82 Books & arts The Economist February 13th 2021
I
magine a friendis heading out to
face a difficult task. As a last word of
encouragement before they disappear,
you want to buck them up. What might
you say? If you are speaking English, the
likeliest choice is “good luck”.
If you stop to think about it, that is a
little odd. Though you might indeed
hope luck smiles on your friend, neither
they nor you can do much about the
tumbling dice. What you really want to
wish them is fortitude, not fortune.
Which is why the French, in this sit-
uation, say “bon courage”, not “good
luck”. A French expression for “good
luck” (bonne chance) exists, too, but you
are more likely to wish that to someone
who needs luck specifically—perhaps
heading to the racetrack rather than a
tough appointment.
Mark Liberman, a linguist at the
University of Pennsylvania, noted re-
cently on the Language Log blog that
English does not allow you to pair any
old adjective with any old noun in a fixed
expression. You may wish someone
“good morning”, “good afternoon” or
“good night”, but not “good weekend”.
You can say that phrase if you like, but
your neighbour would look at you quizzi-
cally if you lob it over the fence on a
Friday evening. In other languages it is
perfectly conventional.
Special occasions are another way in
which pleasantries differ. English-speak-
ers wish each other a happy birthday, but
speakers of many other languages say
“congratulations”, as if (to the English
ear) the birthday girl had done some-
thing impressive merely by surviving
another year. The Dutch also say “gefel-
iciteerd” to members of the family, in-
cluding the one who really deserves
congratulating: the mother. This is close
to obligatory, whereas it would constitu-te a strange (if charming) surprise in En-
glish. Dutch-speakers miss the habit when
living among Anglophones.
It is natural to be critical of languages
that lack expressions you consider indis-
pensable. For instance, the Scandinavian
languages lack a word for “please”, one of
the first taught in other tongues because it
softens what otherwise might be a brus-
que-sounding request from a novice
speaker. But Scandinavians are not rude:
they achieve the same end through other,
longer formulations, from “May I ask for?”
in public to tacking on “so you are sweet”
in a request to an intimate. Meanwhile,
Scandinavians must wonder why An-
glophones do not wish each other some-
thing like the Swedish “tack for senast”
when they see a friend again (meaning
“thank you for the previous time we saw
each other”). It is odd, even rude, to omit
this, and having no English equivalent is
vexing for those who are used to it.
It is tempting to draw deep cultural
conclusions from the presence of this or
the absence of that in a language. But
impressions can be misleading. The Ital-ians wish each other “buon lavoro”—
basically “have a good workday”—though
their culture is not known to be especial-
ly work-focused. And German has the
delightful “Feierabend!”, used to wish
someone well as they leave work, though
Germans are not known for a love of
knocking off and relaxing. To conform
with stereotypes, at least, the two lan-
guages should swap those expressions.
Yet some idioms really do say some-
thing about a culture. The expansiveness
of Japanese’s “sumimasen” reveals a lot
about Japan: though usually translated as
“sorry” or “excuse me”, it is used in a
much broader range of situations than
those corollaries. A detailed online guide
to Japanese culture recommends it as the
single word of Japanese to know if you
learn just one. The Japanese might say it
when someone holds a door for them, or
even for interrupting someone’s journey
in the lift by getting on at an intermedi-
ate floor. They are not cravenly apol-
ogetic, but their society values displays
of respect for others. They must wonder
why no single English word has the
suppleness and coverage of sumimasen.
But not having a word for something
doesn’t mean you can’t coin one—or
borrow it. The English say bon voyage and
bon appétit, and there’s no reason to stop
there. When in-person work begins
again, try a “buon lavoro” as your better
half heads off, or a “Feierabend!” as a
colleague leaves for home. When you see
a friend, thank them like a Swede for the
previous time you saw them, and if you
break up someone’s descent in a lift, try a
friendly “Sorry about that!” Congratulate
your mother-in-law on your spouse’s
birthday, and prepare for a delighted
smile back. It may seem awkward or
tricky at first, but you can make it stick if
you try. Bon courage.English lacks many useful expressions. Here are some it could borrowJohnsonAt a loss for words
latest global power list included several In-
dian women; meanwhile, two girls hung
like “dangling puppets” in fields that were
their only toilet. The gulf between India,
nascent superpower, and its rural popula-
tion—two-thirds of the total—was glaring.
After police bungling and a botched
post-mortem, the Central Bureau of Inves-
tigation took over the case. They found no
proof of rape. The family’s eyewitness ac-
counts—describing four Yadav men
snatching the girls—were contradictory.
Ms Faleiro, previously the author of an ac-
claimed book about Mumbai’s dance bars,asks probing questions. Why had Lalli’s fa-
ther bought a phone for Padma that auto-
recorded calls? Where was his own phone,
which held evidence of a conversation be-
tween Lalli and a local youth who now
stood accused of rape and murder? Why
were the girls’ bodies unmarked?
The truth that emerges underscores
“the powerlessness of the poor” and the
stranglehold of the caste system and hon-
our codes. If the Delhi case highlighted the
dangers of public spaces, the hangings
showed that “an Indian woman’s first chal-
lenge was surviving her own home”. Askedhow he might have defended the girls’
tainted reputations, Lalli’s father replied,
“We would have killed them.” Mr Modi em-
phasised women’s safety, yet took a fort-
night to acknowledge the girls’ deaths.
Ms Faleiro’s pithy, cliffhanging chap-
ters fuse true crime with big-picture analy-
sis, blending data with interviews and de-
tail. The result is a sobering portrait of a
country where progress has been under-
mined by inequality, short-termist politics
and Mr Modi’s divisive Hindu nationalism.
It is a powerful indictment of a society fail-
ing its most vulnerable members.