Senin, 17 September 2018

How Can Science Help Reverse Blindness?

The human eye is an incredibly complex organ, and researchers continue to actively investigate how the eye functions and, in some cases, why it does not. An estimated 36 million people worldwide are blind, and an additional 217 million people have moderate to severe impairment of their vision. How many of these cases are avoidable? How can science help us reverse visual impairment and even blindness?

Reversing Blindness with Gene Editing

The most common genetic condition affecting vision is known as retinitis pigmentosa. Globally, around 1.5 million children are born with retinitis pigmentosa, a condition which causes the cells on the retina to deteriorate over time. This usually starts with a loss of night vision, followed by tunnel vision, and eventually can end in blindness.

Since retinitis pigmentosa is a genetic condition, it is caused by a genetic mutation. If cells from a healthy retina can be inserted into the eye, they could dominate over the cells with the mutation to either slow or stop the retinal degeneration. However, using cells from someone else’s healthy retina runs the risk of the foreign cells not being accepted by the new host body. Fortunately, new approaches to gene editing like the CRISPR/Cas9 enzyme mean that we can snip out unwanted sections of our own genes.

In a recent study published in the journal Nature, researchers took skin cells from patients with retinitis pigmentosa and used a known technique for turning them into multipurpose cells (called pluripotent stem cells). They then removed the mutation through CRISPR gene editing. When they tested the cells 10 days later, the mutation was still gone. The next steps will be to test whether the cells can be put back into the afflicted retina with positive results.

Researchers are also looking at reprogramming the eye’s own cells to address congenital issues like retinitis pigmentosa and other degenerative diseases like age-related macular degeneration. For example, scientists from the National Eye Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health in the U.S.) recently found that Muller glia, cells that act as connective support between neurons in the eye—or, in other words, retinal glue—could be reprogrammed to function as photoreceptors in the eyes of mice that were born blind, specifically the rods that allow us to see in low light.

Reversing Blindness with Bionic Eyes

Another approach to reversing genetic conditions like retinitis pigmentosa is through replacing the entire affected eye. The Bionics Institute of Australia has created a prototype bionic eye and their first eye transplant was performed in 2012. The female patient reported being able to see flashes of light right away, and scientists are working toward shapes.

In 2015, at a hospital in Colorado, doctors created a bionic eye by implanting a microchip into the retina of a retinitis pigmentosa patient. The microchip coordinates with a pair of glasses which wirelessly transmit video to the chip which stimulates her optic nerve to then send that visual information to her brain. She can see outlines and shadows, but her vision is still far from 20/20.

Researchers are also studying whether bionic eyes could be used to address other causes of vision impairment. In 2015, a British patient got a bionic eye implant to reverse the effects of macular degeneration.


Other studies are focused on whether or not 3D printers can get in on the action. Researchers have been able to print “an array of light receptors on a hemispherical surface” which is a first major step toward printing a bionic eye, perhaps making such a device more accessible and more efficient. And, of course, there is an app that allows you to see things as a bionic eye would see them from the National Vision Research Institute.

What Kinds of Blindness Are Avoidable?

Although many of these advances in technology are focused on blindness or eventual blindness that a patient is born with, 80% of all vision impairment cases are considered avoidable according to the World Health Organization. The WHO census finds the main causes of blindness or visual impairment globally to be cataract, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, corneal opacities, diabetic retinopathy, childhood blindness, and infectious eye diseases like trachoma or onchocerciasis. Instances of avoidable blindness are most common in south east Asia and the western Pacific, and least common in Europe and the Americas.

The cases are expected to double in the United States by 2050, according to a report from the National Institutes of Health, and also worldwide according to the World Health Organization. But don’t get too worried about your own eyes just yet. This estimated increase is likely due in large part to shifts in population demographics. Population growth in developing nations where visual impairment rates are higher tends to outpace that in developed nations. The fraction of the population over the age of 50 also continues to increase and 80% of people who are either blind or have moderate to severe vision problems are 50 years of age or older.

One very important initiative toward addressing these avoidable types of blindness is the charitable organization Hellen Keller International. HKI works to prevent avoidable blindness and also to improve the lives of the visually impaired through programs established by evidence-based research to combat the “causes and consequences of blindness.” Their research has shown direct links between malnutrition, lack of access to proper healthcare, and gender inequality to increased visual impairment in at-risk populations.  

Hellen Keller, who founded Hellen Keller International, was one of the most influential voices of the early 1900s. She famously became both blind and deaf before the age of two due to what is reported as an “acute congestion of the stomach and brain,” although a firm diagnosis has never been made. Her teacher, Anne Sullivan, taught her the concept of language and then how to communicate and eventually read and write. Hellen Keller became the first blind and deaf person to earn a bachelor’s degree and fought for women’s suffrage and labor rights.

The legacy of Hellen Keller lives on in the efforts of Hellen Keller International to serve the most underprivileged communities suffering from visual impairment and through the work of the American Civil Liberties Union, of which she was a founding member.  

Until next time, this is Sabrina Stierwalt with Everyday Einstein’s Quick and Dirty Tips for helping you make sense of science. You can become a fan of Everyday Einstein on Facebook or follow me on Twitter, where I’m @QDTeinstein. If you have a question that you’d like to see on a future episode, send me an email at everydayeinstein@quickanddirtytips.com.



Grammar Quirks: Lillian Li on the Word 'Segue'

Grammar Girl: What’s your favorite word and why?

Lillian Li: "Segue." Its pronunciation feels so at odds with its spelling that it’s just delightful to me. It’s also not an uncommon word, so its weirdness kind of hides in plain sight. 

GG: What’s a word you dislike (either because it’s overused or misused) and why?

LL: I’m trying to stop using the word “problematic.” It’s not the word’s fault—no one word can encompass as much complexity and history as “problematic” has been expected to communicate about our society and its issues. I just started noticing that the word “problematic” used to begin discussions, and now it’s become a stand-in for discussions we’re no longer having.

GG: What word will you always misspell?

LL: "Broccolinni." What a nightmare word!

GG: What word (or semblance of a word) would you like to see added to the dictionary? Why?

LL: None, but I would like the dictionary to come with a big fat disclaimer that it is not the ultimate authority on words and their meanings, that language and its definitions are constantly evolving, and that the people who write dictionaries are as susceptible to race, class, and gender prejudices as anyone else. So maybe we can stop using dictionary definitions to win arguments/write college papers?

GG: Any grammar pet peeves we should know about?

LL: My grammar pet peeve is people with grammar pet peeves. Like, live your life. Don’t be rude to other people just because you don’t believe infinitives should be split or that “their” can’t be a singular pronoun.


GG: To what extent does grammar play a role in character development and voice?

LL: My first book, "Number One Chinese Restaurant," tries to capture the bilingual experience, even though it’s written entirely in English, and so grammar plays a huge role in expressing the effort and ease that a character has in their native language (versus their second or third language). At the same time, I wanted to make sure that my portrayal of grammar was rooted in reality. That I wasn’t writing dialogue with arbitrary grammar “mistakes” simply to express that a character wasn’t speaking their native tongue.

One of my jobs, outside writing, is working in a Writing Center, where a good portion of my students are international students from China. Through that experience, I learned so much about why native Chinese speakers make a similar pattern of errors when speaking and writing in English. The Chinese language doesn’t have articles, doesn’t have gender-specific pronouns (in speaking), and so, when translating into English, dropped articles and misgendered pronouns are common. I tried to reflect and stay true to these patterns in my novel. Grammar was a way for me not only to portray my characters’ experience of the world, but also to be responsible to their multilingual backgrounds.

GG: Do you have a favorite quote or passage from an author you’d like to share?

LL: I took away the formatting of this passage so that it would read more smoothly, but you should definitely check out the original short story to see the author’s stylistic choices. 

"A name [is actually] a memorial to the site where an idea once rested, momentarily, before moving on. If you listen carefully, you can hear it in there, but when you look inside, the idea-cage is always empty, and in its place, the concrete, the particular, something formerly alive, now dead and smashed." "The Book of Categories" by Charles Yu

GG: What grammar, wording, or punctuation problem did you struggle with this week?

LL: I always want to refer to animals and inanimate objects with “who” or “whose” even though gramatically I think I’m supposed to use “that.” But I just read Grammar Girl’s take on that particular issue and found it very helpful, so thank you!



4 Reality Checks for New Mothers

During the early months that I was trying to become pregnant, I was totally obsessed with anything and everything pregnancy and newborn related. I simply couldn’t get enough of talking to expectant moms, browsing through maternity stores at the mall, admiring a stranger’s slumbering baby who lay innocently in a stroller at the park. These were the things that I hoped would soon be a part of my life and I was completely absorbed.

As the years slowly crept along with no pregnancy and no baby, it became increasingly difficult for me to even look at a pregnant woman, never mind strike up a simple conversation with one. I couldn’t go near the maternity sections of a store, and when I did see a new mom pushing her baby in a stroller I enviously wondered what her life must be like to have a precious new being to love and care for.

After five very long years, I was finally blessed with a baby of my own through the gift of adoption. I now knew how amazing it felt to nurture and love this miracle of another human being who was totally dependent on me for everything. It truly was surreal.

Those first weeks with my sweet, beautiful daughter were so special, yet they weren’t anything like I had imagined they would be. My romantic notions of caring for a newborn went right out the window the day we brought her home from the hospital.

Experience is the mother of wisdom, and this couldn’t have been truer when it came to actually living with my newborn, not just dreaming about having one. As idyllic as we may intend for those early days with our baby to be, it doesn’t always go according to plan, and that’s OK if you have the right mindset. Here are four ways that new moms can have a reality check during baby’s first weeks at home.

4 Reality Checks for New Mothers

  1. You’re Going to Hurt
  2. Breastfeeding Takes Practice
  3. Tune In to Your Feelings 
  4. Find Your Village

Here’s a closer look at each.

1. You’re Going to Hurt

Because I adopted my first baby, and then gave birth to my second one a year later, my experience as a new mom is different than most. When my daughter’s birthmother was in labor, I was waiting to fly across the country to meet her. Five minutes before we left for the airport we received the call that our baby had been born. It’s a moment that I will cherish for the rest of my life. We spent our first weeks as new parents living in an efficiency suite at a hotel 2000 miles from home, with no friends or family to rely on. It was both exciting and scary to be on our own with such an awesome responsibility—caring for a brand new 6lb 6oz baby girl! Our circumstances for our first newborn were different in many ways, but the common thread we shared with all new parents was that our infant still depended on us for everything.

For this topic, I’m going to jump ahead to the birth of my first son, because this time I experienced both the emotional and the physical aspects of becoming a new mom. Although I was now very familiar with what life with a newborn was like, I was honestly shocked at how different it was—and it wasn’t pretty.

Somehow, after navigating through five-plus years of infertility, I never gave much thought to birthing a baby because I was so consumed with having one. Silly me! After 28 hours of labor, including three grueling hours of pushing, my son was born. Exhaustion was an understatement, and although I knew I loved this little guy with all my heart, I was a bit surprised at how I wasn’t over the moon to cuddle him and get to know him—I was physically wiped and quite frankly so sore I couldn’t move.

I shuffled out of the hospital two days later with not only a brand new love in my life but hard, engorged, tender breasts and a throbbing perineum that was stitched and so swollen I was certain I’d never sit comfortably again for the rest of my life. Never mind the fact that it took days to have a bowel movement. Ah, the miracle of birth!

Here’s the thing: with all the reading I did on childbirth, in addition to taking childbirth classes, I somehow missed the part about how sore I would be that first couple of weeks. I focused on the pain I’d feel in the delivery room, not how I’d feel afterward. Throw in the fact that I had a 12-month-old baby at home who was just learning to walk...let’s just say I had a rude awakening.

Had I been more prepared in knowing that my body wasn’t going to bounce back as quickly as I thought, I’m sure I would’ve dealt with the weeks after my first birth a bit more easily. The fact of the matter is that having a baby means you’ll be uncomfortable and have many, many moments of pain while your body begins to heal. Give it the space to heal.

We all have a different tolerance for pain, so be kind to yourself during that first stretch after you deliver. Set realistic expectations as to what you will be able to accomplish each day. For most new moms, especially those who breastfeed, nursing your baby and catching as many winks of sleep as you can will be at the top of your to-do list.

Now is not the time to worry about spiffing up your home or keeping your usual pace with errands and appointments. Focus on keeping your postpartum-self as comfortable as possible while you get to know your amazing new baby.


2. Breastfeeding Takes Practice

Many women already know while they're pregant if they want to breastfeed or not. Obviously, when I adopted my first baby, breastfeeding wasn’t an option, so formula it was, and my daughter thrived and met all her milestones on time. When I was pregnant with my son, I had my heart set on breastfeeding. I read up on it and figured it sounded easy enough. Wrong!

After my 28 hours of very intense labor, I had one thing on my mind—sleep. Sure, I was excited that I had finally given birth, but the last thing my body needed was to experience more discomfort.

My baby was only an hour old and as I lay there groggily the nurse brought him to me and placed him on my chest. She said it was best to start nursing as soon after birth as possible, then she left the room. I had to enlist the help of my husband, who was also exhausted after being up for the past 24 hours cheering me on. We clumsily tried to get the baby to latch on to no avail. Now I had a screaming baby who was frustrated and trying to nurse yet I didn’t have a clue how to make it happen. Finally, the nurse reappeared, but she wasn’t very patient with me so we called a truce and gave the baby a bottle. The goal was to try again in several hours.

The next two days in the hospital I was bombarded with well-intentioned assistance from the staff’s la leche league volunteers. Their goal is to support mothers worldwide to successfully breastfeed. While I appreciated their cheerleading and encouragement, every time they were able to get my son to latch on, it was so excruciating both in my breasts and my uterus I had to hold on to the bedrail so I wouldn’t scream. My OB/GYN happened to be in the room during one of my breastfeeding sessions and advised me to do what was right for me, not what others wanted.

I made the decision that breastfeeding wasn’t for me after my son was born, and thanks to my doctor’s advice I did so without any guilt. QDT’s House Call Doctor has a wonderful article The Most Common Breastfeeding Obstacles that goes into more detail about nursing your baby.

Sometimes, it’s just not the right fit for both mom and baby. The remainder of my six kids I successfully breastfed and really enjoyed it, so I am equally supportive of both bottle and breastfeeding.

3. Tune In to Your Feelings

After years of infertility, to be blessed with two healthy, sweet babies in the span of just 12 months was a miracle for our family. Although I was a bit overwhelmed caring for a one-year-old and a newborn, I felt on top of the world. But within just a few days of being home from the hospital, I started feeling a little down, and I wasn’t really sure why. I finally had everything I had ever dreamed of—a terrific husband, a beautiful home, a career I loved, great friends and family, and now I was at long last a mom!

I soon learned that I was experiencing something quite normal after childbirth—the “baby blues.” Due to all the hormonal changes a woman’s body undergoes after birth, it’s not uncommon to experience a range of feelings such as sadness, mood swings, being overwhelmed, and feeling cranky and irritable all at the drop of a hat. I remember even sitting in the nursery feeding my baby and crying for no reason at all. I also had a few fits of resentment towards my husband. Once he went back to work he was now interacting with other adults and wasn’t having to get up every few hours for late night feedings. Somehow this just didn’t seem fair.

Luckily, most women who have a bout of the baby blues don’t stay there for more than a week or two. I recall feeling much better emotionally after just a couple of weeks. That’s not the case for all women, however. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in nine women experience the symptoms of postpartum depression, which is much more serious than a couple of weepy weeks that most women deal with.

For a full list of postpartum depression symptoms, you can visit the American Psychological Association’s report which also advocates for mothers to seek help as early as possible. In addition, QDT’s Savvy Psychologist, Ellen Hendriksen, Ph.D. weighs in with 8 Little-Known Signs of Postpartum Depression.

Admittedly, I was a little embarrassed that I was feeling let down and emotionally uneasy after my first birth so I didn’t really talk about it to anyone. The symptoms went away almost as quickly as they came on, and I did finally mention it to my doctor who urged me never to feel ashamed of my feelings. When I delivered the rest of my children, I experienced these same blues each and every time, but I knew to expect that I might feel a little sad, so I was better equipped to handle it.


Don’t shy away from tuning into your feelings. The best way to deal with these temporary mood swings is to acknowledge them and let yourself feel them. I found that listening to uplifting music or getting out of the house for even a quick walk around the neighborhood was extremely helpful in elevating my mood to a happier, calmer place. I also opened up to my husband about how I was feeling. He was attentive during the moments when I wasn’t at my best—raising a total of eight kids is no easy feat—and helped relieve me from some of the load I was carrying.

Find respite however you can and soon you’ll be in the groove of a healthy new routine with your baby. If for some reason you don’t feel as though you’re getting better, however, don’t be afraid to ask for help.

4. Find Your Village

I went from a very full career and social life to becoming a mom in just one short week. That was the amount of notice we received when a birthmother chose us to adopt her baby. I didn’t have nine months to prepare like most expectant moms do, so I had to figure things out pretty quickly on my own. We were out of state and across the country for three weeks when we adopted our daughter. When we returned with our bundle of joy, our home was like Grand Central Station! Well-wishers, family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers were continuously stopping by to congratulate us and meet our new baby. It was a total whirlwind!

And then, the constant traffic stopped and it was just me and the baby at home, alone, for long stretches of time. Having always worked full-time and having enjoyed a full social calendar, I was caught off guard when I found myself spending the majority of my time at home, baby-bound.

Because parenthood happened so quickly, I didn’t expect to feel so isolated and at times very lonely, so I decided to reach out and get acquainted with other new moms. I wasn’t looking for a formal group to join, I was looking for some new friends that I could connect with on a regular basis, and luckily I found them. Both our neighborhood and church had a lot of young families, so that was how I began finding new mom companions. These were invaluable connections because they also introduced me to mother’s helpers and babysitters and even retired women who lived in our community who enjoyed helping with meals and running errands when new moms just didn’t have the time or energy.

Likewise, when we moved and I had four babies in such a short period of time, I got connected with other stay-at-home parents in our new town and found a way to surround myself with women that shared similar interests, including a fun-loving stay-at-home dad that joined us regularly. It was meeting other parents and bonding with new friends that helped save my sanity during the many years I was out of the workforce and home with my family.

Even before you have your baby, it’s a great idea to start planning on who you can connect with once you’re home and caring for your newborn. When you find a village that you can laugh, share, and certainly commiserate with, you’ll find those first months of being a new mom will be a lot less lonely and much more enjoyable.

What surprised you most after having your baby? Share your thoughts in the comment section at quickanddirtytips.com/mighty-mommyor post your ideas on the Mighty Mommy Facebook page. You can also connect with me on Twitter @MightyMommy or email me at mommy@quickanddirtytips.com. Image of new mother © Shutterstock



Jumat, 14 September 2018

Self-Improvement vs. Self-Compassion: Finding the Balance

A few weeks ago on the podcast, we tackled the question of when to push versus when to rest. And this prompted a related question from listener Marissa in Richmond, Virginia. She asked where the line falls between holding yourself to high standards versus practicing self-compassion. 

This is a rich, juicy question. The way I read it, Marissa is asking two things: first, when do I push myself to do better, to go farther? And when do I back off and say, "I am enough"? 

Secondly, she’s asking, "When do I treat myself with compassion?" Let’s tackle that one first.

When Is the Right Time to Practice Self-Compassion?

The short answer is: always. But maybe not in the way you think. 

Let me explain: it’s super common to conflate self-compassion with letting yourself off the hook. But researcher and psychologist Dr. Kristin Neff, who pioneered the notion of self-compassion, makes a distinction between self-compassion and self-indulgence. In her writing, she cautions against interpreting self-compassion as “I’m stressed out today so to be kind to myself I’ll just watch TV all day and eat a quart of ice cream.” Along the same lines, it’s important not to interpret self-compassion as, “I’m uncertain and worried about reaching my high standards, so I’m going to be kind to myself by giving myself a pass.” Not so fast.

Self-compassion doesn’t mean you can give up on quitting smoking, working on your term paper, or getting to work on time. Nor does it make those things fun or relaxing. But self-compassion allows you some kindness and support as you tackle the challenge.

In other words, self-compassion doesn’t necessarily mean choosing the easiest or most pleasurable path, it simply means choosing the kindest.

Specifically, think about how you would talk with someone you care about—a good friend or a child—as they face a challenge, a worry, or a difficult time. Would you be harsh and punitive? Would you tell them to suck it up? Or insist there’s no reason to get their underwear in a knot? No, of course not. You’d be kind and supportive. 

But at the same time, you wouldn’t give up on them—you’d believe in them and encourage them. You’d say, “I know you can do it—you’re strong and capable.” “This is tough but hang in there.” “This will get easier as you go, I promise.” “You’re doing great—keep it up.” 

Self-compassion is the same, but for you, by you. After all, your biggest fans aren’t available 24/7. But you are.

So think of self-compassion as a kind, supportive launchpad from which you can take risks, make mistakes, accomplish hard things, and live up to your high standards.  


When Do I Reach for High Standards? And When Do I Say, "I Am Enough"?

Speaking of high standards, let’s address the other question: "When do I push myself to do better? And when do I say, 'I am enough?'" 

The answer, counterintuitively, is to do both simultaneously. Self-acceptance and self-improvement can play nicely together. Or, as the great psychologist Carl Rogers said, “The curious paradox of life is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change.”

Accepting yourself as "enough" means accepting your strengths and weaknesses—your talents and flaws—as they are. For example, you might accept that you have a tendency to get defensive when criticized. 

But at the same time, you might also commit to working on that and accepting feedback in a more constructive way.

Here’s where we circle back to self-compassion. Interestingly, it’s easier to admit we have weaknesses and are working on them when we provide ourselves a kind, compassionate environment. If we expect our own brain to call us out or harshly criticize us for falling short, we push our weaknesses underground. We hide them and put forth a front, which makes it impossible to move forward. 

Furthermore, self-compassion may actually help you adhere to your high standards. In a study in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, researchers asked undergraduate women to eat a donut and then participate in what was described as a taste test of different candies.

Some of the women, after eating the donut, were surreptitiously given an informal self-compassion intervention. The researcher said to them, “Several people have told me that they feel bad about eating donuts in this study, so I hope you won’t be hard on yourself. Everyone eats unhealthily sometimes, and everyone in this study eats this stuff, so I don’t think there’s any reason to feel really bad about it.” 

Here’s where it gets interesting: the women who got a shot of self-compassion, even just in casual conversation, ate significantly less candy than those who didn’t get the self-compassion statement.  You’d think it would be the opposite—that those who were given some compassion would feel let off the hook and then indulge, but no. Instead, a little self-compassion helps us get back on the wagon and stick to our standards.

All in all, self-compassion makes it easier to admit our habits could use a tune-up, our disposition has a few warts, or that we plain old screwed up. But then, from the supportive environment we create for ourselves using self-compassion, we can shoot for the stars without shooting off our mouth at our foibles and mistakes. 



Kamis, 13 September 2018

8 Words to Spice Up Your Talk Like a Pirate Day

International Talk Like a Pirate Day is coming up on September 19, so today we’ll talk about pronunciations and phrases associated with pirates! 

‘Arr’

For example, you may be wondering why pirates are usually portrayed as speaking a rhotic variety of English—in other words, why do pirates say, “Arr”? 

One theory is that many famous pirates, including Blackbeard (real) and Long John Silver (fictional), were said to come from a British region known to have a strong rhotic West Country accent. 

The 'Arr!' of a pirate comes from the West Country English accent.

Pirates also came from other regions, and “Arr” was used in some depictions of pirates before the 1950s, but the actor Robert Newton is largely responsible for popularizing the “Arr” sound for depicting pirates. Newton played Long John Silver in the movie “Treasure Island” in 1950 and Blackbeard in the movie “Blackbeard, the Pirate” in 1952. 

Newton grew up near that same West Country region in southwestern England as these pirates—Dorset, to be specific—and he used the local accent to portray the pirates on film, and the hard-R accent has been associated with pirates ever since. But pirates weren’t a homogenous group. There were Scottish pirates, French pirates, Spanish pirates, and so on, so you can’t say there was one specific way that pirates talked. Some may have said “Arr,” but a lot probably didn’t. We don’t have recordings or even many writings to help figure it out.

‘Pirates’

The word “pirate” itself is old. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it is “Of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from French [and] partly a borrowing from Latin.” Many languages have a similar sounding term for these sea raiders including Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, German, and Italian. Etymology Online traces it all the way back to the Proto-Indo-European word “per-ya-.”

Other long-used names for pirates include “buccaneers” and “freebooters.”

‘Buccaneers’

“Buccaneer” first described pirates along the Spanish coast, and believe it or not, the word is related to “barbecue.” A boucan was a type of barbecue, and a boucaner was someone who dried meat on the barbecue. French settlers on St. Domingo were called “boucanier,” which meant “someone who hunts wild oxen” and dries it on the boucan or barbecue. Those French hunters turned to pirating “after being driven from their trade by Spanish authorities,” according to Etymology Online, and thus, “buccaneer” became another word for “pirate.”

‘Freebooters’

‘Freebooters” is a another word for “pirate” that surprised me because I’ve only heard it used recently to refer to online pirates—usually to refer to people who steal other people’s YouTube videos and post them to their own accounts—but it also goes way back. You can trace it to a Dutch word in the 1500s that meant “free booty” as in “free plunder or profit” that led to the word “vrijbuiter,” which meant pirate or robber—someone who goes after that free booty. From the Dutch “vrijbuiter,” English-speaking people called pirates “freebooters.” 

‘Filibuster’

And Another current word you’ll know that has surprising origins in piracy is “filibuster.” It goes back to that same Dutch word that gives us “freebooter,” this time coming to English via the Spanish, who called pirates in the West Indies and Central America “filibustero.” (The French also called pirates a name from the same origin: “flibustier.”) 

In English, “filibuster” originally referred to those same West Indies and Central American pirates, but in the 1850s and 1860s also came to refer to outlaw adventurers from the United States who, according to Etymology Online, “tried to overthrow Central American governments.”

Someone who is filibustering is pirating the senate.

A few years later it was used to describe a senator who tried to obstruct the normal function of the the legislature. A filibuster described a person just like a gardener describes a person and a player describes a person. Soon after again, it came to refer to the act itself. Someone who is filibustering is essentially pirating the senate (or other governing body), and “filibuster” was a noun that got verbed, so to speak, for the people who like the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that says “Verbing weirds language.”


Pirate Sayings

Now, what about some pirate sayings?

Sources say it’s not known whether real-life pirates said things such as “Avast!” and “Shiver me Timbers!” but the OED does list them as nautical terms or at least made up nautical terms.

‘Shiver me Timbers’

“Timber” is another word for wood, and “timbers” can refer to the wooden ribs or frame of a ship. One old meaning of the verb “shiver” was to break something apart into fragments or splinters. For example, in an 1825 book* by James Ferguson called “Lectures on Electricity,” the speaker describes how an electrical shock can break glass placed under a weight:

“The glass, under such management, is generally shivered into small pieces.”

So “Shiver me timbers!” would be an exclamation that means something like “Well, break my ship apart!” 

The OED editors don’t seem to think pirates really said it though. They call it a “mock oath” that comes from “comic fiction.”

‘Avast’

“Avast” seems more likely to have been a real nautical term. Dictionary entries don’t have caveats and say it probably comes from a “worn-down” Dutch word that meant “hold fast.” So when a pirate says, “Avast, matey!” he’s telling you to stop or hold up.

‘Caribbean’

Finally, thinking about pirates got me thinking about why we say both “care-ihb-BE-uhn” and “cuh-RIB-be-uhn.” We have the song “Caribbean Queen” and the movie “Pirates of the Caribbean,” but also the cruise ship company Royal Caribbean.

The word “Caribbean” comes from the name of some of the people who live in the area—the Carib (pronounced CARE-ib, kind of like the chocolate substitute carob). That would imply that “care-ihb-BE-uhn” is the correct pronunciation, but that’s not what I’m seeing from looking at references. Dictionaries list both pronunciations as acceptable (and there are actually even more than those two).

A 2010 book on pronunciation says that “care-ihb-BE-uhn” is more common among British speakers and “cuh-RIB-be-uhn” is more common among American speakers, but my reading of the OED shows that they say “cuh-RIB-be-uhn” is also more common among British speakers. Regardless, it’s clear that both pronunciations are common in both countries.

Both pronunciations are fine.

Finally, I checked with Tobias S. Bucknell, a science fiction author I follow on Twitter who is from the region. He said that even he uses both pronunciations. For example, someone once noticed that he says he’s a “cuh-RIB-be-uhn born writer,” but he’ll say that he “flew down to to the care-ihb-BE-uhn.” That someone speculated it’s related to the part of speech (cuh-RIB-be-uhn for an adjective, and care-ihb-BE-uhn for the noun), but Tobias think it probably depends more on the melodic rhythm of the sentence.

In the end, all I can say is that both pronunciations are fine. One isn’t better or more “right” than the other.

*Note: The Oxford English Dictionary lists this same sentence as appearing in an 1815 book called “The Panorama of Science and Art” by James Smith.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.



'None Is' or 'None Are'?

 

When you’re thinking about singulars and plurals, you often consider whether you have one or many of something, but the word “none” is tricky because it’s nothing—it’s not one or many of something.

The truth is that ”none” can be singular or plural, but many people believe it can be only singular. First, let’s talk about the singular.

The word 'none' can be singular or plural.

'None' Is Singular

When "none" means roughly “not one” or “no single one,” it’s followed by a singular verb. It also takes a singular verb when it’s followed by a mass noun, like “water”:

None of the water is polluted.

'None' Is Plural

When "none" means roughly “not any” or your sentence has a sense of plurality, “none" can take a plural verb, and it often sounds more natural. Here's an example:

I talked to the boys, and none of them are coming to the party.

What Should You Do?

You may be chided by the uninformed when you follow "none" with a plural verb, but don’t be afraid to do so if your sentence calls for it. The AP Stylebook, the Chicago Manual of Style, Garner’s Modern English Usage, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Note all say it’s fine to use a plural verb with the word “none” if it means something like “no two,” “not any,” or “no amount of these things.” In fact, the American Heritage Usage Note gives many examples from important writers and even throws down an example from the King James Bible:

All the drinking vessels of king Solomon were of gold ... none were of silver.

Sometimes either a singular or a plural verb will work:

None of them is brave. (Not one of them is brave.)

None of them are brave. (Not any of them are brave.)

In cases like that, you can use the word that sounds more natural to you, or you can also just use the singular verb to play it safe. (None of them is brave.)

That’s your Quick and Dirty Tip. “None” can be singular or plural. Try to decide whether it means “not one”—in which case it’s singular—or “not any”—in which case it’s plural. And If you aren’t sure, “none is” is safer.

Example of 'None' as Singular

An email to the Dear Sugar column in the New York Times, from a woman whose close friend is dating her ex and lying about it:

I feel certain she has swallowed up all the good in life and none is left for me.

An example from the Anchorage Daily News in which a business owner is talking about an otherwise great employee who is having trouble relating to customers.

My employee can be a bit awkward and I wonder if customers misunderstand her and take offense when none is meant.

In both those examples, “none is” is the only choice. They’re talking about abstract things like the good in life and offense, and “none are” would sound ridiculous. 

But it’s not just abstract things that take a singular verb. “None is” also makes sense when you’re putting the emphasis on one thing among many:

From People:

Omarosa Manigault Newman, a veteran of reality TV’s “The Apprentice” and former White House aide, makes a number of shocking claims about President Donald Trump in her new book, but perhaps none is more consequential to the nation than her portrait of him as a man in “mental decline.”

Examples of 'None' as Plural

This one is about a mysterious woman seen in a doorbell surveillance video in Texas.

Authorities said they have gotten several tips from people who believe the woman matches the description of a missing person in their area. Deputies said Sunday that they continued to comb through the reports, but added that “as of now, none are believed to be the (woman) in the video.”

That one clearly has a sense of being plural because we are talking about multiple women. “Not any are believed to be…” makes sense.

In this example from the National Review, the writer is pondering why there are no celebrated mavericks among Democratic lawmakers:

Democrats loved John McCain, but none of them want to be him —  that is, none are even remotely interested in building their careers on defying party orthodoxy the way he did…

That one also has a strong sense of being plural because we’re talking about multiple politicians. “Not any of the them is remotely interested…” makes sense.



How FDR Became a Star in the 1924 Presidential Convention

It was no secret in New York that Franklin Roosevelt was ill. Newspapers reported that the one-time state senator and failed vice presidential candidate had fallen ill on Campobello Island and was taken by stretcher to a hospital in the city. Soon the diagnosis became public: Polio.

For New York’s ruthlessly pragmatic politicians there was no longer any reason to speculate about Franklin Roosevelt’s future. He had none. True, he tried to pretend otherwise, telling friends that it was just a matter of time before he regained control of his legs. He told an old friend from the Wilson Administration, former Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, that he was getting better every week. McAdoo was glad to hear it — he had hoped to run for president in 1920 to succeed his father-in-law, Wilson, but was denied at the convention. Things would be different in 1924, McAdoo thought, and he was counting on allies like Roosevelt to help him.

Roosevelt and his friend Louis Howe kept a lively correspondence with prominent Democrats in the months following his polio diagnosis. He was hidden from public view, but hardly out of mind — or at least that was the point. And he saw an opportunity to play the role of power broker in the summer of 1922, when New York Democrats were looking for a candidate for governor.

The Republican incumbent, Nathan Miller, had defeated Al Smith in 1920 but was not especially popular. But Democrats appeared to have nobody to challenge him — nobody, that is, save for the wildly controversial newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, a former congressman. Hearst had made many enemies in New York politics, none greater than Al Smith, who had retired to private life but who remained the state’s most-popular politician.

FDR saw his opportunity: He wrote a letter to Smith urging him to return to public life, adding a nudge by saying that if Smith stayed on the sidelines, his old enemy Hearst might be the party’s candidate. Roosevelt then published an open letter to Smith, pleading with him to run again.

Smith agreed, and Franklin Roosevelt was given credit for persuading the former governor to return to the campaign trail. FDR was unable to walk and was invisible to the public, but when Al Smith declared his candidacy and then won election in a landslide, he was seen as a power broker in his home state. Mission accomplished.

There was more to come.


Even as he sought valiantly to rebuild his strength, even as he assured others — and perhaps even himself — that he would indeed walk again, Franklin Roosevelt tried to prove himself to Al Smith. FDR ignored the contempt he saw in the eyes of some of Smith’s advisers, especially Robert Moses and Belle Moskowitz, both of whom saw Roosevelt as an amateur who lacked Smith’s deep knowledge of state politics. Smith himself tended to treat Roosevelt as a child or a student: somebody who could be trusted with minor tasks, but who still had some growing up to do.

Smith decided to make history in 1924. He would be a candidate for president of the United States. No Catholic had ever won a major party’s presidential nomination. His campaign manager, Tammany boss Charles F. Murphy, asked Roosevelt for help in soliciting support for Smith among the elite progressives who tended to look down at politicians like Smith. Roosevelt agreed, and in doing so spurned the candidate who seemed more like him – his old friend William Gibbs McAdoo, who was Treasury secretary during the Wilson years. Roosevelt did his job well enough that Smith asked him to deliver his nominating speech at the party’s convention in Madison Square Garden. It would be his first public appearance since contracting polio.

Then, a few months before the convention, Charles Murphy, Smith’s campaign manager, died. Smith again turned to Franklin Roosevelt, naming him as Murphy’s replacement to run his campaign. Only two years earlier, Roosevelt’s mother was urging him to retire to a quiet life as a country squire in Hyde Park. Now, from his wheelchair, he was the campaign manager for a major presidential candidate and was about to speak not only to thousands of delegates but to the entire country through the new miracle of the age: radio.

But the convention had produced two stars, two very different men from New York who represented two very different traditions.

Not everybody was pleased with the idea of a Roosevelt, one of the nation’s most-distinguished families, working to put a Catholic in the White House. Roosevelt received scores of letters condemning him as a traitor to his people. “What is the matter with you,” one letter writer asked “Keep the Pope out of the U.S.” The letter was signed, simply, KKK.

The Klan was a major faction in the Democratic Party, and not just in the South. As Democrats gathered in Madison Square Garden for the convention, there were Klan delegates from more than a dozen states, including several from the Midwest and far West. They were determined to stop Al Smith, and their candidate of choice was Roosevelt’s old friend, William Gibbs McAdoo.


Franklin Roosevelt appeared on stage during the convention’s second day, after propelling himself to the podium on crutches and smiling the whole time. He delivered a rip-roaring endorsement of Smith, calling him the “Happy Warrior.” Roosevelt’s speech set off a demonstration of more than an hour, to the chagrin of McAdoo and his Klan supporters. But the speech did more than simply place a Catholic’s name in nomination for the nation’s highest office. It placed Franklin Roosevelt on the side of the New America emerging in the immigrant wards of the cities, on the side of people who frightened rural America, Protestant America — the America that Roosevelt might have been expected to defend.

Instead, he was the spokesman for the candidate of New America, Al Smith.

And now the battle was joined, and at stake was more than a presidential nomination. During more than two weeks, and through 103 ballots – the longest convention ever – the Democratic Party argued over the very idea of who was an American, and what Americanism meant, in the third decade of the 20th century. It was played out in the contest between Smith, the New York Catholic, and McAdoo, the progressive Protestant who had the overt support of the Ku Klux Klan. When Franklin Roosevelt chose sides, he foreshadowed how this battle would end – with the triumph of New America and a winning coalition that would dominate American politics for a half-century.

But as the exhausted Democrats finally chose a compromise candidate after neither Smith nor McAdoo could win the necessary two-third majority, the party’s prospects seemed bleak as ever. And sure enough, the party was pummeled in the 1924 general election.

But the convention had produced two stars, two very different men from New York who represented two very different traditions.

And after 1924, Franklin Roosevelt and Al Smith would begin building a bridge across the party’s vast divide.

Photo from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Caption: Franklin Roosevelt, second from left, on crutches, welcomes Democratic presidential nominee John W. Davis and Al Smith to Springwood in 1924.