Ngram reveals a language mystery:
Possible answers:
1. "Toxic" and "viral" are shorter, more exciting words than "poisonous" and "contagious." Something dull about the "-ous" ending."
2. The metaphorical usage is running up the numbers for "toxic" and "viral" — as, for example, people speak of things going "viral" in social media and call personal character traits — like masculinity — "toxic." You could say "My tweet was contagious" and "Your political opinions are poisonous," but we don't. Perhaps because "poisonous" and "contagious" feel more literal — connected to poison and contagion. That doesn't need to be. Shakespeare wrote: "You might condemn us/As poisonous of your honour." Emerson wrote: "All vigour is contagious, and when we see creation we also begin to create." But somehow it is. That doesn't explain why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
I think both your hypotheses are correct. Think of the savings of time, breath, mental space; and the improved delivery of something lively, punchy, ready to spread like a plague. "Toxic" and "viral" is only 4 syllables, simple iambs. Whereas "poisonous" is a big slow dactyl and "contagious" isn't even that, stuck halfway to being an anapest, and between them they're 50% more real estate to convey a much less exciting sense of all the trouble we're trying to talk about.
Add to the foregoing the natural impatience of an ADHD world that is hooked on instant splash and hot takes, and I'm sorry, this linguistic shift was, like, way overdue.
"Toxic" and "poisonous" reached the same usage around 1915 when the Germans and Brits were gassing each other in WWI. "Toxic" reached it's high point around 1992. Probably something to do with politics, talk radio, defending Bill Clinton.
"Ous" and "ic" make interesting word play when attached to the same stem.
There are orders coming from somewhere as to what language to use. Look at the Google trends for “face coverings” which sprang out of nowhere. “Safe at home” instead of “stuck at home.”
Hey Lizard People: I see what you’re doing and you can’t control me. I will wear a MASK when necessary and I’m happy I’m not STUCK AT HOME anymore (God bless Texas).
"Venomous" is an apt word for much discourse these days.
Why did anti-intellectualism replace intersectionality?
I blame Britney Spears.
Google's datebases stop around 2006, so every graph goes down to zero if you take it to the present day.
Viral got a big boost from the internet. "This is going viral" sounds more active and lively than "this is contagious."
"Toxic" and "viral" both seem to be freer of the literal meaning and more open to being interpreted metaphorically.
Romance based language v. Saxon based language. The short Saxon nouns win out every time. Ask that famous writer named Winston Churchill.
The "Superfund" law took effect in 1980 and for the next two decades plus was described as being used to clean up "toxic" sites. Prior to that, I think, we used the word "polluted" or contaminated. I think the environmental movement drove some of the spike in using "toxic."
And, the rise in speech control. The new use of the word "hate" was meant to silence any speech that wasn't actually racist, but needed to be treated as such. The increased use of "toxic" to describe ideas serves a similar purpose.
Hemlines rise and fall, ties widen and narrow, boy bands age out...
Pants,
Given that many of the items people are wearing over their facial orifices are in no way masks, perhaps face covering is a better term. Yesterday, waiting at the Homeless Depot for someone to assist me, I saw some true masks--even several N95s, and I saw many more ridiculous efforts (possibly meant only to mollify the Mask Nazis).
While I was irritated at having to wait 30 minutes for a propane tank, I was entertained by the safety theater.
Owen,
Punch is the exact word that came to mind when I considered the two sets of words. Further, does toxic always imply poison? I will have to think about that.
I think contagious is more descriptive than viral--except for the fact that people have decided to use viral to mean quickly spreading. Not all viruses spread quickly or are even very contagious.
And think about infectious! We describe positive things as infectious. Infectious laughter. "Her good humor was infectious."
I have words I prefer to use instead of toxic. Malignant, malign, venomous. I like vitriol, but vitriolic is cumbersome.
traditonalguy@10:47: "...The short Saxon nouns win out every time." Exactly! And why use a word you can't inflect? Which exposes a new working edge on the same core.
Anne-I-Am@11:04: "...contagious is more descriptive than viral." Good point. I think the meaning of "viral" has shifted, in the way you suggest. It's not really about how viruses really behave (which as you say, can be indolent) but about our B-movie conception of how they "should" behave, with high R0 and people bleeding out of their eyeballs before you can say "Contagion."
"Vitriolic" is a lovely word but pretty specialized IMHO. Strongly associated with invective, tirade. Like "scathing." Another BEAUTIFUL Saxon word...
Oh Anne, I agree, but it’s directed language is what I’m saying. The term was used virtually never until a few days ago and then it was everywhere. Scott Adams comments on this phenomenon a fair amount. When you notice it then you see it everywhere.
etymonline says
viral (adj.)
"of the nature of, or caused by, a virus," 1944
but one of the ngram results points several occurences in "The Viral Encephalitides" - 1943
Google trends for “face coverings” which sprang out of nowhere.
Also "social distancing", which originally meant something like avoiding (groups of) people that you didn't like:
"A long research tradition has demonstrated that expressed attitudes regarding social distancing from members of minority groups are poor predictors of actual behavior when confronted by members of that group."
The answer is very simple toxic means you will be injured, poisonous means you might be injured. Viral means that the toxin is rapidly spreading and infecting whereas contagious means there is a potential to spread and infect.
Orwell said a lotta good things about "language" -- ie, the authoritarians use language to control ideas, and, hence, control the population.
Say, outta curiosity, which party, currently in America, is big on policing our language?
To me the word toxic is toxic.
I think we prefer the shorter, pithier, harder more Anglo-Saxon sounding (if still Latin-rooted) "viral" and "toxic" to the more effete sounding French words. They seem to get right to the point.
The aphorism is "The dose makes the poison" and in technical literature we have the concept of the LD50: the amount of the stuff that is a "lethal dose" in "fifty percent" of the targeted group. Use enough of the stuff and aspirin or Tylenol or Di-Hydrogen Monoxide is poisonous.
Toxic doesn't care about the dose. If it makes you sneeze, or sets your eyes watering, or emotionally distresses (and/or "triggers") you, it's "toxic". The gluten in your bread or the traces of peanut oil in your chocolate bar are toxic.
Obviously there are a lot more "toxins" in the environment than there are "poisons".
When did "environmental" replace "ecological"?
Ecologists study and try to understand the intricate balances of environmental factors. Environmentalism is about changing these factors to suit some kind of norm. It involves wielding the power of public policy, which to certain people is much sexier than learning and understanding.
Greta Thunberg is an environmentalist because it doesn't require any education at all. She is not an ecologist and given her mindset will probably never become one.
Talk of ecology in the press was popular until Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. That event reframed the rhetoric.
My questions are:
1. When did "homogenous" replace "homogeneous"?
2. When did "nauseas" replace "nauseated"?
I know when "normalcy" replaced "normality."
"Toxic" is much more explosive than "poisonous." The "k" sound (of the x and c) is more powerful than the "s" sound. And yes, "toxic" is shorter and punchier.
According to engrams, "environment" and "environmental" were always more common than "ecology" and "ecological." Apart from Nixon, use of the words seems to go down when Republicans are in the White House and up when Democrats are in charge, though you can see the same decline in the use of the words "environment" and "environmental in Britain when Blair was in charge.
Language is a virus.
What I've always wondered: why in the Bronx is it the Botanical Garden, and in Brooklyn, the Botanic Garden?
It's spelling, people. Isn't it obvious that words like obvious or contagious are going to challenge both character limits and memory?
Here's one: when did viscous/viscious replace vicious? (I see it here all the time.)
Narr
That was a sticky comment!
IOW, too many vowels.
Narr
A sumptious repast beckons
The same question can be asked of many words.
Substituting "impact" for effect/affect.
Adding "more" before a word instead of adding "-er" or dropping the "Y" rather than adding "-ier" -- more pretty (prettier,) more strong (stronger,) more rich (richer,) and more hungry (hungrier,) among so very many more.
"Way" in place of far and much -- way more pretty (much prettier,) way more strong (far stronger.)
Farther/further, then/than, hang/hung, who/whom, serial/cereal -- I read a news article about a "cereal killer" in a SoCal newspaper once and all I could think was, "Oh, that poor Cap'n Crunch and Count Chocula!" And, I'm too embarrassed to even go down the grocery aisle labeled "Adult Cereals."
Nevermind the news stories, hearing the talking heads read the poorly written scripts is painful.
Pants,
" 'Safe at home' instead of 'house arrest.' "
FIFY.
I blame the parents.
Post a Comment