of organic life,—a common vegetable. Will any one assert that the surrounding inorganic elements of air, earth, heat, and water produce its peculiar form? Though some, or all, of these may be essential to its developement, they are so only as its predetermined correlatives, without which its existence could not be manifested; and in like manner must the peculiar form of the vegetable preexist in its life, —in its idea,—in order to evolve by these assimilants its own proper organism.

No possible modification in the degrees or proportion of these elements can change the specific form of a plant,―for instance, a cabbage into a cauliflower; it must ever remain a cabbage, small or large, good or bad.  So, too, is the external world to the mind; which needs, also, as the condition of its manifestation, its objective correlative. Hence the presence of some outward object, predetermined to correspond to the preexisting idea in its living power, is essential to the evolution of its proper end,―the pleasurable emotion.

There have been theories on vegetables and light: veg can have more sugar under some red or blue auras ― the color is hardly relevant, as the cost of the shine would hatchet production. Should one harbor especially vindictive feelings about music, tune playing might be also purported to elevate plant mood before the thing is eaten ― all the above having no possible relation to human feelings except meal times.

T.S. Eliot proceeded with making the jacket for the potato. In Hamlet and His Problems, Eliot states,

Hamlet is a stratification, (…) it represents the efforts of a series of men, each making what he could out of the work of his predecessors. The Hamlet of Shakespeare will appear to us very differently if, instead of treating the whole action of the play as due to Shakespeare’s design, we perceive his Hamlet to be superposed upon much cruder material which persists even in the final form.

Eliot also says,

The only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an “objective correlative”; in other words, a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked.

Hardly sound on literary grounds, the criticism may be psychologically revealing about Eliot himself. In his critical endeavors, Eliot referred to the thing theory, mimesis and diegesis, as well as pathetic fallacy. All these frameworks would involve the agent-patient relations that T.S. Eliot would have had some difficulty grasping.

The thing theory would alienate perception, objects becoming things when in focus. The approach to mimesis would seek equanimity in having the object for the medium. The pathetic fallacy would quantify and thus deny sentiment.

Both the emotionally “objective” authors, Allston as well as Eliot, had own emotional problems. Allston is reported to have suffered from melancholia. Eliot had an aboulic stage in life. Both would have been seeking ― a non-existent ― mechanism to produce feelings. And feelings objectively would be non-correlative with mere utility.

Needless to say, animacy would have such an “objective” actually reism linguistically only for a plaything. And well, I can agree both with haters and lovers of potatoes ― feel welcome to see my Potato nut.

The “government of the tongue” has had two most prominent treatments: religious and poetic. The two may have stood at even dramatic odds, some preachers seeking consistency with early Christianity, poets cherishing the beauty of language itself. A linguist and a poet a bit, I will try to put consistency and beauty in the focus together.

James 3, Taming the Tongue

New International Version

³ When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. ⁴ Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. ⁵ Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. ⁶ The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

James chapter 3 might be the sternest condemnation of a body part seen and heard of ever. Still, one may compare a sermon by Thomas Boston,

The keeping of the tongue is one of those duties that entitles a man to safety from evil times, and therefore must now be urged as a seasonable duty. The wisest monarch could hardly govern a great part of the world; how difficult then must it be to govern a world, and that a world of iniquity. The tongue is a world of iniquity, a heap of evils; as in the world many things are contained, so in the tongue. This world of iniquity is divided into two parts, undue silence, and sinful speaking. These are the higher and lower parts of this world, yet quickly may men travel from the one to the other.

Thomas Boston on the keeping of the tongue

James’s words are fierce. The apostle yet is determined to appeal to the early Christian, a human being likely to face persecution to involve bodily damage. James’s allusion to fire is strictly metaphorical, and the apostle does not condemn language. He advises considerateness in language use.

The context is not the same with Thomas Boston. The intimation of physical peril is gone; the metaphor of a sear on the conscience is used in the negative. The preacher refers to hierarchical verticality ― the upside of godness and the downside of evil ― again, to counsel on reasonableness in language use. The present day perspective on freedom of speech would not support many of the guidelines.

Both texts may be appreciated for their use of metaphor. Naturally, there would not be any original Christian matter advocating fire to introduce or instill belief. The fact was recognized by John Paul II apologizing for the Inquisition.

We can find the original Christian matter in the Bible. The matter does not imply any necessity of physical restraint on speech; the metaphor shows in the variety of translations:

James 1:26

Wycliffe Bible

²⁶ And if any man guesseth himself to be religious, and refraineth not his tongue, but deceiveth his heart, the religion of him is vain.

King James Version

²⁶ If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.

New International Version

²⁶ Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.

Knox Bible

²⁶ If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.

New Life Version

²⁶ If a person thinks he is religious, but does not keep his tongue from speaking bad things, he is fooling himself. His religion is worth nothing.

Hoffnung für Alle

²⁶ Wer sich für fromm hält, aber seine Zunge nicht zügeln kann, der macht sich selbst etwas vor. Seine Frömmigkeit ist nichts wert.

Luther Bibel 1545

²⁶ So sich jemand unter euch läßt dünken, er diene Gott, und hält seine Zunge nicht im Zaum, sondern täuscht sein Herz, des Gottesdienst ist eitel.

Joseph Butler came closer to the literary and linguistic sense of government,

Grammar The influence of a word over the morphological inflection of another word in a phrase or sentence.

Joseph Butler says,

The translation of this text would be more determinate by being more literal, thus: “If any man among you seemeth to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” This determines that the words, “but deceiveth his own heart,” are not put in opposition to, “seemeth to be religious,” but to, “bridleth not his tongue.”

Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel, by Joseph Butler (1827 edition)

Frugality would be less desirable in literature and poetry, fineness not to denote prolixity.

The Government of the Tongue_Seamus Heaney and T.S. Eliot memorial lectures

The thought of the government also happens to bring on awkward re-phrasings,

In the process of doing justice to the events of political violence―and in particular death―poetry could not help but forge a higher consciousness of these events that was political in its ironic detachment from claims as to the necessity of such violence. The achievement of this alternative form of politics, this government in exile, was to establish that identity and belonging are aspects of consciousness and imagination, rather than of territory and power.

I cannot help but disagree on inevitableness of ironic detachment, as well as identity belonging with imagination.

The Government of the Tongue Lexis Nexis

My dear head does not give me headaches and this is one of the reasons I literally love it. Should I write, ‘my dear Head…’ ?

Some guys will tell you to spell words with capital letters for respect. You say ‘the Queen’s English’, and you say ‘the Chairman’, the guys would argue. Well, but then you’d have to look respectful about the Nazis and the Jihad …

Human thought has had the human body in view. We humans have heads of sentences and clauses; we have heads of states. And we humans could not live without own heads cozy with own necks. This might be the reason for some singularity in the use of capital letters.

The capital, that is, big letters work along with the way we orient in the reality. There are no proper nouns objectively, proper nouns are nouns as perceived by humans. I do not and would not advocate misspelling family or second names. This is, however, a human idea to spell them with big letters, and not any supernatural endowment.

With heads of states, relevance would matter most. The President would be the relevant president in office. The Queen would be the relevant ruler. Therefore, I would not have it for a mistake, if an American or person of a nationality other than British would write, ‘the queen’ about Elizabeth II. Ms. Windsor is not the head of the U.S.A. or all countries, she is the head of the UK and the Commonwealth. It might be actually un-diplomatic towards other rulers, if to try to nominate the one and only crowned head.

Well, plurality could come naturally cumbersome: one head not giving you headache, no one can tell what would be, should you have two …

What if you’d have two heads of states to write about in one essay, for example? The language matter happens to pool information also on reference. Just as one can write the Flag for the American (or another, relevant) flag, one can write the American president and the English queen, not capitalizing either — again, for diplomacy’s sake. Naturally, the phrases ‘Mr. Obama’ or ‘Ms. Windsor’ could not be taken for terms of offense.

The Queen’s (or King’s) English is a phrase not to refer to any particular person. England has had quite a few queens and kings so far. The phrase denotes the Standard English or Received Pronunciation. Viewing the phrase as belonging with one person only and making a proper noun reference could compare with coining ‘standard terms’ such as ‘Stalin’s Russian’ or ‘Hitler’s German’. The English themselves might go unhappy, however they are experts at splendid isolation.

Feel welcome to see the Word Reference forum,

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2544184

Martin Buber by Andy Warhol

Martin Buber would envision the human being in a bit of an embryonic role. I can agree that human cognition has its limitations, yet an embryonic status about human minds looks exaggerated. The matter evidently evolves round personal pronouns.

The philosopher, whose earnestness of study I do not mean to question, would yet see humans as entities in incessant ties; he would only differentiate this persistent condition into the I-You and I-It relationship. Simply speaking, every human would be an “I”. And every human would be always in a relationship, to a “You” or to an “It” — like an embryo, incapable of independent living.

Buber’s famous essay on existence, Ich und Du, has been about as famously translated into I and Thou. Arguments on philosophical intricacies have not convinced me on the alleged non-existence of an English word for the German ‘du’. It would not be just me, looking to the translation for Bist du bei mir — If you are with me.

There a few more unconvincing “details” about Buber philosophy and its followers. Let us think about the word “being”. It is construed with the third person singular, “it”. However, if we modify this word with the adjective “human”, we refer to the “human being” as “him” or “her”.

According to Buber, the world would be an It. We yet may think about a world as by a man or by a woman, in which case the semantics would play its good trick and add male or female attributes to the notion of the world. Naturally, everyone may try own perception on The World According to Garp.

Semantics is the language matter about meaning. This meaning may be not bound by singular, isolated lexical items. A “human being” may be a male or a female. A “world” can be a male or female world.

Languages also happen to have arbitrary, grammatical gender. In French or Spanish, a “book” is going to be a “him”. In Russian, a book is going to be a “her”. Ancient Romans had a day-book or diary for an “ephemeris”, a “her”. This arbitrary gender has had nothing to do with recognizing sex, since the beginning of time: mostly males were literate in ancient Rome.

Let us think about reference to countries: English would speak about a country as an “it”. French or Spanish would have their “pays” or “pais” for “males”.  As regards home countries, the legitimate Italian “she”, “patria”,  would keep company to the legal French “patrie”, Germans remaining unpersuadable on their “Vaterland” : there would be “Muttersprache”, but “Mutterland” would mean the country of origin, not the home country. American English would allow both fatherland and motherland, the home country or homeland prevailing.

Importantly, whether fatherland or motherland, when we go back in our thoughts, we use the third person singular again, “it”. We would say, “My fatherland, it …” We would not say, “My fatherland, he …” We also can say, and the vast majority would say, “America in its time …”

Well, America is a name of a country, same as Germany, France, Italy, or any other name of a country, fair and square. Concluding, human thought is not reducible to three pronouns, “I”, “you”, and “it”. Already the pronouns may have and often do have connotations to other pronouns, which — though potentially arbitrary — is a real factor to influence the way we formulate our thoughts. 

Now, I can go on about meaning generally, like the meaning of life. Some guys would be as void of any semantics, as to be afraid of living without a kink. This inherent emptiness, which might be related to the inner speech deficiency characteristic in people of severe literacy impediments, would result in abreaction on the computer screen. The Facebook grammar nazis meet all the criteria for the deep intellective handicap sketched on here.

Naturally, for the functionally illiterate, there is still the verbal tradition, and the spoken lore has a lot on British losses in WWII, Hitler’s miserable linguistic stand, as well as his crude intonation many people would not pay a cent to hear. There is no sense to bring these up, therefore. In case, one can go BBC archives and mind to have the subtitles off, should they suggest the frustrating written language reality.

The literate may agree that Hitler does not deserve admiration as a strategist. Germany might have gotten away — as long as the various Chamberlains of Europe stayed at power — with the invasions on the Austrian, the Czech, as well as Poland and Alsace. Arguments that he had to turn the military power somewhere cannot stand a look at a map of Europe. Attacking Russia and England, as well as getting America involved, Hitler made way for the ruin, poverty, and partition that Germany had to face after the war. The madness of the WWII genocide obviously could not get along with any literary pursuit, either. So much for Hitler, the meaning of life, and intellect. Let me focus on the statistics for the handicap.

The site has about 50 K ‘likes’. Taking the British population alone — and the ‘likes’ could have come from various sympathizers, empathizers and other similars — that would make the maximum of 50 thousand functionally illiterate among about 63 million people. Some might say it’s not so bad, it’s not even 1 per cent. This is fundamentally not my business, as I am not staying in England or planning to go there. Whoever yet would, you’d better think when literacy might be necessary.

Sure you anyway need to resemble your passport photo, and you can get a taxi waving your hand. Shopping, you needn’t worry about anyone’s ability to read labels, as products have bar codes. In hotels, you always remember to tick all relevant boxes and, at least theoretically, you can try hanging your jogging hat on the doorknob to get some peace and quiet. However, when it comes to mailing letters, get the recorded: they have ID strips. If seeking directions with a map, approach people with newspapers: there are odds they can read them. Never ever leave your books or papers, especially open: they might be taken for other utilities.

So much for the handicap statistics. The human ‘specimens’ exhibiting the symptoms are not of my interest as lacking individuality by choice. Important: a search for ‘American grammar nazis’ threw up more or less nothing, and there ain’t the piffle  — cheered me up.

Feel welcome to visit my grammar grapevine

‘Off the record’

and my grammar web log

travelingrammar.com

The history of human endeavor with words is long. Language use might show changes in human thinking. Some of the changes yet wouldn’t be progress.

Since the times when a thunder was a sure sign from the gods, humanity has considerably improved on literacy. We have also overcome — statistically, or on the most part, if you please — the Medieval limitations on mental representation. The corset would have anthropomorphized and zoomorphized notions and values. Hate would have been a woman. Envy and Greed would have been dogs to keep watch and ward, though Dante definitely was a literate man.

We haven’t made it out of the pit completely, however. The Dark Ages were mad about mottos. The ‘carpe diem’ and ‘memento mori’ have showed change: the 16th century British clergyman Thomas Neville is reported to have said, ‘Ne vile velis’  — with a negative (!) We yet can’t have the negative for an absolute improvement, if we think about the ‘Sustineo alas’.

Well, the pit: however contemporary men or women, some would talk about amour propre, hass-liebe, or verstandnis, fossilizing language like olden cnihtas. Those Old English boys practiced repeating what they heard for a skill. The incongruity of resorting to another language for own esteem or comprehension is probably obvious. Similarly, there is no possibility to love and hate really, even if you have a bipolar disorder.

Let us take the Umwelt theory. J. Uexküll and T.A. Sebeok wanted to believe in ticks, sea urchins, amoebae, jellyfish, and sea worms to have own worlds. They would have studied those for an analysis of ‘both communication and signification in the human [and non-human] animal.’ The thing does not look serious with regard to the ‘prosaic’ matter of nouns and their plurals, either. German does not have the feminine noun Umwelt in the plural, the PONS dictionary would insist.

When you pluralize nouns that do not usually take plurals, you go into synonymy. German synonyms for the ‘Umwelt’ would be ‘Natur’, ‘Wildnis’, as well as ‘sociale Umgebung’ and … ‘Milieu’ — right, a French man or  woman might frown thinking about those under the age.

I enclose a link to the Wikipedian lore and leave everyone to another perspective with Ella Fitzgerald.

Mignon Fogarty says, ‘The issue at hand is whether verbs like “to love” can be conjugated in a progressive tense, which you use to indicate that something is happening at the moment and is continuing around the time to which you refer’.

Without trying to make the French ashamed about the Statue of Liberty, I need to mind the hours, minutes, and seconds here. I will for a while.

Mignon Fogarty says, ‘It turns out that when it comes to progressive tenses, English is divided into two groups of verbs: dynamic and stative’.

The French, however they might be right next to the Casanova bad fame for superficiality, wouldn’t be ever honestly telling that you never say love round the time you feel it. Well, the emotional difference would be American?

Mignon Fogarty says, ‘Dynamic verbs relate an action or a process. Common dynamic verbs are “to walk,” “to yell,” and “to read.” These verbs can be conjugated in progressive tenses, so it’s fine to say, “I will be walking all day” and “He was yelling at me’.

Divorce is my thought now — stats can’t be denied. It’s statistics in word use to tell the standard.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/im-loving-it-grammar.aspx

Finally, Mignon Fogarty gives the ‘verdict’:

‘That said, it’s still probably best for ESL teachers to continue to advise their students not to say, “I’m loving it” or to use other potentially incorrect stative verbs in progressive tenses. ESL teachers should point out, though, that students will hear native speakers using stative verbs in progressive tenses when the moment seems right.’

I do not like presuming on what I should with language and what I will hear (I’m picky). No way I’d go into fractions of milliseconds or ‘continue’ doing what I’ve never done. Fortunately, there’s cognitive mapping:

http://travelingrammar.com/2013/03/07/feelings

One happens to subscribe to those human rights newsletters, and one happens to be disappointed. The members of the Russian punk band “P*y Riot” got a jail sentence. I do not support the jail sentence. I’m disappointed with the comment by the Human Rights First.

I am quite used to the tabloid style for vociferation: the more copies sold, the better, never mind if the milk followed gravity spilling. The Human Rights First, however, “is an independent advocacy and action organization that challenges America to live up to its ideals”, says its mission statement.

Innokenty Grekov would write, “This is the latest example of how Russia uses laws that are meant to combat hate crimes—extremism, incitement, and hostility or hatred statutes—to prosecute artists, independent media, and LGBT and other civil society groups. This and other politically motivated cases need to be exposed for what they are — systematic attempts to silence dissent.” Mr. Grekov would refer to the Russian judicial proceedings, as “the sham trial of members of the feminist punk band”.

Well, these “feminists”, “artists”, and “dissenters” actually raided the main cathedral in Moscow wearing balaclavas. Balaclavas would be especially offensive in the context.

Could this have been really feminist? Recently, I browsed literally hundreds of pages over the Amazon looking for a suit with a long skirt. Men talking business — and this is for brains to do — still would look more natural. I could only find suits with pants.

The “feminists” would be wearing short dresses to kick their legs up high, maybe in the hope to encourage female equality reforming the can-can …

The “artists” would be shrieking along frenetic drumming, only more or less even meter. I cannot persuade myself to recommend a link; there should be something over the youtube.

The “dissenters” would be a communist’s dream on harassing believers: hardly an American ideal, thinking about missions and statements.

I wouldn’t jail the band members, however. I’d fine them for trespassing and assign obligatory courses on dress codes, history, and music.