Maxwell Institute And " Utahans"

Scott Lloyd · July 8, 2014

From a blog post on the Maxwell Institute website:

This week, Utahans have two chances to meet Mormon scholars Adam Miller and Joseph Spencer to get some books signed or hear some of their reflections on the relevance of scripture.

Now, it is a fact that virtually every indigenous mass-media organ in the Beehive State refers to residents of Utah as Utahns, not “Utahans.”

It is also a fact that we here in Utah have long resisted attempts by officious outsiders to impose upon us their favored version of a word that denotes what we are.

On a prior occasion here on this board, I have made a case that it makes far greater sense to write it as Utahns. In view of the fact that the final consonant in Utah is not voiced, it makes no more sense to write it as “Utahan” than it does to refer to residents of the respective states as California-ans, Montana-ans, Iowa-ans, Alaska-ans, Arizona-ans, Georgia-ans, Indiana-ans, Louisiana-ans, Nebraska-ans, Nevada-ans, North Carolina-ans, South Carolina-ans, North Dakota-ans, South Dokota-ans, Oklahoma-ans, Pennsylvania-ans, Virginia-ans or West Virginia-ans.

Furthermore, if one needs a precedent for dropping the final, unvoiced consonant in pronunciation, we have it in Arkansans (as opposed to Arkansasans).

I know that Blair Hodges, the author of the above mentioned blog post, and an erstwhile poster on this message board, if not a native Utahn, has certainly lived here a good, long while, long enough to be as acquainted with local preferences as any local journalist or practitioner of mass-media communications. One thus wonders why he chose the expression “Utahan.”

Perhaps it was an oversight or a quirk on Blair’s part. But I think it a greater likelihood that it was in conformance to some in-house style guide in use at the Institute.

If that be the case, and if they really do desire to connect with Utahns (as apparently they do, given the fact they are proclaiming this opportunity for “Utahans” to meet authors of some of their publications), they really ought to consider changing that provision lest they be viewed as snooty egg heads who know better than the locals how things ought to be.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

The Nehor · July 8, 2014

I am more offended that they think I would be excited to talk to two scholars who are willing to reflect on the relevance of scripture.

wow.....thrilling......can't wait.....no....sorry.....BORING!

Scott Lloyd · July 8, 2014

I am more offended that they think I would be excited to talk to two scholars who are willing to reflect on the relevance of scripture.

wow.....thrilling......can't wait.....no....sorry.....BORING!

It is within the province of any publisher to promote its publications through activities such as book signings, meet-the-author events, etc.

I certainly do not fault them for that.

rongo · July 8, 2014

Wait ----- there are actually signs of life from the post-Peterson Maxwell Institute? If you can call it life . . .

Will NAMI be subject to market forces (read: interest of subscribers and potential subscribers)? Has anything been produced yet that wasn't already in the pipeline under Peterson?

Tiki · July 9, 2014

Edited July 9, 2014 by Tiki

mfbukowski · July 9, 2014

If that be the case, and if they really do desire to connect with Utahns (as apparently they do, given the fact they are proclaiming this opportunity for “Utahans” to meet authors of some of their publications), they really ought to consider changing that provision lest they be viewed as snooty egg heads who know better than the locals how things ought to be.

Hey, to a Utahn, since when is anybody who can read NOT a snooty egghead?

(ducking for cover as rifles blast from the cabs of pickup trucks)

-- teasing, just teasing--

strappinglad · July 9, 2014

I'm sure USU78 would prefer if they were all called Utes.

Robert F. Smith · July 9, 2014

From a blog post on the Maxwell Institute website:

Now, it is a fact that virtually every indigenous mass-media organ in the Beehive State refers to residents of Utah as Utahns, not “Utahans.”

It is also a fact that we here in Utah have long resisted attempts by officious outsiders to impose upon us their favored version of a word that denotes what we are.

On a prior occasion here on this board, I have made a case that it makes far greater sense to write it as Utahns. In view of the fact that the final consonant in Utah is not voiced, it makes no more sense to write it as “Utahan” than it does to refer to residents of the respective states as California-ans, Montana-ans, Iowa-ans, Alaska-ans, Arizona-ans, Georgia-ans, Indiana-ans, Louisiana-ans, Nebraska-ans, Nevada-ans, North Carolina-ans, South Carolina-ans, North Dakota-ans, South Dokota-ans, Oklahoma-ans, Pennsylvania-ans, Virginia-ans or West Virginia-ans.

Furthermore, if one needs a precedent for dropping the final, unvoiced consonant in pronunciation, we have it in Arkansans (as opposed to Arkansasans).

I know that Blair Hodges, the author of the above mentioned blog post, and an erstwhile poster on this message board, if not a native Utahn, has certainly lived here a good, long while, long enough to be as acquainted with local preferences as any local journalist or practitioner of mass-media communications. One thus wonders why he chose the expression “Utahan.”

Perhaps it was an oversight or a quirk on Blair’s part. But I think it a greater likelihood that it was in conformance to some in-house style guide in use at the Institute.

If that be the case, and if they really do desire to connect with Utahns (as apparently they do, given the fact they are proclaiming this opportunity for “Utahans” to meet authors of some of their publications), they really ought to consider changing that provision lest they be viewed as snooty egg heads who know better than the locals how things ought to be.

Or maybe it's Blair's form of passive aggression.

Kenngo1969 · July 9, 2014

I'm sure USU78 would prefer if they were all called Utes.

Aggies?

Hoosier · July 9, 2014

My wife has always called them Utards

David T · July 9, 2014

From a blog post on the Maxwell Institute website:

Now, it is a fact that virtually every indigenous mass-media organ in the Beehive State refers to residents of Utah as Utahns, not “Utahans.”

It is also a fact that we here in Utah have long resisted attempts by officious outsiders to impose upon us their favored version of a word that denotes what we are.

On a prior occasion here on this board, I have made a case that it makes far greater sense to write it as Utahns. In view of the fact that the final consonant in Utah is not voiced, it makes no more sense to write it as “Utahan” than it does to refer to residents of the respective states as California-ans, Montana-ans, Iowa-ans, Alaska-ans, Arizona-ans, Georgia-ans, Indiana-ans, Louisiana-ans, Nebraska-ans, Nevada-ans, North Carolina-ans, South Carolina-ans, North Dakota-ans, South Dokota-ans, Oklahoma-ans, Pennsylvania-ans, Virginia-ans or West Virginia-ans.

Furthermore, if one needs a precedent for dropping the final, unvoiced consonant in pronunciation, we have it in Arkansans (as opposed to Arkansasans).

I know that Blair Hodges, the author of the above mentioned blog post, and an erstwhile poster on this message board, if not a native Utahn, has certainly lived here a good, long while, long enough to be as acquainted with local preferences as any local journalist or practitioner of mass-media communications. One thus wonders why he chose the expression “Utahan.”

Perhaps it was an oversight or a quirk on Blair’s part. But I think it a greater likelihood that it was in conformance to some in-house style guide in use at the Institute.

If that be the case, and if they really do desire to connect with Utahns (as apparently they do, given the fact they are proclaiming this opportunity for “Utahans” to meet authors of some of their publications), they really ought to consider changing that provision lest they be viewed as snooty egg heads who know better than the locals how things ought to be.

Have you contacted Blair to ask him about it, one writer for a Church owned institution to another?

Edited July 9, 2014 by David T

Scott Lloyd · July 9, 2014

Have you contacted Blair to ask him about it, one writer for a Church owned institution to another?

I think Blair still follows this board somewhat. He might even weigh in here.

cinepro · July 9, 2014

Or maybe it's Blair's form of passive aggression.

Well, now that I've read Scott's analysis of the words, I know which one I'll be using.... :diablo:

Scott Lloyd · July 9, 2014

I'm sure USU78 would prefer if they were all called Utes.

Except that, as Ken has mentioned, USU78, as a Utah State University alum, would be an Aggie.

Scott Lloyd · July 9, 2014

Well, now that I've read Scott's analysis of the words, I know which one I'll be using....

So glad to be of help.

sethpayne · July 9, 2014

Well I certainly can't speak for Blair. But when I write, I will often make spelling errors or use a word that isn't appropriate for a given audience. John Williams recently helped edit one of my papers and he pointed out a specific case where it would be better to use one form of a word over another (in this case a word used in the UK but where in the US another form of the word is the norm).

This is to say nothing of when I spell one word correctly but it wasn't the word I should have used grammatically, etc... Those don't pop out at you because they usually are not caught by spell check etc...

When I see "Utahns" vs "Utahans" I immediately think that that's something I have done in blog posts.

My typos or grammatical errors are generally not packed with obscured meaning.

And FWIW, I've never even heard of any debate/discussion on the subject. I had no idea people actually argued about it. It just seems obvious, to me at least, that "Utahn" is the correct form.

Scott Lloyd · July 9, 2014

Well I certainly can't speak for Blair. But when I write, I will often make spelling errors or use a word that isn't appropriate for a given audience. John Williams recently helped edit one of my papers and he pointed out a specific case where it would be better to use one form of a word over another (in this case a word used in the UK but where in the US another form of the word is the norm).

This is to say nothing of when I spell one word correctly but it wasn't the word I should have used grammatically, etc... Those don't pop out at you because they usually are not caught by spell check etc...

When I see "Utahns" vs "Utahans" I immediately think that that's something I have done in blog posts.

My typos or grammatical errors are generally not packed with obscured meaning.

It is good (and characteristic) of you to be so charitable, sethpayne, in extending to Blair the benefit of the doubt.

You'll recall that I, too, held open the possibility that it may have been an oversight on Blair's part. But my regard for his skill, facility and professionalism as a communicator is such that, weighing the possibilities, I find it less likely that this was unintentional and more likely that it was in adherence to some in-house style sheet or guide.

I confess I find the latter possibility the more disturbing of the two, as it tends to feed the perception some of us have that the Maxwell Institute as currently constituted has something of an ivory-tower mentality such that they would not deign to refer to Utah residents as the residents themselves would, but choose, rather, to be like their out-of-state, erudite friends in "the academy" who, they think, would be more apt to express it as "Utahan."

It's a matter of implied reach: Do they care about "the Relief Society sister in Parowan" or "some old high priest in Ogden"? I think the classic Maxwell Institute did.

Of course, I may be entirely off-base on all of this. And, in the final analysis, it's no big deal. I just find it to be interesting grist.

And FWIW, I've never even heard of any debate/discussion on the subject. I had no idea people actually argued about it. It just seems obvious, to me at least, that "Utahn" is the correct form.

If you have a spare minute sometime, do a Google search on the terms "Utahn" and "Utahan." You'll get quite an interesting background in just a few hits.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

David T · July 9, 2014

I think Blair still follows this board somewhat. He might even weigh in here.

Just seems uncharitable, especially for someone who works in public media, to blast out a public complaint that decidedly does not give the reasonable benefit of the doubt, making Blair out to be an offender for a word without reaching out personally to clarify, when I'm sure you have the means to do so.

I have seen you condemn those who do very much the same thing when the subject of uncharitable interpretation happens to be someone you tend to agree with more regularly.

Or perhaps, on reflection, this whole post was designed to be satire. In that case, bravo.

Edited July 9, 2014 by David T

Scott Lloyd · July 9, 2014

Just seems uncharitable, especially for someone who works in public media, to blast out a public complaint that decidedly does not give the reasonable benefit of the doubt, making Blair out to be an offender for a word without reaching out personally to clarify, when I'm sure you have the means to do so.

I have seen you condemn those who do very much the same thing when the subject of uncharitable interpretation happens to be someone you tend to agree with more regularly.

I haven't blasted anyone. I've commented on what I saw on a public blog.

I suggested a couple of possibilities and selected which of the two I think is more likely.

Blair, who in times past has posted frequently on this very message board, is welcome to come on and clarify. Knowing Blair, I would be inclined to accept his explanation.

And I would not fault Blair or anyone else for conforming to a set of style guidelines. I do that very thing, day in and day out, and I confess I don't agree with every single one of our guidelines. But it's what people who work for professional publishers do.

I would be more apt to chide the publication for having a certain style guideline in the first place, if I didn't like the guideline, than I would the person who followed the guideline.

Or perhaps, on reflection, this whole post was designed to be satire. In that case, bravo.

Well, no, it wasn't intended as satire. But neither was it intended to be as heavy and hostile as you're receiving it as being.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd · July 9, 2014

Update: I did a Google search a while ago and found an instance in Blair's old blog, "Life on Gold Plates," in which he used the word "Utahan." This was in his transcription of a symposium he attended quite a while before he went to work for the Maxwell Institute.

So maybe this is a Blairism after all. In that event, I would stand corrected.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

sethpayne · July 9, 2014

Interesting.

Looks like the word usage has flipped but that right now the words are in a dead heat.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Utahn%2CUtahan&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2014&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CUtahn%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CUtahan%3B%2Cc0

sethpayne · July 9, 2014

From 2000 - 2008

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Utahn%2CUtahan&case_insensitive=on&year_start=2000&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CUtahn%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CUtahan%3B%2Cc0

Scott Lloyd · July 9, 2014

Interesting.

Looks like the word usage has flipped but that right now the words are in a dead heat.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Utahn%2CUtahan&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2014&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CUtahn%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CUtahan%3B%2Cc0

These are amazing, sethpayne! I didn't know you could do this with Google.

I wonder what's driving the rapid decline for "Utahn" since the late '90s. Certainly not local usage.

Wait, are these proportionate comparisons or are they quantitative?

Edited July 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd · July 9, 2014

At the Merriam-Webster web site, under the entry for "Utah," I found a couple of interesting comments, which I will copy and paste here:

Official Utah government documents and the U.S. Government Printing Office always use Utahn, and NEVER use Utahan. Growing up in Utah I never heard it pronounced Utahan until Frank Laden (who speaks with a thick eastern accent) became the coach of the Utah Jazz basketball team. When someone says "Utahan" it sounds like they are speaking with a drawl. This incorrect spelling and pronunciation has been perpetuated by people who never bothered to consider what Utahns call themselves (dictionary publishers included). It's kind of like going to Oregon and pronouncing Oregonian wrong. The locals pronounce it "or-go-nee-un," and you will be quickly corrected if you say it wrong.

Funny thing is, in Utah, people only refer to themselves as Utahns. It's outsiders who insist on calling us Utahans. That's difficult to write, let alone pronounce. You'd think Webster, or any other reference book, would consult locals about their preferred moniker.

So I'm not the only one with a burr under his saddle about this.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

sethpayne · July 9, 2014

These are amazing, sethpayne! I didn't know you could do this with Google.

I wonder what's driving the rapid decline for "Utahn" since the late '90s. Certainly not local usage.

Wait, are these proportionate comparisons or are they quantitative?

Looks like it is just word or phrase incidence taken from a sample from 5.2M books ... If I'm reading this correctly. Certainly not a perfect indicator. But interesting nonetheless. I wonder if the data is skewed because Google may have less access to works currently not in the public domain? But then again, I do see a lot of new releases sold via Google Books so perhaps Google has access to that data as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ngram_Viewer

Sign In

Maxwell Institute And " Utahans"

Recommended Posts

Scott Lloyd

The Nehor

Scott Lloyd

rongo

Tiki

mfbukowski

strappinglad

Robert F. Smith

Kenngo1969

Hoosier

David T

Scott Lloyd

cinepro

Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

sethpayne

Scott Lloyd

David T

Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

sethpayne

sethpayne

Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

sethpayne

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse