Some days ago, I referred to Sarah Teather as Michael Gove's underling, and it has set me thinking about why that suffix is almost always perjorative. Of course, defining someone by an unattractive quality like "weakling" or "underling" is automatically insulting, but I can't think of any words with the good old Anglo-Saxon ending of ling that aren't.
Had I referred to Ms Teather as a hireling, it would also sound pretty bad, as in Doctor Johnson's definition of a state pensioner. Although all it actually means is someone paid for what they do.
Similar the two uses of groundling I have come across are also quite disdainful. Shakespearian scholars always assume the groundlings in his audience (who stood before the stage and were poorest) were the stupidest and crudest, although I don't see why they can't have been as able as some of the people in the stalls. I recently came across a more unusual use of "groundling" in Max Hastings' Korean War history. Again it described the air force pilots as looking down on groundlings who couldn't fly.
The only exceptions I can think of are Tolkein and CS Lewis referring to themselves as Inklings (more of a joke) and a 16th century use of "homeling" to refer to indigenous people.
Perhaps, it is inherently insulting to define someone by one quality and no other.
No comments:
Post a Comment