Devolution toward Simpler

“Congressman”

Devolution toward Simpler, Nouns

The U.S. Congress has been in the news a lot recently, creating bills to spend hundreds of billions of dollars here and hundreds of billions more there.

And I have been thinking about the noun “congressman” as a title.

The U.S. Congress comprises two branches: the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

So technically a “congressman” or “congresswoman” is either a U.S. Senator or a U.S. Representative.

But do not dare called a U.S. Senator by the title “Congressman” or “Congresswoman”; oh, the horror!

No, a U.S. Senator with the surname “Hotair” wants to be called “Senator Hotair”, not “Congressman Hotair” or “Congresswoman Hotair”.

In contrast, a U.S. Representative with the surname “Hotair” typically prefers to be called “Congressman Hotair” or “Congresswoman Hotair”, not “Representative Hotair”.

I suspect that part of this is because the word “congress” often refers to the U.S. legislative branch and not to a state legislative branch, whereas the word “representative” is often used to refer to elected officials in state legislative branches and is much less commonly used to refer to elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives.

So “congressman” (or “congresswoman”) is more prestigious because it is more often associated with a higher position (the U.S. legislative branch) than is “representative” (applicable to many, but not all, state legislative branches).

But I also believe that “congressman” is more popular than “representative” in modern American English because it is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say the three-syllable “congressman” than it is to say the five-syllable “representative”.

In contrast, but consistent with my hypothesis, because the five-syllable “representative” is only slightly more complex than the four-syllable “congresswoman”, we tend to hear and see “Representative” almost as often as “Congresswoman” in reference to female members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“WERE MOVING OR HAVE MOVED!”

Apostrophes, Contractions, Devolution toward Simpler

My wife spotted this on an envelope.

Problem:
The contraction is missing an apostrophe.

Explanation:
“WERE MOVING OR HAVE MOVED!” was stamped in red beneath a business’s old address in the return-address section of an envelope.

The business obviously had a lot of envelopes that had been printed with its old address in the return-address section, and beneath that section the business had stamped a new message in red to let envelope recipients know one of the following:

  • The business was in the process of moving.
  • The business had already moved.

The new address appeared — also in red — beneath “WERE MOVING OR HAVE MOVED!”, so that envelope recipients would have the new address of the business.

The problem with the red-stamp headline is that it is missing an apostrophe.

When one creates a contraction — in this case from the pronoun “WE” plus the verb “ARE” — an apostrophe must be included to indicate the letter or letters that one has removed to create the contraction.

I believe that the omission of the apostrophe is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to omit an apostrophe than to include one.

Solution:
“WE’RE MOVING OR HAVE MOVED!”

“Photos are always welcome.”

Devolution toward Simpler, Outsider's Perspective, Passive Voice, Verbs

An American wrote this sentence the other day in an email message to my wife.

Having lived several years in England, she told me that it looked odd to her.

She would have written “Photos are always welcomed.” — with a “d” at the end.

In other words, she sees this as a passive-voice sentence (in which the actor is not specified).

The active-voice form of the sentence could be “We always welcome photos.”

Given that speaking or writing in the passive voice requires the use of the past participle of a verb, the passive-voice form of “We always welcome photos.” requires the past participle “welcomed” — with a “d” at the end.

I believe that the American tendency to drop the “d” from the past participle “welcomed” in “Photos are always welcomed.” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

It is simpler to say “welcome” (without the “d”) than to say “welcomed” (with the “d”). And, even if someone says “welcomed” (with the “d”), many American listeners will not hear the “d” and will write “welcome” (without the “d”) instead.