For decades  now I have pronounced the word formidable with the accent on the second syllable, as in [fowr-MID- ah-buhl.]   I have no idea where that idea came from, probably from a teacher or other mentor who pronounced it that way.  But it was time to check the word out the other day, after hearing it pronounced in what was the correct way: [FOWR-mid-ah-buhl] with the accent on the first syllable.  It isn’t a big deal, and I think I can adjust easily.  I’m just shocked that I’ve gone all this time without someone correcting me.

The word is a good and useful one.  It indicates that an opponent is someone who possesses unusual strength and, in all likelihood, cannot be defeated.  Over the past week it was applied in politics to either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, who are seeking the Republican nomination for President, and either the Giants or the Patriots, depending upon where your allegiances lie.   Obviously, it was an unwise choice of words for some, the results of the Nebraska caucuses and the Super Bowl now being known.

The David and Goliath story is the classic, bottom-line reference for the term, as demonstrated in the photo above.   Even in the biblical story the money was on massive Goliath.   But nobody counted on David’s practiced accuracy with a sling and the divine assistance which came to play a part in the story.    In the photo above a well-placed head-butt could temporarily cripple the sumo wrestler, despite the lack of physical size and strength of the young contender.   My point:  there is seldom a “given” without an “exception.”

Power, prestige, money and public pressure may seem like a sure thing in the case of a candidate, but a late-breaking rumor or scandal can undo everything that a well-finance, well-organized campaign has accomplished.  And the early-game loss of a star player can reverse the odds on a favored team.  More than one formidable-labeled team has experienced a shocking loss which could not be seen coming.

In  Big East NCAA basketball , for instance, we have occasionally seen a league-leading team stumble in the first game of the Madison Square Garden annual championship and be eliminated on day one.  A team of lesser strength and quality goes on to earn the trophy.   What was formidable turned out to be vulnerable.

There are times when being labeled as the formidable leader in a race is a jinx.  Horse races are never a “sure thing.”   That’s why gambling is so popular among spectators.   Wagering on a “long shot” pays off on occasion, making the fun of the bet worth taking.   A slip at the gate, a wide turn, being bumped by another horse, or any number of factors can change the course of a race in a split second.

What formidable does accomplish as a label, however, is intimidation.    Being able to shake an opponent into believing that (she) is incapable of winning destroys her confidence and improves the chances for the front-runner to be successful.   Good campaign workers have the responsibility to constantly encourage the candidate, reminding her that “you never know” what is going to happen in the voting booths at the last minute.   A mis-spoken word or side comment from a leading candidate on the night before an election can sweep through the electorate with the speed of lightening, especially given the social media instruments at play in today’s world.

Formidable is a good descriptive word, but, like anything else, can be fickle.

Photo Credit: iamthe musicindustry.com

The Occupy movement has caused a number of thinking people to scratch their heads and ask, “What is this all about?”   There are tons of easy answers out there, most of which miss the mark.

The Occupy movement is a part of a much larger, global action that didn’t begin in 2011 with the economic stresses on Americans.   It is actually a  graphic image of what has been growing on a number of fronts which can be identified as anti-institutionalism.  That is to say, there is a growing amount of activity in many parts of the world which has as its primary purpose  a demonstration of lack of faith in institutions.   Not just political institutions, but economic, religious, educational, and a variety of other social and governmental institutions.

Some of the movement has been subtle and other aspects of it are highly visible and well-known:

• More and more people declare themselves to be “spiritual but not religious.”   What they are saying is that they have faith, sometimes even deep, profound faith.  But the religious institutions available to them do not adequately demonstrate that faith, and sometimes even fight against it.
• An increasing number of young people choose not to go on to higher education despite the fact that they have the finances to afford it and the grades to support it.  They see educational institutions as failures in providing the kind of intellectual and practical tools necessary to function in this complex world they are inheriting.
• Government is more and more suspect as an agency capable of leading a nation or other political entity in the ways of providing security, progress, economic safety, etc.
• Political parties are increasingly under fire for failing to represent the political, moral, ethical and constitutional needs of voters.   The growth of the independent movement is no longer incidental; it is massive.
• Skepticism, cynicism and outright rejection are commonly cited as the “mood of the voters” of a particular entity.
• Economic institutions are seen as morally corrupt and incapable of guaranteeing economic security for investors.
• Faith in hospitals, insurance companies, and medical schools to provide for the health needs of a population is at an all-time low.

As Jefferson Bethke , an artist from Tacoma, Washington, stipulates in his recently-released video, “Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus,”

“…This seems to be a moment when many people–in religion, economics and politics–are disgusted by current institutions, but then are vague about what sorts of institutions should replace them….”

Bethke’s video commentary was the springboard for an op-ed piece in Friday’s New York Times by David  Brooks.   Brooks points out the potential legitimacy of the anti-institutional movement, but makes the point that it falls short by not having alternative suggestions to make to replace the existing institutions.

“Bethke’s passionate polemic and subsequent retreat are symptomatic of a lot of the protest cries we hear these days… This seems to be a moment of fervent protest movements that are ultimately vague and ineffectual….rebellion without rigorous alternative vision is just a feeble spasm.”*

If this issue were simply about the Occupy movement, or Bethke’s video Mr. Brooks might be correct.   But the vastness and diversity of anti-institutionalism is far more complex.  In some cases, the alternative is expressed, as in the spiritual community.   Individualism, as expressed by devotion to Eastern religious practices, meditation, contemplation, and other forms of non-traditional spiritual practices is an alternative to organized religion which is common.  People who have chosen to express their faith by participation in social causes is hardly a minimalist experience.  Their abandonment of traditional faith communities is rampant.  Euphemisms such as “non-practicing Roman Catholics,” “Recovering Episcopalians,” and “Secular Jews” are common.

This is a time in history when we could easily lose an opportunity to grow by rejecting or ignoring the messages being given by those who have lost faith in traditional institutions.  A knee-jerk reaction of abandoning all institutions is not called for, but a careful ear and a tolerance for diverse opinion would be welcome, as would a willingness to accept and participate in the reform needed to regain the trust of those who have lost it.  That’s a lot to hope for.  But the alternative is not acceptable.

Photo Credit:  John Manchillo (AP)

*NYT( 2/3/2012, p. A23)

An article by Gail Sheehy, author of Passages, appeared in the New York Times this week, the headline reading, “That Vague, Crepuscular Time When Youth Has Passed: What Is It?”*   I folded the page over, took another sip of my coffee and said to myself, Okay, you got my attention.  What the heck is crepuscular?

It turns out that the article is about middle age, that vaporous period of time which comes someplace between youth and senior citizen ages.  Sheehy does a good job of describing the confusion about the meaning of middle age, calling it a “cultural fiction, eternally reinvented.”

I’ve always heard the same thing about the term adolescence, and that it is a phenomenon created in America to describe an awkward period of time in the life of young people between childhood and young adulthood.   There are clearly social, physical, emotional and familial characteristics of adolescence, some of which apply to some kids, and some of which are missing.  But there is no question that it is an awful period of adjustment for the kids and for those responsible for them (including not only parents, but teachers.)  Some psychologists argue that kids in other parts of the world pass from childhood to young adulthood without the need to lay over in something called adolescence.  I have a feeling that it may have been true at other times in history, but that globalization of social illnesses has injected adolescence into other cultures as well as in America.

But, getting back to the term crepuscular, it is fascinating to see the dancing around the meaning of that ambiguous period we choose to call middle age.  If we take the term literally, we must calculate the average age expectancy of people, which is somewhere between 75 and 85 years of age, depending upon gender.  That being said, middle age would then mean the period between 35 and fifty.  Those figures, however, are aptly described as “elastic” by one expert.

It turns out that the term “middle age” is self-described, depending upon how one defines their life.  Our society is more willing than ever to define stages of life by age.   Ms. Sheehy is one of the people who has helped define the meaning of life stages, and has always avoided using age as the determinant.  Rather, she looks at events in life (college, marriage, parenting, retirement, etc.) as being better determinants of one’s life situation.  Health, economics, and external factors such as the global economy have much more to do with the determination of one’s “age.”   If someone is physically active, socially involved, and  intellectually stimulated they are less likely to see themselves as “aging” and more inclined to identify their life as “middle aged,” even though they may be 60 years old!   But a person who is physically limited, struggling economically, and feeling isolated from others may see themselves as having passed through the stage of “middle age.”

On the other end of the spectrum, a person who is 35 may see themself as “middle aged” if they have been limited by health, lack of upward mobility, and only minimal access to social activity.  Some 35-year-olds still see themselves as young adults.

The way in which the term crepuscular comes into play in this discussion is the recognition that it middle age and senior citizenship is not something that is entirely within the naming province of the person involved.   As the sun and its daily movement describe dusk, twilight, evening and night, so the “hours” of one’s life are subject to some degree of objective definition.  Factors somewhat beyond our control, such as menopause, retirement, and social security benefits have a role to play in definition, although they need not be seen as limiting.  The 72 year old woman who skis, plays golf, and travels alone is less likely to embrace traditional language defining age.  At the same time, the man who has been forced to retire from his career because of an archaic rule may absorb the defeatist attitude that ages him prematurely.

To be literal for a moment, crepuscular describes the phenomenon of twilight.  It is not dark out and one can still move about without the need for illumination assistance.  The day is not over; a vibrant social life  may be just beginning.  In many ways, it may be the most beautiful part of a day.   Along the west coast of Florida people gather at the shore to watch the sun set over the Gulf of Mexico and greet the “green flash” that occurs when the sun dips below the horizon as the beginning of the best part of the day.  Glasses clink.

Photo Credit: ken geiger

*(2/2/12, p. C4)

There are some people who seem to be  contentious by nature.  That is to say, they are people who jump to argument, skipping right over the idea of discussion,   It doesn’t seem to matter what the topic is.   The only response is to jump in with both barrels blazing and move the discussion or disagreement to the realm of open battle.

It has amazed me throughout my life to watch a contentious person at work.  They actually seem to listen for a few moments, trying to find the latch key they can use to turn the matter from a reasonable difference of opinion to an out-and-out battle.

They miss the point that there is nothing wrong with differences of opinion.  I happen not to be able to tolerate the taste of cilantro.   It is a really offensive taste to me.   Obviously, most people like it.  It is perfectly reasonable for me to be able to say that I would prefer that there be no cilantro on my salad without it becoming a big issue.  But a contentious person will jump on my comment, declaring me to be insulting to the host or the restaurant, and pound on me to try to get me to relent.   Sound silly?   It actually happened to me.

My point is that it doesn’t have to be a big issue for a contentious person to find the opening for anger and dispute.  If you then move the discussion from salad ingredients to the discussion of the Keystone Pipeline you can imagine the magnification of the emotions and the anger.  It is a marvelous playground for contentious personalities.  This sort of person just hangs around interesting places waiting for a good stimulus to a food fight.   Family gatherings, office parties, sports bars … they are all candidates for this person’s vitriol to be exercised.

It doesn’t take a lot to spot  contentious persons.  They don’t hang a sign around their neck or wear a lapel pin signifying that they belong to the ACS (American Contentious Society.)    But they have a look in their eye, a flush to their cheek, and a twisting of their mouth that is a dead give-away.  If you watch a good discussion begin, particularly one with a potentially volatile subject, just gaze around the people gathered.   You’ll spot the contender.    Then count to 10 and by the time you reach 8 your person will have snuck into the attack position.

It’s not at all impossible for a contentious person to change positions in a flash.   You see, the subject matter isn’t important.  It’s all about the fight.  A truly contentious person will be able to get angry about any given topic and will snoop out the more volatile side of the argument.  If you know the person from other contests you may be surprised to find the previously animated ultra-conservative arguing the post-liberal position.  Again, it’s not about the issue … it’s about the fight.

A friend who practices family therapy told me once that there is almost an addiction to the adrenaline created by arguing which motivates the contentious person.   Like any addict, the contender is not satisfied with a taste of the “fight.”   (He) cannot satisfy his hunger for the “anger high” by simply disagreeing and letting it go.   The fight must be to the death.  He must drink from the keg of adrenaline and it must be a deep draft.    Others will tire of the argument and move on, sometimes literally.  But the contender will stay with it until there is a concession by the opponent, or the opponents have left the scene, unwilling to draw blood over a sometimes silly issue.  The contentious person will count either as a victory.

It remains to be seen if a contentious person knows that (he) is contentious.  It may, or may not, be a planned battle.  I’m more inclined to believe that it is spontaneous, but that it draws upon a history of contentious behavior and is incapable of being flushed from the being.  It amazes me that some contentious people actually get married, rise to the top of the corporate ladder, or get elected to responsible positions in government.

Photo Credit:  shareislam.com

Boy, this was a tough one.  If you were to take the time to look up the word harmonic in the dictionary (it doesn’t matter which one) you’d probably be overwhelmed by the scientific explanation of this phenomenon.   It has to do with the falling into place of elements of physics which are compatible.   But the pages and pages of explanation required to establish  this concept is off-putting.

In music, it is a little better.  Harmonic tones are those which have the same sound beats/pulses  and are, therefore, compatible to the ear, seeming to blend flawlessly.  A simple example is that sound produced by a barbershop quartet, in which all four singers  produce a different note at the same time, but the sound is a good blend.   It is pleasing to the ear (at least for a short time.  I can only listen to barbershop quartet music briefly before it begins to jar me.)

The opposite of harmonic music is counterpoint in which notes with differing sound pulses  create a contrast, or even a clash,  in the ear.  It, too, has a beauty to it, but in a totally different way, in which the ear is disturbed by the contrast.

But the word harmonic has a non-musical meaning as well.  I found it used over and over again in the fantastic novel, 11/22/63 by Stephen King.  I just finished it and it took me several hours to unwind before I could begin to assess its impact.   It is a time travel novel in which the protagonist, Jake Epping,  is exposed to a route into the past where his assigned task is to disturb the historic circumstances which led to the shooting of John F. Kennedy.    Throughout his venture into  the 50′s and 60′s, Jake becomes increasingly aware of the harmonics of the time which govern the stability of historic events.   If one thing happens, there must be a relating event to balance it.

The “Butterfly theory” is an understanding that all things in the universe are in synch with each other.  Therefore, if a butterfly flaps its wings in the middle of the Amazon forests, it is believed that the resulting disturbance of the atmosphere affects life in Toledo, Ohio.  That’s an oversimplification, but it is used to describe relatedness, or harmonics.  In King’s book it is used as a metaphor to say that the disruption of one feature in history, as by Jake Epping re-designing history to prevent Kennedy’s death, causes a flutter in history which grows and grows until it is experienced in a dramatic episode in the future.

Harmonic balance is achieved without intention.   It just is.   A white man shoots and kills a black teenager in Selma, Alabama, and the repercussion of that event results in  race riots in New Haven,  Connecticut, or the election of an African-American man as President of the United States.

The theory that all existence is tied together in a tightly-bound ball of inter-dependence  is both frightening and exciting.  The element of stimulation applied to that existence can be ugly or it can be beautiful.  The idea that all humanity, regardless of skin color, is integrated into a harmonic  one-ness which is affected by choices we make at any given time places a huge responsibility on every human being to respect that harmony.

We aren’t quite there yet.

Illustration Credit: wikipedia

It’s a strange cycle when you come to think about it.   A baby is born as a solitary being.   In fact, some child psychologists and theologians have said that a newborn baby is the most selfish being in existence.  It is totally dependent upon others for its existence and demands care.  That’s not a judgment statement, but a statement of reality.   When a baby wants to be fed, changed, held, caressed, or cleansed the baby cries.  It doesn’t matter what the parent/caregiver is doing or where they are.  Everything must stop to take care of the baby’s needs.

The baby only knows itself at the beginning, but gradually begins to socialize, first with the mother or other person who is the primary caregiver at birth.  As others become part of the provision of care they, too, are absorbed into the baby’s realm of existence.  Eventually babies becomes  social beings, interacting and responding to those around them and even becoming sensitive to the needs of others.

Babies begin to become a part of a group, beginning with family and expanding to friends and others in their existence.  They absorb norms and mores that are acceptable to those around them, and rejecting those which are unacceptable.

But there comes a time in a healthy person’s existence when they begin to sort through those acceptable and unacceptable norms and identify with those which are consistent with the person’s  own being.   That may happen in late childhood or even into adulthood.

Some people never get there, however, and live their entire lives dependent upon the standards of others.  The conflicts of life are huge in that case, with the person constantly weighing individual desires and passions against those which the person’s society will accept and condone.   Everything that persons thinks, says, or does must be acceptable to those around (her) and her personal thoughts and actions must be subjected and hidden.   It can become a very unhealthy life.

However, the process of individuation is the sorting out of one’s life and absorbing personal ideas, plans, actions and passions which become the foundation of one’s personality.   The process may create conflict and struggles which are difficult and may require therapeutic assistance in order to be fully and successfully integrated into one’s life.  Most people who exist in a healthy atmosphere accomplish individuation on their own. Education, socialization patterns, parental and family encouragement, and exposure to an accepting society assist the person in evolving into the real person they seek to be.  It is not without problematic moments, but for most people it is not traumatic.

Carl Jung, the Swiss psychoanalyst, is credited with establishing a therapeutic process for assisting in individuation for people whose struggle is overwhelming and painful.   His articulation of the “introverted self” and the “extroverted self” was revolutionary and assisted in defining the process by which persons create their integrated personality, establishing the process of individuation as the sorting out of those personality characteristics and the embracing of a healthy balance of person.

In general practice, however, the process of individuation does not require such a heavily psychological overlay.  It is accomplished by exposure to a world of diversity and positive reinforcement.  The beauty of art, the fun of socialization, the gratification of work, the expansion of one’s social circle and the articulation of one’s beliefs and inner energies are all part of the individuation that takes place on a daily basis for most people.

All individuation projects are not positive.   People can establish personalities that foster crime, horror, or deception just as easily as success, progress, and pleasant social awareness.  Psychotherapy and other forms of rehabilitation for criminals and unbalanced people can influence and re-arrange priorities in order to revise one’s individual personality in order to become a more acceptable member of society.  Such imposed individuation may be socially acceptable, but it is a dangerous and tricky path, as it involves the external selection of norms and mores.   In a sense, it is a replaying of the process the person experienced as a newborn individual.

Graphic Credit: Ndividuate

I have a serious back problem.   Local doctors and those at the clinic I attend in Boston are pretty consistent in terms of their analysis of the problem.   It was while I was being seen at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston that one of the doctors suggested I see a physiatrist. [phi-ZAHY-uh-trist]

At first I thought the physician was telling me that it was a psychological problem and that I needed to see a psychiatrist.  But he went on to explain that a physiatrist is a rehabilitation physician, a degree-bearing physician who specializes in a comprehensive evaluation of a physical issue but does not practice surgery.

The job of a rehabilitation physician is to treat any disability resulting from disease or injury, from sore shoulders to spinal cord injuries. The focus is on the development of a comprehensive program for putting the pieces of a person’s life back together after injury or disease – without surgery. (see link)

He suggested that I talk with my orthopedic surgeon about it, so I did.  My orthopedic surgeon was very supportive of the idea and made a referral to an office I had visited several years ago, never having heard the word physiatrist in connection with that visit.  The doctor I’m seeing there is fully schooled in the information of my case and is fully engaged in the primary and secondary issues relating to my discomfort.  That includes of course, my lifestyle, my weight, and other physical illnesses and conditions affecting me.

His first prescription was to go back to Josh, my fantastic physical therapist.   After that we’ll look at other modalities which can improve my condition and relieve the pain which causes problems in my daily life.   That could possibly include alternative medical practices such as acupuncture, chiropractics,  or therapeutic massage, but not necessarily.   It clearly will involve exercise and weight loss.  Only after every alternative has been explored will we even consider the possibility of surgery.

The word physiatrist emerged in the late 1940′s.  It is a specialty that is collaborative with orthopedics, not contrary to it.  Some orthopedic practices have physiatrists on staff.

Illustration Credit:  MMG2000

We’re all aware of various phobias which affect people.  Some people are frightened by dogs, snakes, height, crowds or small enclosures.   There is plenty reported about these phobias, and they common themes in literature, drama and movies.  I can identify with a couple of them and you may also.

But when I stumbled across the word metamfiezomaiophobia [met-am-FEEZ-oh-my-oh-FO-bee-ah] I had to stop and spend some time with it.  It, too, is a phobia attributed to people who are deathly afraid of clowns, mimes, and people in disguise of any kind.    I’ve heard of it before, but I have never seen the long, interesting word that is used to describe the phobia.  I was surprised when researching it to discover that it is one of the most common phobias.  Evidently people don’t talk about it much, as it seems to be such a bizarre behavior.

Technically, the fear of clowns is called coulrophobia.  Metamfiezomaiophobia is more specifically related to mimes.  But it is also a term used in a more generic way to describe the phobia in which fear of people in masks of any kind is prevalent.  To be clear, a phobia is not simply a nervousness about seeing or being near something.  It is a far more serious psychological phenomenon which is an actual illness.

“Identifying a phobia is fairly simple. A person feels an intense fear of an object, in this case clowns, that goes beyond mere anxiety or unease. The sufferer may exhibit symptoms such as shaking, sweating, and rapid heartbeat. The person’s anxiety can become so intense, he or she has a panic attack. This reaction serves to reinforce the fear and the person avoids the situation to prevent further anxiety or panic attacks from occurring. ” (see WiseGeek)

It is hard to identify the precipitating cause of the phobia related to mimes or clowns or people in mask.  One factor is the practice of not speaking.  Mimes and clowns by practice are mute, and therefore may seem to invade someone’s space in order to communicate with their eyes, facial expression, or gestures.  Not knowing who is behind the facepaint or the mask may increase one’s fear.  But it is far deeper than that for the person with a phobia.  Even seeing masked persons from a distance can excite the same negative energy.

Despite the fact that clowns are usually associated with fun and laughter, as in a circus setting, there is also something dark and foreboding about a clown, as in the Batman movies.  Clown faces hide devious characters who are evil.   And mimes are somewhat a category of voyeurs, “spying” on people without interacting in a seemingly healthy way.   But attempting to analyze the nature of the phobia (as an amateur in the field) is probably not a good idea.  I should leave that to psychiatrists and other therapists.    The fact of the matter is that these characters induce irrational fear.

People who suffer from metamfiezomaiophobia may have similar reactions to people who are wearing simple masks.  I was watching a news report the other day about thieves who robbed a convenience store wearing those clear plastic masks that distort the features of one’s face giving them a disguise without actually covering their faces.  I have to admit that it was spooky.   While masquerade balls feature elegant people either wearing or carrying elegant masks, there is something about the need to disguise one’s identity that is “off.”

My question for a psychiatrist would be whether this term applies to someone who isn’t wearing a physical mask, but who adopts a persona which covers (his) true  identity.   Interesting thought.

Photo Credit: daily tabloid

In common parlance a doppelganger is a person who is so identical in looks to another person (think Tina Fey/Sarah Palin) that it is uncanny.   I have a friend  who looks so much like me that we are frequently confused by people.  We both go to the same coffee shop so it happens all the time.  I haven’t decided if I am his doppelganger or he is mine.

But in literature, there is a much more sinister meaning for the word doppelganger.  It is a reference to an apparition which appears to someone, usually in their peripheral vision.  Writers over the years have given a sinister character to the apparition, and in some circles a doppelganger is a foreshadow of pending trouble.  And writers of sci-fi and horror stories and screenplays have employed doppelgangers as frightening characters who do all kinds of horrendous things.

My interest in them, however, is more from the curious kind of “other” who appears as a conscience character or the reflective being who inspires the main character to inquire about (her) morals, her decision-making skills, or her failure to have remembered the purposes of her life.   In a sense, I take a page from psychoanalyst Karl Jung who developed the school of psychoanalysis which embraced the “alter-ego” as a legitimate part of one’s psychological makeup.

Sigmund Freud, the second person of the historic hierarchy of psychological pioneers, postulates that in every person there is the existence of the “id” which is comprised of the “ego” and the “super-ego.”   These are the rational and the irrational personalities that exist in a free-flowing tension which allows a person to act and react throughout one’s life.  The healthy person is one who is capable of maintaining a balance of these two aspects of one’s personality.  The unhealthy person is a victim of the conflict or imbalance between the two.

These two pioneers have exposed what literature has revealed as the doppelganger in one’s life.   Whereas in many lives, like mine, there is an actual person who is the spitting image of  myself, there is in others the metaphorical and more ethereal “person” with whom dialogue may take place and where conflict of life decisions may be worked out.  Writers, particularly journalists, may refer from time to time to someone who is demonstrating a doppelganger relationship to a famous person.   In this year’s Republican race for nomination of a candidate for President, it is frequently noted that a candidate is demonstrating a doppelganger attempt to recreate Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, or George Bush.  That is wishful thinking on the part of some; for others it seems like an accurate description of the situation.

The same could be said to be true of Democratic candidates who see themselves as the doppelganger of Senator Ted Kennedy, President Bill Clinton, or even financier Warren Buffett.    It all depends upon who is making the observation as to whether it is meant in a positive or negative way.

But the term is used best when referring to someone’s mind-blowing moment  when they look in a mirror and see themselves transformed by the image  of someone who has gone before them, or their “old” self before notoriety set in to their lives.  It is in this context that the doppelganger is more of a conscience character than anything else, drawing the person back to articulated values which have been jeopardized by fame, ambition, or financial success.

Photo Credit:http: joshua

Did you ever see a trouser?  Or a scissor?   Those are words that only appear in the English language (as nouns) in the plural form.   There is no singular form for them.  It is a phenomenon known in linguistics as pluralia tantum, a Latin term which means “plurals only.”

It is one of those interesting things that occurs in the English language.  There are also words that are singular only, like “dust.”  You can use “dusts” when you are speaking of a verb, or as an adjective, such as a “dust bunny,” but there is no such thing as a “dust.”

Other pluralia tantum words might be cattle, clothes, pants.   Wouldn’t it be strange to try to talk about “a cattle” or a “pant.“  Unless, of course, if you are speaking about what a dog does when it is hot.

It’s not the biggest issue in the world.  Compared to world hunger, climate change or the economy, it rates pretty low on the totem pole.  But it’s always interesting to stumble across one of the weird constructions that occur in this crazy language we speak.

I have to keep remembering that linguists refer to the English language as a “bastard language.”  It was shaped by absorbing words and terms from other languages and making them our own.   However, the way we use them may be unique, as in pluralia tantum.

(Don’t you love it when someone uses the plural of “brother-in-law” or “attorney general”  properly?  It’s “brothers-in-law” and “attorneys general.”   It’s also “courts martial,” incidentally.  These terms sound strange, but they are a “proper” way of speaking.  If you’re into that.)

Wow!  I made it all the way through this blog setting without mentioning the Republican primary in South Carolina or the Patriot’s victory over the Ravens. 

Photo Credit: trousers

[I have to give credit to Wikipedia and Facebook for some of the information in this posting.]