A lovely locution -- not!

Language has its fashions, fashions that wax and wane.  The waxing and waning of fashions in slang, a form of language defined in part as being "ephemeral," are even more volatile.

Some slang expressions come and go rapidly; others hang around for generations.  Some are irritating the very first time we hear them, and grow only more irritating with the passage of time.  Sooner or later, they pass away, perchance only to spring to life once more, even after we believed them properly dispatched with a wooden stake pounded through their clichéed hearts.

Take "not," for example.  Not as "not" is traditionally used, but as a word, standing alone at the end of a sentence, negating the truth of that sentence and, indeed, holding the sentence of which it is putatively a part up to the reader's scorn and derision.

According to Urban Dictionary -- that indispensable arbiter of all modern usage -- "not," so used, originated with the 1992 slacker movie, Wayne's World.  Urban Dictionary presents an example from the screenplay: "What a totally amazing, excellent discovery... NOT!!!"  No further explanation of the "not" usage is necessary.  We've all heard it; we've all deplored it; we've all used it ourselves on occasion, in our vain efforts to sound "with it" when speaking to younger generations.

But "not's" heyday was the 1990's.  One might be excused for believing that "not" had fallen from favor by 2014, that it sounded almost as dated as "23 skiddoo" and "so's your old man," even to the tin ears of an aging would-be hipster.

And yet -- and here's the reason for this post's diatribe -- take a look at the May 10 issue of that most proper, most erudite, most British publication, The Economist.  Specifically, take a gander (nice word!) at the headline on page 46:  "An easier part of the world -- not."  Then, swiftly move ahead to the headline on page 51:  "Made in France, not."

It is to weep.  Shouldn't we expect the magazine most likely to be found on the upper middle class's coffee table (along with the New Yorker) to use slang, if at all, only when the slang is fresh?  Or should we be unsurprised that a magazine of its august pedigree should be twenty years behind the times in its grasp of trends in contemporary language usage?

A question that I cannot answer, and that I leave as an exercise for the reader.

But what next?  If The Economist's editors live still in the realm of Wayne's World, what new horrors may be forthcoming?  "Party on," the magazine may exclaim.  Or, "Vladimir Putin's such a stud -- SCHWING!"  Perhaps we'll read a clever retort to a serious statement on foreign relations by President Obama -- "That's what she said!"  Are there no limits to this reputable magazine's puerility?

As the magazine itself at times reminds us, "Only time will tell."