1 00:00:03,000 --> 00:00:09,720 Speaker 1: Welcome to Invention, a production of I Heart Radio. Hey, 2 00:00:09,840 --> 00:00:12,720 Speaker 1: welcome to Invention. My name is Robert Lamb and I'm 3 00:00:12,760 --> 00:00:14,960 Speaker 1: Joe McCormick, and we're back with part two of our 4 00:00:15,040 --> 00:00:19,200 Speaker 1: discussion of invented words. So in the last episode we 5 00:00:19,200 --> 00:00:23,640 Speaker 1: were talking about neologisms that were deliberately invented and continuing 6 00:00:23,640 --> 00:00:25,560 Speaker 1: that today, I wanted to start out with a distinction 7 00:00:25,600 --> 00:00:28,479 Speaker 1: that we might find useful, and that's the difference between 8 00:00:28,720 --> 00:00:34,040 Speaker 1: neologisms and something we might call protologisms. So a neologism 9 00:00:34,120 --> 00:00:36,920 Speaker 1: is a newly coined term that's like still in the 10 00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:40,800 Speaker 1: process of coming into common use. You might use the 11 00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:43,479 Speaker 1: term because you're an early adopter of it, but it 12 00:00:43,920 --> 00:00:45,800 Speaker 1: might be the kind of word that people still need 13 00:00:45,840 --> 00:00:47,800 Speaker 1: to look up a good bit. You might need to 14 00:00:47,840 --> 00:00:50,919 Speaker 1: explain what it means if you use it in an article. Right, 15 00:00:50,920 --> 00:00:52,840 Speaker 1: it could be very much be one of those words 16 00:00:52,880 --> 00:00:55,760 Speaker 1: that you get the feeling that's that people in in 17 00:00:55,880 --> 00:00:58,120 Speaker 1: the culture are trying to make happen, like they're trying 18 00:00:58,160 --> 00:01:01,160 Speaker 1: to establish it, uh and and get it into it 19 00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:03,880 Speaker 1: just the the everyday lexicon. Right, that that would be 20 00:01:03,920 --> 00:01:07,080 Speaker 1: what happens if it's successful, it just becomes a regular word. 21 00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:09,160 Speaker 1: You no longer need to explain it. You don't need 22 00:01:09,200 --> 00:01:12,280 Speaker 1: to look it up. Most people just know what it means. Uh. 23 00:01:12,280 --> 00:01:14,600 Speaker 1: And there are a few examples of neologisms like I 24 00:01:14,600 --> 00:01:17,720 Speaker 1: could think of that have just become regular words in 25 00:01:17,800 --> 00:01:21,720 Speaker 1: recent years. One great example, I think is selfie. You 26 00:01:21,760 --> 00:01:24,160 Speaker 1: know how this was once a cute new word, and 27 00:01:24,240 --> 00:01:26,840 Speaker 1: people would remark on the fact that it was a 28 00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:29,319 Speaker 1: cute new word, like the fact that it was a 29 00:01:29,360 --> 00:01:32,080 Speaker 1: neologism was one of the main things you know about it. 30 00:01:32,240 --> 00:01:34,920 Speaker 1: And now it's just sort of a word, and it's 31 00:01:34,920 --> 00:01:37,959 Speaker 1: it's weird, like selfie as a term has this kind 32 00:01:37,959 --> 00:01:41,800 Speaker 1: of like viral presence and movement in our in our culture, 33 00:01:42,480 --> 00:01:45,200 Speaker 1: but but also the act associated with it seemed to 34 00:01:45,200 --> 00:01:47,360 Speaker 1: spread with it. And I wonder to what extent are 35 00:01:47,360 --> 00:01:51,440 Speaker 1: you seeing the the act the practice of taking selfie. 36 00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:55,600 Speaker 1: Is that pulling the term with it through our culture 37 00:01:55,960 --> 00:01:58,200 Speaker 1: or is it the reverse or is it some combination 38 00:01:58,240 --> 00:02:01,600 Speaker 1: of the two. I think that certainly the first part 39 00:02:01,640 --> 00:02:04,760 Speaker 1: that you're talking. I think there are definitely technological pressures 40 00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:08,960 Speaker 1: that made room for this word to intercommon usage. So 41 00:02:09,080 --> 00:02:11,680 Speaker 1: the word was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 42 00:02:13,240 --> 00:02:16,160 Speaker 1: but the word has a kind of interesting history Before that, 43 00:02:16,200 --> 00:02:18,400 Speaker 1: I was looking up, but what what was the earliest 44 00:02:18,520 --> 00:02:22,000 Speaker 1: use of selfie? Because obviously the act of taking a 45 00:02:22,040 --> 00:02:24,760 Speaker 1: photograph of yourself goes way back. People have been doing 46 00:02:24,760 --> 00:02:28,040 Speaker 1: that for more than a hundred years, with various contraptions, 47 00:02:28,200 --> 00:02:32,160 Speaker 1: even just like timers on cameras and stuff. Um. But 48 00:02:32,240 --> 00:02:35,360 Speaker 1: the first documented use of the word selfie appears to 49 00:02:35,360 --> 00:02:39,120 Speaker 1: come from the year two thousand two, when an Australian 50 00:02:39,240 --> 00:02:44,000 Speaker 1: man posted the following message on an Internet forum on 51 00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:47,280 Speaker 1: a news website. Specifically, this was a thread from September 52 00:02:47,880 --> 00:02:51,959 Speaker 1: two two by a user named Hopie h O p 53 00:02:52,200 --> 00:02:56,040 Speaker 1: e Y, and the statement goes like this, UM drunk 54 00:02:56,120 --> 00:02:59,880 Speaker 1: at a mates twenty one, I tripped over and landed 55 00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,880 Speaker 1: lip first with front teeth coming a close second on 56 00:03:03,919 --> 00:03:06,480 Speaker 1: a set of steps. I had a hole about one 57 00:03:06,520 --> 00:03:09,919 Speaker 1: centimeter long right through my bottom lip and sorry about 58 00:03:09,960 --> 00:03:14,160 Speaker 1: the focus. It was a selfie. He attaches a photo 59 00:03:14,320 --> 00:03:17,080 Speaker 1: of his busted lip for people to look at. The 60 00:03:17,120 --> 00:03:19,640 Speaker 1: purpose of the thread was Hopie wondering whether licking his 61 00:03:19,720 --> 00:03:23,160 Speaker 1: lips would make his stitches dissolved too early, and he's 62 00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:27,160 Speaker 1: of course apologizing for the the the quality of the 63 00:03:27,160 --> 00:03:31,400 Speaker 1: photographs saying I have taken it myself. It is a selfie, right, 64 00:03:31,480 --> 00:03:34,200 Speaker 1: so this is before selfie sticks. This is even before 65 00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:37,240 Speaker 1: you know, any kind of high quality camera phone. This 66 00:03:37,320 --> 00:03:39,040 Speaker 1: probably would have been taken I guess with just like 67 00:03:39,080 --> 00:03:42,440 Speaker 1: a handheld digital camera pointed back at his face. But 68 00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:45,040 Speaker 1: he probably wouldn't have the ability to see the screen 69 00:03:45,160 --> 00:03:47,160 Speaker 1: while he's taking the picture, right, so he just has 70 00:03:47,200 --> 00:03:50,200 Speaker 1: to guess yeah, yeah, so yeah. Been the early days 71 00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:53,440 Speaker 1: of selfies when they were, they're even a far more chatic. 72 00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:56,600 Speaker 1: Though it's not clear that the author of this post 73 00:03:56,600 --> 00:03:59,720 Speaker 1: actually intended to invent a word, or even that he 74 00:03:59,840 --> 00:04:02,560 Speaker 1: invented a word at all. It might have been a 75 00:04:02,600 --> 00:04:06,440 Speaker 1: slang word in oral circulation before ever being written out 76 00:04:06,440 --> 00:04:09,800 Speaker 1: in this context, and it does follow a standard way 77 00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:14,560 Speaker 1: of inventing slang words in Australian English, which is adding 78 00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:17,680 Speaker 1: a hyphen i e suffix to a noun, So like 79 00:04:17,960 --> 00:04:20,960 Speaker 1: a barbecue becomes a barbie, you know, put another shrimp 80 00:04:21,000 --> 00:04:23,960 Speaker 1: on the barbie, or a can of beer becomes a 81 00:04:23,960 --> 00:04:28,080 Speaker 1: tinny from tin can. I haven't heard that one in use, 82 00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:31,280 Speaker 1: but it makes sense and by the same lexical logic, 83 00:04:31,360 --> 00:04:34,359 Speaker 1: a photograph of the self becomes a selfie, you know, 84 00:04:34,400 --> 00:04:37,840 Speaker 1: put another duck lips on the selfie. But if this 85 00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:40,600 Speaker 1: was a term in oral slang in Australian English before 86 00:04:40,600 --> 00:04:42,760 Speaker 1: it appeared in print, I would say it probably wasn't 87 00:04:42,839 --> 00:04:45,240 Speaker 1: being used a lot, because if it was used a lot, 88 00:04:45,320 --> 00:04:47,880 Speaker 1: you'd expect to find it written down at this point. Now, 89 00:04:47,880 --> 00:04:50,360 Speaker 1: of course, the obvious question about this is like, why 90 00:04:50,360 --> 00:04:52,679 Speaker 1: does it then get picked up, Why does selfie become 91 00:04:52,720 --> 00:04:54,640 Speaker 1: a tern, how does it create How does this journey 92 00:04:54,720 --> 00:04:59,240 Speaker 1: even begin into widespread usage. Yeah, so after two thousand 93 00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:01,400 Speaker 1: two it pop up here and there, but it didn't 94 00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:05,040 Speaker 1: come anywhere near common usage until around two thousand twelve 95 00:05:05,160 --> 00:05:07,840 Speaker 1: when it's suddenly got very popular. And this probably had 96 00:05:07,880 --> 00:05:11,880 Speaker 1: to do with simultaneous techno cultural trends. You had new 97 00:05:11,920 --> 00:05:16,279 Speaker 1: generations of camera phones and of social media a way 98 00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:19,480 Speaker 1: to take selfies and then also a place to post them. 99 00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:23,240 Speaker 1: And this I think the technology made a pre existing 100 00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:26,960 Speaker 1: word suddenly very useful. And it may also, I think 101 00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:31,479 Speaker 1: have played an important psycho social role, like does having 102 00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:37,120 Speaker 1: a word like selfie help defuse potential doubts or worries 103 00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:41,120 Speaker 1: people have that they are engaging in narcissistic behavior does 104 00:05:41,160 --> 00:05:43,840 Speaker 1: the word take an act that you might worry is 105 00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:47,560 Speaker 1: unsavory and make it cute? Like that? There? I was 106 00:05:47,600 --> 00:05:50,960 Speaker 1: reading something where the editorial director of the Oxford Dictionaries 107 00:05:51,000 --> 00:05:55,000 Speaker 1: in said, specifically of the word, the use of the 108 00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:58,560 Speaker 1: diminutive I e. Suffix is notable as it helps to 109 00:05:58,640 --> 00:06:03,280 Speaker 1: turn and essentially narcissistic enterprise into something rather more endearing. 110 00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:06,320 Speaker 1: But then again, maybe that's overly harsh. You could look 111 00:06:06,320 --> 00:06:08,240 Speaker 1: at it the other way, like, does having a word 112 00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:12,040 Speaker 1: like selfie make it easier to disparage an activity that 113 00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:14,840 Speaker 1: most people do? You know, it's not like you have 114 00:06:14,920 --> 00:06:18,000 Speaker 1: to be some raging narcissists to take a selfie? Does 115 00:06:18,040 --> 00:06:23,240 Speaker 1: it just like make it easier to mock people like this? Well? Yeah, yeah, 116 00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:25,400 Speaker 1: I can certainly see both sides of the coin there. 117 00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:27,280 Speaker 1: And now, another thing about the about adding I e 118 00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:31,560 Speaker 1: to to something is it comes from the the the 119 00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:35,839 Speaker 1: parental sphere of things and uh and observing how children 120 00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:38,880 Speaker 1: will frequently add that to a word to say, name 121 00:06:38,880 --> 00:06:41,320 Speaker 1: is stuffed animal. So if it's a bear, you might 122 00:06:41,360 --> 00:06:44,600 Speaker 1: just make it it's Barry Buries the name of the bear. Um, 123 00:06:44,839 --> 00:06:48,120 Speaker 1: you know, it's it's a cute. See addition to any 124 00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:50,839 Speaker 1: word uh. And then that lines up with this idea 125 00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:54,080 Speaker 1: that it makes something that could be viewed as being 126 00:06:54,320 --> 00:06:57,760 Speaker 1: you know, egotistical or not narcissistic, as being something that 127 00:06:57,920 --> 00:07:01,839 Speaker 1: is ultimately cute and harmless. Well, if you say, ah ha, 128 00:07:02,120 --> 00:07:06,200 Speaker 1: I took a selfie, it almost is self deprecating in 129 00:07:06,240 --> 00:07:09,440 Speaker 1: a way that defuses the potential for someone to criticize 130 00:07:09,480 --> 00:07:11,960 Speaker 1: you as narcissistic for doing it right, because it is 131 00:07:12,600 --> 00:07:16,440 Speaker 1: it has this feeling of being silly as well as 132 00:07:17,280 --> 00:07:20,200 Speaker 1: you know, silly, harmless, but also maybe a little bit narcissistic. 133 00:07:20,360 --> 00:07:25,440 Speaker 1: But but but but it is acknowledging the inherent narcissism 134 00:07:25,440 --> 00:07:27,920 Speaker 1: of the act, you know, and and dismissing it with 135 00:07:27,960 --> 00:07:30,760 Speaker 1: this air of silliness to it. Like if we instead 136 00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:33,320 Speaker 1: of having picking up the words selfie, if we'd gone 137 00:07:33,320 --> 00:07:37,560 Speaker 1: with ego bonk, you know, like that would probably be 138 00:07:37,640 --> 00:07:40,240 Speaker 1: that's a little bit silly too. But I can see 139 00:07:40,240 --> 00:07:42,960 Speaker 1: where people would be a little less inclined to use 140 00:07:43,040 --> 00:07:45,960 Speaker 1: that terminology if they were like, well, i'm early for 141 00:07:46,040 --> 00:07:48,720 Speaker 1: my meeting. Here's a quick ego bonk. Uh. You know, 142 00:07:49,080 --> 00:07:51,720 Speaker 1: quick selfie works a lot better, and it's a little 143 00:07:51,760 --> 00:07:54,000 Speaker 1: a little catchier. Yeah, or if we'd called it like 144 00:07:54,400 --> 00:07:57,960 Speaker 1: self porn or something. Not going to take that back, Sorry, 145 00:07:58,640 --> 00:08:00,360 Speaker 1: you know I just said, and then try to take 146 00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:02,920 Speaker 1: it back, But you convince me we should go down 147 00:08:02,920 --> 00:08:04,840 Speaker 1: this road. I was saying, another alternative, what would you 148 00:08:04,880 --> 00:08:07,280 Speaker 1: call it? You call it something like mirror porn or 149 00:08:07,320 --> 00:08:11,000 Speaker 1: something like. That's you know, self porn, because this is 150 00:08:11,040 --> 00:08:14,200 Speaker 1: now a common suffix. Actually, absolutely, you hear people talking 151 00:08:14,200 --> 00:08:17,040 Speaker 1: about what food porn or food porn? I think was 152 00:08:17,080 --> 00:08:20,400 Speaker 1: the big one that caught hold the idea that of 153 00:08:20,200 --> 00:08:25,400 Speaker 1: of saying that generally photography of food and a picture 154 00:08:25,440 --> 00:08:28,240 Speaker 1: of some sort of a very delicious looking dish or 155 00:08:28,440 --> 00:08:31,800 Speaker 1: or a beverage or something, uh is therefore therefore should 156 00:08:31,840 --> 00:08:35,840 Speaker 1: be compared to pornography, which is a weird pairing because 157 00:08:36,160 --> 00:08:40,840 Speaker 1: pornography is incredibly divisive in in culture. There it is 158 00:08:41,240 --> 00:08:43,079 Speaker 1: it is, you know, no matter what your personal take 159 00:08:43,120 --> 00:08:47,000 Speaker 1: on it. There's a lot of problematic area to consider 160 00:08:47,080 --> 00:08:50,600 Speaker 1: when thinking about pornography. Why do we drag it then 161 00:08:50,679 --> 00:08:55,920 Speaker 1: in to our consideration of say a very inviting looking lasagna, Well, yeah, 162 00:08:55,920 --> 00:08:58,240 Speaker 1: it could be just what we're talking about with this 163 00:08:58,280 --> 00:09:02,080 Speaker 1: possibility for selfie that it's like self deprecating and ironic 164 00:09:02,160 --> 00:09:06,199 Speaker 1: in a way that diffuses other people's ability to criticize 165 00:09:06,240 --> 00:09:08,840 Speaker 1: you for engaging in it, because it's like you're already 166 00:09:09,200 --> 00:09:12,080 Speaker 1: sort of criticizing yourself, right, and I guess you're also 167 00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:15,760 Speaker 1: leaning into the idea that into the the excess of 168 00:09:15,920 --> 00:09:21,319 Speaker 1: pornography and and therefore diffusing this like food styling, uh 169 00:09:21,360 --> 00:09:25,439 Speaker 1: you know, high art photography, food photography interpretations that might 170 00:09:25,480 --> 00:09:29,280 Speaker 1: otherwise be uh applied to it. So like if you 171 00:09:29,320 --> 00:09:31,760 Speaker 1: were to say, hey, I'm trying to out some food photography, 172 00:09:31,840 --> 00:09:35,040 Speaker 1: then people would have it would be able to say, well, actually, 173 00:09:35,559 --> 00:09:38,560 Speaker 1: i've seen professional food photography, and you know that the 174 00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:41,280 Speaker 1: lighting looks weird here. Um, you know, the the phizz 175 00:09:41,400 --> 00:09:43,920 Speaker 1: isn't right. It's said right. You know, we've all I 176 00:09:43,920 --> 00:09:46,840 Speaker 1: think picked up on some of the various tips, tricks 177 00:09:46,880 --> 00:09:50,080 Speaker 1: and and uh and illusions that are involved in that. 178 00:09:50,120 --> 00:09:51,920 Speaker 1: But if you just say, oh, it's just food porn, 179 00:09:52,280 --> 00:09:55,800 Speaker 1: that kind of implies that that it's it's less about 180 00:09:55,800 --> 00:10:00,480 Speaker 1: the art and more about invoking a visceral bonds to 181 00:10:00,520 --> 00:10:03,040 Speaker 1: the stimuli. Yeah, I think I think you're right there. 182 00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:06,920 Speaker 1: So obviously words like this are are great examples of 183 00:10:06,960 --> 00:10:10,800 Speaker 1: powerful lexical success stories like a selfie, of course is 184 00:10:11,160 --> 00:10:14,520 Speaker 1: though probably a much greater number of newly coined words 185 00:10:14,600 --> 00:10:16,840 Speaker 1: just fall by the wayside, right, you know, Instead, they 186 00:10:16,960 --> 00:10:20,760 Speaker 1: become little blips in literary history that you can find 187 00:10:20,880 --> 00:10:23,800 Speaker 1: in articles from a certain time period, but they just 188 00:10:23,880 --> 00:10:28,000 Speaker 1: don't catch on. They don't become common, right Like I'm imagining, um, 189 00:10:28,760 --> 00:10:31,920 Speaker 1: drunk injured Australian dudes say a lot of interesting things, 190 00:10:32,360 --> 00:10:36,120 Speaker 1: but they don't all become parts of the global lexicon, right. 191 00:10:36,160 --> 00:10:38,640 Speaker 1: And I think with these examples, the things that fall 192 00:10:38,760 --> 00:10:41,040 Speaker 1: by the wayside, it might be useful to think of 193 00:10:41,080 --> 00:10:45,839 Speaker 1: them as sort of failed protologisms or protologism. Oh man, 194 00:10:46,080 --> 00:10:48,000 Speaker 1: I think I'm going back and forth on whether that 195 00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:50,560 Speaker 1: that g is hard or soft. We'll we'll just plow 196 00:10:50,679 --> 00:10:54,360 Speaker 1: right through um. But the idea of a protologism is 197 00:10:54,400 --> 00:10:59,160 Speaker 1: a term introduced by the Russian American UH literary theorist 198 00:10:59,240 --> 00:11:02,240 Speaker 1: Mikhail in Epstein, who I believe is still a professor 199 00:11:02,280 --> 00:11:04,960 Speaker 1: at Emory University here in Atlanta. Quick question, is the 200 00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:09,400 Speaker 1: word protologism a protologism or a neologism? I would say 201 00:11:09,440 --> 00:11:12,719 Speaker 1: at this point it is a neologism. It was originally 202 00:11:12,720 --> 00:11:15,280 Speaker 1: a protology well, I guess I have to define them. 203 00:11:15,840 --> 00:11:20,000 Speaker 1: So a protologism in Mikhail Epstein's definition is that it's 204 00:11:20,040 --> 00:11:22,920 Speaker 1: a word that is freshly coined and hasn't yet been 205 00:11:22,960 --> 00:11:26,080 Speaker 1: accepted by many speakers at all. And the evidence of 206 00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:28,560 Speaker 1: this would be that it has not yet been published 207 00:11:28,559 --> 00:11:31,840 Speaker 1: by anyone other than the person or group that coined it. 208 00:11:32,120 --> 00:11:34,680 Speaker 1: And I imagine they're using the term published here in 209 00:11:34,679 --> 00:11:37,360 Speaker 1: the broader sense, so not merely the printed word, but 210 00:11:37,720 --> 00:11:40,360 Speaker 1: any kind of media publication in the same way, in 211 00:11:40,400 --> 00:11:43,200 Speaker 1: the same way you might treat publishing in publication and 212 00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:47,319 Speaker 1: say both libel and slander law. Right, So if you 213 00:11:47,400 --> 00:11:51,040 Speaker 1: are trying to make fetch happen but nobody else is 214 00:11:51,080 --> 00:11:54,560 Speaker 1: saying fetch, then it's still a protologism for you. Maybe 215 00:11:54,559 --> 00:11:57,120 Speaker 1: if you get a few other people saying fetch, you're 216 00:11:57,200 --> 00:12:00,920 Speaker 1: starting to make fetch happen, then it's becoming a neologism. 217 00:12:01,840 --> 00:12:04,880 Speaker 1: And if it keeps going and then everybody starts using it, 218 00:12:04,920 --> 00:12:07,760 Speaker 1: then it's common use. Not to say it's immortal, not 219 00:12:07,800 --> 00:12:10,040 Speaker 1: to say it cannot then die, fall out of fashion, 220 00:12:10,040 --> 00:12:13,720 Speaker 1: and die again, but it has at least gained a foothold. Yeah, 221 00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:16,839 Speaker 1: So by these standards, I would say protologism was once 222 00:12:16,880 --> 00:12:20,559 Speaker 1: a protologism, but it is no longer a protologism, given 223 00:12:20,559 --> 00:12:22,840 Speaker 1: that you can find articles out there that are not 224 00:12:22,920 --> 00:12:26,680 Speaker 1: written by Michael Epstein himself that are using this term 225 00:12:26,760 --> 00:12:30,120 Speaker 1: and talking about it, so it has probably legitimately graduated 226 00:12:30,480 --> 00:12:34,160 Speaker 1: to being a fledgling neologism. It's, you know, still sort 227 00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:37,680 Speaker 1: of a young word, a word that not everybody knows, 228 00:12:37,920 --> 00:12:41,120 Speaker 1: but it has use outside the the original you know, 229 00:12:41,160 --> 00:12:43,280 Speaker 1: like the room where it was created or the person 230 00:12:43,320 --> 00:12:46,520 Speaker 1: who tried to coin it. So under this model, the 231 00:12:46,520 --> 00:12:49,040 Speaker 1: progression goes like that you've a person or a group 232 00:12:49,160 --> 00:12:52,280 Speaker 1: coins a new term or usage this is a protologism, 233 00:12:52,320 --> 00:12:54,960 Speaker 1: and then an expanded subset of the population sort of 234 00:12:55,000 --> 00:12:57,319 Speaker 1: tries out the new term for a period of time, 235 00:12:57,600 --> 00:12:59,920 Speaker 1: but it still often needs to be defined or look 236 00:13:00,080 --> 00:13:01,760 Speaker 1: to up. At this point you would say it's probably 237 00:13:01,760 --> 00:13:05,000 Speaker 1: a neologism. And then eventually the term just becomes a 238 00:13:05,000 --> 00:13:07,760 Speaker 1: word of common use. It doesn't need to be looked 239 00:13:07,840 --> 00:13:10,280 Speaker 1: up or defined in the context in which it is 240 00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:13,080 Speaker 1: normally used. I mean, people still have to look up 241 00:13:13,120 --> 00:13:15,160 Speaker 1: all kinds of words, but like there there at least 242 00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:19,120 Speaker 1: will be contexts in which the word is regularly used, 243 00:13:19,200 --> 00:13:21,520 Speaker 1: and and the people within those contexts all know what 244 00:13:21,559 --> 00:13:24,160 Speaker 1: it means. I'd say a good indicator here is when 245 00:13:24,760 --> 00:13:29,320 Speaker 1: people mostly stop googling the word for a definition. Imagine 246 00:13:29,320 --> 00:13:32,000 Speaker 1: there's a new word. Let's say it is schmirf plex, 247 00:13:32,920 --> 00:13:35,440 Speaker 1: like in the first time you hear it as someone says, Hey, 248 00:13:35,440 --> 00:13:37,200 Speaker 1: come to my house at eight and bring your smurf 249 00:13:37,360 --> 00:13:40,280 Speaker 1: smirt plex. Well, I don't know what a smirt plex is, 250 00:13:40,360 --> 00:13:42,360 Speaker 1: and that sentence gives me no context. I have no 251 00:13:42,440 --> 00:13:44,240 Speaker 1: idea what I'm supposed to bring. All I know is 252 00:13:44,240 --> 00:13:47,720 Speaker 1: that smirt plex can be brought. But smirt plex could 253 00:13:47,720 --> 00:13:50,800 Speaker 1: be it could be an attitude, it could be it 254 00:13:50,840 --> 00:13:53,920 Speaker 1: could it could be a physical thing. I don't know. 255 00:13:54,520 --> 00:13:58,120 Speaker 1: Or someone might say pizza cutter, Yeah, there's no way 256 00:13:58,160 --> 00:14:00,480 Speaker 1: to tell. Someone might say, Gosh, I really like Dylan, 257 00:14:00,720 --> 00:14:03,880 Speaker 1: I just wish he wasn't so smirt plexy. Again, no idea. 258 00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:06,600 Speaker 1: That's depending on how it said. You might be able 259 00:14:06,640 --> 00:14:10,360 Speaker 1: to lean into positive or negative interpretations, but beyond that 260 00:14:10,800 --> 00:14:13,360 Speaker 1: hard to say. Now, if someone says I can't wait 261 00:14:13,360 --> 00:14:16,199 Speaker 1: to smirt plex that slice of pizza, or do do 262 00:14:16,240 --> 00:14:18,360 Speaker 1: you smirt plex that slice of pizza? In one goal. 263 00:14:18,880 --> 00:14:21,320 Speaker 1: Both of these examples give you far more context for 264 00:14:21,560 --> 00:14:23,800 Speaker 1: not only how it is being used, but then how 265 00:14:23,840 --> 00:14:27,760 Speaker 1: it can be reused appropriately yea, or at least semi appropriately, 266 00:14:27,840 --> 00:14:30,440 Speaker 1: And then with some course correction, you can wind up 267 00:14:30,440 --> 00:14:32,200 Speaker 1: in a place where you were finally using this new 268 00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:36,200 Speaker 1: term correctly and passing it viraly onto those around you. Well, 269 00:14:36,200 --> 00:14:38,800 Speaker 1: this example brings up a great question, which is why 270 00:14:38,840 --> 00:14:42,520 Speaker 1: would you bother inventing a new word for something? The 271 00:14:42,600 --> 00:14:46,240 Speaker 1: side of course, to illustrate a point in a podcast, right, yes, 272 00:14:46,560 --> 00:14:48,120 Speaker 1: now it's clear why you do it there, But what 273 00:14:48,280 --> 00:14:50,560 Speaker 1: like what if you were actually trying to make smirt 274 00:14:50,600 --> 00:14:54,680 Speaker 1: plex happen? Is there a reason you would be doing this? 275 00:14:55,000 --> 00:14:56,360 Speaker 1: Maybe we should take a break and then when we 276 00:14:56,400 --> 00:15:03,920 Speaker 1: come back we can talk about that. Alright, we're back, 277 00:15:04,200 --> 00:15:08,080 Speaker 1: all right. We were asking the question of why protologisms 278 00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:11,160 Speaker 1: are coined. When somebody comes up with a new word 279 00:15:11,240 --> 00:15:15,160 Speaker 1: for something on purpose, Why does that happen? One pretty 280 00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:18,160 Speaker 1: important reason for coining into a new term, obviously, I 281 00:15:18,160 --> 00:15:21,320 Speaker 1: think it comes about often in science, and that's discovering 282 00:15:21,360 --> 00:15:24,440 Speaker 1: a new process or proposing a new theory. You're essentially 283 00:15:24,440 --> 00:15:28,160 Speaker 1: saying we have new new content in the world. Now, 284 00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:30,760 Speaker 1: and we need a word to describe it. It's not 285 00:15:30,960 --> 00:15:34,080 Speaker 1: something that you're already familiar with that we just wanted 286 00:15:34,080 --> 00:15:37,080 Speaker 1: a different word for right. So I found a short 287 00:15:37,200 --> 00:15:40,400 Speaker 1: article from two thousand eleven by Andrew Moore, who's the 288 00:15:40,600 --> 00:15:43,840 Speaker 1: editor in chief of a journal called bio Essays, and 289 00:15:44,000 --> 00:15:47,080 Speaker 1: in this article he talks about the importance of neologisms 290 00:15:47,120 --> 00:15:51,160 Speaker 1: and the sciences, and he writes the following. Neologisms or 291 00:15:51,200 --> 00:15:57,240 Speaker 1: protologisms quote may be considered seductive in two senses. Firstly, 292 00:15:57,440 --> 00:16:00,280 Speaker 1: because their creators are seduced by the ability need to 293 00:16:00,360 --> 00:16:04,400 Speaker 1: express a potentially new scientific concept in language, a creative 294 00:16:04,440 --> 00:16:07,400 Speaker 1: act that might stake their claim as the first to 295 00:16:07,480 --> 00:16:12,120 Speaker 1: discover something. Secondly, because they often find favor in the 296 00:16:12,120 --> 00:16:17,040 Speaker 1: rest of the scientific community for their conciseness. So here 297 00:16:17,080 --> 00:16:20,720 Speaker 1: more argues that in the science is protologisms play multiple roles. 298 00:16:21,000 --> 00:16:24,960 Speaker 1: The first, of course, is the straightforward utility, being that 299 00:16:25,040 --> 00:16:28,760 Speaker 1: they are concise. So like once Charles Barnes invented the 300 00:16:28,800 --> 00:16:32,760 Speaker 1: word photosynthesis, it was much more convenient to just say 301 00:16:32,800 --> 00:16:37,200 Speaker 1: photosynthesis than to say the process by which autotrophic organisms 302 00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:40,400 Speaker 1: like plants use energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide 303 00:16:40,440 --> 00:16:44,080 Speaker 1: and water into sugars, rolls off the tongue much better, 304 00:16:44,360 --> 00:16:46,040 Speaker 1: right You. You don't want to have to explain that 305 00:16:46,080 --> 00:16:48,240 Speaker 1: process every time you talk about it. You can just 306 00:16:48,360 --> 00:16:50,920 Speaker 1: use the one new word now. And new terms appear 307 00:16:50,920 --> 00:16:54,160 Speaker 1: in the sciences all the time because they're indisputably useful. 308 00:16:54,240 --> 00:16:57,120 Speaker 1: They save time, they save space, and now now you 309 00:16:57,200 --> 00:16:59,600 Speaker 1: all have the same word you can refer to when 310 00:16:59,600 --> 00:17:02,280 Speaker 1: you're talking about something, so you know you're talking about 311 00:17:02,280 --> 00:17:05,359 Speaker 1: the same thing. In addition to that, though that this 312 00:17:05,720 --> 00:17:08,200 Speaker 1: thing more is drawing attention to, is that they may 313 00:17:08,200 --> 00:17:12,080 Speaker 1: play a psychological and social role within their use in 314 00:17:12,119 --> 00:17:15,560 Speaker 1: the sciences because the neologism number one, it helps its 315 00:17:15,600 --> 00:17:20,280 Speaker 1: coiner secure credit for having identified or proposed the thing 316 00:17:20,760 --> 00:17:23,800 Speaker 1: or the hypothesis in question. And I think this is 317 00:17:23,920 --> 00:17:26,840 Speaker 1: really truly the case. I think how often on this 318 00:17:27,000 --> 00:17:32,520 Speaker 1: very show, historical priority for discoveries and inventions is in 319 00:17:32,600 --> 00:17:35,880 Speaker 1: fact a disputed, but we generally end up trying to 320 00:17:35,960 --> 00:17:39,399 Speaker 1: give recognition to the first person to use the same 321 00:17:39,520 --> 00:17:43,320 Speaker 1: word that everybody still uses for the thing. Right. Yeah, Well, 322 00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:46,720 Speaker 1: when when someone is calling the particular invention by a 323 00:17:46,720 --> 00:17:50,320 Speaker 1: different term, it's sort of implied that they didn't have 324 00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:53,280 Speaker 1: it figured out all the way, right even maybe even 325 00:17:53,320 --> 00:17:56,639 Speaker 1: if that person was more important in the in the 326 00:17:56,680 --> 00:18:00,800 Speaker 1: technological discoveries that led to the to the invention, right right, Yeah, 327 00:18:00,840 --> 00:18:03,080 Speaker 1: because ultimately, yeah, that the spread of the name is 328 00:18:03,080 --> 00:18:05,159 Speaker 1: tied with the spread of the idea. I feel like 329 00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:08,240 Speaker 1: we have repeatedly run into this in invention history, where 330 00:18:08,320 --> 00:18:12,040 Speaker 1: you know, somebody else's work was more pivotal, but ultimately 331 00:18:12,119 --> 00:18:15,000 Speaker 1: credit goes to the person who came up with the word. 332 00:18:15,640 --> 00:18:17,760 Speaker 1: But then, the other point is that the new word 333 00:18:17,880 --> 00:18:22,800 Speaker 1: also makes other scientists more likely to remember and discuss 334 00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:26,520 Speaker 1: your hypothesis or discovery, because it's easier to talk about 335 00:18:26,520 --> 00:18:28,280 Speaker 1: when it has a name, especially if it has a 336 00:18:28,280 --> 00:18:32,560 Speaker 1: catchy name. Uh So more rights. He gives an example quote. 337 00:18:32,840 --> 00:18:35,320 Speaker 1: It is said that kur at All, in their landmark 338 00:18:35,440 --> 00:18:39,720 Speaker 1: nineteen seventy two paper, coined the term apoptosis, and of 339 00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:42,560 Speaker 1: course that means um, you know, programmed cell death within 340 00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:46,840 Speaker 1: the body uh from the Greek apo meaning from and 341 00:18:46,920 --> 00:18:52,120 Speaker 1: potosis meaning falling uh to sound similar to necrosis, it's 342 00:18:52,200 --> 00:18:55,920 Speaker 1: biological counterpart. Though at the time more than a few 343 00:18:55,960 --> 00:18:58,919 Speaker 1: scientists doubted that the new word was anything more than 344 00:18:58,960 --> 00:19:03,880 Speaker 1: an impostor disguising a specific case of necrosis. It's certainly 345 00:19:04,000 --> 00:19:07,560 Speaker 1: helped to catapult the concept into new realms of attention 346 00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:12,000 Speaker 1: and hence testability. So this is interesting. It's like if 347 00:19:12,040 --> 00:19:14,879 Speaker 1: you're a scientist, you've got a new phenomenon you you 348 00:19:14,880 --> 00:19:17,840 Speaker 1: think you've discovered, or a hypothesis you want more people 349 00:19:17,880 --> 00:19:20,960 Speaker 1: to investigate. If you come up with a good word 350 00:19:21,240 --> 00:19:24,480 Speaker 1: for it, other scientists are more likely to pay attention 351 00:19:24,600 --> 00:19:27,320 Speaker 1: and start putting your idea to the test. In a 352 00:19:27,320 --> 00:19:30,720 Speaker 1: weird way. To come back to the invention parallels, it's 353 00:19:30,800 --> 00:19:34,359 Speaker 1: very much like branding and marketing. Yeah, I think evolution 354 00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:36,760 Speaker 1: is another great example of this. You know, like the 355 00:19:37,320 --> 00:19:42,280 Speaker 1: term uh so nicely sums up what is otherwise a 356 00:19:42,320 --> 00:19:45,560 Speaker 1: fairly complicated process that might not roll off the tongue 357 00:19:45,560 --> 00:19:48,520 Speaker 1: as easily. Oh and this was huge at the time, 358 00:19:48,840 --> 00:19:53,080 Speaker 1: with you know, Darwin agonizing over what was the best 359 00:19:53,200 --> 00:19:56,960 Speaker 1: terminology to use to explain in a simple way his 360 00:19:57,080 --> 00:20:00,520 Speaker 1: complex ideas, Like there was the competition within the theory 361 00:20:00,760 --> 00:20:03,400 Speaker 1: for you know, was it better to call it natural 362 00:20:03,520 --> 00:20:06,679 Speaker 1: selection or survival of the fittest. We have an episode 363 00:20:06,680 --> 00:20:08,440 Speaker 1: of stuff to blow your mind where we talk about 364 00:20:08,480 --> 00:20:11,400 Speaker 1: just like the fight back and forth between those two 365 00:20:11,480 --> 00:20:14,400 Speaker 1: terms which sort of described the same thing, but they 366 00:20:14,400 --> 00:20:18,679 Speaker 1: have different marketing appeals. Now, the other side of the 367 00:20:18,720 --> 00:20:20,640 Speaker 1: coin and all of this is is that why while 368 00:20:20,680 --> 00:20:23,359 Speaker 1: the use of words like this can certainly make it 369 00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:27,800 Speaker 1: easier to communicate about topics within the sciences, there's there 370 00:20:27,840 --> 00:20:30,600 Speaker 1: is evidence to indicate that it can in some cases 371 00:20:30,640 --> 00:20:33,879 Speaker 1: make it harder for those outside the field to understand 372 00:20:34,040 --> 00:20:36,639 Speaker 1: what's being discussed. Uh. And then this can often result 373 00:20:36,640 --> 00:20:39,320 Speaker 1: in a in a lack of interest in science or 374 00:20:39,480 --> 00:20:42,439 Speaker 1: politics is another example that's brought up or a feeling 375 00:20:42,480 --> 00:20:45,840 Speaker 1: that one is not good at science or politics, you 376 00:20:45,840 --> 00:20:48,080 Speaker 1: know and so so not not an idea that you 377 00:20:48,119 --> 00:20:51,440 Speaker 1: don't understand it and maybe you can't understand it. Um. 378 00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:54,760 Speaker 1: This according to a fairly recent study from Hilary Shulman, 379 00:20:54,800 --> 00:20:58,360 Speaker 1: Assistant Professor of Communication at the Ohio State University. UM, 380 00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:01,880 Speaker 1: you just came out in a patst couple of months. Basically, 381 00:21:01,880 --> 00:21:05,199 Speaker 1: the idea is that the the specialized terms they're looking at, 382 00:21:05,240 --> 00:21:08,600 Speaker 1: we're proving to be a stumbling block to interest. And 383 00:21:08,600 --> 00:21:11,240 Speaker 1: this of course just drives home the importance of science 384 00:21:11,280 --> 00:21:15,200 Speaker 1: communication and journalism in the fields of science and politics, 385 00:21:15,760 --> 00:21:20,040 Speaker 1: because obviously you need those specialized terms within science, within 386 00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:25,399 Speaker 1: the sciences, within like you know, academic discussion of politics, etcetera. 387 00:21:25,800 --> 00:21:27,720 Speaker 1: But then if you were going to convey those ideas 388 00:21:27,720 --> 00:21:30,760 Speaker 1: to the to the world outside of that in group, 389 00:21:31,480 --> 00:21:33,680 Speaker 1: you have to have more generalized terminology. You have to 390 00:21:33,680 --> 00:21:35,480 Speaker 1: find to have a way of reaching him, at least 391 00:21:36,320 --> 00:21:39,280 Speaker 1: until those terms become so widely used that you don't 392 00:21:39,280 --> 00:21:41,280 Speaker 1: have to worry about it, right, I mean, yeah, I 393 00:21:41,280 --> 00:21:44,520 Speaker 1: mean there are different considerations in play in these different 394 00:21:44,520 --> 00:21:48,480 Speaker 1: types of communication. I mean in scientific publications. Yeah, you 395 00:21:48,560 --> 00:21:51,440 Speaker 1: would waste a lot of space if you couldn't use 396 00:21:51,480 --> 00:21:54,119 Speaker 1: technical jargon. It just like allows you to say a 397 00:21:54,119 --> 00:21:56,520 Speaker 1: lot more in a lot less words, right, And a 398 00:21:56,560 --> 00:22:00,600 Speaker 1: lot of this also comes down to intended audience as well, Like, uh, 399 00:22:00,840 --> 00:22:03,080 Speaker 1: you know, the average person on the street is not 400 00:22:03,119 --> 00:22:08,520 Speaker 1: the intended reader for an academic neuroscience paper. Likewise, I 401 00:22:08,560 --> 00:22:11,639 Speaker 1: am not the the intended listener for a you know, 402 00:22:11,640 --> 00:22:17,640 Speaker 1: a very specific nineties dance hall uh reggae tune. You know. Um, 403 00:22:17,800 --> 00:22:20,199 Speaker 1: I have to come to it as an outsider. And 404 00:22:20,240 --> 00:22:22,280 Speaker 1: now it's possible that you know, years or decades down 405 00:22:22,320 --> 00:22:25,520 Speaker 1: the road, some of those terminal terms become part of 406 00:22:25,520 --> 00:22:29,359 Speaker 1: the general lexicon in either example. But it's not necessarily 407 00:22:29,400 --> 00:22:32,400 Speaker 1: going to be the case. Now there are examples, clearly, 408 00:22:32,440 --> 00:22:35,720 Speaker 1: I think where what you're talking about, though, where technical 409 00:22:35,800 --> 00:22:41,480 Speaker 1: language is just purely counterproductive, or at least counterproductive given 410 00:22:41,560 --> 00:22:44,560 Speaker 1: what somebody might state their their aims are, maybe not 411 00:22:44,600 --> 00:22:47,000 Speaker 1: to what their actual aims are. Joe, are you saying 412 00:22:47,040 --> 00:22:50,920 Speaker 1: that it's time to synergize backwards overflow? I think it's 413 00:22:50,920 --> 00:22:54,040 Speaker 1: time to talk a little bit about corporate speak. Yeah. 414 00:22:53,880 --> 00:22:56,280 Speaker 1: Uh so, of course one of my favorite sources of 415 00:22:56,320 --> 00:22:59,880 Speaker 1: everyday comedy and shame is corporate speak, this vast, shallow 416 00:23:00,000 --> 00:23:03,919 Speaker 1: cool of business neologisms that I sometimes imagine us just 417 00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:07,080 Speaker 1: sort of spending our days ladling over one another, like 418 00:23:07,240 --> 00:23:10,199 Speaker 1: so much stagnant pond water. We have to swim through 419 00:23:10,240 --> 00:23:12,560 Speaker 1: it from time to time. Yeah, And there was recently 420 00:23:12,600 --> 00:23:15,879 Speaker 1: a really excellent article I thought on corporate speak in 421 00:23:15,920 --> 00:23:18,440 Speaker 1: New York Magazine. It was from February of this year, 422 00:23:18,520 --> 00:23:24,040 Speaker 1: so by Molly Young called garbage language. Why do corporations 423 00:23:24,119 --> 00:23:27,119 Speaker 1: speak the way they do? Uh? In my opinion, this 424 00:23:27,200 --> 00:23:30,119 Speaker 1: was a very funny and insightful article on on the 425 00:23:30,119 --> 00:23:34,080 Speaker 1: phenomena of business buzzwords, which she calls garbage language, taking 426 00:23:34,080 --> 00:23:36,760 Speaker 1: the term from a novelist, and by that you might 427 00:23:36,800 --> 00:23:38,880 Speaker 1: guess where she stands on the subject. And of course 428 00:23:39,119 --> 00:23:41,800 Speaker 1: this kind of language is easy to hate, but that 429 00:23:41,880 --> 00:23:45,119 Speaker 1: doesn't make her wrong. She begins with an example of 430 00:23:45,119 --> 00:23:47,840 Speaker 1: a corporate word that she encountered at a startup where 431 00:23:47,840 --> 00:23:53,040 Speaker 1: she recently worked. Quote. The term was parallel path. And 432 00:23:53,119 --> 00:23:56,159 Speaker 1: I first heard it in this sentence, we're waiting on 433 00:23:56,240 --> 00:24:00,280 Speaker 1: specs from the San Francisco installation. Can you pari well 434 00:24:00,440 --> 00:24:05,280 Speaker 1: path two versions? Translated, this means we're waiting on specs 435 00:24:05,320 --> 00:24:09,919 Speaker 1: from the San Francisco installation? Can you make two versions? 436 00:24:09,960 --> 00:24:13,000 Speaker 1: So she summarizes, in other words, to parallel path is 437 00:24:13,040 --> 00:24:16,520 Speaker 1: to do two things at once. That's all. But it 438 00:24:16,560 --> 00:24:18,399 Speaker 1: gives it this kind of It almost has like a 439 00:24:18,440 --> 00:24:22,520 Speaker 1: Buddhist air to it. Right, there's a middle path, parallel paths. 440 00:24:23,359 --> 00:24:26,439 Speaker 1: It sounds far more peaceful than can you do twice 441 00:24:26,440 --> 00:24:30,119 Speaker 1: as much work as we originally talked about. I'm sure 442 00:24:30,160 --> 00:24:32,119 Speaker 1: you know you've probably heard me complain about this on 443 00:24:32,119 --> 00:24:34,159 Speaker 1: one of our shows before. This kind of thing is 444 00:24:34,200 --> 00:24:36,200 Speaker 1: so annoying to me, and I want to be clear, 445 00:24:36,400 --> 00:24:40,080 Speaker 1: I understand the creation of new technical terms in business 446 00:24:40,200 --> 00:24:43,040 Speaker 1: when they function the way that words normally do, right 447 00:24:43,160 --> 00:24:46,600 Speaker 1: by putting a concise name to something that would otherwise 448 00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:49,439 Speaker 1: require more explanation. And I think there are plenty of 449 00:24:49,600 --> 00:24:53,640 Speaker 1: perfectly legitimate business terms that are actually useful, and they 450 00:24:53,640 --> 00:24:57,080 Speaker 1: could be compared to specific technical jargon, and like medicine 451 00:24:57,119 --> 00:25:00,040 Speaker 1: or the science is one example. Here might be the 452 00:25:00,119 --> 00:25:04,280 Speaker 1: original use of disruption or disruptive. Like originally this referred 453 00:25:04,280 --> 00:25:06,879 Speaker 1: to a specific thing. It wasn't a new word, but 454 00:25:06,920 --> 00:25:08,960 Speaker 1: it was a word that gained a new usage in 455 00:25:08,960 --> 00:25:12,600 Speaker 1: a business context. And uh, this was coined by a 456 00:25:12,600 --> 00:25:16,080 Speaker 1: guy named Clayton Christensen in the nineties, and it referred 457 00:25:16,080 --> 00:25:19,719 Speaker 1: to like an innovation that creates a new market and 458 00:25:19,760 --> 00:25:23,800 Speaker 1: a new type of value, displacing old markets and old values. 459 00:25:23,880 --> 00:25:27,000 Speaker 1: So an example might be the mass production of automobiles 460 00:25:27,040 --> 00:25:29,480 Speaker 1: with the Model T, which isn't just a new competitor 461 00:25:29,480 --> 00:25:33,000 Speaker 1: and entering a market, but it completely kind of disrupts 462 00:25:33,000 --> 00:25:35,679 Speaker 1: the transportation market. It, you know, upsets the old like 463 00:25:35,720 --> 00:25:39,520 Speaker 1: traditional horse and buggy market. Uh. But even with this word, 464 00:25:39,560 --> 00:25:42,600 Speaker 1: which originally I think has a specific meaning and is useful, 465 00:25:42,880 --> 00:25:45,520 Speaker 1: I think there's a kind of semantic creep, right, whereover 466 00:25:45,640 --> 00:25:50,080 Speaker 1: time its meaning becomes less specific and people start using 467 00:25:50,119 --> 00:25:54,080 Speaker 1: the word disruption or disruptive to just refer to any 468 00:25:54,119 --> 00:25:57,480 Speaker 1: business innovation or maneuver that they want to be seen 469 00:25:57,520 --> 00:26:00,760 Speaker 1: as new and dynamic. It's like it's like using the 470 00:26:00,760 --> 00:26:05,520 Speaker 1: word like powerful or strong. You see people describing business 471 00:26:05,520 --> 00:26:09,680 Speaker 1: things as disruptive that are in no way really changing markets, 472 00:26:09,680 --> 00:26:13,000 Speaker 1: are creating new markets. They're just like they're just saying, like, 473 00:26:13,080 --> 00:26:15,800 Speaker 1: you know, we're gonna be big, We're gonna spend a 474 00:26:15,800 --> 00:26:18,560 Speaker 1: lot of money on this and enter the market. So 475 00:26:18,640 --> 00:26:20,920 Speaker 1: some words really have a meaning, But at the same time, 476 00:26:20,920 --> 00:26:23,960 Speaker 1: a lot of corporate speak just feels like replacing one 477 00:26:24,080 --> 00:26:28,000 Speaker 1: number of normal, understandable words with an equal number or 478 00:26:28,080 --> 00:26:33,639 Speaker 1: more of confusing, buzzy technical words. There's no efficiency advantage 479 00:26:33,680 --> 00:26:38,120 Speaker 1: in the communication. The communication becomes understandable by a smaller 480 00:26:38,240 --> 00:26:42,360 Speaker 1: number of people. Why does this happen well? With regard 481 00:26:42,400 --> 00:26:45,600 Speaker 1: to the idea of a parallel path, Young continues quote, 482 00:26:46,000 --> 00:26:49,480 Speaker 1: I thought there was something gorgeously and inadvertently candid about 483 00:26:49,480 --> 00:26:52,600 Speaker 1: the phrases assumption that a person would ever not be 484 00:26:52,720 --> 00:26:55,240 Speaker 1: doing more than one thing at a time in an office. 485 00:26:55,920 --> 00:26:58,399 Speaker 1: It's denial that the whole point of having an office 486 00:26:58,480 --> 00:27:03,040 Speaker 1: job is to multitask in effectively instead of single tasking effectively. 487 00:27:03,640 --> 00:27:06,399 Speaker 1: Why invent a term for what people were already forced 488 00:27:06,400 --> 00:27:09,560 Speaker 1: to do? It was, and it's fakery and puffery and 489 00:27:09,640 --> 00:27:13,240 Speaker 1: lack of a reason to exist. The perfect corporate neologism 490 00:27:13,359 --> 00:27:17,000 Speaker 1: now hold on. One can multitask and effectively at home 491 00:27:17,119 --> 00:27:19,760 Speaker 1: as well as in the office. That's quite true. I 492 00:27:20,880 --> 00:27:22,600 Speaker 1: think we can all attest to that. But but no, 493 00:27:22,720 --> 00:27:25,040 Speaker 1: I get their point here. As she discusses a bunch 494 00:27:25,080 --> 00:27:27,080 Speaker 1: more examples, I think I'd say the article is very 495 00:27:27,119 --> 00:27:30,560 Speaker 1: worth reading. And of course she's fairly merciless and hypothesizing 496 00:27:30,720 --> 00:27:34,040 Speaker 1: the reasons these terms are often used. For example, she 497 00:27:34,040 --> 00:27:37,439 Speaker 1: says that you know, some corporate speak simply reflects a 498 00:27:37,560 --> 00:27:41,399 Speaker 1: desire to reimagine exactly what type of work it is 499 00:27:41,480 --> 00:27:45,439 Speaker 1: you're doing and what that work means. She says, quote, 500 00:27:45,480 --> 00:27:48,840 Speaker 1: our attraction to certain words surely reflects an inner yearning. 501 00:27:49,200 --> 00:27:52,760 Speaker 1: Computer metaphors appeal to us because they imply futurism and 502 00:27:52,840 --> 00:27:56,399 Speaker 1: hyper efficiency, while the language of self empowerment hides a 503 00:27:56,440 --> 00:27:59,879 Speaker 1: deeper anxiety about our relationship to work, a sense that 504 00:28:00,040 --> 00:28:03,480 Speaker 1: what we're doing may actually be trivial, that the reward 505 00:28:03,520 --> 00:28:07,400 Speaker 1: of free snacks for cultural fealty is not an exchange 506 00:28:07,400 --> 00:28:10,320 Speaker 1: that benefits us, that none of this was worth going 507 00:28:10,320 --> 00:28:12,720 Speaker 1: into student debt for, and that we could be fired 508 00:28:12,760 --> 00:28:16,280 Speaker 1: instantly for complaining on Slack about it. And she ends 509 00:28:16,320 --> 00:28:19,600 Speaker 1: this uh string of thoughts by saying, empowerment language is 510 00:28:19,640 --> 00:28:23,320 Speaker 1: a self marketing asset as much as anything else, a 511 00:28:23,400 --> 00:28:27,879 Speaker 1: way of selling our jobs back to ourselves. I think 512 00:28:27,960 --> 00:28:31,080 Speaker 1: there's a lot of truth to that. Yeah, yeah, And 513 00:28:31,160 --> 00:28:33,679 Speaker 1: a lot of times it does seem very you know, 514 00:28:33,720 --> 00:28:38,880 Speaker 1: intentionally euphemistic, you know, to try to having to explain 515 00:28:39,240 --> 00:28:44,080 Speaker 1: describe something in terms that are less damaging or more positive. 516 00:28:44,800 --> 00:28:47,600 Speaker 1: Like one example that comes to mind is is something 517 00:28:47,600 --> 00:28:50,680 Speaker 1: that's used a lot in business speaking, that's pivoting, you know, 518 00:28:51,000 --> 00:28:54,520 Speaker 1: pivoting to video, for example, which sounds a lot better 519 00:28:54,560 --> 00:28:58,840 Speaker 1: than you know, drastically or recklessly changing course or being 520 00:28:58,960 --> 00:29:02,440 Speaker 1: thrown in the throne off course by you know, the 521 00:29:02,640 --> 00:29:06,479 Speaker 1: slightest change and the winds of of of public demand 522 00:29:06,520 --> 00:29:09,360 Speaker 1: and business. That sort of thing, Uh, pivot sounds like 523 00:29:09,560 --> 00:29:15,520 Speaker 1: very geometric, you know, it sounds very precise and premeditated. 524 00:29:15,560 --> 00:29:17,560 Speaker 1: It's what your office chair does when you turn to 525 00:29:17,600 --> 00:29:21,600 Speaker 1: look at your other monitor, an obvious one about obvious. 526 00:29:21,600 --> 00:29:23,840 Speaker 1: One of these euphemisms is just trying to cover up 527 00:29:23,840 --> 00:29:26,720 Speaker 1: hard truths. Is like when I don't know all of 528 00:29:26,760 --> 00:29:31,440 Speaker 1: the buzzy corporate words for basically firing people. Oh yeah, like, 529 00:29:31,440 --> 00:29:33,840 Speaker 1: are you gonna fire people? Are you going to terminate people? 530 00:29:33,880 --> 00:29:37,440 Speaker 1: Are you going to engage in a strategic head count reduction? 531 00:29:38,080 --> 00:29:40,120 Speaker 1: Or a new one? This was one that only came 532 00:29:40,160 --> 00:29:44,520 Speaker 1: out recently to my knowledge, employment dislocation, which when I 533 00:29:44,560 --> 00:29:46,360 Speaker 1: first read it, I had no idea what it meant. 534 00:29:46,400 --> 00:29:48,360 Speaker 1: I was like, oh, I guess they moved their jobs 535 00:29:48,360 --> 00:29:52,560 Speaker 1: to another city, like there's there's a geographic change, and 536 00:29:52,600 --> 00:29:55,400 Speaker 1: maybe it wasn't that bad. And I think, now what 537 00:29:55,440 --> 00:29:58,560 Speaker 1: we're talking about is just people being terminated. I mean, 538 00:29:58,800 --> 00:30:00,840 Speaker 1: but but then again, you know, look at it from 539 00:30:00,960 --> 00:30:04,800 Speaker 1: a business's standpoint and like, no, what business is going 540 00:30:04,880 --> 00:30:07,800 Speaker 1: to you know, send out a corporate email and begin 541 00:30:07,960 --> 00:30:11,280 Speaker 1: by saying, who, we just really had a blood bath. Everybody. 542 00:30:11,960 --> 00:30:15,080 Speaker 1: If you're reading this, you're all right, but you know, no, no, 543 00:30:15,080 --> 00:30:17,640 Speaker 1: nobody's gonna engage in that kind of uh, you know, 544 00:30:18,720 --> 00:30:22,160 Speaker 1: intercommunication about what has happened or out of communication you're 545 00:30:22,360 --> 00:30:24,520 Speaker 1: you're you're gonna want to put a positive spin on 546 00:30:24,560 --> 00:30:30,040 Speaker 1: it and leave the negative interpretations to other folks to do. 547 00:30:30,640 --> 00:30:32,800 Speaker 1: What do you know? One of the worst things about 548 00:30:32,840 --> 00:30:35,400 Speaker 1: this type of language is as much as I hate it, 549 00:30:35,600 --> 00:30:39,840 Speaker 1: I sometimes find myself unconsciously using it in work emails 550 00:30:39,840 --> 00:30:42,600 Speaker 1: and stuff I don't mean to, but it infects you. 551 00:30:43,280 --> 00:30:45,280 Speaker 1: Here's the Well, here's one that we've I've seen used 552 00:30:45,320 --> 00:30:48,000 Speaker 1: to hear at work from time to time. What happens 553 00:30:48,000 --> 00:30:51,720 Speaker 1: when a new podcast or even an older podcast UH 554 00:30:51,840 --> 00:30:55,680 Speaker 1: is not living up to expectations? Well, do you just 555 00:30:56,240 --> 00:30:59,440 Speaker 1: cancel it? Do you terminate it? Or do you son 556 00:30:59,520 --> 00:31:03,320 Speaker 1: set it? That's one of those great examples. Yeah. Well, 557 00:31:03,400 --> 00:31:05,240 Speaker 1: one of the things that Young talks about a lot 558 00:31:05,240 --> 00:31:09,120 Speaker 1: in the article is the recent explosion of new ag 559 00:31:09,480 --> 00:31:13,320 Speaker 1: language in UH in business, you know, corporate speak, Like 560 00:31:13,360 --> 00:31:16,600 Speaker 1: there are these phases where corporate speak in the eighties 561 00:31:16,680 --> 00:31:20,640 Speaker 1: was infected with all these Wall Street style terms, and 562 00:31:20,720 --> 00:31:22,840 Speaker 1: in the nineties there was a lot of there was 563 00:31:22,880 --> 00:31:26,120 Speaker 1: a lot of like war and battle type language in 564 00:31:26,200 --> 00:31:28,840 Speaker 1: corporate speak. And for some reason, now we're in an 565 00:31:28,840 --> 00:31:33,240 Speaker 1: age of new age kind of mystical corporate speak. Are 566 00:31:33,240 --> 00:31:35,800 Speaker 1: they saying things like, alright, it's time to really open 567 00:31:35,880 --> 00:31:38,440 Speaker 1: up the chakras on this new ad campaign. I think 568 00:31:38,440 --> 00:31:40,040 Speaker 1: there are some things like that. I think a lot 569 00:31:40,080 --> 00:31:42,440 Speaker 1: of it probably comes from the tech world actually, where 570 00:31:42,440 --> 00:31:43,680 Speaker 1: they're you know, there are a ton of people in 571 00:31:43,720 --> 00:31:46,200 Speaker 1: the tech world who are also plugged into like Eastern 572 00:31:46,240 --> 00:31:48,800 Speaker 1: religion and stuff, so so I guess you could say 573 00:31:48,800 --> 00:31:51,320 Speaker 1: a lot of it is is tied to in these 574 00:31:51,320 --> 00:31:55,320 Speaker 1: cases to putting a new spin on something that is familiar. Uh, 575 00:31:55,720 --> 00:31:59,600 Speaker 1: Like taking something that may seem even exotic and using 576 00:31:59,640 --> 00:32:02,880 Speaker 1: that is a way to recast something that is for 577 00:32:03,080 --> 00:32:05,280 Speaker 1: far more ordinary. Yeah, I think there there are several 578 00:32:05,320 --> 00:32:07,520 Speaker 1: reasons we can come away with here why we often 579 00:32:07,560 --> 00:32:11,000 Speaker 1: see the introduction of neologisms in the corporate world. One 580 00:32:11,160 --> 00:32:14,360 Speaker 1: is to sort of reimagine or put a new psychological 581 00:32:14,400 --> 00:32:16,479 Speaker 1: spin on what it is you're doing that you know, 582 00:32:17,200 --> 00:32:20,120 Speaker 1: makes it feel maybe more spiritual, or makes it feel 583 00:32:20,160 --> 00:32:22,520 Speaker 1: more combative or something whatever it is that gets you 584 00:32:22,600 --> 00:32:26,640 Speaker 1: amped up. Another is to be euphemistic, to like to 585 00:32:26,840 --> 00:32:30,080 Speaker 1: take hard truths and make them sound like something different 586 00:32:30,080 --> 00:32:32,400 Speaker 1: than they are. And then I would say there is 587 00:32:32,440 --> 00:32:37,800 Speaker 1: another one, which is just a desire to sound professional, 588 00:32:38,720 --> 00:32:41,760 Speaker 1: like there's this idea that okay, where are people definitely 589 00:32:41,880 --> 00:32:44,720 Speaker 1: doing real work. One place you know that they're doing 590 00:32:44,760 --> 00:32:48,719 Speaker 1: that is like in the sciences and in engineering and stuff, 591 00:32:48,840 --> 00:32:51,920 Speaker 1: and they have lots of technical jargon, you know. But 592 00:32:52,120 --> 00:32:54,520 Speaker 1: in the sciences and engineering you probably need a lot 593 00:32:54,560 --> 00:32:58,520 Speaker 1: of technical jargon that is not actually there's nothing equivalent 594 00:32:58,520 --> 00:33:01,920 Speaker 1: to it that's necessary in a normal office. But you 595 00:33:02,000 --> 00:33:05,480 Speaker 1: have this desire to feel like you are accomplishing things 596 00:33:05,520 --> 00:33:08,360 Speaker 1: at the same level as the sciences are in engineering. 597 00:33:09,640 --> 00:33:11,240 Speaker 1: And then of course to come back to politics, and 598 00:33:11,320 --> 00:33:14,440 Speaker 1: politics is very much an example of of of of 599 00:33:14,480 --> 00:33:18,120 Speaker 1: a situation where you're needing to continually spin things, uh, 600 00:33:18,560 --> 00:33:21,440 Speaker 1: either in one direction or the other and uh, and 601 00:33:21,480 --> 00:33:25,600 Speaker 1: in doing so you come up with different different terminologies 602 00:33:25,880 --> 00:33:29,719 Speaker 1: to different descriptions of of what of things that are 603 00:33:29,760 --> 00:33:32,880 Speaker 1: essentially the same. Yes, I think that fits more in 604 00:33:33,040 --> 00:33:36,000 Speaker 1: with the the one about you know, wanting to reimagine 605 00:33:36,040 --> 00:33:38,440 Speaker 1: your job or sell your job back to yourself with 606 00:33:38,640 --> 00:33:42,160 Speaker 1: you know, new uh corporate neologisms because they help you 607 00:33:42,360 --> 00:33:45,440 Speaker 1: feel a certain way. You know, in politics, obviously you're 608 00:33:45,480 --> 00:33:47,840 Speaker 1: trying to make other people feel a certain way about 609 00:33:47,840 --> 00:33:51,040 Speaker 1: a concept by using pushy terminology about it all right, 610 00:33:51,040 --> 00:33:53,000 Speaker 1: we're gonna take one more break, but when we come back, 611 00:33:53,280 --> 00:33:55,520 Speaker 1: you know, we're gonna get into a little bit of 612 00:33:55,560 --> 00:33:59,560 Speaker 1: science fiction e territory here as we look at a 613 00:33:59,600 --> 00:34:03,680 Speaker 1: couple of examples of of new words that came up 614 00:34:03,720 --> 00:34:07,480 Speaker 1: on us and and some of their their their fictional origins, 615 00:34:07,520 --> 00:34:11,000 Speaker 1: but also some of the fictional engines that help them 616 00:34:11,040 --> 00:34:20,200 Speaker 1: reach their place in our lexicon. Alright, we're back, So 617 00:34:20,400 --> 00:34:23,560 Speaker 1: we're going to talk about a couple more interesting examples 618 00:34:23,600 --> 00:34:25,840 Speaker 1: of invented words and what they tell us about the 619 00:34:25,960 --> 00:34:28,240 Speaker 1: you know, the the process by which words are coined. 620 00:34:28,800 --> 00:34:31,680 Speaker 1: The next one I think is interesting because it's common 621 00:34:31,800 --> 00:34:36,320 Speaker 1: usage is so uh intention with the spirit of its coinage. 622 00:34:36,800 --> 00:34:40,719 Speaker 1: And that word is robot, right and boy, And this 623 00:34:40,800 --> 00:34:44,280 Speaker 1: is one that is um. Robot is so broadly used 624 00:34:44,320 --> 00:34:47,920 Speaker 1: these days to things that are perhaps not technically robots 625 00:34:47,920 --> 00:34:52,080 Speaker 1: get called robots um, and the things that sometimes things 626 00:34:52,160 --> 00:34:55,560 Speaker 1: that are for all intents and purposes robots don't get 627 00:34:55,600 --> 00:34:59,640 Speaker 1: called robot. It's uh, it's it's a weird one. So 628 00:35:00,040 --> 00:35:03,040 Speaker 1: will be a wonderful journey. So you could be forgiven 629 00:35:03,080 --> 00:35:06,719 Speaker 1: for assuming that the word robot was coined by an inventor, right, 630 00:35:06,800 --> 00:35:10,719 Speaker 1: somebody who maybe somebody who made automata or somebody who 631 00:35:10,760 --> 00:35:14,200 Speaker 1: created an early autonomous machine. But no, not at all. 632 00:35:14,680 --> 00:35:17,360 Speaker 1: This invented word, like so many others we have discussed, 633 00:35:17,360 --> 00:35:20,640 Speaker 1: actually comes from a work of fiction. That work was 634 00:35:20,719 --> 00:35:24,600 Speaker 1: a play called are You Are, which stood for Rossom's 635 00:35:24,760 --> 00:35:28,120 Speaker 1: Universal Robots. And this was a play written by the 636 00:35:28,320 --> 00:35:33,919 Speaker 1: check writer and intellectual Karl Choppeck. It premiered in nineteen one, 637 00:35:34,120 --> 00:35:37,240 Speaker 1: and it's basic plot was that an inventor named Rossum 638 00:35:37,760 --> 00:35:41,719 Speaker 1: creates a series of artificial humans to serve as slaves 639 00:35:41,719 --> 00:35:45,920 Speaker 1: for regular humans. But these slaves ultimately revolt against their 640 00:35:46,000 --> 00:35:49,480 Speaker 1: human creators and they basically kill all the humans and 641 00:35:49,600 --> 00:35:52,000 Speaker 1: they take over, and then they find out, oh no, 642 00:35:52,160 --> 00:35:55,440 Speaker 1: we don't know how to make more of ourselves. But 643 00:35:55,520 --> 00:35:58,719 Speaker 1: these slaves in the play are known as robots. And 644 00:35:58,800 --> 00:36:01,680 Speaker 1: this word is not invented out of whole cloth. It's 645 00:36:01,719 --> 00:36:04,399 Speaker 1: adapted from a check word. I think that comes from 646 00:36:04,400 --> 00:36:07,600 Speaker 1: an old Slavonic term. Uh. The word is robot to 647 00:36:08,000 --> 00:36:11,520 Speaker 1: r O b O t a, which means forced labor 648 00:36:11,760 --> 00:36:14,879 Speaker 1: or servitude. It is the kind of labor that would 649 00:36:14,880 --> 00:36:18,719 Speaker 1: have been done by surfs under feudalism. Now, of course, 650 00:36:18,840 --> 00:36:21,040 Speaker 1: this idea of a robot is somewhat different from what 651 00:36:21,080 --> 00:36:25,319 Speaker 1: it usually means today. Today, a robot is generally some 652 00:36:25,440 --> 00:36:29,920 Speaker 1: kind of machine that operates with some degree of independence 653 00:36:30,120 --> 00:36:34,040 Speaker 1: and moves with some degree of freedom, mimicking human or 654 00:36:34,120 --> 00:36:37,080 Speaker 1: animal movement. You can tell from what I just said, 655 00:36:37,080 --> 00:36:39,360 Speaker 1: of course, that the concept is actually a little bit hazy, 656 00:36:39,400 --> 00:36:42,600 Speaker 1: even though it is so widely used. But the robots 657 00:36:42,600 --> 00:36:46,839 Speaker 1: in Shopics Play, while they are manufactured products, are not 658 00:36:46,960 --> 00:36:51,240 Speaker 1: depicted as being mechanical machines made out of metal. They're closer, 659 00:36:51,280 --> 00:36:54,239 Speaker 1: I think, to the replicants of Blade Runner. They are 660 00:36:54,280 --> 00:36:58,400 Speaker 1: sort of like basically humans in every respect, except they 661 00:36:58,400 --> 00:37:02,560 Speaker 1: are manufactured instead born, And the comparison to Blade Runner 662 00:37:02,640 --> 00:37:04,680 Speaker 1: is very close when you look at some of the 663 00:37:04,719 --> 00:37:07,359 Speaker 1: texts in the play. For example, there's this part where 664 00:37:07,400 --> 00:37:11,239 Speaker 1: there's a triumphal speech given by a robot named Radius 665 00:37:11,280 --> 00:37:14,879 Speaker 1: after he and the other robot rebels sees power from 666 00:37:14,880 --> 00:37:18,239 Speaker 1: the humans. Roddy As says, quote, the power of man 667 00:37:18,360 --> 00:37:21,680 Speaker 1: has fallen. By gaining possession of the factory, we have 668 00:37:21,800 --> 00:37:26,160 Speaker 1: become masters of everything. The period of mankind has passed away. 669 00:37:26,560 --> 00:37:30,719 Speaker 1: A new world has arisen. Mankind is no more mankind 670 00:37:30,800 --> 00:37:35,120 Speaker 1: gave us two little life. We wanted more life. Oh man, 671 00:37:35,320 --> 00:37:37,880 Speaker 1: that's Roy Batty, right, yeah, you can just you can 672 00:37:38,000 --> 00:37:40,600 Speaker 1: envision him giving that speech. And so it makes me 673 00:37:40,640 --> 00:37:45,200 Speaker 1: think that Are you Are must have directly inspired Blade Runner. Yeah, yeah, yeah, 674 00:37:45,239 --> 00:37:49,839 Speaker 1: certainly really Scott's adaptation of the original Philip K. Dick, 675 00:37:50,400 --> 00:37:53,239 Speaker 1: Uh do Android's stream of Electric Sheep. But I don't 676 00:37:53,239 --> 00:37:55,719 Speaker 1: think that line is in the Philip K. Dick. I don't. 677 00:37:55,800 --> 00:37:57,640 Speaker 1: It's when a long time, so they're reddit, but I don't. 678 00:37:57,680 --> 00:37:59,880 Speaker 1: I don't remember that as being parted. Like I remember 679 00:38:00,480 --> 00:38:03,239 Speaker 1: picking up that is. I think that was the first 680 00:38:03,239 --> 00:38:05,799 Speaker 1: phil K Dick book I read, and my experience was 681 00:38:05,840 --> 00:38:07,319 Speaker 1: probably like a lot of people would pick it up 682 00:38:07,320 --> 00:38:10,440 Speaker 1: expecting Blade Runner at the film and it's you get 683 00:38:10,480 --> 00:38:12,400 Speaker 1: something different. Is there are a lot of differences between 684 00:38:12,400 --> 00:38:14,760 Speaker 1: the novel and the book is great, but oh it's wonderful. 685 00:38:14,760 --> 00:38:18,160 Speaker 1: It's very different. It's very different. The book is wonderful 686 00:38:18,320 --> 00:38:21,360 Speaker 1: for the kind of state of unreality that it conjures 687 00:38:21,520 --> 00:38:24,920 Speaker 1: because of like the moments where the main character starts 688 00:38:24,960 --> 00:38:27,279 Speaker 1: to wonder if he is real or not. It's very 689 00:38:27,320 --> 00:38:30,120 Speaker 1: Philip K. Dick I was. I would remember being so 690 00:38:30,600 --> 00:38:33,560 Speaker 1: excited to read Blade Runner that I even read another 691 00:38:33,680 --> 00:38:36,960 Speaker 1: another novel that was called Blade Runner. There was like 692 00:38:37,360 --> 00:38:40,400 Speaker 1: a futuristic sci fi world about. It had to do 693 00:38:40,440 --> 00:38:44,080 Speaker 1: with like a medical um, a medical black market, like 694 00:38:44,160 --> 00:38:47,759 Speaker 1: generally somebody who's running like surgical blades. Did this come 695 00:38:47,800 --> 00:38:50,640 Speaker 1: out after the movie? This was like, I'm not sure 696 00:38:50,760 --> 00:38:53,160 Speaker 1: when it came out. I just remember finding a what 697 00:38:53,280 --> 00:38:57,239 Speaker 1: felt like an old book in my school library and 698 00:38:57,239 --> 00:38:59,359 Speaker 1: I was like, all right, it's close enough, I'll read 699 00:38:59,440 --> 00:39:02,400 Speaker 1: the whole thing. So I remember being entertaining, but it 700 00:39:02,520 --> 00:39:06,080 Speaker 1: also not Late Runner. Well, anyway, I was reading a 701 00:39:06,120 --> 00:39:08,440 Speaker 1: good article about this in the m I. T Press 702 00:39:08,480 --> 00:39:11,520 Speaker 1: by a Penn State professor named John im Jordan's uh. 703 00:39:11,560 --> 00:39:14,680 Speaker 1: And Jordan lays out some interesting context for are you 704 00:39:14,719 --> 00:39:18,239 Speaker 1: are uh? He writes of Choppe quote. Like many of 705 00:39:18,280 --> 00:39:21,319 Speaker 1: his peers, he was appalled by the carnage wrought by 706 00:39:21,320 --> 00:39:24,319 Speaker 1: the mechanical and chemical weapons that marked World War One 707 00:39:24,680 --> 00:39:27,960 Speaker 1: as a departure from previous combat. He was also deeply 708 00:39:28,000 --> 00:39:31,839 Speaker 1: skeptical of the utopian notions of science and technology. And 709 00:39:31,960 --> 00:39:34,240 Speaker 1: you should remember that this was a time of great 710 00:39:34,360 --> 00:39:38,040 Speaker 1: technological utopianism. You know, remember our episodes on the invention 711 00:39:38,480 --> 00:39:42,080 Speaker 1: of the supposed death ray in this period, which despite 712 00:39:42,120 --> 00:39:46,440 Speaker 1: the name, was actually pitched as something beautiful and humane. 713 00:39:46,600 --> 00:39:49,680 Speaker 1: It was a technology that would end all possibility of war, 714 00:39:49,760 --> 00:39:52,200 Speaker 1: It would bring about an era of peace and harmony. 715 00:39:52,560 --> 00:39:54,719 Speaker 1: And the death ray was by far, you know, not 716 00:39:54,760 --> 00:39:56,600 Speaker 1: the only example. This was the time of you know, 717 00:39:56,680 --> 00:39:59,880 Speaker 1: Tesla and Marconi in so many others fielding the idea 718 00:40:00,040 --> 00:40:03,760 Speaker 1: that coming technologies would eliminate war and disease and want. 719 00:40:04,560 --> 00:40:07,040 Speaker 1: But of course there were many others like Chopek who 720 00:40:07,480 --> 00:40:10,640 Speaker 1: reacted to the technological horrors of World War One with 721 00:40:10,680 --> 00:40:14,880 Speaker 1: skepticism about the promises of of new science and technology. 722 00:40:15,200 --> 00:40:17,839 Speaker 1: Uh and so, yeah, he's criticizing this idea of of 723 00:40:17,880 --> 00:40:21,080 Speaker 1: science that is that is not concerned with big questions, 724 00:40:21,200 --> 00:40:24,360 Speaker 1: or with ethics, or or even the the ultimate purpose 725 00:40:24,440 --> 00:40:27,200 Speaker 1: of its own endeavor, That is just concerned with like 726 00:40:27,320 --> 00:40:30,680 Speaker 1: what sort of leverage it can have over the physical world, 727 00:40:30,760 --> 00:40:35,200 Speaker 1: what can you produce? But Jordan's characterizes chop x opinion 728 00:40:35,440 --> 00:40:40,680 Speaker 1: on mechanization by saying, quote, when mechanization overtakes basic human traits, 729 00:40:40,719 --> 00:40:46,080 Speaker 1: people lose the ability to reproduce, as robots increase in capability, vitality, 730 00:40:46,080 --> 00:40:50,240 Speaker 1: and self awareness, humans become more like their machines. Humans 731 00:40:50,280 --> 00:40:53,440 Speaker 1: and robots, in chop x critique are essentially one and 732 00:40:53,480 --> 00:40:57,560 Speaker 1: the same. The measure of worth industrial productivity is one 733 00:40:57,680 --> 00:40:59,799 Speaker 1: by the robots that can do the work of two 734 00:40:59,800 --> 00:41:03,799 Speaker 1: and half men. Such a contest implicitly critiques the efficiency 735 00:41:03,880 --> 00:41:07,280 Speaker 1: movement that emerged just before World War One, which ignored 736 00:41:07,400 --> 00:41:10,879 Speaker 1: many essential human traits. Of course, this makes me think 737 00:41:10,880 --> 00:41:14,640 Speaker 1: about Dune, right, the implications of the past but lerry 738 00:41:14,680 --> 00:41:18,080 Speaker 1: a jihad, that's right, hey, when which humans rise up 739 00:41:18,120 --> 00:41:22,840 Speaker 1: against the rule of machines. But it's implied, it's certainly 740 00:41:22,840 --> 00:41:26,040 Speaker 1: in the original books that it's not just a it's 741 00:41:26,160 --> 00:41:29,520 Speaker 1: not simply a matter of rising up against machine overlords 742 00:41:29,520 --> 00:41:33,280 Speaker 1: in the physical totalitarian sense, but in a philosophical sense, 743 00:41:33,320 --> 00:41:36,520 Speaker 1: the idea that the machine way of life, the machine 744 00:41:36,560 --> 00:41:39,160 Speaker 1: way of thinking, has corrupted what it is to be 745 00:41:39,239 --> 00:41:42,560 Speaker 1: human exactly. Yes, it's not just that they're like, you know, 746 00:41:42,680 --> 00:41:45,160 Speaker 1: enemies that are trying to rule us. They've changed our 747 00:41:45,280 --> 00:41:48,600 Speaker 1: nature and we don't want that. Yeah. But anyway, given 748 00:41:48,640 --> 00:41:51,840 Speaker 1: the views of the play, there's just some intense irony 749 00:41:51,960 --> 00:41:54,960 Speaker 1: that this is actually the terminology that was adopted by 750 00:41:54,960 --> 00:41:57,920 Speaker 1: people who would end up wanting to make autonomous machines 751 00:41:57,960 --> 00:42:00,279 Speaker 1: for a living, like you know. And of course I 752 00:42:00,280 --> 00:42:02,680 Speaker 1: don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to go into robotics. 753 00:42:02,719 --> 00:42:05,840 Speaker 1: I think robots canna have a lot of wonderful uses. Yes, certainly. 754 00:42:06,000 --> 00:42:08,359 Speaker 1: But the term you're using is saying like I want 755 00:42:08,360 --> 00:42:11,520 Speaker 1: to go into robotics, is like literally like I want 756 00:42:11,520 --> 00:42:15,240 Speaker 1: to go into creating slaves that will destroy our spirit 757 00:42:15,280 --> 00:42:19,239 Speaker 1: and render us useless. Yeah, that's fascinating. One last thing 758 00:42:19,239 --> 00:42:22,200 Speaker 1: about the word robot. It's pronunciation also appears to have 759 00:42:22,320 --> 00:42:24,920 Speaker 1: changed over time. At various times it might have been 760 00:42:24,960 --> 00:42:28,000 Speaker 1: pronounced more like a robot robot? Is it ever bot? 761 00:42:28,080 --> 00:42:32,000 Speaker 1: Was it ever pronounced robot like Zoidberg does its futurama? 762 00:42:32,080 --> 00:42:34,040 Speaker 1: I think maybe at some point it was there. There 763 00:42:34,040 --> 00:42:37,200 Speaker 1: have been multiple different ways of saying now speaking of 764 00:42:37,360 --> 00:42:41,759 Speaker 1: technological fear and apprehension. Um, the next word we're going 765 00:42:41,800 --> 00:42:44,040 Speaker 1: to consider here is is a perfect extension of this 766 00:42:44,160 --> 00:42:45,840 Speaker 1: and ties into some of these same themes, and that 767 00:42:45,960 --> 00:42:51,319 Speaker 1: is of course clone. So clone was apparently first recorded, 768 00:42:51,680 --> 00:42:55,920 Speaker 1: uh to have been used somewhere between nineteen and nineteen 769 00:42:55,920 --> 00:43:00,360 Speaker 1: o five, and it's from the Greek word clone, a 770 00:43:00,480 --> 00:43:07,040 Speaker 1: slip a twig with clear botanical roots. Here. Plant physiologist 771 00:43:07,120 --> 00:43:09,880 Speaker 1: Herbert J. Webber coined the term in reference to the 772 00:43:09,920 --> 00:43:15,480 Speaker 1: technique for propagating new plants UH through the use of cuttings, bulbs, 773 00:43:15,520 --> 00:43:18,920 Speaker 1: and buds. And I was reading about this, UH in 774 00:43:18,960 --> 00:43:22,880 Speaker 1: an interview that Science Friday in their Science Diction series 775 00:43:23,280 --> 00:43:26,840 Speaker 1: UH conducted with Harold Marco, professor of History of Medicine 776 00:43:27,640 --> 00:43:30,560 Speaker 1: at the University of Michigan, and Ann Arbor UH. And 777 00:43:30,880 --> 00:43:35,160 Speaker 1: one thing that Marco pointed out is that Webber was 778 00:43:35,239 --> 00:43:37,200 Speaker 1: kind of trying to decide what term to use, Like 779 00:43:37,200 --> 00:43:39,440 Speaker 1: you didn't just fire from the hip here and think, 780 00:43:39,440 --> 00:43:41,439 Speaker 1: all right, what is the what? What? What words should 781 00:43:41,440 --> 00:43:43,959 Speaker 1: I use? Maybe with some of those considerations we talked 782 00:43:43,960 --> 00:43:47,520 Speaker 1: about earlier exactly. Yeah. So one of the other, like 783 00:43:47,640 --> 00:43:51,000 Speaker 1: major contender that he came up with is actually pretty great. Uh. 784 00:43:51,000 --> 00:43:56,400 Speaker 1: It is the word strength, a combination of strain and wraith. Wow. 785 00:43:57,080 --> 00:44:00,319 Speaker 1: But he, you know, decided it was too clumsy. But 786 00:44:00,400 --> 00:44:01,880 Speaker 1: that being said, I want there's got to be a 787 00:44:01,880 --> 00:44:05,120 Speaker 1: sci fi treatment out there, UM, somewhere where someone has 788 00:44:05,120 --> 00:44:09,480 Speaker 1: decided to abandon the word clone and just talk about streiths. UH. 789 00:44:09,520 --> 00:44:13,480 Speaker 1: Like that that just changes the whole situation. Imagine, if 790 00:44:13,520 --> 00:44:17,239 Speaker 1: you will, if throughout the Star Wars universe, instead of 791 00:44:17,239 --> 00:44:20,640 Speaker 1: saying clone, they said straight yeah, like that would have 792 00:44:20,680 --> 00:44:22,759 Speaker 1: had it would have made it feel it would have 793 00:44:22,800 --> 00:44:26,360 Speaker 1: been rooted in the actual origin of our usage of clone, 794 00:44:26,719 --> 00:44:29,160 Speaker 1: but it would have given it this slightly different feel 795 00:44:29,600 --> 00:44:33,279 Speaker 1: and indeed strength with its Wraith connotation. It feels a 796 00:44:33,320 --> 00:44:36,359 Speaker 1: little weird or like it's more in line with well, 797 00:44:36,480 --> 00:44:39,360 Speaker 1: it's good to come back to Herbert. The use of 798 00:44:39,400 --> 00:44:42,000 Speaker 1: the golas in Dune, you know where you know, it 799 00:44:42,040 --> 00:44:44,360 Speaker 1: doesn't it doesn't call them clones, It call you know, 800 00:44:44,440 --> 00:44:47,759 Speaker 1: calls them goulas, creates this new word that drags in 801 00:44:47,920 --> 00:44:53,040 Speaker 1: other um, other you know, feelings, other words, other connotations. 802 00:44:53,080 --> 00:44:57,360 Speaker 1: So um and anyway, Marco, you know, as this concept 803 00:44:57,400 --> 00:45:00,680 Speaker 1: steadily took off, you saw it u a lot in 804 00:45:01,080 --> 00:45:03,960 Speaker 1: the agricultural world world because that's of course where it 805 00:45:03,960 --> 00:45:09,480 Speaker 1: was originally utilized. But then it bleeds over into science fiction. However, 806 00:45:09,680 --> 00:45:12,319 Speaker 1: there are cases where you could have seen someone use 807 00:45:12,400 --> 00:45:14,640 Speaker 1: clone a lot more of where they did. In for instance, 808 00:45:14,840 --> 00:45:18,680 Speaker 1: Huxley in Brave New World doesn't refer to it as cloning, 809 00:45:18,719 --> 00:45:24,080 Speaker 1: refers to instead as the Bakonovsky process. But uh, but 810 00:45:24,200 --> 00:45:27,480 Speaker 1: Market points to two specific uses of clone in the 811 00:45:27,560 --> 00:45:30,279 Speaker 1: nineteen seventies that really helped to push it into the 812 00:45:30,280 --> 00:45:34,880 Speaker 1: popular lexicon, the first of which is Alvin and Heidi 813 00:45:34,960 --> 00:45:38,800 Speaker 1: Toffler's best seller Future Shock from the year nineteen seventy. 814 00:45:39,000 --> 00:45:43,359 Speaker 1: I know you like this and the Weird Orson Welles documentary. Yeah, 815 00:45:43,360 --> 00:45:46,719 Speaker 1: the weird the weird Horson Weil documentary, which I recommend 816 00:45:46,800 --> 00:45:49,560 Speaker 1: looking up on YouTube, is great and a little bit cheesy. 817 00:45:49,840 --> 00:45:52,160 Speaker 1: The work of the Tofflers throughout their career, they wrote 818 00:45:52,239 --> 00:45:56,040 Speaker 1: various texts of futurism, texts where they're talking about, you know, 819 00:45:56,080 --> 00:46:00,640 Speaker 1: trends and how we how we um anticipate and receive 820 00:46:00,760 --> 00:46:03,719 Speaker 1: new technologies, and generally the idea of future shock is 821 00:46:04,080 --> 00:46:07,680 Speaker 1: the idea that the world is changing so rapidly, there's 822 00:46:07,760 --> 00:46:10,920 Speaker 1: all these new technologies coming online that it overwhelms us 823 00:46:10,960 --> 00:46:13,520 Speaker 1: and we feel the sense of future shock. Uh And 824 00:46:13,520 --> 00:46:15,560 Speaker 1: and even today it's a you know, it's it's a 825 00:46:15,600 --> 00:46:17,799 Speaker 1: work that is to a certain extent dated by their 826 00:46:17,880 --> 00:46:20,960 Speaker 1: later works. You know that they spent their their lives, 827 00:46:20,960 --> 00:46:24,400 Speaker 1: they spent their careers covering this, uh, this area of 828 00:46:24,440 --> 00:46:27,640 Speaker 1: consideration but it's still a very readable text, and I 829 00:46:27,680 --> 00:46:29,439 Speaker 1: recommend it that this is a This is a line 830 00:46:29,480 --> 00:46:31,960 Speaker 1: from Future This is a paragraph from Future Shock, where 831 00:46:32,000 --> 00:46:35,279 Speaker 1: the Tofflers discuss this quote. One of the more fascinating 832 00:46:35,320 --> 00:46:38,120 Speaker 1: possibilities is that man will be able to make biological 833 00:46:38,160 --> 00:46:41,840 Speaker 1: carbon copies of himself through a process known as cloning. 834 00:46:41,880 --> 00:46:44,080 Speaker 1: It will be possible to grow from the nucleus of 835 00:46:44,080 --> 00:46:47,200 Speaker 1: an adult sell a new organism that has the same 836 00:46:47,239 --> 00:46:51,200 Speaker 1: genetic characteristics of the person contributing the cell nucleus. The 837 00:46:51,280 --> 00:46:54,960 Speaker 1: resultant human copy would start life with a genetic endowment 838 00:46:55,040 --> 00:46:58,799 Speaker 1: identical to that of the donor, although cultural differences might 839 00:46:58,920 --> 00:47:03,799 Speaker 1: thereafter alter personality or physical development of the clone. And 840 00:47:04,000 --> 00:47:08,200 Speaker 1: uh Interestingly enough, in that Science Friday interview, Howard Marcle 841 00:47:08,680 --> 00:47:11,080 Speaker 1: pointed to another work from the seventies, this time of 842 00:47:11,120 --> 00:47:15,800 Speaker 1: fictional work venties six novel by Ira Levin, The Boys 843 00:47:15,880 --> 00:47:18,799 Speaker 1: from Brazil. Oh, the one about don't they want to 844 00:47:18,800 --> 00:47:22,239 Speaker 1: clone Another Hitler? Yeah, it's a It concerns a a 845 00:47:22,360 --> 00:47:26,640 Speaker 1: fictional plot where you have uh not Nazi ex pats 846 00:47:26,719 --> 00:47:29,400 Speaker 1: living in South America who are hatching a scheme to 847 00:47:29,520 --> 00:47:32,800 Speaker 1: clone at off Hitler. Uh, you know, using cloning technology 848 00:47:32,840 --> 00:47:36,920 Speaker 1: to create all of these uh the these these male children, 849 00:47:37,000 --> 00:47:39,160 Speaker 1: and then trying to figure out how to raise them 850 00:47:39,200 --> 00:47:43,279 Speaker 1: so that you can nurture their genetic legacy into you know, 851 00:47:43,320 --> 00:47:46,520 Speaker 1: I guess the ideal form of the fere um, which 852 00:47:46,960 --> 00:47:49,160 Speaker 1: I know. There are a lot of problems with this plot, 853 00:47:49,400 --> 00:47:51,560 Speaker 1: a lot of holes in this plot, but it was 854 00:47:51,560 --> 00:47:55,680 Speaker 1: a very popular work and they made a pretty uh 855 00:47:55,719 --> 00:47:58,960 Speaker 1: I remember being a pretty entertaining film version of this 856 00:47:59,000 --> 00:48:02,479 Speaker 1: as well, and which Greg Repact plays uh uh Dr 857 00:48:02,600 --> 00:48:05,759 Speaker 1: Joseph Mangela, but also Laurence Olivier is the good guy, 858 00:48:05,840 --> 00:48:09,799 Speaker 1: right hunter um yeah, And so I I have very 859 00:48:10,080 --> 00:48:11,880 Speaker 1: vague memories of this film. I think I saw it 860 00:48:11,920 --> 00:48:13,960 Speaker 1: on American movie Classics back in the day, but I 861 00:48:13,960 --> 00:48:17,760 Speaker 1: remember it. I remember it being disturbing and effective in places. 862 00:48:18,080 --> 00:48:20,520 Speaker 1: I never read the book myself, but I was leafing. 863 00:48:20,560 --> 00:48:22,160 Speaker 1: I picked up grabbed a copy of it and leaf 864 00:48:22,239 --> 00:48:26,000 Speaker 1: through it before we were we recorded this with this episode, 865 00:48:26,360 --> 00:48:29,600 Speaker 1: and I did run across the passage where one character 866 00:48:29,680 --> 00:48:32,600 Speaker 1: is telling another about the origin of the word clone 867 00:48:32,719 --> 00:48:35,640 Speaker 1: and referring to the uh you know, the Greek and 868 00:48:35,760 --> 00:48:39,799 Speaker 1: the uh and the the the botanical origins of the term. 869 00:48:40,320 --> 00:48:42,239 Speaker 1: Uh So, anyway, I guess the idea here is that, 870 00:48:42,320 --> 00:48:44,239 Speaker 1: you know, you have two popular works that are using 871 00:48:44,800 --> 00:48:47,720 Speaker 1: the word clone, and they helped to sort of boost 872 00:48:47,760 --> 00:48:51,480 Speaker 1: the signal throughout uh, you know, the fictional world and 873 00:48:51,560 --> 00:48:54,880 Speaker 1: just the the the popular conceptions of the science itself. 874 00:48:55,200 --> 00:48:57,600 Speaker 1: One of the funny things though, in this selection you 875 00:48:57,680 --> 00:49:01,320 Speaker 1: pulled out is that one character says that the old 876 00:49:01,360 --> 00:49:05,160 Speaker 1: word for cloning was mono nuclear reproduction, and then complains, 877 00:49:05,200 --> 00:49:07,440 Speaker 1: why would you coin a new word like clone when 878 00:49:07,480 --> 00:49:10,880 Speaker 1: the old ones convey more? The other character says, cloning 879 00:49:10,960 --> 00:49:14,960 Speaker 1: is shorter. Oh, yes, how true coloss Uh yeah, and uh. 880 00:49:15,000 --> 00:49:17,000 Speaker 1: I was going to actually read this this uh this 881 00:49:17,080 --> 00:49:20,360 Speaker 1: bit from the Boys from Brazil, but I thought it 882 00:49:20,400 --> 00:49:23,759 Speaker 1: might be a little confusing because the the character that 883 00:49:23,880 --> 00:49:28,800 Speaker 1: is explaining it mentions a different biologists and mentions in 884 00:49:28,840 --> 00:49:32,120 Speaker 1: English biologists by the name of Haldane, which I thought 885 00:49:32,200 --> 00:49:35,920 Speaker 1: might confuse people who were listening to the origin story 886 00:49:35,920 --> 00:49:38,759 Speaker 1: that we've presented thus far. Okay, well, I hope I 887 00:49:38,800 --> 00:49:41,960 Speaker 1: didn't confuse anybody. But I like how they reproduced the 888 00:49:42,000 --> 00:49:47,160 Speaker 1: same conversation. It's interesting and it is again worth I think, 889 00:49:47,160 --> 00:49:51,279 Speaker 1: stressing the importance of science fiction especially with scientific terminology, 890 00:49:51,280 --> 00:49:55,040 Speaker 1: because there are plenty of other examples where a bit 891 00:49:55,200 --> 00:49:58,440 Speaker 1: uh like an idea is presented first in science fiction 892 00:49:58,520 --> 00:50:02,319 Speaker 1: and then gets picked up as a possibility within the sciences. Yeah, 893 00:50:02,440 --> 00:50:05,480 Speaker 1: you might think that somebody created a robot and then 894 00:50:05,640 --> 00:50:08,680 Speaker 1: came up with the name robot, but no, yeah goodness. 895 00:50:08,680 --> 00:50:11,439 Speaker 1: And this is without even getting into the situation where 896 00:50:11,440 --> 00:50:15,879 Speaker 1: you have fictional worlds that in which the creator comes 897 00:50:15,960 --> 00:50:19,280 Speaker 1: up with their own lexicon for like a an alternate 898 00:50:19,320 --> 00:50:22,200 Speaker 1: reality or futuristic reality like one of them. Think the 899 00:50:22,200 --> 00:50:26,000 Speaker 1: more jarring examples of this would be a clockwork orange 900 00:50:26,680 --> 00:50:29,640 Speaker 1: or inn In Banks wrote a book called Fearsome Engine 901 00:50:30,360 --> 00:50:35,560 Speaker 1: that is totally a totally um worthwhile read. But it 902 00:50:35,640 --> 00:50:37,759 Speaker 1: has like I think, three different perspectives in it, and 903 00:50:37,880 --> 00:50:41,680 Speaker 1: one of them is a is is is written in 904 00:50:41,719 --> 00:50:45,680 Speaker 1: this futuristic slang, and it's really really takes a little 905 00:50:45,680 --> 00:50:47,839 Speaker 1: bit of getting used to before you're rolling with it 906 00:50:47,880 --> 00:50:51,160 Speaker 1: and understanding what the character is saying. Um now, I 907 00:50:51,160 --> 00:50:53,560 Speaker 1: don't know. I mean, it's arguable to what extent those 908 00:50:53,600 --> 00:50:57,600 Speaker 1: kind of exercises ever actually produced new words, but there's 909 00:50:57,600 --> 00:51:01,640 Speaker 1: certainly the potentiality is there, um, you know, any time 910 00:51:02,320 --> 00:51:04,880 Speaker 1: any time a new word is presented, you're you're putting 911 00:51:04,880 --> 00:51:08,200 Speaker 1: out the possibility that it could, uh, it could become 912 00:51:08,239 --> 00:51:10,520 Speaker 1: a part of language itself. Yeah, I guess, so, I 913 00:51:10,520 --> 00:51:13,920 Speaker 1: guess you can't know what uh, you can't know when 914 00:51:13,960 --> 00:51:17,040 Speaker 1: you're making a word happen? Right? Can you introduce something 915 00:51:17,120 --> 00:51:19,120 Speaker 1: and it's like, I don't know, it's it's in their 916 00:51:19,160 --> 00:51:22,520 Speaker 1: hands now? Yeah? All right, Well, you know, hopefully this 917 00:51:22,920 --> 00:51:25,360 Speaker 1: we received a lot of great feedback from our previous 918 00:51:25,400 --> 00:51:28,080 Speaker 1: episode on invented words, so hopefully we'll hear a lot 919 00:51:28,120 --> 00:51:31,000 Speaker 1: of great feedback on this episode as well. We would 920 00:51:31,000 --> 00:51:35,680 Speaker 1: obviously love to hear everyone's thoughts on on new words 921 00:51:35,680 --> 00:51:38,600 Speaker 1: that they've picked up, new words that you've rejected, or 922 00:51:38,719 --> 00:51:42,040 Speaker 1: are there words from science fiction specifically that you find 923 00:51:42,080 --> 00:51:45,040 Speaker 1: yourself using within a particular in group or a fandom. 924 00:51:45,280 --> 00:51:47,319 Speaker 1: Are there are there some that you wish would be 925 00:51:47,320 --> 00:51:50,600 Speaker 1: picked up by the by the wider world at large? 926 00:51:50,840 --> 00:51:54,880 Speaker 1: What are the worst business neologisms you've to deal with 927 00:51:54,920 --> 00:51:57,800 Speaker 1: on a regular basis? Please share those with us for sure? 928 00:51:58,040 --> 00:52:00,040 Speaker 1: Or the best you know? Again, I don't want to 929 00:52:00,120 --> 00:52:03,000 Speaker 1: deny sometimes they might be useful. Sometimes they're very useful, 930 00:52:03,600 --> 00:52:08,759 Speaker 1: all right, you say with utter despair. No all right. 931 00:52:08,840 --> 00:52:11,160 Speaker 1: In the meantime, if you want to check out other 932 00:52:11,200 --> 00:52:14,480 Speaker 1: episodes of Invention, you will find this show anywhere you 933 00:52:14,520 --> 00:52:17,200 Speaker 1: get your podcasts, wherever that happens to be. Just make 934 00:52:17,239 --> 00:52:19,840 Speaker 1: sure you rate, review and subscribe. If you go to 935 00:52:19,880 --> 00:52:22,000 Speaker 1: invention pod dot com, that will also shoot you over 936 00:52:22,000 --> 00:52:24,720 Speaker 1: to the I heart listing for this show. Huge thanks 937 00:52:24,760 --> 00:52:27,920 Speaker 1: as always to our excellent audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson. 938 00:52:28,000 --> 00:52:29,560 Speaker 1: If you would like to get in touch with us 939 00:52:29,600 --> 00:52:32,320 Speaker 1: with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest 940 00:52:32,320 --> 00:52:34,319 Speaker 1: a topic for the future, or just to say hi, 941 00:52:34,440 --> 00:52:41,800 Speaker 1: you can email us at contact at invention pod dot com. 942 00:52:41,800 --> 00:52:44,920 Speaker 1: Invention is production of I heart Radio. For more podcasts 943 00:52:44,960 --> 00:52:47,800 Speaker 1: from my heart Radio because the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, 944 00:52:47,880 --> 00:52:49,480 Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.