Seven Red

When we lived in Albany, I worked in a Vietnamese restaurant that was near the governor’s mansion, so we drove by the Pataki residence a lot, although Pataki himself was notorious for spending as little time in the liberal city as possible (on the other hand,  the mayor of Albany at the time – former assistant principle of the high school, if I remember correctly – was often to be seen in the bars…weird town). Despite Pataki’s absence, I had a little ritual for when we drove by: I’d shake my fist out the window of the car and yell Stupid Governor! I feel like doing that again. she was pretty upset about the whole Spitzer thing, having been a fan for many years. My reaction was more shoulder shrugging, like, whatever. But I think a good stupid governor fist-shaking is appropriate. So, Stupid Governor! A few points, though:

1) The Huh? – I’m fishing for the grammatical principle here. A colleague sent me the following sentence, which appeared in the New York Times:

And now add to the lengthening list Gov. Eliot Spitzer, husband, father of three teenage daughters, who authorities on Monday said had been involved with a ring of prostitutes.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the sentence is at best ambiguous. It does seem to suggest, in the placement of the relative clause, that Spitzer’s three daughters were involved with the ring of  prostitutes, no? The copy editor is sick with love.

2) The Ring – Doesn’t everything sound more sinister when it is part of a “ring?” A ring of car thieves is more sinister than a car thief, or even car thieves. A ring of prostitutes is more sinister than a prostitute, etc. I want to be in a ring. Or a racket.

3) Probative Value? – Another colleague asked me whether I had seen Heidi Fleiss on Nightline discussing the Spitzer issue. Let me repeat. Heidi Fleiss on Nightline. Why is Heidi Fleiss on Nightline? Apparently, she was there to provide viewers with more insight about prostitution rings, and to suggest that she wouldn’t trust a Governor who wasn’t getting laid. Thumbs up, traditional media!

I’d like some time to digest The Wire in all its brilliance. For now, I just want to comment on one minor feature of the dialogue that I love: the colloquial use of the word “behind.” Every Wire fan knows that the show made the term “to get got” popular for white folks everywhere. I think that the usage of “behind” is similarly African American vernacular that plays throughout the show while receiving little recognition from our language experts. It was satisfying that the usage plays an interesting role in the final episode, when Carcetti’s chief strategist and aide, Norman Wilson, uses it:

It does have a certain charm to it. They manufactured an issue to get paid. We manufactured an issue to get you elected governor. Everybody’s gettin’ what they need behind some make-believe.

As used in The Wire, “behind” means “as a result of of,” as in “He gonna get got behind this shit.” Bunk is a big fan of this word, but it is used by many of the black characters. It appears nowhere in the OED; indeed, a quick search turned up nothing in any lexicon or dictionary that mentions this usage (I’d be grateful if one of you fine folks with better researching skills could turn something like this up). It sounds wholly natural, and I’d heard the term a lot growing up, but I always took it to be an African American and even distinctly Southern expression. So, why do I like it, apart from some authenticity fetishism? It’s pretty much perfect as an expression. We usually think of the cause as hidden, and we usually designate this hidden depth with the term “behind.” We say somebody is working “behind the scenes;” we ask what is “behind this turn of events.” The list could go on: the result is on the surface, while the cause is behind. But what I take to be the AAVE usage reverses this, at least (semi-)grammatically. The result (getting got; getting what they need) is behind the cause (this shit; some make believe). Of course, it’s not hidden; behind does not mean behind as a metaphorical spatial location (as it does in the typical usage). Rather, it is a pure substitution for “as a result of.” It still interests me as a reversal, though. I wonder whether it indicates a different way of parsing out causality.

When it comes to bizarre and inscrutable linguistic events, this one really takes the cake.

Apparently – and I’m still not sure I believe it – some people who would otherwise use the “N” word have opted for a substitute. Ready? It’s “Canadian,” as in “There are a lot of Canadians in that neighborhood.”

I’m not smart enough to understand how this transformation would work or spread or gain any kind of traction in a population, so I’ll just point you to the two articles that make the claim:

In the U.S. south, is Canadian a new racial slur?

When is a Canadian not a Canadian?