Dear Hank & John - 298: The Whens and Wheres of Thens and Theres (w/Jess Zafarris!)

Episode Date: August 2, 2021

Why can you answer what, when, and where with that, then, and there? Hank Green and Jess Zafarris have answers!If you're in need of dubious advice, email us at [e-mail] us for monthly livestreams and an exclusive weekly podcast at patreon.com/dearhankandjohn.Follow us on Twitter! twitter.com/dearhankandjohn

Hello and welcome to Dear Hank and John. Or as I like to call it, Dear Justin Hank. It's a podcast where two brothers and sometimes just people answer your questions, give you the abuse advice and bringing all the weeks news from both Mars and AFC Wimbledon. But today, we're doing none of that. There's no dad joke, there's no Mars news, there's no John, there's no AFC Wimbledon. We have an expert to help us answer a question that has been driving us mad. It is not the question of whether or not sneezing is normal, which will continue to drive

us mad. It is the question of why then there and that can be answered by the questions or are the answers to the questions when, where, and what? And to help answer this question, we are being joined by Jeff Zafaris, who is an author who has spent a lot of time studying etymology, has written a book on etymology and is also a journalist and does a lot of a lot of different things. Jess, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me on the show. So, I mean, at the very basic level, can you explain to me what is going on? Let's just start with that.

Absolutely. So, as I mentioned in the TikTok that I mentioned you in, a similar thing happens in a ton of languages, especially Indo-European languages, which is this giant language family comprised of many sub-families of languages that are spoken today. The families include Germanic languages, which is English

and German and Danish, and Hellenic languages, which is Greek, and italic languages, which is any of the romance languages that are derived from Latin. But then, since I made this video, I've also been informed that there are similar constructions in languages like Japanese, which is not an Indo-European language. Right, so that's cool. It happens all the time. Apparently, we just do that with these word concepts. The thing that's so interesting about this is that all of these words are invisible.

So when I think about a word, I think about like, cumulonimbus, where it's like, that's a word that somebody made up. But I don't think about that, or this, or the. Like, which are also words, do they have a meaning? I guess, does the have a meaning? Not really. Like, they're not, they are so universal,

like so necessary to the construction of language that I don't think about them as words, which is why I think this was so surprising. And, you know, furthermore, those words are sometimes unnecessary. Like, the words that can be plionastic in some cases, meaning it's just like redundant. So, you can say, like, I know that you are very clever, or you could just say, I know you're very clever, and it means the same thing. That word is not necessary.

Which I notice, especially because I will often have that that's. I'll have a sentence with two that's and then I'll take one out and I'll be like, why did I put that that there? But like it also reads just fine with the two that's. I don't have an example because I'm not as clever as you, but I'm sure that other people will have experienced this. Yeah, absolutely. So like these words that there then have equivalents and lots of languages, and they often similarly correspond to other question-type words. Like, it's not a universal thing, like, every Indo-European language doesn't have the exact same structure for these exact same words, but you'll find parallels like this for question and answer,

word pairs everywhere. It's super clear in German and Dutch because they have some very clear parallels because like English they are Germanic languages. To actually dig into it, I suppose we should start with that. Like I did before because I think it's the easiest. And to back up a little bit, you sort of address this earlier, but you can start with the as the base word because all of these words are related to the word the. I mean, I guess I addressed that earlier, but like that, now I can't talk because I'm thinking about words,

but that fact would never have occurred to me. It's a while. But of course, of course all of these things things are like, they are all related to each other and they all come from the, or they all come from whatever word was the. It is a proto-Indo-European root that leads to our article V. So yes, yes and no. But they all sort of, like, the interesting thing is they all keep up with each other. So like, as the changes, like that, this, there, those things all changed as well. So like in German, I'm sure that it's like the, the, the, like similar things.

But they all sort of like evolve together. Yeah, that is true. And also, you know, even in Old English, the word V was spelled not with a TH, but with the character Thorn. Oh, of course. It's even changed Old English, the word V was spelled not with a TH, but with the character Thorn. So it's even changed English. Oh, of course. It's even changed English.

It's not Thorn. Right, right, right. So anyway, that we talked about how it's kind of like a ubiquitous word. And it can be used as a ton of different parts of speech, now an adjective adverb pronoun. In this case, it's easiest to talk about it as a demonstrative word when it's used to point at things in concepts, like that pen or that book where it behaves like an adjective or just replacing the whole

phrase with that so it acts like a pronoun. So is that now I've had a thought, is there a relationship between that and at? Yeah, that's actually a really good question. So the word at is considered the preposition at is considered to have a different your Indo-European root than the ending of the word that but Okay, then the ending of the word that but it is notable that even in Old English the ending of the word that was spelled the same as the Old English equivalent of the word at and it's notable that To convey directing something towards something else does the same thing. And then, ultimately, the word at is also ultimately cognate with other words too.

So at is cognate with the Latin word and prefix add. So the one in like advertise adjective address, even in like a queue, things like that. So, so, at does other things? So to say they're unrelated is a bit of an oversimplification, but they do both do their own things in other words, in other words, and word element. Okay, okay. So, I mean, what interest, like what is interesting

to me suddenly about this is like, we've sort of taken the at and the o's and the air. What are those at O's air? Where did those things come from? Did we just decide or what? Exactly. With the article D is our base for it, we can point at things by adding these demonstrative

endings. And that's this, that, these, and those. So it's at ease, O's. So these demonstrative endings are the letters after the TH in the words this, that, these, and those. I haven't done this without having some sort of visual elements. So apologies if I repeat myself in the interest of clarity.

Yeah, it's easier with visuals, but we're gonna get there. We're also gonna break everybody's ability to understand language. Because now every time I or you say that, my brain turns off. So each of these pointy endings, as I've called them, provides like slightly different information. This and these pointed things that are in front of us, that point that and those pointy things

that are not in front of us, and that can be like literally anywhere else. It's this and these are much more specific. So if we take the word that, the point at things, it's since it's sort of the broadest, it tends to be the word that you would attach other suffixes to that could make it have additional information on it. Like give it a location or a time.

And in that case, that would be that plus error equals there. You've added location information to that by adding the ending error. And then with time, that plus N gives you then. That's so weird. Did people decide this? I imagine in terms of the development of language, it is a simultaneous decision making that happens with the simple words in our language. We develop a way to communicate all together.

And typically, you know, we say that there's a, this one proto-root language, proto-indulatory European that unites all of the languages that I've been talking about. And the constructions that were used in this very fundamental, it's technically a theoretical root language, but it is very strongly at that. Right, we don't have it. We don't have written records of this. This was the step after we were grunting at each other.

Well, it makes me think, like, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that first you had these things like that, which is a pretty specific idea. And then you had things like and probably the last one of these would be then, where you're talking about in time. So that's very conceptual. Sort of. It doesn't like, yeah, where does that thing exist? It exists at a time, not a place. And like what an innovation that would have been. And like, and of course, immediately people would have started using that word. But like, you had to think of it first in order to start to use it. And how tremendously useful that would be and how hard language would be without that innovation.

Absolutely. Oh my God. So anyway, to continue, just to reiterate. To continue. I don't have another question for you, but please continue. We now know that these endings at AirN pointed things, we've got at points at things and concepts, Air points at places, and points at times. So when we want to make words like what, where and when, obviously we've swapped out that TH and put in a WH.

And what has happened here is that in, it is a recurring trait of Indo-European languages and possibly other languages as well, but I can't fully speak to that. But to have some sort of interrogative root or word-forming element that means just like, huh? And sort of interrogative root or word forming element. That means just like, huh? And you can put it on other words and elements to turn them into question words. So like a lot of our question words start with WH and it's because they all have that that root that word forming word peace. So in like Latin and French and other languages, the question forming word piece is a QU and in German it's a W and in English it's a WH. And then in Old English it was actually HW and that's that's kind of interesting because the.

When? Yeah right. No. But see the the shift to WH happened for a few reasons. So in Old English the letter H represented a couple of different kinds of H's that we would consider H's now. But the one at the beginning of this word was a harder sound. And it's a little more nuanced than this, but it's sort of like the CH sound in the words like

lach or black. So that was a sound that was common in Old English. And it was often represented by just the letter H. So, if you've ever said, what? You're just being Old English. Because I was thinking to myself, well, I would never do that, but you're right. I probably have. I mean, it's also very like Hank Hill from King of the Hill. I'll tell you what, you know. So the sound was hard to pronounce in French and that's key because after the Norman invasion of England in the 11th century,

that's how we got to middle English, the Germanic language of Old English, the language of the Anglo-Saxon was infused with an absolute avalanche of Norman French words. And most of these were Latin derived, which is why now about 60% of modern English is made up of French and Latin derived words and only 25% are Germanic derived, but it's still a Germanic language because our foundational grammar rules are still old English. But because that's so weird. That's a while. But because the Normans largely came to be the ruling class and therefore wrote a lot of the history and determined a lot of the rules in England, parts of it like that

black sound phased out. And in fact, the letter combination in words like daughter and slaughter used to just be a letter H and it was pronounced. So it was like doctor and slaughterothed and that G.H. was meant to convey the harder H sound, but French people were bad at pronouncing it. So it faded out to being a silent G.H. So another thing we can be frustrated with there. Okay. So these these interrogative things and like I guess it just makes perfect sense. Like you have the you have the that and then you like you just like slap on the question and you have the what?

Mm-hmm. Exactly. So if we want to ask somebody to help us identify a thing at a place or a time, we take our pointy endings and at air went at air in and then we take our question forming words up x that sort of sound a concept to get what, where, and when. So the interesting thing is that there are the pointing words, and they don't have to all have a question, because what does that for all of them? So like, there's like this, and there isn't a whist,

because what does it already? Yes, that is correct. Because this and that can both be answered by what? Right. So we don't need multiple what, so we go with the broadest one. Yeah, we don't need a what for the thing that's right in front of us and a what for the thing that's far away, because we can what for the thing that's right in front of us and a what for the thing that's far away because we can say what is that or what is this?

Right, either way, I mean, if we know typically this, we can tell pretty clearly, I mean, we can say what is this, but it is the question where it tends to be the broadest, or it tends to attach to that because it is the broadest in terms of this that these and those. I can't believe we have this that these and those. And I'm like, of course I know what those mean. Like I've never even thought about

like what the difference between, like where the line between this and that is. Like how far away does it have to be? I just know. You might also find this interesting. You'll notice that here doesn't fit in quite with any of these words because it doesn't start with a TH like there it does. It's closer to us and here matches up with this wrap. I didn't notice that.

I didn't think of here at all. Yeah. And I can also talk about like wence and vents, which is also like a thing like that answers that. Well, but I don't care about wence and vents because they're gone. They're they're they're dead to me, but don't leave, don't leave me hanging on there and here and where. Yeah, so here, here is funny. It has the same location based ending as there, obviously, but it doesn't have that TH. And that's because the base word here is not the, but he, third person pronouns for humans, like I said, weren't he, she, and they until the 12th century. And instead, all third person pronouns were variations of of he and were a bunch of different cases and genders that you would convey additional meaning to by adding endings to he. And there was like a feminine and there was a there were various feminins and various

neuters and various plurals. So he was your base for all your pronouns and you can see that in holdover words, like him and her, which are closer to Old English than like she and they. Yeah. And then even the word it was the word hit in Old English, which is the neuter nominative accusative form of he. Of he.

Well, all the words you just said in the beginning since to me, but it's still that came through as like the reality that it was a modification of the pronoun he. The point is, the base word of here is he, and that locational ending gives here the literal meaning of the place he puts himself or the place one puts oneself. So am I missing any others? Wherefore and therefore. And actually a number of ones related to that, but those are probably the most common ones

that we use. If you studied Romeo and Juliet, which I'm sure you have, wherefore means why? Why are you Romeo? Why are you that one dude my dad won't let me go out with? And therefore, is a potential answer to that question, just like there is a potential answer to where? I honestly thought that where for art thou Romeo meant like, where are you at?

No, it means why. That's kind of like the weirdest thing. It's like she's going on on this balcony to be like, oh, why can't I date this guy? It's totally it. But the like, why, where four means why, is kind of interesting? Because where and four, why does that add up to why? And the best way I've been able to graph and explain it

is with a formula. Let's see if I can do this and do some word math without drawing it out. But basically, you take here, there, and where, and you transform them into demonstrative pronouns, and then you attach a preposition to tell the transformed word, what to do. I know that didn't make sense, but it does. So, for example, think about the word, therein. It's also a word just like wherefore. So like if you add there to a preposition, like in, in this case, then you get that preposition plus that.

So there plus in means in that. So when you say the word, therein, what you're actually saying is in that. And one of the reasons, right, this is not what makes sense because I know that, but it doesn't make sense. Right. And one of the reasons we, one of the holdovers where you see a lot of words like this is in legal documentation because their primary function is to prevent you from having to repeat the same things over and over again. And when we're chatting with our friends, we don't care about having to say in that over and over again. But if you say there and you don't have to say like in that document every time you talk about it, and this works with there here and where with like lots of prepositions.

So like here and means in this, something or other, here about means around this, wherein means in what, where about means about what, or around what, and where with means, like with what. So like, each one of those corresponds to our original like, base word, where and what, here and this, and there and that. But then you add other information, it transforms them into basically

what they originally were. So with wherefore and therefore, it helps to know that in older forms of English, four was a real workhorse of a word, both with an E and without an E. It could mean the same thing as the preposition four does now, but it could also mean things like before and toward. So it had, it had lots of information attached to it. So in this case, when you add it to, like, when you add four to wear, to make it wear four, you are literally saying, for what reason? And the reason is kind of in parentheses here. And same with therefore, you're saying for that reason or for that purpose. And it literally means toward what reason or toward what purpose in that case because the

floor implies direction. So like, it's often that I think about etymology as like, oh, I want to know the weird reason why this word is related to that word. And but this conversation has given me a much better better and I'm sure I'll lose it immediately. But a much better understanding of like how language is constructed by the people who create it, then I have ever had, which is very weird because like I'm just not like I'm not used to looking at like the building blocks. You know what? You're still looking at the foundation.

And I guess I haven't really like done any foundation to work since like high school grammar class. And even then, it wasn't really about the foundation as much as it was about like, or about understanding how it was built as it was, as under like, just understanding that it exists and how it exists. That's very true. A lot of times our grammar rules are this does this, but not why does this do that.

Yeah, which is also, that's not just an English problem. To science communication, we do that in science. Like mad in school and it frustrates me to no end. I think part of it too with English is just that because it's such a combination of other languages, we don't focus on educating anyone in the structures of Old English because a lot of what we say is not Old English. Yeah, why would, why would we?

It's not particularly useful, it is just fascinating. It is, it really is. Oh my gosh. Well, I didn't expect us to talk for as long as we have, but I'm so glad that we did. Where can we find more of what you do? Oh, thank you so much for asking. My largest channel in the area in which I post the majority of my etymology knowledge is on TikTok at Jess Zafaris. I post probably two to three times a week these days, but because TikTok has expanded to three minutes, I'm doing some bigger deep dives, which is fun.

Yep. So that's a good one. I also I write a blog about etymology with some related information and it's called useless etymology. And then I have a book called Once Upon a Word that I think both kids and parents will enjoy. What kids age would the kids be? It is written for ages nine to 13, but I am told that clever children as young as five enjoy it a lot

and then their parents tend to borrow it. So. Okay. Well, I can't wait to get it, and I'm so grateful to you for coming on and explaining this rather complicated but delightful facet of proto-Indo-European or Indo-European languages. And I was just, I was delighted the entire time. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me on. This was an absolute delight. And if you ever should have need for silly word origins, deep dives and other quirks of the English language, I would be very happy to join you again. I would love and I'm looking forward to it. For everyone else out there, we're going to be back with normal deer hankin' John next Monday. As usual, we took a break to take a breath and I'll tell you what,

I didn't. I just worked through all of the time. I normally would have been podcasting, but I got a lot of important work done and maybe that means that in the future, I'll have to do less. But we'll be back with normal episodes next week. Thank you. And as they say in our hometown, don't forget to be awesome.