My mind tends to ramble a bit. Actually, a lot. Here’s a few examples of random thoughts about the American variant of the English language that have occurred to me recently.
With all the golf tournaments going on lately, I came to realize that in one particular way, how we talk about golf differs from most (if not all) other sports. Someone who plays baseball is a “baseball player.” Someone who plays football is a “football player.” And so forth for most sports. Soccer player. Tennis player. Hockey player. But a golfer is not a “golf player.” In English, we don’t use that term. For some unknown reason we always refer to a person who plays golf as a “golfer.” Ben Hogan was a golfer. But Ted Williams was a baseball player, not a “baseballer.” Johnny Unitas was a football player, never a “footballer.” But Sam Snead was a “golfer.” I wonder why that is.
It seems that over the history of the United States, we have appropriated the term “American” to refer to ourselves when speaking to the rest of the world to distinguish us from the others in the Western Hemisphere. But “America” actually refers to all of this hemisphere. There’s North America, Central America, and South America. All of us are Americans. The distinctions are political, not semantic. So, why do we who live in the USA use “American” when other countries use their country name to designate their home? People who live in Canada are Canadian. People who live in Mexico are Mexican. Likewise, Peru=Peruvian. Bolivia=Bolivian. Argentina=Argentinian. Where did we get the audacity to refer to ourselves as “American” when that word actually encompasses all of America? Maybe it has to do with the fact that living in the United States of America, if we tried to use the same designation in terminology that the other countries use as, for example, Canada=Canadian by adding ian to the end of our name, we would wind up referring to ourselves as “United Statesian.” That doesn’t work very well.
In the usual pack of fifty-two playing cards, there are three different face cards in each suit, King, Queen, and Jack. But why just the three? Why not a fourth, with another female represented? Shouldn’t there be an equal number of males and females? If there is a King and Queen, why not a female representative in concert with the Jack? If there is a Prince, why not a Princess? But if there were a fourth face card, I assume it would have to be named similarly to the Jack. If “Prince” becomes “Princess,” would the female equivalent of “Jack” be “Jackess?” I don’t think so.
I’m not a fan of politics, and I try to stay away from it in these posts, but there is one term in English that a certain political figure has been using that rubs me the wrong way more than usual. That’s the use of the term “It’s” when introducing oneself. I’m not just talking about the common “It’s me.” That’s bad enough and grammatically incorrect, but I’m referring here to the use of the word “It’s” followed by the name of the person. Using “It’s” when talking about yourself is like telling the people you’re trying to get your message across to that you are an “it” and not a real person. You’re not an “it,” you’re not a machine or an artificial intelligence construct. You’re a real person, so act and talk like it. I suggest you try, “Hello everybody, I’m [name].”
Oh, and a final note to Liberty Mutual Insurance. Your slogan should be “Pay for only what you need.” The word “only” in the best English usage should go as close as possible to the words that are “intended to be limited.” That’s a quote from the book, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, by Bryan A. Garner, Oxford University Press, 1998, pg. 469.