Thread by @KrisAtLarge

oh right! we were going to write something about the power of language.

hm, how to start.

let me begin with talking about a concept that I learned from classes in ancient Greek: the *grammatical particle*. it's a type of word, in linguistics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatic…

(1/x)

I remember being impressed during @SDSU Classics classes by this entire book on ancient Greek particles: abebooks.com/book-search/ti…

*particles* are words that have no inflection or clearly defined "part of speech" in a sentence.

"um" and "er" are particles in English.

(2/x)

we could regard "um" and "er" as linguistic filler—words with no real meaning, merely taking up space—but the insertion of such particles does give us some information about the *mood* or *feeling* of the person speaking.

here, "um" and "er" convey a sense of uncertainty.

(3/x)

people use "um" and "er" and other such particles when they're not sure *what* words they should be speaking, and they're "groping for words" as the expression goes.

"like" is another common English particle—another indicator of *mood* in a sentence depending on usage.

(4/x)

"like" is also a word with definite meanings and parts of speech—English is *confusing*, you may notice.

therefore, let me give an example of "like" as a particle:

"that person was huge. they were, like, seven feet tall."

"like", in this usage, conveys *approximation*.

(5/x)

the word "like" serves as an indicator that whatever quantity or quality is about to be spoken next is liable to be only a guess.

"they were seven feet tall" is a definitive statement about height. however, "they were, like, seven feet tall" is only a tentative statement.

(6/x)

there are numerous *particles* in English, and they all have the following traits in common: they have no place in "standard English" or educated English speech; and no grammar textbook for schoolchildren ever brings them up at all.

they're _forbidden_, in other words.

(7/x)

the culture of the English-speaking world, which is an artifact of British colonialism, is overflowing with taboo subjects, things that ought never to be brought up in polite society—and that includes the English particles. to say "um" indicates that you're *low class*.

(8/x)

if I were to attempt to engage some paladin of Western civilization in polite conversation—some noteworthy "scientific racist" such as @charlesmurray or @EPoe187, say—and make the mistake of uttering a linguistic particle, the paladin would simply write me off as a dolt.

(9/x)

"how can this person possibly know what they're talking about? they used 'um' in a sentence," is a sentiment that I'd fully expect someone like @charlesmurray to entertain frequently.

this is how bigotry works: tiny "slips" are taken as proof of pervasive inferiority.

(10/x)

the absence of much information about linguistic particles in textbook English grammar shows something else about Western society: even its "educated" classes tend to have a highly incomplete education. the leadership classes of #capitalism do not *need* to be educated.

(11/x)

the typical person who's successful in #business or #finance or #investment, or any of the other myriad professions in Western society that are devoted to *avarice* (i.e. the hoarding of wealth above all other goals), tends to be educated only in moneymaking matters.

(12/x)

American #conservative propaganda, which props up American #capitalism, has waged relentless war on #education for decades; the average right-wing noisemaker of the @MattWalshBlog / @realchrisrufo sort tends to regard public education as a Communist plot of some sort.

(13/x)

and there's a multitude of reasons for that but the baseline issue is that Western society, the flower of #capitalism, does not regard education as *necessary*. success in #business tends to be a matter of social privilege and superior ruthlessness, not book smarts.

(14/x)

as a result, Western #education has been starved and shrivelled to a bare minimum of vital skills, and completely subordinated to the immediate needs of capitalists who don't want to pay for job training and therefore demand that schools do their job training for them.

(15/x)

there's no room in this system for any fussy *details*, like linguistic particles.

#conservative propaganda has indeed been extremely successful in categorizing ALL details of knowledge, in all subjects, as irrelevant fluff—or the result of "woke" corruption of academia.

(16/x)

but let's get back to those English particles, and one particle in particular: "well", when used at the beginning of a sentence.

let me illustrate with an example. suppose I hand you a popular book (a #HarryPotter book, let's say) and I ask you for your general opinion.

(17/x)

here are two possible ways you could reply to that question:

A. "I don't think J. K. Rowling is an author worth reading."

B. "Well...I don't think J. K. Rowling is an author worth reading."

the only difference in the two is that initial "well", followed by a pause.

(18/x)

the first reply has the effect of a flat, blank declaration—and that may give the impression of impulsive, unthinking response.

the *second* reply, with the particle "well" and the pause, seems to show that you're considering your response. "well" conveys thoughtfulness.

(19/x)

...and that can be *faked*. I finally arrive at the most infamous user of "well..."

namely, senile @GOP figurehead President, @RonaldReagan. this empty man, scripted and coached by @Peggynoonannyc and @patbuchanan and who knows how many others, said "well..." a lot.

(20/x)

the important thing to remember about @RonaldReagan, always, was that he was not the author of his words or even of his performances. he was an actor, rehearsed and costumed for public performances, reading his lines from teleprompters. Reagan was a complete phony.

(21/x)

the fraudulent @RonaldReagan was well-drilled in the language of #sales and #marketing: nothing about Reagan was sincere or real, but he'd been rehearsed and stage-managed into sounding sincere and "off the cuff". @Peggynoonannyc &c. even wrote "jokes" for their stooge.

(22/x)

and because it was utterly necessary to give @RonaldReagan, the stage-managed actor-President, the *impression* that he was thinking about his words before he said them (even though he was reading a script)...@Peggynoonannyc and the @GOP gave Reagan "well".

~Chara of Pnictogen

@threadreaderapp unroll