Forty-five years ago, after two months of U.S. Army boot camp in beautiful, bucolic Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., in late April 1978 I arrived at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., to learn Russian. It was a time of increasing Cold War tensions. Communism was on the march.
Our teachers in Monterey all were native Russian speakers, exiles from Soviet tyranny. One of the first things they taught us was the Marxist-Leninists, when they took over after the Russian Revolution in 1917, changed the Russian language. It went far beyond just insisting on tovarishch (comrade) instead of grazhdanin (citizen).
[Its] intention was to ditch everything ‘old’—the tsarist regime, religion, the economy, and the language.
In 1918, a decree on new spelling rules was issued and all printed publications were obliged to follow them. The pre-revolutionary spelling was virtually outlawed. ...
A veteran Far Eastern news analyst in the United States concluded that the main reason for Communist China’s doing away with the elegant and traditional ideographs was that the physical structure of Chinese characters suggests some very un-Marxian notions. …
Actually, it isn’t “complicated.” For one thing, I know a lot of Latinos, and none uses Latinx lingo. My Spanish is sketchy. But when I talk to working-class Latinos, such as those who work around my apartment complex, they’re not using Latinx. Like the communist language changes in Russia after 1918 and China after 1949, this strictly is a top-down, dictatorial movement.
I would have several conversations with family and friends about what this meant for me, what pronouns I would now use, and how we would have patience with each other in learning and moving forward. Patience was necessary, given that the debate over the use of Latinx (and more recently, Latine) to refer to people with origins in Latin America has gone in dizzying circles. Since the term Latinx gained popularity in 2016, it and its variations (for me, Latine offers more phonetic fluidity)—have become a source of fierce disagreements among Latine people of all races, ages, genders, and sexual identities.In recent years, “gender,” originally only a linguistic word, has come to mean what we used to call “sex,” as in male and female in mammalian anatomy and physiology. But sticking with the original meaning of “gender,” some languages have two genders for all or almost all words. Spanish, based on Latin, is one of these. (Russian also has a third gender, neuter; even the Bolsheviks didn’t try to change that.) Words ending in “o” are masculine gender; those ending in “a” are feminine. You learn that on the first day of Spanish 101.
Thus: Latino (male) and Latina (female). Which the modern ideology wants to reduce to Latinx or Latine.
But the debates largely miss the point: whether one prefers to use Latinx or Latine, both terms recognize and honor the presence of gender-fluid identities. What is most striking about these “debates” is that they rarely (if ever) center the voices and experiences of those who do identify with the term—namely, transgender, non-binary, and gender-fluid Latine communities.
Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. ...
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. ... It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050. Meanwhile it gained ground steadily, all Party members tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. ...
Language is the essence of being human. It distinguishes us from the brute animals, who go only on instinct. It’s reason itself.
(A language’s attrition is faster, and the civilization that rests on it more fragile, when grammatical pedantry is forgotten. Civilizations are periods of standard grammar.)