Whenever I dictate an essay about language, I specifically mean English, which always recalls the words of Sven Lernevall who observed, “The English language is a very rich one.”  
I will try to add three words that will increase its richness.  Two of them are of modern vintage.  The third one goes back to my grandfather’s time.
The first one is called “cyber.”  In almost every case, the word cyber is used in juxtaposition to the word “attack.”  For example, a short while ago the Iranians were trying to upgrade their nuclear fuel.  To do so required the use of computers.  The United States or maybe it was the Israelis used computer attacks to alter the enrichment of fuel which made the Iranian effort worthless.
The definition of cyber is not much help.  It reads, “of or relating to computers or computer networks, like the internet.”  I don’t know if my readers can make much sense out of the words of this definition.  But there it is.  Cyber means of or relating to computers or computer networks, like the internet.  In the final analysis, whether it is used for attacks may lead some to believe that it is of serious consequences.
The second word is “drone.”  According to those who view the future, drones are the aircraft of the future.  One person predicted that there would be thousands of drones at every airport.  I shudder to think how the drones will be controlled to avoid mid-air collisions.  But that is sometime in the future and it should cause us no worry at this moment.   Drones are used to advance the cause of the allies in the various theaters of our endeavors.  We read mostly about attacks by drones that silence  opposing leaders.  I know very little about drones but I know a little something about aircraft.  Apparently a drone can carry a two-thousand pound bomb into space and delivers it with unerring accuracy on its target.  The Pakistanis complained about the use of drones but it is reasonably clear that if they controlled the population that wished to do us some harm, there would be no need for the drone attacks.
So here we have two new words called cyber and drone.  Now it is time for a much older word.  The word is “pert’near,” which means pretty close.  Harry Livermore, my friend for 60 years before his death, was born in Omaha, Nebraska and he frequently used the word “pert’near.”   These days, these words are “pretty near” rather than pert’near.  But as far as I can tell, the word “pert’near” is synonymous with pretty near.  And Harry Livermore is among the angels so he will have no opportunity to explain what he meant when he said pert’near.
 
Here are my thoughts on adding to the English language.  There is the word cyber, of which there is not a whole lot of understanding.  Secondly, there is the word drone, which we are fairly quick to understand because it relates to unmanned aircraft.  And finally there is the word pert’near.  I am sorry that Harry Livermore is no longer with us because he would approve of my writing an essay that included the word pert’near.
I suspect that I have commented upon a usage of the English language several times in these essays.  As it turns out, for me this is good news as it suggests that the English language is a vibrant one, adding new words to those that exist.  Unfortunately, the word cyber is not easily understood but what the hell, there are a lot of things that this old timer will never understand.  So let us rejoice in the fact that the English language is alive and well and is adding new words at an amazing clip.  The Latin language that the clerics admire is a static one that is lifeless.  As I say, let us rejoice in the fact that the English language that we try to speak is alive and well.
PS: On the subject of drones, it may be interesting to follow the dictionary concept.  The Miriam Webster dictionary says that the definition of a drone is as follows: “A stingless male bee who gathers neither nectar nor pollen.”  That is the definition of drone and I will say that if possible it should be avoided.
 
E. E. CARR
March 29, 2013
Essay 743
~~
Kevin’s commentary:  To the best of my knowledge, drones don’t have stingers and they don’t gather nectar or pollen, so I’m going to go ahead and say that they’re close enough.
I’m curious what an ex-airforce fighter thinks of flying machines which could nominally replace his role in a few years, if they haven’t already. Obviously, having a machine in the fight is good because that means you’re not in the fight, but is machines killing people much better than people killing people? And what happens when the enemy gets drones too, so it’s machines versus machines? Combat is evolving and I’m not sure there will ever be something on the scale of WWII again but a war played out in a series of mechanized skirmishes doesn’t seem altogether so unlikely.
Edit: I’m so behind that this essay is published on the March 24th slot, even though it wasn’t written till the 29th! This is a first.