Andrew Jackson and Teddy Rooosevelt, good or bad, were true populists, Trump is a fake one.
Nobody in the UK spells it like that unless they’re deliberately trying to create a Dickensian aesthetic.
I’ve seen it in use. And not trying to evoke a 19th century sensibility.
Here’s a Google N-ram chart for “gaol”. It’s definitely seriously declined since 1800, but not disappeared, and is actually shwing a slight rise in use
The only time I ever see it is Americans claiming that’s how it’s said in the UK or deliberate anachronism.
“Gaol” reflects its origins, in the French word “geôle” - another example of how words from the powers that be derive from the Normans.
Not the UK, but the Kilmainham Gaol still spells it that way (albeit having closed as a “gaol” in 1924)
Whereas Colonial Williamsburg splits the difference.
Part of the inmate population were “enslaved runaways”. Is that better than “runaway slaves”?
Yes? At least, AFAICT historians and sociologists nowadays are tending to lean into the idea that descriptors for human beings should center their humanity and their agency, rather than a status that’s been assigned to them by oppressive authority.
Hence “enslaved people” rather than “slaves”, “sex workers” rather than “prostitutes”, “illegal migrants” or “undocumented immigrants” rather than “illegals”, and so forth.
If you use Google Books and restrict the time setting to “21st century” you’ll find plenty of uses of “gaol”, although many of these are reprints of earlier reports. But quite a few are modern histories that still use the word, or architectural works still using the historic term.
:“gaol’ is stupid"
I think sometimes we should agree that some standard forms are stupid.
It’s not even a French spelling: ga would be a hard g.
Maybe I missed it, but TR volunteered to fight in the Spanish American War, and wrote a book on it, which Mr. Dooley called “Alone in Cuba.”
Trump - bone spurs.
TR was one of the first to realise that Nature’s resources were not limitless, and played a part in creating the National Parks.
Correction: Historians and sociologists nowadays lean into the idea that negative descriptors for human beings should be written that way. Person-first language is never used for positive or neutral descriptors. With the result that the language ends up calling attention to the negative descriptors and othering the people so described.
I know that’s not the intention, but it’s the effect.
? People who immigrate legally are called “immigrants” rather than “aliens”, for example. Employees under 18 are often called “adolescent workers”, rather than invariably “kids” or “teens” or “minors”. “Seasonal workers”, not “hired hands”. “Indentured” or “apprenticed workers”, not “apprentices”. “Guest educators”, not “substitutes”.
I think you may have just looked at some lists of disability-focused “Person First” terminology and assumed that that semantic trend is only about mitigating the effect of negative descriptors referencing disability or discrimination.
In fact, there are lots of historical and current contexts where the standard way to describe some neutral or positive characteristic has similarly shifted away from a collectivized adjective to a noun phrase emphasizing the person’s own agency or actions.
The closest comparison I can think of to Trump is Huey Long, i.e. a populist and would-be dictator.
None of that is person-first terminology. They all use some word for a person who has some trait. “Minor”, “teen”, and “adolescent”, for instance, all mean a person under 18.
But for comparison, try it with a completely neutral descriptor. Sometimes another teacher will ask for help putting up a poster on their wall, for instance, a task I often help with because I’m tall. But I’m a “tall person”, not a “person of height”. Nobody feels obligated to refer to me as a person first, because that’s not the way English works. The construction of “person of…” or “person with…” is only used for traits that are considered negative, and since it’s only used with negative traits, it calls attention to the negativity. Which is exactly the opposite effect of what’s intended.
Oh, I see, you’re using the “person-first descriptor” concept in its absolutely most literal sense of “putting the word ‘person’ first in the descriptor for this individual”. As in “person of color” or “person with disability”.
Sorry, my misunderstanding. You are correct that that very specific concept is often used in disability-descriptor semantics. But that’s not the concept I had in mind when I referred to the more general “idea that descriptors for human beings should center their humanity and their agency, rather than a status that’s been assigned to them by oppressive authority”.
(And indeed, that very literal “person-first” concept is not the concept that’s being used in the example of “enslaved runaways” which was queried by @Son_of_a_Rich in the post I originally replied to. Calling somebody who would formerly have been designated a “slave” an “enslaved person” instead, or shifting from the term “runaway slave” to “enslaved runaway”, is indeed advocating “descriptors for human beings that center their humanity and their agency”. But it’s not a literally “person-first” identifier such as “person subjected to enslavement”.)
Could we perhaps spin the etymology discussions off to another thread?
Sorry, sorry, mea culpa! 