![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Antidisestablishmentarianism.
Jan. 25th, 2008 11:18 amIt's such a fun word.
Antidisestablishmentarianism.
One upon a time it was the ultimate challenge in spelling bees, back in the day when medical terminology, jargon, and non-English words were forbidden. It's still the longest non-medical word in the English language, and if you think spelling it is hard, try saying it aloud.
You can't rush incautiously into the word, nor can you get a running start and try to plow through. You have to put your mouth into low gear. You have to go carefully over each and every one of the twelve syllables to get to the end without mishap. Once you get the hang of it, it's fun to say... very carefully, of course.
And some of you are asking: what the hell does it mean?
Well, first, let's look at the flock of stacked prefixes and suffixes.
The core word is establish, which is a blend of "est" (to be) and "ish" (to make so): to bring into being, to found, to set in place.
Add "-ment" (meaning that which is) to make "establishment", that which is established, something which has been put in place... or, in this case, the act of establishing something.
Next "dis-" (many meanings, but in this case "opposite of" is proper) to create "disestablishment," the ending of something previously established.
Next up is "-arian" (a person of or associated with), creating "disestablishmentarian," a person who believes in or advocates the ending of something previously established.
Now "anti-" (opposed to) to make "antidisestablishmentarian," a person who advocates against the ending of something previously established.
Last of all, "-ism," (philosophy or belief associated with) creating our word of the day: the belief system of those who oppose the ending of something previously established.
All of which is nice, but still no help until you know what in particular is to be established or disestablished. The answer? Churches.
Back in days of long ago, there was a basic legal principle in European nations: curio regio, curio populae, I think the Latin is. Whatever religion the king or queen followed, their subjects were forced to follow as well. This principle stems from the pre-Reformation insistence that the Catholic Church (in theory) acted as the arm of God in ordaining royalty to reign. This in turn derived from the Roman Empire, where in addition to whatever other gods they worshipped, Roman citizens and subjects were also forced to worship the then-current augustus as a god. When Constantine I won the Imperial throne after converting to Christianity, Christianity- through the Catholic Church- took the place of Emperor worship, driving out all other religions at swordpoint.
By the time of the Age of Reason this mandated religion had been eroded severely by the various wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, most notably the bloody and inconclusive Thirty Years' War. The main remnant was that nearly every nation had a particular religion which got funded by the government through special taxes or forced tithes. In Catholic countries, of course, this was the Vatican. In Great Britain, it was the Church of England (or, as its American branch became known after the Revolution, the Epsicopalians). The tax-funded church was called the established church- the one official church of the realm, regardless of any new-fangled laws of tolerance of other religions.
Beginning in the mid-18th Century, movements began in both England and America to strip these churches of their tax subsidies. These people wanted to disestablish the churches, making all religions equal and ending the injustice of making people support a religion they didn't believe in. Most notable of these figures to Americans are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who fought for thirty years to get the Commonwealth of Virginia to disestablish the Episcopalian Church and end its tax subsidies.
Naturally enough, the followers of the established religions didn't like the idea of their local church having to rely solely on its own resources. They fought hard and long to keep the church's hand in the government's pocket. Their philosophy, their political faction of thought, was...
...antidisestablishmentarianism.
And now you know...
... why nobody's asking me to take over Paul Harvey's job.
Antidisestablishmentarianism.
One upon a time it was the ultimate challenge in spelling bees, back in the day when medical terminology, jargon, and non-English words were forbidden. It's still the longest non-medical word in the English language, and if you think spelling it is hard, try saying it aloud.
You can't rush incautiously into the word, nor can you get a running start and try to plow through. You have to put your mouth into low gear. You have to go carefully over each and every one of the twelve syllables to get to the end without mishap. Once you get the hang of it, it's fun to say... very carefully, of course.
And some of you are asking: what the hell does it mean?
Well, first, let's look at the flock of stacked prefixes and suffixes.
The core word is establish, which is a blend of "est" (to be) and "ish" (to make so): to bring into being, to found, to set in place.
Add "-ment" (meaning that which is) to make "establishment", that which is established, something which has been put in place... or, in this case, the act of establishing something.
Next "dis-" (many meanings, but in this case "opposite of" is proper) to create "disestablishment," the ending of something previously established.
Next up is "-arian" (a person of or associated with), creating "disestablishmentarian," a person who believes in or advocates the ending of something previously established.
Now "anti-" (opposed to) to make "antidisestablishmentarian," a person who advocates against the ending of something previously established.
Last of all, "-ism," (philosophy or belief associated with) creating our word of the day: the belief system of those who oppose the ending of something previously established.
All of which is nice, but still no help until you know what in particular is to be established or disestablished. The answer? Churches.
Back in days of long ago, there was a basic legal principle in European nations: curio regio, curio populae, I think the Latin is. Whatever religion the king or queen followed, their subjects were forced to follow as well. This principle stems from the pre-Reformation insistence that the Catholic Church (in theory) acted as the arm of God in ordaining royalty to reign. This in turn derived from the Roman Empire, where in addition to whatever other gods they worshipped, Roman citizens and subjects were also forced to worship the then-current augustus as a god. When Constantine I won the Imperial throne after converting to Christianity, Christianity- through the Catholic Church- took the place of Emperor worship, driving out all other religions at swordpoint.
By the time of the Age of Reason this mandated religion had been eroded severely by the various wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, most notably the bloody and inconclusive Thirty Years' War. The main remnant was that nearly every nation had a particular religion which got funded by the government through special taxes or forced tithes. In Catholic countries, of course, this was the Vatican. In Great Britain, it was the Church of England (or, as its American branch became known after the Revolution, the Epsicopalians). The tax-funded church was called the established church- the one official church of the realm, regardless of any new-fangled laws of tolerance of other religions.
Beginning in the mid-18th Century, movements began in both England and America to strip these churches of their tax subsidies. These people wanted to disestablish the churches, making all religions equal and ending the injustice of making people support a religion they didn't believe in. Most notable of these figures to Americans are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who fought for thirty years to get the Commonwealth of Virginia to disestablish the Episcopalian Church and end its tax subsidies.
Naturally enough, the followers of the established religions didn't like the idea of their local church having to rely solely on its own resources. They fought hard and long to keep the church's hand in the government's pocket. Their philosophy, their political faction of thought, was...
...antidisestablishmentarianism.
And now you know...
... why nobody's asking me to take over Paul Harvey's job.
