Sven Lernevall is my long-time friend from Sweden.  From all appearances, Sven speaks the Swedish language with great proficiency. I will have to rely on expert witnesses whom I trust to testify to Sven’s use of the Swedish language.  Beyond that, Sven and his wife Ella speak an elegant brand of the English language.  On previous occasions, I have noted that Mr. Lernevall has identified the English language or the Anglo-Saxon language as a “rich language.”  Because I trust Sven’s assessment of the languages in the world, I must conclude that Sven knows whereof he speaks.  In this essay, I will try to prove Sven’s assessment of the English language in that the first part of the essay will have to do with two new words in the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary and the second will have to do with an assessment of our famous Governor of the state of New Jersey.
When Americans are asked about how they are feeling on a particular day, the answer is usually devoid of specificity.  This lack of specificity may include a reply such as, “I am feeling pretty good,” or “…not quite as good as I would like to feel,” or some other remark that does not reveal the reason for the person feeling either well or unwell.  In this essay, I am attempting to add two new words to the language of the Anglo-Saxons which will do away with a good bit of this vagueness.  Two words that I wish to add to our native tongue are first, “ungood,” and secondly, “unbad.”
It strikes me that when a person reports that he is feeling “fine” or “as fit as a fiddle,” he will know that, particularly at the age that some of us have reached, in a short while he will not feel as fit as a fiddle.  Similarly when an aged person such as me is asked questions about his health and replies that “It is not too bad,” because he believes that in a short while he will feel better.  The proper term for that is to say that he is feeling “unbad.”  These two new additions to the English language have a great virtue in that they are interchangeable.  Beyond that, they do not tell the questioner any more than he needs to know.
Oldsters such as myself are frequently asked the question, “How are you feeling?” probably with the thought that when the exchange of greetings is finished, the oldster will collapse.  It seems to me that the two neologisms are perfectly made for such occasions as this.  On top of that, there is the thought that economy in language is a virtue.  When someone is asked how he is feeling, the questioner will have to sort through the answer that the oldster may give him.  Now, when the oldster answers, “I am feeling ungood” or “I am feeling unbad,” the questioner will know exactly what he means.  This does away with such expressions as “I am feeling fairly well” or “I am feeling fairly bad.”
In the spirit of good sportsmanship, I intend to donate these two neologisms to our language and I will note that they were inspired by an inquiry from Senor Lernevall about the “richness of the English language.”  The joy in my heart from constructing these two neologisms is all of the reward that I seek.  And I assume that Senor Lernevall will feel much the same way.
 
Now we shift gears from the two neologisms to an expression voiced this summer in the presence of the New Jersey State Senate.  For reasons unknown to me, the Senate in the state of New Jersey elects a President who is almost always of the majority party.  In this case the majority is Democratic.  There are many things to recommend the views of this speaker whom I am about to quote.  In the first place his name is Sweeney, a household Irish name.  Secondly, Mr. Sweeney is a former labor leader coming from, I believe, the ironworker’s union.  That gives me two reasons to celebrate him in that the author is Irish and that he is a graduate of the labor movement in this country.
About two or three weeks ago, Mr. Sweeney was asked for his opinion of our glorious governor, Chris Christie.  Mr. Sweeney, the President of the New Jersey Senate, answered thusly, “I think he is a prick and a bastard.”  As most of you know, I spent the first 40 years of my life in a seminary and I had to consult Roget’s Thesaurus to grasp the meaning of Sweeney’s terms.  When I had grasped the meaning of those terms, I shouted, “Voilà!” because that is exactly what I think about Chris Christie, Governor of the great and glorious state of New Jersey.  There is no vagueness in what President Sweeney had to say.  It is a forthright and definite term.  Even more than that, I believe in his assessment.
And so we come to the conclusion of another essay, which in this case was brought about Sven Lernevall’s belief that the language of the Anglo-Saxons is “a rich one.”  I sincerely hope that my adding the words “ungood” and “unbad” to the language is acceptable to increase the richness thereof.
Finally, President Sweeney’s estimate of our Governor could not be more on point.  So on this drowsy summer afternoon in September, I am well pleased by the contributions that have been made to our mother tongue.  Rarely do we have the invention of two neologisms plus the remarks of Senate President Sweeney.  Relying on my seminary training, I must conclude that this juxtaposition of events is a “Godsend.”  Mortal men are best advised to leave “Godsends” alone and so with that thought I have nothing further to say in this monumental essay.
PS: Within an hour or so after dictating the foregoing essay, our computer located the original report (See attached article).  It was written by Tom Moran of the Star Ledger, another Irishman.  It is a more complete statement from Stephen Sweeney, whom I believe to be not a friend of the Governor.  I have only one suggestion for Mr. Sweeney.  If he were to call the Governor a spherical prick and bastard, which means a prick and a bastard no matter what angle he is viewed from, such a description would be apt.  With that small addition, I accept what Mr. Sweeney has said as pure gospel.
 
E. E. CARR
September 26, 2011
Essay 587
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: I of course cannot read the word “ungood” without thinking of 1984, the dystopian classic. Of course, this is a work of fiction so it would not normally interest Pop, but it strikes me that he may be interested in what the book has to say about language. Long story short, the masses in 1984 speak a language called “newspeak” which is a form of simplified English. For instance, the word “bad” has been replaced by “ungood” because “bad” is perceived as redundant. As Pop seems to enjoy the idea of adding things to the lexicon, he may find newspeak to be the most scandalous thing in the book. But still, Orwell’s thoughts about language efficiency were rather interesting.
Christie is still an ass; this is now well-documented by Ezra’s Essays. I’ll leave you with the article in question:
Sweeney unleashes his fury as N.J. budget battle turns personal
Published: Sunday, July 03, 2011, 2:05 PM
By Tom Moran/ The Star-Ledger
TRENTON — Senate President Stephen Sweeney went to bed furious Thursday night after reviewing the governor’s line-item veto of the state budget.
He woke up Friday morning even angrier.
“This is all about him being a bully and a punk,” he said in an interview Friday.
“I wanted to punch him in his head.”
Sweeney had just risked his political neck to support the governor’s pension and health reform, and his reward was a slap across the face. The governor’s budget was a brusque rejection of every Democratic move, and Sweeney couldn’t even get an audience with the governor to discuss it.
“You know who he reminds me of?” Sweeney says. “Mr. Potter from ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ the mean old bastard who screws everybody.”
This is not your regular budget dispute. This is personal. And it could have seismic impact on state politics.
Because the working alliance between these two men is the central political fact in New Jersey these days. If that changes, this brief and productive era of bipartisan cooperation is over.
“Last night I couldn’t calm down,” Sweeney said. “To prove a point to me — a guy who has stood side by side with him, and made tough decisions — for him to punish people to prove his political point? He’s just a rotten bastard to do what he did.”
It is a law of nature that Democrats and Republicans fight over budgets, like dogs chasing cats. And both parties are playing to their ideological scripts in this dispute.
But Sweeney’s beef with the governor goes much deeper. He feels the governor has acted in bad faith.
The governor’s budget, he says, is full of vindictive cuts designed to punish Democrats, and anyone else who dared to defy him. And he is furious that the governor refused to talk to him during the final week.
“After all the heavy lifting that’s been done — the property tax cap, the interest arbitration reform, the pension and health care reform — and the guy wouldn’t even talk to me?” Sweeney asks.
The details are even uglier. The governor, Sweeney said, personally told him they would talk. His staff called Sweeney and asked him to remain close all day Wednesday. At one point, the staff told him the governor planned to call in five minutes.
No call.
No negotiations.
“I sat in my office all day like a nitwit, figuring we were going to talk,” Sweeney says.
As for the vindictive cuts, Sweeney’s list of suspects is a long one.
The governor cut the Senate and Assembly budgets, but not his own, a move that is unprecedented. He cut money from the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, the outfit that sided with Democrats on this year’s revenue estimates.
He cut a fellowship program run by Alan Rosenthal, the Rutgers University professor who served as referee in this year’s legislative redistricting fight, and sided with Democrats.
 
When Democrats tried to restore money to a few favorite programs — including college scholarships for poor students, and legal aid for the needy — the governor not only rejected the additions, he added new cuts on top of that.
He mowed down a series of Democratic add-ons, including $45 million in tax credits for the working poor, $9 million in health care for the working poor, $8 million for women’s health care, another $8 million in AIDS funding and $9 million in mental-health services.
But the governor added $150 million in school aid for the suburbs, including the wealthiest towns in the state. That is enough to restore all the cuts just listed.
“Listen, you can punch me in the face and knock me down, do what you want,” Sweeney says. “But don’t be vindictive and punish innocent people. These people didn’t do anything to him. It’s like a bank robber taking hostages. And now he’s starting to shoot people.
“I liken it to being spoiled. He was angry because he wanted a mutual budget. But do you hurt people because of that? Do you take $8 million in AIDS funding away? Legal services is drowning as it is, and you take away another $5 million? I’m just so angry that he hurt people like this to prove a point. He is a cruel man.”
The governor refused to discuss this, as did his chief of staff, Richard Bagger, and his treasurer, Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff. Republican legislative leaders, who have been reduced to impotent Bobbleheads in the Christie era, say only that they agree with the governor, whatever he says.
This tiff began when Democrats decided to draft their own budget, as an alternative to the governor’s and a means of contrasting their priorities with his.
The governor’s office wanted to negotiate a single budget instead. But they would not discuss it until an agreement was reached on pension and health reform, according to Sweeney and the chairmen of the budget committees in the Assembly and Senate. In the end, the reform wasn’t signed until Tuesday, just two days before the budget was due.
So Christie took the Democratic plan, and pruned it with his line-item veto, without talking to Sweeney. When Democrats saw it, they considered it a declaration of war. It gave no ground to their priorities, and it came with a condescending lecture.
“He’s mean-spirited,” Sweeney said in the Friday interview. “He’s angry. If you don’t do what he says, I liken it to being spoiled, I’m going to get my way, or else.”
And: “He’s a rotten prick.”
The truth is that in New Jersey, the governor has all the power in a budget fight. He simply vetoes any budget line he doesn’t like, and it disappears.
The bigger political question is whether Sweeney and Christie will ever find common ground again on big issues. Education reform is next, though it’s likely to wait until after the November elections.
That leaves time to cool off. But Sweeney may benefit from a continuing fight. The party’s liberal base is furious at him over pension and health reform. And unless he regains their trust, he’s not likely to win the party’s nomination for governor or U.S. Senate, as he hopes.
For now, Sweeney will have to content himself with making Republicans pay some price for this budget. He plans to schedule override votes on these line-item vetoes.
The Republican Bobbleheads will side with the governor again, and the vetoes will stand. But individual legislators will have to go on record supporting each of these ugly cuts.
Yes, this will be all theater. And yes, it will be all partisan. Sadly, it seems Trenton is reverting to form.
© 2011 NJ.com. All rights reserved.