Supposably NATO

Chris Farmer RSS / 27.10.2009. u 14:47

When people say "supposably" in a sentence, my teeth begin to grind. In the same way, every time I hear people - intelligent people, educated people, intellectual people - using the term "NATO Pact," my head starts to throb. Right there behind the eyes.

Just to be clear: it is called a "pact" because it is an agreement. It is called the Warsaw Pact because it was signed in Warsaw.

On the first of May, 1955, in beautiful downtown Warsaw, eight friends sat down around a table and signed up to be Best Friends for Life. On that day, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union signed the "Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance," aka "The Warsaw Pact."

At the time, everyone (except Albania) had friendly Soviet troops marching around their streets.

Many people think the Warsaw Pact was signed as a direct response to the post-war alliance set-up in Belgium in 1949 called the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", aka "NATO."

Today, the term Warsaw Pact (formally dissolved in 1991) has sinister connotations, bringing back memories of the Cold War, of Stalinism, Soviet oppression, and the Iron Curtain.

When people say "NATO Pact" and "NATO Pact countries," therefore, I am bothered by more than one question. First, is it possible that people do not know what they are saying? Some of the users (no finger pointing) of this term are professors of history... Second, is it possible that people are saying this with an agenda to disparage NATO? To many people, NATO is already a four-letter word and does not need anything else to make it darker and more menacing.

A deep background, unnamed, and unidentified source, deep within the machinery of the American government, until recently posing as a maple tree in Warsaw, Indiana, told me: "We say NATO alliance not pact as the latter sounds too Soviet."

Aha! Lexically speaking a pact and a treaty and an alliance and an accord and an agreement all speak to similar ideas. So we could say pact, but we don't. We don't like the way it sounds.

But I must take issue with Maple Tree on this point: we do not say it because it is not its name. Just as we never said "Warsaw Volunteer Society."

It's just wrong.

Enough people say "supposably" so as to have earned it a place in a few dictionaries. History may never record any controversy around whether or not it was a word and whether or not "supposedly" would have been the correct usage.

If enough people say it, does it become fact? Supposably....

Atačmenti



Komentari (15)

Komentare je moguće postavljati samo u prvih 7 dana, nakon čega se blog automatski zaključava

mikimedic mikimedic 14:53 27.10.2009

Supposably

you don't understand Serbian?

nobody says 'NATO pact' but 'NATO pakt' and there is absolutely nothing wrong linguistically there.

What is your problem?


duchesse duchesse 15:02 27.10.2009

"Incomprehendable"

Is my favourite word. I have recently encountered it somewhere among comments on Krugolina's latest blog entry.

Second, is it possible that people are saying this with an agenda to disparage NATO?

You hit the nail on the head. I don't know if you were here in the 90ies but if you were, you would surely remember clauses such as "NATO criminal horde" and the like, that we were fed by the RTS on a daily basis. Etched indelibly on our minds.
Add some, not unjustified, rancour at the fact that we were bombed by the NATO, and Bob's your uncle.
marco_de.manccini marco_de.manccini 15:25 27.10.2009

size matters?

Supposably, NATO Pact does not exist, but you would not mind if people used the exspression NATO pact?

(Yes, yes, the word treaty is already there in the name of the organization, but this does not prevent the NATO countries to have a pact, does it?)
Krugolina Borup Krugolina Borup 16:09 27.10.2009

What's in a name?

Zovi me i šerpom, samo nemoj da me razbiješ.

Call it anyway you want - it still bombed me.
Jelena Pavlović Jelena Pavlović 17:27 27.10.2009

one more

We can "suppossebly" add "troublem" as my Chinese friend uses in her Chinglish language:)
Blade Runner Blade Runner 17:36 27.10.2009

NATO

aka "North Atlantic THREATS Organization" PACT
filvas filvas 18:10 27.10.2009

Natologies,

But I didn't get was this an exercise in applied linguistics or a political essay? Or the point was that NATO wasn't all that bad to be called a pact?

The name in Serbian, Organizacija Severnoatlantskog Ugovora, which was never in use, doesn't seem to describe what it really is, a military pact. Therefore people tend to use a word that has historically connoted a military agreement. The second reason is that the acronym has got the life of its own, as the people increasingly fail to grasp its meaning. Hardly a surprise, given NATO's malignant practices.
StEtOc|nA StEtOc|nA 21:25 27.10.2009

And the point of this blog is...

a) giving us some recent history lessons
b) giving us some linguistic lesson
c) describing how NATO is not actually military pact but candy store

because if it is something like d) none of the above... I still don't get it and would like to see the point.

NATO is military alliance or pact or whatever, no logical difference in it. I guess this is some attempt to create new (we are not that bad) and modify public opinion in Serbia about NATO.

BTW nobody here really glorifies Warsaw pact.
Chris Farmer Chris Farmer 09:29 28.10.2009

Re: And the point of this blog is...

This is about names. Not language and not politics.

The point, to address everyone's concerns in one, is much simpler than this. It is simply, and despite all of the protestations, that there are people (not only in Serbia, I should point out) who refer to NATO as "NATO Pact."

I have however enjoyed all the attempts to reach beneath the surface. I have noted that, as usual, any mentioning of the name NATO is an occasion to vilify either the organization and/or me for bringing it up.

And finally, to StEtOc|nA, I do not think there are many, if any, who glorify Warsaw Pact. That, also, was not said nor the point…


mikimedic mikimedic 09:52 28.10.2009

Re: And the point of this blog is...

This is about names. Not language and not politics.

The point, to address everyone's concerns in one, is much simpler than this. It is simply, and despite all of the protestations, that there are people (not only in Serbia, I should point out) who refer to NATO as "NATO Pact."

I have however enjoyed all the attempts to reach beneath the surface. I have noted that, as usual, any mentioning of the name NATO is an occasion to vilify either the organization and/or me for bringing it up.

And finally, to StEtOc|nA, I do not think there are many, if any, who glorify Warsaw Pact. That, also, was not said nor the point…


as I already asked you, perhaps you don't understand Serbian?
which does not prevent you to draw conclusions...
cool...
verna_citateljka verna_citateljka 09:40 28.10.2009

This looks like...

...a mutation of the RAS syndrome:

ATM machine (automated teller machine machine)
HIV virus (human immunodeficiency virus virus)
PIN number (personal identification number number)

I honestly don't think anything more should be read into it.

Redundant Acronym Syndrome syndrome
mikimedic mikimedic 12:04 28.10.2009

Re: This looks like...

NATO kao skracenica je i vlastita imenica a pakt odrednica koja odredjuje njenu pravnu prirodu. apsolutno je nebitno sto je rec treaty sadrzana u nazivu imenice.

naziv je 'NATO' a ne 'NATO pakt', ali je apsolutno pravilno reci 'NATO' pakt.



filvas filvas 15:25 28.10.2009

Re: This looks like...

Nato the pact
partizanka.mira partizanka.mira 10:59 28.10.2009

Functional illiteracy...

...that describes most of the above comments best...
You, people, completely missed the point of this blog entry...
mikimedic mikimedic 12:00 28.10.2009

Re: Functional illiteracy...

ajde?

dare to explain?

Arhiva

   

Kategorije aktivne u poslednjih 7 dana