I was just watching CNN and they did a quick segment on the evident schadenfreude that's manifesting, especially in New York, in the Spitzer kerfuffle. They defined it, and pointed out there's no English equivalent -- the usual glossing. <sigh>

Unfortunately I think I took a Wordcraft pledge not to mention that word ever again. [That would have been such a breakthrough, too!]

what word?

edit: good grief, it's not just CNN!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tsuwm,

Yeah...this could have been it for the e-word. This would have gotten it into the mainline dictionaries. I am sure of it! Why are they such fools that they haven't heard of the e-word? Geez!

Oh, there I go again...

quote:

> good grief

okay, I'm just going to stop working so hard on these throwaway inserts.

quote:

They defined it, and pointed out there's no English equivalent -- the usual glossing. <sigh>

It's just lazy journalism. Schadenfreude has English synonyms - but many journalists still maintain the fiction that it does not. When I first heard this assertion, it was shortly after WW2 and it was being used to make the point that the Germans are strange people who derive enjoyment from the pain of others - not like the good old British who'd never dream of having such thoughts!

I'm sure I'm not the only British person observing with amusement the brouhaha over Spitzer from a distance. We don't have laws similar to those you have making transporting prostitutes across state lines illegal, so a British version of Spitzer would not be accused of any illegal act. While it is possible his behaviour could be described as morally reprehensible, he would have done nothing legally wrong. The newspapers (especially the red-tops) would have a field day, but he could not really be called upon to resign.

There was a big kerfuffle here during the 1960s concerning the Secretary of State for War, John Profumo. Allegations were made that he was involved with a high-class call-girl, Christine Keeler. He was forced to resign, but not because of "immorality". First, he denied the allegations in the House of Commons. Second, one of Keeler's other clients was an attaché at the Soviet embassy, so there was a possible (though highly unlikely) security risk. When the allegations were proved he had to resign because he had lied to the House, and the scandal was the root cause of the collapse of Harold Macmillan's government a little later.

Something that made me laugh out loud concerning the Spitzer case ...

A letter to my newspaper refers to an earlier report of the case which mentions the hotel in Washington where they are supposed to have enjoyed themselves. I haven't the paper in front of me, so I'll have to paraphrase:

"The hotel was also where President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were photographed embracing ... it was alleged to be where President Kennedy entertained many of his conquests ... the Queen [Elizabeth II] and Winston Churchill also stayed there ..."

As the letter says, what are they suggesting?

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Schadenfreude has English synonyms - but many journalists still maintain the fiction that it does not. When I first heard this assertion, it was shortly after WW2 and it was being used to make the point that the Germans are strange people who derive enjoyment from the pain of others - not like the good old British who'd never dream of having such thoughts!

I think that this "good-old-British-would-never have such thoughts" attitude goes back a good deal farther, and is the historical reason for the rejection of the e-word.

You can find that attitude in OED's very first cite for Schadenfreude:

1852 R. C. TRENCH Study of Words (ed. 3) II. 29 What a fearful thing is it that any language should have a word expressive of the pleasure which men feel at the calamities of others; for the existence of the word bears testimony to the existence of the thing. And yet in more than one such a word is found... In the Greek , έπιχαιιεκακία, in the German, ‘Schadenfreude’.

Edit: And the same attitude in 1920:
1920 F. HAMILTON Days before Yesterday iv. 118 The particular sentiment described in German as ‘schadenfreude’ ‘pleasure over another's troubles’ (how characteristic it is that there should be no equivalent in any other language for this peculiarly Teutonic emotion!) makes but little appeal to the average Briton except where questions of age and of failing powers come into play.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

quote:

1852 R. C. TRENCH Study of Words (ed. 3) II. 29 What a fearful thing is it that any language should have a word expressive of the pleasure which men feel at the calamities of others; for the existence of the word bears testimony to the existence of the thing. And yet in more than one such a word is found... In the Greek , έπιχαιιεκακία, in the German, ‘Schadenfreude’.

earlier today, by coincidence, I looked at Trench's Study of Words: the ref. is but a footnote.


edit: even 'abbacinare' gets longer shrift!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tsuwm,

Corrigendum: for έπιχαιιεκακία, read έπιχαιρεκακία.

quote:

okay, I'm just going to stop working so hard on these throwaway inserts.

?

quote:

?

schadenfreude <> joy from harm <> good grief

weak, I know. <shrugs>

out of idle curiosity, today I tried looking up the e-word via wiktionary ( ); it's been deleted five times, for lacking suitable content or lacking citations.

quote:

Some people like to re-enter previously deleted items. If an item has previously failed our RFV process, you cannot re-enter it without three print citations. Generally, the criteria is held to the harshest possible standard, for items that have completely failed in the past. Sysops are encouraged to "shoot on sight" any such re-entry.

(typical wiki highhandedness )

Well then, let us find newspaper writes, scholars, authors, whatever, and get them to use this word. Three citations can't be that difficult. Maybe we can get QuickTakes at the Sun-Times to use it.

quote:

Originally posted by tsuwm:
Generally, the criteria is is held to the harshest possible standard,

It they're sooooo *%^%$%$#!@! scholarly, why don't they know that "criteria" is plural?

" criteria " is both singular and plural.

Well, the e-word hasn't been deleted from Wordie. It is mentioned (albeit under "Schadenfreude") in Wikipedia.

quote:

" criteria " is both singular and plural.

I know, I know. It's important not to be prescriptive and all, but I consider "criteria" to be plural and "criterion" to be singular. Just because there are publications using the word the wrong way, does that mean that the use of it has evolved? I guess it's a fine line...

Just because there are publications using the word the wrong way, does that mean that the use of it has evolved?

It's comparable to what's been going on with data. There's a mass/count tension there. The problem with learned plurals, i.e., Latin and Greek, is that not many people learn classical languages anymore. I try to use learned plurals properly and get my subject verb concord correct, but it's an uphill slog to try to correct others. Where does it stop? I've given up trying to explain to people why viruses is the only proper plural for virus. Forms like virii are just plain wrong. But, you know, people are going to pluralize virus any dang way they want to, and there's not much you or I go do about it. To my ear, "if you think the band are not quite right" sounds wrong, but to the UK contingent I'm sure it's fine. Likewise, I would only say "my uncle is in hospital" archly. For me, "the band is" and "in the hospital" are the preferred forms.

I still insist on criterion and datum. I even use agendum - but I fear that last battle is nearly lost.

Media and medium is even more important, since "mediums" is a genuine plural, used for those people who claim they can talk to the dead.

I use criteria/criterion but don't use datum unless I am intentionally trying to make some pedantic point. The "battle", as Richard puts it, is lost on data and agenda but I think many people still use criteria/criterion as plural and singular. Many more than use criteria as singular, I'd say.

But maybe it's a US/UK thing again.

In engineering parlance, isn't "datum line" still used as the reference line for a drawing? I've NEVER seen it called "data line."

agendum

We have discussed this before and the use of agenda as a singular predates the use of agendum (link). At least according to the OED1, Fowlers, et al.

quote:

The "battle", as Richard puts it, is lost on data and agenda but I think many people still use criteria/criterion as plural and singular. Many more than use criteria as singular, I'd say.

But maybe it's a US/UK thing again.

I don't think so, Bob. I know a lot of non-pedantics ( ), and criteria/criterion seem to be used correctly here, too. Well, I guess "correctly" isn't a good word for a descriptivist, is it?

Hell. Let's face it. I still have a fair amount of prescriptivism running through my veins.

quote:

I think many people still use criteria/criterion as plural and singular. Many more than use criteria as singular, I'd say.

That is true. "criteria" has been a singular count noun in writing for 40 years, but it is still a minority use.