Good timing for this. I get occasional FTFNYT newsletters from opinion columnists and todays, from their 'token black conservative "contrarian" scold' John McWhorter had this to say about Biden and Trump:
It exquisitely illustrates the frankly degenerate nature of the Mass Media coverage of Trump; he's "fascinating", "fun", an object of amusement instead of the frankly existential threat that trumpism represents to this country....
OK, I'm with ya. But the focus on the words, their specific order, their inherent meanings or lack, and their momentary newsy-ness all works to deflect from the lived reality โ the existing in this world at the same time as a deranged fascist, supported by the combined weight of billions of dollars wielded by determined christo-fascisto inquisitionists โ that awaits only a flimsy election process and a totalitarian court order to take down what's left of the thin veneer of civilised society (and yes, the pressers will be among the first up against the various walls, so it is not as if they don't have skin in the game...)
McWhorter apparently knows better โ what's his excuse?
What is the value in being more "interesting, linguistically speaking" when applied to the national dialog? It strikes me as McWhorter saying that a metastasizing cancer is more interesting, medically speaking, than a head cold.
Which is totally true, at an oncology conference. But McWhorter isnโt bringing his stuff to the Linguistic Society of America, heโs bringing it to the bourgeois readership of The Times and The Atlantic and asking them to take what he says on faith (I believe George Lakoff really has brought some of his analytic ideas to his peers). And itโs really shallow, facile work, or not work at all. The kind of smooth talk we used to get from Bill Safire, who knew nothing whatever about language when The Times appointed him as their language expert.
Jebus, I'm getting really mad. "Clarabell is the less interesting clown, homicidally speaking. John Wayne Gacy -- no matter what you think of his ideas -- is fascinating."
Yeah...and linguistically is pretty much the only sort of speaking there is, at least according to some. But bring on the song and dance, 'cause McWhorter just got to his table right down front!
No, it has a technical meaning in linguistics (which is what I, like McWhorter as well as George Lakoff and Noam Chomsky, have my academic training in, thank you very much), referring only to particular aspects of speech (like grammatical structure, vocabulary choice, sound structure). McWhorter is what is called a sociolinguist, a student of language-in-society, and his significant work (trust me, it really is not undistinguished) has to do with pidgin and creole languages, which is not very relevant to analyzing Trumpโs speech, but Trump is certainly sociolinguistically sort of interestingโnot complex, itโs just weird that an incredibly rich man OR a politician models his speech on 1970s Vegas nightclub comedians like Rodney Dangerfield.
Iโm interested in pathological aspects of both Trumpโs and Bidenโs speechโyou may have seen stuff Iโve written on Trumpโs reading disability and how he tries to compensate for it when delivering text composed by Stephen Miller, which is often too complex for Trump to handle. The comparable side of Biden is his stutter, which he handles extremely well, but the way he does it gives his speechmaking a very plain, unvarnished sound, in short and slightly harsh-sounding bursts. Iโm also interested in more psychosemantical aspects of Trumpโs speech, the inexhaustibility of it and frequent incoherence, and his occasional collapses into real nonsense (not just word salad but syllables that arenโt even words). No sign McWhorter has noticed any of this, looks like he just thinks Biden is boring.
McWhorter also doesnโt support Trump at all, I hope you guys are understanding that, heโs a consistent nevertrumper like Kristol and those Bulwark people, and would be sad, I think, if he realized he was contributing to the normalizing of Trump by agreeing to making the conversation about whoโs entertaining. But the point I want to emphasize is that he isnโt bringing his best linguistic game into the discussion.
He doesn't have the self deprecation of Dangerfield...maybe more like Don Rickles, but I think that it's an amalgamation of all the insult comics of the 80's, the kind of scripts he was given on 'The Apprentice' and what he absorbed of art of kayfabe working with the WWE.
The latter is the key to his rally speeches, because they're explicitly modeled after WWE events, particularly in the 2016 campaign. That part's degraded now to kind of a '๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ช๐จ ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ข๐บ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ด๐ต ๐ฉ๐ช๐ต๐ด ๐ข๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ต๐บ ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ธ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ง๐ข๐ฏ๐ฃ๐ข๐ด๐ฆ' vibe.
If he was physically capable, I suspect he'd make his entrance to his rallies like Hulk Hogan, Vince McMahon or (most appropriately) Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
Yes. My son was WWE-watching age at the time of the Battle of the Billionaires (for which, as we later learned, McMahon paid Trump $5 million tax free by giving it to the Trump Foundation, and in return his wife got a cabinet post in 2017), so I ended up watching that series of shows with him, which I never would have done on my own, and felt that was the most important preparation for what kind of presidential candidate he was going to be.
But there are lots of things he does at rallies that donโt fit into the WWE trash talk model or the macho business guy posing of The Apprentice either, I think, that conflict with the heroic image he wants to project, and are more proper to a comic. The tangents, for one thing. His shtik about water-saver toilets could almost be a Seinfeld routine. And the vocal habitsโespecially that exasperated growl heโs taken to putting on a punch line evokes Dangerfield for me (not that it sounds exactly like Dangerfield but that it communicates the same defeated "are you shitting me" emotion), and his little dances with his fists could be a half-assed Johnny Carson imitationโฆ
Critics always promote artists who make it easy to write about them. Hi-larious that McWhorter clearly believes their "verbal styles" are without meaning or consequence.
Bravo! This is spectacular. I am glad you reposted it. (And on a personal note, the video brought a tear to my eye. My dad fucking loved this song, and directed kid me to watch I believe this same production on HBO, which I did, and I also loved it. It brought back that, as well as all the Linda Ronstadt that played in the house, and then forward by two decades, a Henry that I attended circa 2002 with Kevin Kline as Falstaff -- I was somehow in the front row, and still remember the note of awe in my girlfriend's voice. "How did you get these seats??" Dunno, things just magically happened back then!)
Good timing for this. I get occasional FTFNYT newsletters from opinion columnists and todays, from their 'token black conservative "contrarian" scold' John McWhorter had this to say about Biden and Trump:
"๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ช๐ณ๐ด๐ต ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฃ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ 2024 ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ค๐ข๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ช๐จ๐ฏ, ๐ด๐ค๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ข๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐น๐ต ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฌ, ๐ฐ๐ง๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ท๐ฐ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ข ๐ค๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ด๐ค๐ณ๐ถ๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ป๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ดโ ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ๐ธ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ณ. ๐๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด, ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ช๐ต ๐ข๐ญ๐ด๐ฐ ๐ฐ๐ง๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ข ๐ณ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ-๐ฃ๐บ-๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ข๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ด ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ. ๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏโ๐ต ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ญ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐๐ฐ๐ฆ ๐๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ฅ ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ญ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ง๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฃ๐ข๐ญ ๐ด๐ต๐บ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด. ๐๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ธ๐ฐ, ๐๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏโ๐ด ๐ช๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ข๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ช๐ตโ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ. ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฑโ๐ด, ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ โ ๐ฏ๐ฐ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ด โ ๐ช๐ด ๐ง๐ข๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จ. ๐๐ตโ๐ด ๐ด๐ถ๐ช ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ด."
It exquisitely illustrates the frankly degenerate nature of the Mass Media coverage of Trump; he's "fascinating", "fun", an object of amusement instead of the frankly existential threat that trumpism represents to this country....
Worst is that McWhorter has some actual chops in his own field and sometimes uses them to say something worth saying https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/defense-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camp-comment/592180/ but he's just phoning this shtik in.
OK, I'm with ya. But the focus on the words, their specific order, their inherent meanings or lack, and their momentary newsy-ness all works to deflect from the lived reality โ the existing in this world at the same time as a deranged fascist, supported by the combined weight of billions of dollars wielded by determined christo-fascisto inquisitionists โ that awaits only a flimsy election process and a totalitarian court order to take down what's left of the thin veneer of civilised society (and yes, the pressers will be among the first up against the various walls, so it is not as if they don't have skin in the game...)
McWhorter apparently knows better โ what's his excuse?
Also, a comparatively mid-brow tangential take from John Stoehr:
https://www.editorialboard.com/the-cultivated-naivete-of-the-washington-press-corps/
And yer poetics...I bow, because hat-top is insufficient.
LOL I don't think of Stoehr as midbrow. He's great.
Yes, but can't hold a match to your wordmastery. Nothing for him to be ashamed of...
What is the value in being more "interesting, linguistically speaking" when applied to the national dialog? It strikes me as McWhorter saying that a metastasizing cancer is more interesting, medically speaking, than a head cold.
Which is totally true, at an oncology conference. But McWhorter isnโt bringing his stuff to the Linguistic Society of America, heโs bringing it to the bourgeois readership of The Times and The Atlantic and asking them to take what he says on faith (I believe George Lakoff really has brought some of his analytic ideas to his peers). And itโs really shallow, facile work, or not work at all. The kind of smooth talk we used to get from Bill Safire, who knew nothing whatever about language when The Times appointed him as their language expert.
Jebus, I'm getting really mad. "Clarabell is the less interesting clown, homicidally speaking. John Wayne Gacy -- no matter what you think of his ideas -- is fascinating."
Yeah...and linguistically is pretty much the only sort of speaking there is, at least according to some. But bring on the song and dance, 'cause McWhorter just got to his table right down front!
No, it has a technical meaning in linguistics (which is what I, like McWhorter as well as George Lakoff and Noam Chomsky, have my academic training in, thank you very much), referring only to particular aspects of speech (like grammatical structure, vocabulary choice, sound structure). McWhorter is what is called a sociolinguist, a student of language-in-society, and his significant work (trust me, it really is not undistinguished) has to do with pidgin and creole languages, which is not very relevant to analyzing Trumpโs speech, but Trump is certainly sociolinguistically sort of interestingโnot complex, itโs just weird that an incredibly rich man OR a politician models his speech on 1970s Vegas nightclub comedians like Rodney Dangerfield.
Iโm interested in pathological aspects of both Trumpโs and Bidenโs speechโyou may have seen stuff Iโve written on Trumpโs reading disability and how he tries to compensate for it when delivering text composed by Stephen Miller, which is often too complex for Trump to handle. The comparable side of Biden is his stutter, which he handles extremely well, but the way he does it gives his speechmaking a very plain, unvarnished sound, in short and slightly harsh-sounding bursts. Iโm also interested in more psychosemantical aspects of Trumpโs speech, the inexhaustibility of it and frequent incoherence, and his occasional collapses into real nonsense (not just word salad but syllables that arenโt even words). No sign McWhorter has noticed any of this, looks like he just thinks Biden is boring.
McWhorter also doesnโt support Trump at all, I hope you guys are understanding that, heโs a consistent nevertrumper like Kristol and those Bulwark people, and would be sad, I think, if he realized he was contributing to the normalizing of Trump by agreeing to making the conversation about whoโs entertaining. But the point I want to emphasize is that he isnโt bringing his best linguistic game into the discussion.
"๐ฃ๐ถ๐ต ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐ช๐ด ๐ค๐ฆ๐ณ๐ต๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ญ๐บ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ฐ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จโ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ๐น, ๐ช๐ตโ๐ด ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฃ๐ญ๐บ ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด ๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฐ๐ฏ 1970๐ด ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ด ๐ฏ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต๐ค๐ญ๐ถ๐ฃ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข๐ฏ๐ด ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐บ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐จ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ง๐ช๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฅ."
He doesn't have the self deprecation of Dangerfield...maybe more like Don Rickles, but I think that it's an amalgamation of all the insult comics of the 80's, the kind of scripts he was given on 'The Apprentice' and what he absorbed of art of kayfabe working with the WWE.
The latter is the key to his rally speeches, because they're explicitly modeled after WWE events, particularly in the 2016 campaign. That part's degraded now to kind of a '๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ช๐จ ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ข๐บ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ด๐ต ๐ฉ๐ช๐ต๐ด ๐ข๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ต๐บ ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ธ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ง๐ข๐ฏ๐ฃ๐ข๐ด๐ฆ' vibe.
If he was physically capable, I suspect he'd make his entrance to his rallies like Hulk Hogan, Vince McMahon or (most appropriately) Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
Yes. My son was WWE-watching age at the time of the Battle of the Billionaires (for which, as we later learned, McMahon paid Trump $5 million tax free by giving it to the Trump Foundation, and in return his wife got a cabinet post in 2017), so I ended up watching that series of shows with him, which I never would have done on my own, and felt that was the most important preparation for what kind of presidential candidate he was going to be.
But there are lots of things he does at rallies that donโt fit into the WWE trash talk model or the macho business guy posing of The Apprentice either, I think, that conflict with the heroic image he wants to project, and are more proper to a comic. The tangents, for one thing. His shtik about water-saver toilets could almost be a Seinfeld routine. And the vocal habitsโespecially that exasperated growl heโs taken to putting on a punch line evokes Dangerfield for me (not that it sounds exactly like Dangerfield but that it communicates the same defeated "are you shitting me" emotion), and his little dances with his fists could be a half-assed Johnny Carson imitationโฆ
Critics always promote artists who make it easy to write about them. Hi-larious that McWhorter clearly believes their "verbal styles" are without meaning or consequence.
I didnโt know sui generis means โbullshit.โ
Also I cannot ever read any version of this song without hearing Tom Lehrer 's voice in my head reciting the elements....
Bravo! This is spectacular. I am glad you reposted it. (And on a personal note, the video brought a tear to my eye. My dad fucking loved this song, and directed kid me to watch I believe this same production on HBO, which I did, and I also loved it. It brought back that, as well as all the Linda Ronstadt that played in the house, and then forward by two decades, a Henry that I attended circa 2002 with Kevin Kline as Falstaff -- I was somehow in the front row, and still remember the note of awe in my girlfriend's voice. "How did you get these seats??" Dunno, things just magically happened back then!)
Lovely! Just lovely.
It's not bullshit, it's a particular vernacular!
The finest Gilbert and Sullivan parody since Tom Lehrerโs โThe Elementsโ!