normalcy

Now, this word may not make my blood boil the way “semiprecious” does. And as you may or may not know, I am a big fan of the culturally-enriching neologism. Hell, I make up words all the time. However, the presidentially-induced NOT-a-logism is another entity entirely. Though our generation is undoubtedly mostly familiar with oft-occurring Bushisms, which may or may not take the form of a neologism, other sneaky manipulations of the tongue are commonplace among speeches of our commanders-in-chief. The one at which I take particular umbrage is normalcy.

“Normalcy” is not a true neologism, having appeared in 1857, mostly as the mathematical state of conforming to a rule. It is certainly not a malapropism, as so many Bushisms are, nor is it simple evidence of illiteracy (sorry Dubya, but that’s just how I feel about you). However, at the time it was corralled into the campaign slogan of Warren G. Harding, the word “normalcy” had an ever-more-eloquent, and now all but disused alternative: normality.

Linguistically, “normalcy” makes sense, but only awkwardly. The suffix “-cy” turns an adjective into the state or condition of that adjective; think “democracy” or “accuracy” from democratic and accurate, but note carefully the relation of each suffix: from “-tic” or “-te” we turn to “-cy.” In fact, say it out loud. “T,” as a consonant, really ain’t that far from “C.” Feels nice on the tongue, doesn’t it?

“Normality” falls in line with other perfectly reasonable words, such as “formality,” “reality,” and, of course, “abnormality.” Never heard anybody talk about “abnormalcy,” have you? Didn’t think so! The letter “L” does not want to be followed by the letter “C,” alright? I asked it myself.

Normalcy came into popular usage as the campaign slogan of Warren G. Harding, as I mentioned above. He called for “A Return to Normalcy,” following those kookily progressive politics of Woodrow Wilson (following, of course, the atrocities of WWI). Voting for Harding also meant voting against the running mate of his opponent – also known as FDR, thank you very much – but I suppose I’m here to talk about the lingual consequences, not political.

What really, truly gets me about “normalcy” is that it is one of those words I suspect people use because they think it makes them sound smarter. To the common ear, perhaps, “normality” is long, clunky. “Normalcy” is ever so much more refined, perhaps even a bit abstruse – surely it is the more proper terminology!

But this *ahem* fallacy is almost as bad as the ghastly use of subject pronouns in favor of the correct usage of direct objects, i.e., “Paul took Jane and I” to the movies instead of taking me. But enough people have ranted on that linguistic horror.

So I leave you with this: on March 28th, 2008, President Bush declared, “Normalcy is returning back to Iraq.”

I suppose they can have it then.