Re: Bush-Kerry debate - 9/11

[AAllan at AOL.COM]

Very interesting contrast . . .

<<For example, the two candidates differed absolutely in how they referred to
the September 11th terrorist attacks. Kerry uses the term "9/11" only,
whereas Bush prefers the longer term 'September the eleventh' and never uses
the shorter one:
Kerry:
        king if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was
        ms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam_Hussein, an
         Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosev
        l in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years
        id in the two years preceding 9/11.
Total tokens = 5

Bush:
                        September the eleventh changed how America must look
        ized that after September the eleventh, we must take threats serious
        e mastermind of the September eleventh attacks, Khalid_Sheik_Mohamme
Total tokens = 3
        (also "That's kind of a pre-September tenth mentality")>>


In "Predicting New Words" (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), I boldly proclaimed that 
"9/11" would not last, and that lengthier versions like "September the 
eleventh" would take its place, on the grounds that "9/11" is strikingly anomalous - 
there are no other events we refer to in such a way. We use the pattern 
"fourth of July" instead, or "December 7, 1941," or the like. 

(My contention is that to find a permanent place in the vocabulary, a new 
word has to be unobtrusive, camouflaged, a "stealth word" - it has to follow 
standard coinage patterns, preferably so well that it does not even appear to be 
new.)

Well, "9/11" continues strong, but I claim you can't know if a term will 
become a permanent fixture of the vocabulary until about 40 years have passed. 
Just 37 to go . . . .

- Allan Metcalf