Hessians

     The Hessians ( in American history ) were soldiers loaned by the ruler of Hesse, in what is now Germany, to the king of England. Hessians fought the Americans in the Revolutionary War. They fought with the British--that is, on the side of the British, against the Americans. British soldiers also fought the Americans.  There were many more British soldiers than there were Hessians.
     Someone has started a historical error that seems to be spreading. I read it in a political science textbook--a college level textbook. The author claimed that the Hessians fought the Americans because the British didn't like to fight with a people so closely related. Not so. The British were here, quartered in Boston and some other places, before the revolution began, and they did most of the fighting. I don't know what made the author decide that if Hessians fought, that that the British didn't--he just guessed that part, perhaps, and incorrectly.  There were at least as many British soldiers as Hessians--possibly  twice as many. The British didn't need the Hessians because they didn't want to fight the Americans themselves--they wanted the Hessians so that their army would be large enough to defeat the Americans easily.
    

in loco parentis

     In loco parentis is Latin for "in the place of a parent". This is the legal doctrine that assigns to schools and their employees responsibility for the physical safety of children. Schools are responsible not only for the safety of the child in the school, but for the safety of the child going to school and returning from school. If a school child misses the bus, for example, the school has to make sure that the child gets home safely. It may not simply say "that's too bad, you'll have to walk".
     In loco parentis does not grant any "rights" to schools or their employees--not even in states where corporal punishment of students ( hitting or spanking ) is permitted.

measures of volume

     Measures of volume confuse a lot of people, but it just takes a bit of practice or experience. Our measures were supposed to have been all metric by 1980, they told us in the 1970's, but even that won't help with older books, movies, or recipes. For example--
We still sell gasoline by the gallon. A gallon is equal to 4 quarts ( quarters of a gallon ). A quart is not exactly equal to a, liter, but it's roughly the same.
Alcoholic beverages were traditionally sold by the "fifth", or fifth of a gallon. A "fifth" of a gallon might be labelled four-fifths of a quart--the same thing. So there were five "bottles" of alcohol to the gallon.
Milk is also still sold by the gallon, by the half-gallon, the quart, the pint, or the cup. Each of these is half of the next larger--2 cups make a pint
                         2 pints make a quart
                         2 quarts make a half-gallon
                         2 half-gallons make a gallon.
Cups were divided into ounces, 8 to the cup, or 128 to the gallon.
Liquids sold in liter-sized bottles are an attempt to approximate these familiar measures, so we have 3/4 of a liter, or 750 milliliters ( the same thing ), and so on. The metric system uses tenths, so a liter can be divided into centiliters ( cl's--100ths ) or milliliters ( ml's--1,000ths ).

dictionaries

     Dictionaries, I am fond of dictionaries. Everything that has ever been written is in the dictionary. The people who write dictionaries, called lexicographers, rely on usage to decide what to put in the dictionary. If someone coins a new word, and it becomes popular, it is included in the next edition of the dictionary. You may see evidence of this when you use the dictionary to decide which word to use, particularly in the case of commonly misused words. If enough people "switch" or exchange one word for another, the dictionary may report, in its next edition, that this is now current usage. An American dictionary rarely makes recommendations--it merely reports on common usage, in true democratic fashion.
     You may sometimes come across a piece of writing that is for the most part carefully and correctly done ( precise and understandable ), in which the author at last uses an unusual word, taking the dictionary as a style guide--which it isn't. The unusual word may be used awkwardly, or used not taking into account its precise meaning ( some English teachers have it that there are no synonyms ). The sentence containing the offending word is awkward and difficult to understand, because the author has not learned the "word" through usage ( reading, and lots of it ), but from using a thesaurus or dictionary to avoid seeming repetitive. The definition given by a dictionary or thesaurus in a few words, rarely takes account of the fine nuances of usage--and we find the author annoying. Dictionaries are perfect for spelling, and for looking up the meaning of words that you are reading--but they aren't style manuals, and shouldn't be used as usage guides.

for next time

VOTE FOR NOBODY

Nobody will keep election promises.
Nobody will listen to your concerns.
Nobody will help the poor and unemployed.
Nobody cares.
If nobody is elected, things will be better for everyone.

NOBODY TELLS THE TRUTH

( read on a wall--author unknown )

veterans day

     I am not a veteran. My dad was a WWII veteran. So were several other family members, including some of my aunts ( great-aunts ). When my dad died, in the 1990's, I found the letter that Harry Truman sent him after the war, to thank him for serving his country. I guess it was something sent to every returning serviceman, but my dad kept it all those years, although he had few souvenirs. And tucked in my dad's wallet, with his driver's license, was his discharge card from the army. I'll never know now why my dad kept that in his wallet for almost 50 years--maybe he was afraid the army would come back for him.

voting rights

     Voting in the United States is still called voting by "secret ballot", even though we vote with electronic machines now. You may be asked about your vote by pollsters, by friends, or even by your employer, but there is no legal or court process through which anyone may demand that you disclose your vote. Some people don't mind talking to pollsters on a TV camera. Other people never even tell their husbands or wives about their voting decisions. The prohibition of cameras or any recording devices in the polling place is part of the system of secret ballots. No one should be intimidated into voting or not voting for anyone, for fear of publicity of any kind--not even on social media. Our local news and editorials recently printed complaints from people who hadn't noticed that cameras were forbidden until this November's election. When asked to delete the pictures, the complaining party seemed to think the election staffers were being personal, mean, or unreasonable. We vote for our laws, and we vote to have them enforced. We tax ourselves to pay for that law enforcement.. Breaking the laws to make a "point" is unreasonable. "Laws only apply to other people" is also unreasonable. "I'd object if anyone did this to me, but I'm sure it's okay for me to do it to someone else" is more unreasonable yet. Vote, write, speak, campaign. Convince the majority to see things your way--but don't break the law doing it.