Shibboleths

Shibboleths have been used by different subcultures throughout the world at different times. Regional differences, level of expertise, and computer coding techniques are several forms that shibboleths have taken.

The legend goes that before the Guldensporenslag (Battle of the Golden Spurs) in May 1302, the Flemish slaughtered every Frenchman they could find in the city of Bruges, an act known as the Brugse Metten.^[11] They identified Frenchmen based on their inability to pronounce the Flemish phrase schilt ende vriend (shield and friend), or possibly 's Gilden vriend (friend of the Guilds). However, many Medieval Flemish dialects did not contain the cluster sch- either (even today's Kortrijk dialect has sk-), and Medieval French rolled the r just as Flemish did.^[12]

MENU

0:00

Bûter, brea, en griene tsiis; wa't dat net sizze kin, is gjin oprjochte Fries

Bûter, brea, en griene tsiis; wa't dat net sizze kin, is gijn oprjochte Fries ( example (help·info)) means "Butter, rye bread and green cheese, whoever cannot say that is not a genuine Frisian" was used by the Frisian Pier Gerlofs Donia during a Frisian rebellion (1515–1523). Ships whose crew could not pronounce this properly were usually plundered and soldiers who could not were beheaded by Donia himself.^[13]

The Dutch used the name of the seaside town of Scheveningen as a shibboleth to tell Germans from the Dutch ("Sch" in Dutch is analyzed as the letter "s" and the digraph "ch", producing the consonant cluster [sx], while in German it is analyzed as the trigraph "sch," pronounced [ʃ]).^[14][15]

In October 1937 the Spanish word for parsley, perejil, was used as a shibboleth to identify Haitian immigrants living along the border in the Dominican Republic. The president of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo, ordered the execution of these people. It is alleged that between 20,000 and 30,000 individuals were murdered within a few days in theParsley Massacre although more recent scholarship and the lack of evidence such as mass graves puts the actual total as low as 1000.^[16]

During the Black July riots of Sri Lanka in 1983 many Tamils were massacred by Sinhalese youths. In many cases these massacres took the form of boarding buses and getting the passengers to pronounce words that had hard BAs at the start of the word (like "Baldiya" - bucket) and executing the people who found it difficult.^[17][18][19]

During World War II, some United States soldiers in the Pacific theater used the word lollapalooza as a shibboleth to challenge unidentified persons, on the premise that Japanese people often pronounce the letter L as R or confuse Rs with Ls; the word is also an American colloquialism that even a foreign person fairly well-versed in American English would probably mispronounce or be unfamiliar with.^[20] In George Stimpson's A Book about a Thousand Things, the author notes that, in the war, Japanese spies would often approach checkpoints posing as American or Filipino military personnel. A shibboleth such as "lollapalooza" would be used by the sentry, who, if the first two syllables come back as rorra, would "open fire without waiting to hear the remainder".^[21]

During The Troubles in Northern Ireland, use of the name Derry or Londonderry for the province's second-largest city was often taken as an indication of the speaker's political stance, and as such frequently implied more than simply naming a location.^[22]

Shibboleths in fiction[edit]

Main article: List of shibboleths § Shibboleths in fiction

In an episode of The West Wing titled "Shibboleth", President Bartlet becomes certain that a group of Chinese asylum seekers are indeed Christians in faith, when their representative uses the word shibboleth during their meeting.^[23]

"Shibboleth" is the title to an episode of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" originally aired on 3/27/05. The main suspect's pronunciation of "battery" and "city," in a taped 911 call, in which he pronounces the "t"s as "t"s and not as "d"s helps to convince detectives that this is their perpetrator.

paraprosdokian

A paraprosdokian (/pærəprɒsˈdoʊkiən/) is a figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence, phrase, or larger discourse is surprising or unexpected in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first part. It is frequently used for humorous or dramatic effect, sometimes producing an anticlimax. For this reason, it is extremely popular among comedians and satirists.^[1] Some paraprosdokians not only change the meaning of an early phrase, but they also play on the double meaning of a particular word, creating a form of syllepsis.

Wellerisms

Wellerisms, named after Sam Weller in Charles Dickens's The Pickwick Papers, make fun of established clichés and proverbs by showing that they are wrong in certain situations, often when taken literally.^[1] In this sense, wellerisms that include proverbs are a type of anti-proverb. Typically a wellerism consists of three parts: a proverb or saying, a speaker, and an often humorously literal explanation.

Sam Weller's propensity to use the types of constructions now called "wellerisms" have inspired plays; sometimes, the playwrights have created even more wellerisms.^[2]

Some researchers concentrate on wellerisms found in English and European languages, but Alan Dundes documented them in the Yoruba language of Nigeria (Dundes 1964), with African scholars confirming and adding to his findings (Ojoade 1980, Opata 1988, 1990). Wellerisms are also common in many Ethiopian languages, including Guji Oromo.^[3]They are also found in ancient Sumerian: "The fox, having urinated into the sea, said: 'The depths of the sea are my urine!'"^[4] In a number of languages of Africa, wellerisms are formed with animals as the speaker. In some cases, the choice of the animal may not carry much significance. However, in some cases, such as in the Chumburung language of Ghana, the choice of the specific animal as speaker is a significant part of some proverbs, "chosen precisely for characteristics that illustrate the proverb... Chameleon says quickly quickly is good and slowly slowly is good."^[5] The Antillean Creole French spoken on the island of Martinique also maintains some African wellerisms, such as, "Rabbit says, 'Eat everything, drink everything, but don't tell everything.'"^[6]

A type of wellerism called a Tom Swifty incorporates a speaker attribution that puns on the quoted statement.^[1]

Wellerisms are similar but not identical to dialogue proverbs. Wellerisms contain the speech of one speaker, but dialogue proverbs contain direct speech from more than one. They are found in a number of languages, including Kasena of Ghana, Georgian, Armenian.^[7]

• "Let me go, Spider!" "How can I let go of my meat?" "Then get on with it, eat me!" "How can I eat a fly?" - Kasena^[8]
• "I have caught a bear." "Get of him." "I can’t, he won’t let me go." - Armenian^[9]

Catachresis (from Greek κατάχρησις, "abuse"), originally meaning a semantic misuse or error—e.g., using "militate" for "mitigate", "decimate" for "devastate", "our mutual friend" for "our friend in common", "chronic" for "severe", "anachronism" for "anomaly", "alibi" for "excuse", etc.—is also the name given to many different types of figure of speech in which a word or phrase is being applied in a way that significantly departs from conventional (or traditional) usage.^[1]

A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.

Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in the 1950s.^[1]

Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist.^[2]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good"

In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good")

Clean hands doctrine

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine,^[1] is an equitable defense in which thedefendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".^[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".^[3]

A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.

Tu quoque

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;^[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss the opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented.

"And you are lynching Negroes" (Russian: "А у вас негров линчуют", A u vas negrov linchuyut, "And at your place, they are lynching Negroes") and the later "And you are hanging blacks" (Russian: "А у вас негров вешают") are anecdotal counter-argument phrases, which epitomize the tu quoque arguments used by the Soviet Union in response to allegations that it had violatedhuman rights.^[1] Use of the phrase refers to such attempts to deflect criticism, e.g. by referencing racial discrimination and lynching in the United States.^[2] The Economist popularized the term whataboutism for the repeated usage of this rhetorical tactic by the Soviet Union.^[3]#

Similar phrases are used in the languages of Eastern Europe, in different variants.

• Czech: A vy zase bijete černochy!^[13] (Literally, "And, in turn, you beat up blacks!")
• Hungarian: Amerikában (pedig) verik a négereket (Literally, "And in America, they beat up Negroes")^[14]
• Polish: A u was Murzynów biją!^[15] (Literally, "And at your place, they beat up blacks!")
• Romanian: Da, dar voi linșați negrii!^[16] (Literally, "Yes, but you are lynching Negroes!"