Every family has its story. Not its saga; not an endless history of many generations and many continents, but a story that makes those in the know smile. Actually, most families have several, but I recall a single one that seems more and more pertinent with the passage of time. Even if it doesn't seem especially interesting of amusing to an “outsider,” we got a kick out of it.
It concerns an aunt of mine in the 1930s or 1940s. As I remember the story, she was taking an examination for a license to teach in the New York City Public School system. Part of the ordeal involved speech and her speaking voice, and she was declaiming before her inquisitor. She was telling about something that had two parts and she described it as “half [rhyming with 'laugh'] and (remembering the situation in which she was at the time) hahf.”i Having rescued herself from the lapse, she passed the examination, got a license, and spent her working life as a teacher.
Perhaps I have some of the details wrong. It's been a long time and I only heard the story second-hand, but I enjoy it. It reminds me of a time when what you saidii and how you said itiii were considered important criteria for deciding on your personal qualities and upon your ability to transmit a message. So clear and understandable speech were among the requirements for teaching.
It was also a time when radio news broadcasters were expected to speak clearly and without any speech patterns that differed from the “national” sound that the networks preferred, and the broadcaster was familiar with his station's style and pronunciation manual. And reporting then was the act of an individual, not a team; it was unaccompanied by the badinage we now have to endure between the “anchor” and the other reporters. News came straight and without comment – using standard speech, not jargon. And it was a time when the host of a music program could pronounce the names of the composers correctly, and he knew more about the music he was playing than what was written on the album's program notes; when verbal precision was a basic, and an expected, quality for someone communicating with others.
It was a time of precision. It's not important now. Everything is entertainment. Language is of no consequence. At least not in terms of providing meaningful communication. We've learned to live with superficiality, solecism, unconcern, and distraction.iv Machines have taken over. Everyone has a pocket or hand-held devicev to transmit his “status,” about which no one but himself really cares. Our main interest in words is in finding someone's errors, or otherwise trying to act smarter than anyone else. We tend to focus on the oxymorons without giving due notice to the morons who use silly language. And on those who promote euphemisms and other forms of politically correct speech. The cover is more important than the book. Don't pay attention to what's behind the curtain.
And masquerading as erudite by the use of high-sounding, if misleading or unthought-out, language abounds. One of the phrases I find most annoying is “calm wind.” The justification is that on the Beaufort Scale of wind speeds there is a category, Beaufort number 0 [zero], in which the wind speed is less than a mile an hour. It is called “calm.” The idea, however, that there can be such an entity as a “calm wind” – wind that is not moving – makes no sense. But it must be true. I heard it on the radio.vi
And I've heard, repeatedly, of harm coming to “innocent bystanders.” I'm not sure if there are guilty bystanders as well, or whether the intended victims are innocent or guilty. I suspect the newscaster is simply reading from a prepared script, and that neither he, nor the person who wrote script, recognizes how silly it sounds.vii As do the ideas that some situations are “more unique” than others,viii that in difficult situations “both” sides must compromise,ix and the designation of some murders as “hate crimes.” Presumably all the other murders are done for the sake of love. I doubt that the victim is much concerned about which type of murder is designated as the cause of his demise. Either way he's dead and the term used shouldn't affect the severity of hispunishment. As for my perspective, I could care less.x
And we hear all the time of crimes that occur at ATM machines – a redundancy, since ATM itself means automated teller machine – and of stolen PIN numbers, about which the broadcaster reads about right after reporting on the SALT treaty and the latest news concerning the HIV virus. But the problem is not limited to the media. The less than ideal education we receive is aimed primarily at getting us to achieve high scores on our SAT test so we can get a good job with the employer making a big payment into our IRA account. Our education has helped us know the difference between AC and DC currents, LED and LCD displays, and etc. Isn't that special?
No, it isn't. According to volume II of my Webster's New International Dictionary,xi “special” means “Distinguished by some unusual quality ... esp., distinguished by superior excellence, importance, power, or the like.” But that was then. The term nowadays lacks that positive connotation. Dictionaries of euphemisms remind us that “special” really means “mentally or physically inferior,”xii and we're more likely to speak of such things as special students – students who learn slowly if at all – and the Special Olympics – sporting events for the disabled. Actually I shouldn't have used that word. A quadriplegic is not disabled, only “differently able.” I'm not sure what his different and “special” abilities are, but I do know that I mustn't say anything that might damage his self-image. In reality, though, the use of euphemisms is primarily aimed at making us feel less guilty. Very often the objects of our pity are better able to deal with their problems than we are. And the use of tortured terminology is of no help in their adaptation to reality.
But I'm carping. Languages change. They always have and they always will. However the reason shouldn't be that speakers are lazy and don't care, and don't pay attention to what they are saying, and they're hoping and wishing that listeners won't care either. Do that long enough and there won't be any listeners. Sloppiness will make it so.
Next episode: “Fiscal Cliff Notes” – Time to increase taxes and cut back on spending.
i It's funnier told orally.
ii Ideas and word choice.
iii Grammar, logic and rhetoric. The trivium.
iv As Walt Kelly said in 1953 (in “The Pogo Papers”), and Pogo Possum later on, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
v Don't U no? (Perhaps the correct punctuation is a period or exclamation point instead of a question mark, but I'm not up on the current trends and I don't know if the expression is meant as a question or is intended to place emphasis on the statement that precedes it. I suspect it's just the Irish form of “ya know?” but that it's really intended as a mild intensifier [there's an oxymoron for you] rather than a question.)
vi Of course I might have gotten it wrong because I had a bad cold when I first heard it. If only it had been a good cold I'm sure I wouldn't have made any mistake.
vii I suspect, as well, that those involved in the production of the program are similarly unaware of the meaningless nature of the words.
viii Implying that there are degrees of uniqueness, and ignoring the fact that “unique” is an absolute. Something is either unique or it isn't.
ix Of course both sides must compromise. One can't do it alone. Takes two to tango.
x Actually it should be “I couldn't care less,” but common usage has eliminated the correct idiom and replaced it with one that says the opposite of what intends. Know what I mean? I could care less if you don't.
xii “A Dictionary of Euphemisms,” R. W. Holder, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Great Britain, 1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.