This writer has mentioned on a number of occasions his preference for the liSwati version ‘detoriate’ informally placed in the vernacular as a more orally manageable substitute for that difficult English word ‘deteriorate’. Try saying the latter when you have a mouthful of porridge. If nothing else, it will attract the comment – please don’t speak with your mouth full.
‘Deteriorate’ does have its siSwati equivalent ‘liqoqo’ which, in the event of a seriously energetic attempt by a non-siSwati speaker, can be the fastest route to the nearest dental unit. EmaSwati are, of course, perfectly entitled to use ‘detoriate’ (I do as well, though still with a mischievous wink to accompany it).
Additionally, in the fullness of time that version will become not only colloquially acceptable, but may even find its way into the dictionary, especially the attractively illustrated, ‘Multilingual Primary Level quasi-dictionary – English, French, siSwati’, by Mulongo wa Mulongo Gauthier (that’s quite a name – make sure you try it after you’ve finished the porridge). One trusts it will not include the word ‘temporal’ used entirely happily in place of the correct version which is ‘temporary’. Another mouthful. When will it end?
We’re having a bit of fun today. I guess the writer may simply be full of joy at the sight of a bougainvillea plant in the garden; grown from a cutting and quite the most useless version on the planet, until the recent very dry spell of weather. What a pleasure to enjoy that wonderful plant, unseen and unknown in the temperate climates of the northern hemisphere; and blossoming like that in such strong colours.
Nothing can match the inability of most native English speakers to master the French term, ‘hors d’oevres’, which, to the non-linguist, is a bit of a challenge. Presented phonetically, the correct pronunciation is ‘or-durves’, ideally with a nice French accent. It is the starter dish, served before the main meal. British and Australian soldiers in the WWII are believed to have taken it back as horses’ doovers’. So it has stayed, without any embarrassment, among a sizeable segment of the English speakers.
Though, the time for a little confusion is when your teenage pupil returns home from school and describes how the PE teacher called him a ‘a very populist young man’. Intended as a compliment by one, perhaps, more skilled with backward-somersaults than the intricacies of the English language, it would not give rise to too much concern in the average, educated parent. No need to pay a special visit to the PE teacher to reach the safe conclusion that he had actually intended the word ‘popular’.
What, then, does ‘populist’ actually mean? (the inverted commas will now be dropped). Despite the fact that the word was coined in the 1800s. It is only in recent times that it lay ready to gather serious momentum within the global English-speaking arena. And just as your car behaved after the late and legendary auto-engineer, Edouardo Lopez, had returned its engine to life, the word populist is revving up to take off big time.
It has its place largely within a political context, referring to a style of political thinking that appeals to the ordinary folk of society. It is underpinned by the rank and file view that the establishment, or the elite of the country, don’t really care about the needs and challenges of those less privileged. The term can fit into left-wing, centrist or right-wing politics and is usually accompanied by extravagant allegations and promises.
It’s a rather vague term and open to all kinds of conceptual theories there is no real merit to examining it too closely. However, in practice, after it became an aspect of democracies in the western world in the 1990s, it emerged strongly when Donald Trump became US President in 2016 and the population of the UK voted in the same year to take UK out of the European Union. The Cambridge Dictionary even named it word of the year in 2017. (37)
The very latest proponents of populism are currently referred to as neo-populists, a more up-to-date version of populism. One of the prominent new characteristics is the use of social media and other internet platforms. These techniques take them closer to the people.
Donald Trump is, perhaps, the most conspicuous example, identifying with the common people more closely in broad policy statements and style of talking. This might seem a contradiction, given his multibillion-Dollar financial status. Ironically, his success in 2016 carried the hallmark of a strong attack on the establishment – and its dominance of American wealth – of which he was a member. Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are the closest equivalents in the UK, especially in the area of BREXIT.
The late Charlie Kirk shared some of the surge of neo-populism, when voicing considerable support for Donald Trump, though he pursued a different style of influencing, largely through podcasts and public debates. Vice-President JD Vance also fits that category, challenging the elite and advocating immigration restrictions and the protection of USA industry. He takes a more intellectual policy and strategy-oriented approach while Trump specialises in bravado and a more showman style. It’s the crudity of populism that lets it down, under the subterfuge of right to free speech, especially with heavily right-wing anti-immigrant declarations. Political correctness and the woke culture are disappearing fast. Who knows? Populism may, itself, one day go, pop!
Leave a comment