Various Thoughts XI

I've been reminded (most gently) that I sometimes get things wrong. It's something hard for me to admit since I've always seen myself as perfect. (But see “The Law Is An Ass,” June 18, 2017, Comments.) Oh well, the best I can be is close to perfect. In any event, I won't hesitate to inform you of what I consider (close to) the truth – my thoughts. Let's begin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I heard an interesting term today. Self abuse. It referred to damage which people may do to themselves, knowingly or not. No malice is buried in the term, despite the fact that we usually understand "abuse" to imply intentional harm inflicted by one person on another. Words morph. Language changes over time. Does it matter? If children stop understanding what "clockwise" means because all they see are digital listings of the time, there will certainly be another term to convey the same idea. Or will there be?

There have been many proposals over time that we establish some kind of panel to keep track, or even pass judgment, over new words and expressions in (American) English. Is that warranted? Will it work? Words (and the ones I choose are random) don't mean what they did when I was young. "Marriage," "cool," "gay," "liberal," and, in this instance, "abuse" had different connotations if not denotations. And both are at risk of being doomed? Words are losing their value. Is there anything we can do about it? And should we? I'm not suggesting that we stop the development of new words. Only that we don't forget what words used to mean.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm an old-fashioned creep. When I was young, family entertainment included Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver. There was no cursing on TV, and sexual identities were certain. And we got to see June Cleaver, the ideal modern woman.

Times have changed. I'm a fan of Madam Secretary which, when I started watching, was fairly staid. In the past season we have seen an affair, an unplanned pregnancy, a man "coming out" as bisexual, as well as children who often "diss" their parents – at least the son does.

Now, on television and in the movies, cursing is routine and homosexual and LGBTQ themes are rife – disproportionate to the numbers in the live population. At least I hope so. Ditto what we used to call pornography. (Society seems not only to describe and illustrate what used to be viewed as "perversions," but to lionize them – to make them appear mainstream and desirable.) The Supreme Court (notwithstanding Justice Stewart) may view virtually all expression as free, but I'm not sure I agree. (They view all non-dangerous speech as allowable though we disagree about what is dangerous.) It seems to me that there should be limitations as to what we and our children should be exposed to. Not just warnings.

I don't consider myself an enemy of free speech, but parents should not have to read children's books before deciding their appropriateness for their offspring. Or is that unjustified censorship? Should there be some restrictions on freedom of expression or do we live in a world where, as Cole Porter put it, Anything Goes?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lemon flavoured custards, puddings and pies have been enjoyed since Mediaeval times, but meringue was perfected in the 17th century. Lemon meringue pie, as it is known today, is a 19th-century product. The earliest recorded recipe [for lemon meringue pie] was attributed to Alexander Frehse, a Swiss baker from Romandie. (Wikipedia)

I love lemon meringue pie, but I can't imagine how Alexander Frehse came up with the idea. More and more bizarre (in my not-so-humble opinion) combinations of flavors are being promoted – lemon and meringue are, however, not bizarre. What prompts chefs to come up with these recipes other than a desire to “wow” the public, impress the critics, and make money?

It's not just an American phenomenon. The idea of merging chocolate, hot peppers, and chicken is totally foreign to me and I've never tried chicken mole pablano. Neither have I any desire to do so. Talk about illegal immigrants. Perhaps I'm narrow minded but a charred steak is much more appealing. If you start with a tasty product you don't have to add or cover it with strange ingredients. Except, of course, to attract attention and money. I guess those are good reasons.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Time to turn off my brain.

I Love To Write

Kids hate to write. A writing assignment in school is torture. A two-page paper will take forever, if and when it is started. “What will I write about?” “What will I say?” They lack ideas, and their reluctance to set anything down, compounds the problem. If they don't write they don't learn to write. So their thoughts remain unrefined, even if they have some sensible ideas. Lack of confidence in themselves makes silence or superficiality preferable to the risk the criticism by others who might disagree with them. A blank piece of paper, like silence, is golden.

And, should they choose to write, or when they must, nowadays they have an accomplice. With computers there is a strong temptation to enlarge the font or increase the space between lines. That and plagiarism make it easier to complete the assignment when they get up the will to do so. Or if they have an idea that they want to communicate, they do it over social media with a series of unconnected abbreviations, initials, and sentence fragments. Or perhaps an inane video.

I suspect that when I was young I had the same mindset, though I lacked the electronic devices now available to protect me from thinking. In fact I had teachers who wouldn't accept their students' anxiety and hesitancy. They demanded content. Clearly expressed. And with their support their students learned to write full – and grammatically correct – sentences. They learned to express their ideas in a way that others would understand, even if they disagreed. (I don't always see that now, even in the media. Perhaps clarity, conciseness, and correct grammar are no longer in vogue.)

Our teachers had high expectations of us. They wouldn't accept something from us if the felt we could do better. And by a combination of compliments and criticism they convinced us that we could do better. I recall a teacher who praised something I wrote while telling me how it might be improved. His advice has remained with me since. Teachers like that still exist, but with tenure and parental and administrative pressure, more and more are “going with the flow.” Sad.

I didn't go into writing as a profession, but the lessons I learned stayed with me. Words were my passion, and I didn't need to express them to others. They were mine. I'd write what came to mind, and what I didn't throw out wound up in a drawer for development at some undefined future time when I had the opportunity – or not at all. And the drawers filled. No one saw it but I didn't care.

As the years passed things changed. I did some writing – medical papers (not all lucid but most were), letters to the editor (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Jerusalem Post, and many others), bad poetry for the New England Journal of Medicine, and a variety of other written works – in my spare time. I even edited a community newspaper and had an editing position in a state medical journal. But all of these efforts were those of a dilettante who could fit fun into his schedule. Or when the efforts would advance his standing.

It's different now. I'm retired. Now I can write what I want, and I have the time to do so. And writing, through the years, has helped me to develop the ability to say what I mean, whether succinctly or by the use of prolixity. There's a place for both. I don't think it's the absence of humility that tells me that I write fairly well. I'll never be a great novelist or writer of non-fiction, but I've started emptying the drawers and developing some of the ideas I had in my past life. Some of them I've incorporated into this blog – in fact one of the reasons I write it is to expand on some of the ideas I had before, as well as some of the features of modern life that I consider worthy of comment. Choosing to write about them makes me work out those ideas more thoroughly than I would otherwise. As matter of fact, there are times when I decide to write about something simply because I want to work it out in my mind, and writing about it will force me to clarify it for myself. And if no one reads it, or if readers don't take my views seriously that's all right. I'll understand the issue better. This is one case when it is all about me.

I write, then, for a variety of reasons including the ideas (if not the facts) that I'm reasonably good at it and it makes me think. Writing and thought go together in my view.

And I write because it's fun. I can delineate my views without interruption and without having to hear the responses of others who might think differently from me. If I encounter their opinions I can consider them and, perhaps revise my own perspective. But if I do so it will be without pressure and without contention. I'm just as happy if I don't have to confront those with whom I disagree. My teachers have helped me learn how to express my thoughts and I'm grateful to them. I have so much that I want to say, even if others disagree or are not interested.

I love to think and I love to write. They go together.

Various Revelations IV

A few days ago, as a response to Syria's gas attack on its own citizens, the United States struck the airfield from which the planes dropping the gas had come. The attack was roundly condemned by those nations that routinely condemn us for any action and applauded by some of our allies. Interestingly it was not condemned by other countries that usually find fault with us. And that includes many states in the Middle East.

This morning (April 9, 2017), I heard on the radio a criticism of the action by one of our “experts” who claimed we had acted without a strategy. It has become clear that the Syrian regime, among others, takes inaction as irresolution and it provides a background for the furthering of its goals. A few years ago, after a gas attack, President Obama declared the use of gas a “red line” that couldn't be crossed without response. Of course it was crossed and the “response” was a pact with Russia to demand the removal of all chemical agents from Syria. Russia opposed any action against Syria, which was its ally. So Syria was free to act, and it did. Our threat about crossing the red line was not followed up by any real action even though Assad had challenged the president by his continued use of chemical agents.

I don't know the response of the expert mentioned above to the failure of the US to take more definitive action earlier, but it is clear that the “strategy” that accompanied our pact with Russia failed. Perhaps a show of force will have more long-lasting effects than a verbal display of anger. That appears to be the assessment of Middle East nations which have remained silent. They're better aware of the situation than we, and they haven't protested our actions, although they usually join together in opposition to anything we do in the area if it doesn't contain criticism of Israel. Are they beginning to recognize the risks of terrorism? Are our strength and determination welcome signs? Can they identify a strategy we're missing? We'll see.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Two Coptic churches in Egypt were blown up today, Palm Sunday, by ISIS members. (How typical to attack on someone else's holy day, but that's the way you make “holy war.”) Imagine. There are still Christians in the Middle East despite the attempts of some Islamists at ethnic cleansing. It's clear they're not welcome since there has been war against Christians in the area for years. Numbers are dwindling for which the world usually blames Israel. The smallest of the Abrahamic religion is blamed for the attack on the largest, while the one like to take over the lead in a few years is pitied and defended. Meanwhile the Christians seek a place in the region where they can pray openly – and only Israel provides that.

What's most striking is the lack of world response. It's not an issue of consequence to most nations. Christianity may, for the time being have a lead over Islam in number of adherents, but most Christian leaders seem to have little interest in the problem. It seems to be better for liberal church leaders to overlook the actions of Islamic terrorists and blame all problems on Israel and the Jews. Islamophobia is sinful, but antisemitism is not. Antisemitism has a long history and takes precedence over the deaths of Christians, and condemning Israel and the “zionists” overrides any other consideration.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It strides me that Big Brother had the right approach – at least in one way – although he didn't apply it the way I'd prefer. “Newspeak” (and “doublespeak”) makes a lot of sense conceptually. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, we can only think about things for which we have words. For example, nadi in Balinese refers to the idea of “temporarily inhabit[ing] another dimension” (Rheingold, They Have A Word For It) which is not an idea that has much meaning among westerners. We wouldn't think in such terms.

Big Brother redefined words, giving them meanings that suited his political agenda. “Minipax,” which is the “Ministry of Peace” is actually the ministry of war and responsible for perpetuating conflict as justification for the actions of the government and for its longevity; “Miniluv” (the Ministry of Love”) is in charge of brainwashing. After a while people accepted concepts which might be contrary to common sense, but, repeated often enough while excluding all other uses of particular words from public use, became the only meanings that could be associated with those words. Those were the definitions and that became the only thoughts imparted by them.

It works the same way for the rest of us, especially with the rapid changes that occur in slang (and abbreviations and solicisms in the social media). As an example, what used to be “good” or “great” became “bad.” Repeated often enough, and with adequate manipulation the definition could be made to change. And with time, pejorative uses of the word would disappear from our consciousness.

If Sapir and Whorf were correct, and we changed the meaning of “war” to relate to positive interactions of nations – if the idea of fighting were made to disappear – perhaps the reality would disappear with it. Similarly, by establishing a “national language board” or its equivalent, charged with the responsibility of changing the language to meet social and political “needs” we might, at the cost of language, civilize civilization. We have a violent vocabulary much in need of softening. Some changes might be beneficial.

Words Fail Us

If you've been reading these essays, by now you know that I'm a hermit. I hate people and I hate small talk. Mostly people try to inflate themselves with their comments, and I'm not impressed because I'm so much better than they. (For the record, I'm condescending and arrogant. I'm opinionated. I'm a curmudgeon. Contrary to those in Paul's audience, I don't suffer fools gladly. I hate (small) people and small talk. The people are a waste of time and their views border on idiocy.

As for my bad points, I occasionally doubt myself, which doesn't make much sense because I'm never wrong. But we all have our weaknesses, and my most foolish is that I give others the benefit of the doubt when they don't deserve it. If they doubt me they warrant no benefit.)

I prefer solitude and silence. Well, music is OK. But, apart from news, I'm not much interested in what is said on the radio. And even the news broadcasts seem to be designed more to entertain rather than inform. I'm word weary. There doesn't seem to be any refuge from Man's inanity. As I said, I prefer silence. But, according to Jean Arp (1887-1948),

Soon silence will have passed into legend. Man has turned his back on silence. Day after day he invents machines and devices that increase noise and distract humanity from the essence of life, contemplation, meditation. Tooting, howling, screeching, booming, crashing, whistling, grinding, and trilling bolster his ego.

What's worse, is that the situation is deteriorating day by day. Arp wrote in the first half of the last century, and since then the technology has gotten more sophisticated and the language more corrupted. I won't waste my time discussing the infernal electronic gadgets with which we communicate, but I'll limit my remarks to the content – the “corrupted” language. I'm not suggesting that languages don't change with time. They all do. It's to be expected. A few years from now English will be different. And in the past it was different. The English of Chaucer is completely foreign as far as I'm concerned, and Shakespeare is difficult for me when I don't have any commentary to help me. But they're not the problem.

What concerns me more is the way we now use our native tongue. Like, I mean, whatever. Even fillers like “like” have always been an acceptable part of the language, and these, too, are of no great concern (aside from sounding stupid to me). Similarly, words borrowed from other languages – whether they represent specific items like “chutney,” or concepts like “Schadenfreude” – have been adopted and have strengthened English.

More horrifying for me – and what makes me glad that I talk to so few people – is the decision to make our language more and more a political tool. It's not something new. We have long recognized not only that the pen is mightier than the sword, but that the basis of this idea is that words are powerful. Too many among us feel we need protection from some of them.

But modern society has gone too far. We've decided that our first responsibility is to spare the feelings of others. On the assumption that whatever we find indelicate will spark the same feeling in others, we have substituted euphemisms for all “unpleasant” words and ideas. For example, a cretin (in the correct medical sense of the term) is “special,” “challenged:” a dwarf (also a useful medical concept) has “stature issues.” A person we used to call “queer” is now “gay” (although the LGBT population has no problem with the term as is illustrated by such groups as, for example, The Queer Film Society and The Association for Queer Anthropology), and if a movie like “The Gay Divorcee” were remade, the Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire roles would have to be changed significantly. Meanwhile the English language has lost a useful word and concept.

And Ginger Rogers would no longer be an actress. We consider it demeaning to have a feminine term for “actor,” although may languages are gender based. (By the way, “gender” is a linguistic term substituted for “sex” in our culture for a variety of reasons that I won't discuss here.) But nowadays we've tailored our language to egalitarian concepts. She doesn't exist anymore. (That's “she,” not she. We haven't eliminated women – just the pronoun.) And our new gender-free language sacrifices itself on the altar of egalitarian ideas. The singular pronoun for man is “they.” The singular pronoun for woman is “they.” We rebel at the idea of sexually classifying anyone. Male chauvinism must be expunged.

Indeed, we don't risk offending someone else in any way (such as saying “I see” in the presence of one who is blind visually impaired). If something is offensive to any individual we view it as an attack, whether sexual, racial, ethnic, or “whatever.” And that makes it hate speech, which is not politically correct (PC). It's considered by the PC police as offending or causing some disadvantage, or even discomfort, to someone or some group. It doesn't matter if the charge is true. If made, it takes precedence over the Constitution and any right of free speech. And even the accusation of such an offense is enough to tar the accused.

Another imagined crime is “microaggression” which is the interpretation of something that is said, by anyone, as an attack. Such a charge may not be justified by the words themselves or the interpretations of others, but if an individual believes he they is (awkward – in fact wrong – but I don't want to offend anyone) being attacked, everyone must accept that judgment. Paranoia can govern reality.

And there is the demand in too many places for “trigger warnings.” That's the equivalent in other circumstances of movie ratings (like G, PG, R, X, and others) but it's transferred to schools, libraries, and similar settings. Part of the first paragraph of an article in a recent issue of The Atlantic is illuminating:

(see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356)

Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress.

There is a belief among many that people should be warned against books or lectures or anything else that may cause them distress. They should be able to protect themselves from any unpleasant ideas, or concepts with which they disagree. That college students, who presumably are there to be exposed to new, and possibly uncomfortable, ideas should be protected from them, is idiotic, but that's the view of some.

What we're left with is an unrecognizable, emasculated (my word processor had no gender- neutral word for this) language, which restricts our thinking rather than expands it. We are losing the free speech of which we boast. And all in the name of sensitivity.

It doesn't make sense. I'm glad I'm a hermit.

Next episode: “Heresy” – Sticks without stones won't break very much.

Writing It Right

The world is changing. America even moreso. “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

We have learned that we do not live in a homogeneous world; we have learned both by looking at our own history and at the society in which Man lives. Both are changing. We know that the first man killed in the American Revolution was a Negro. We recognize the plight of illegal aliens and are acting to correct the situation. We realize that nowadays a man will not pay for his girl's movie ticket – they'll go Dutch treat. We even let our wives pay for our meals when we go to the Chinese restaurant. We've done away with old and outdated practices which we viewed as evidences of our courteous culture. Prostitution, and other examples of sexual activity, are portrayed on television and in the movies that we watch. In short, many of our practices have to be disabled and replaced with more tolerant ones. We will not be guinea pigs in society's experiment in bias. We won't be gypped.  We will not let ADHD, dyslexia, learning disability or other affliction hamper our progress, nor permit any kind of handicap to limit us. And linguistic change must come first, lest we be left with a dated variety of the Queen's English.

The thought is noble (if stilted), but the language leaves a lot to be desired. Problematic text is indicated. Talk is cheap, but cheap talk can be very costly. Better to speak softly and carry a big eraser.

But the computer is mightier than the pen, and Moosehead Industries has the answer – “EupheWriter.” It's a program designed to rid your text of any language that may be offensive to anyone.

Thus far there are five modules: GendeRighter, that makes any document gender neutered; ERace, that obliterates any race-based references; UnDocumented, to Americanize those whose citizenship may be in question; Expletives Deleted, which can change “R” language into “G;” and Kinder Gentler Words, which tones down the rhetoric against other targeted groups. The sensitive writer can use more than one module at a time, and in any word processor. An efficient way of accomplishing this goal is to purchase Soft Spoken, which includes them all. More modules are on the way. (The program itself was perfected by Anish Bandopadhyay, a Native American from Mumbai.)

The program functions in accord with your needs. You may choose to have it identify but not change questionable language (for example you may decide that “The Postman Always Rings Twice” should not be rendered “The Mail Postal Deliverer Always Rings Twice) or have such verbiage automatically corrected. Depending on your wishes, the corrections may be marked or unmarked. An example of an unmarked version of the text above might look like that which follows:

The world is changing. America even moreso. “Condemn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

We have learned that we do not live in an LGBTgeneous world; we have learned both by looking at our own past and at the society in which people live. Both are changing. We know that the first individual killed in the American Revolution was a person of color. Everyone recognizes the plight of those seeking to become American citizens and they are acting to correct the situation. We realize that nowadays an individual will not pay for their date's movie ticket – they'll each pay their own way. Many even let their partners pay for their meals when they go to a foreign restaurant. We've done away with time-tested and outdated practices which we considered as evidences of our egalitarian culture. Sexual work, and other examples of intimate activity, are portrayed on television and in the movies that the visually enabled watch. In vertically challenged, many of our practices have to be otherwise enabled and replaced with more sensitive ones. We will not be Italian pigs in society's experiment in bias. We won't be cheated.  We will not let different learning, different learning, different learning or other different learning hamper our progress, nor permit any kind of physical disadvantage to affect us. And linguistic change must come first, lest we be left with a dated variety of the gender dysphoric's English.

As you can see, while it's very good it's not yet quite perfect. What is? (By the way, have you ever read the product of voice-to-text technology?) Version 2.0, on which we're working right now, corrects some of the problems. But individualization will remain a feature.

After all, to each their own.

Next episode: “Emphasis" –  That'll larn ya.

 

Do I What?

 

                                                                           
I love my wife. I do. I really do. And I've been in love with her for about 55 years now. In fact our 53^rd anniversary was just a few weeks ago. But that love has changed over the years. Let me explain.

love, like, affect, fancy, care for, take an interest in, be partial to, sympathize with; be in love with; have a love for, entertain a love for, harbor cherish a love for; regard, revere; take to, bear love to, be wedded to; set one's affections on; make much of, feast one's eyes on; hold dear, prize; hug, cling to, cherish, pet., burn; adore, idolize, love to distraction, aimer eperdument, dote on, dote upon., take a fancy to, look sweet upon; become enamored; fall in love with, lose one's heart;

desire, excite love; win the heart, gain the heart, win the affections, gain the affections, secure the love, engage the affections; take the fancy of, have a place in the heart, wind round the heart; attract, attach, endear, charm, fascinate, captivate, bewitch, seduce, enamor, enrapture, turn the head., get into favor; ingratiate oneself, insinuate oneself, worm oneself; propitiate, curry favor with, pay one's court to, faire l'aimable, set one's cap at, flirt.ⁱ

While it hasn't been found in anything he wrote, George Bernard Shaw is usually credited with observing that the US and Great Britain are “separated by a common language.” However true it may be, even if we limit the population being assessed to natives of the United States, the plethora of a word's synonyms may make word use hazardous. The large number of words doesn't mean that they can be used to clarify a meaning. The case in point for today's discussion, as you can see above, is the word “love.”

Love.

“Do You Love Me?”

That's what Tevye asked Golde in “Fiddler On The Roof.”

It seems a straightforward enough question, but it's met with confusion and consternation. It had never occurred to either of them to ask. The issue had never come up. Their marriage was arranged and there was no courtship.

Tevye: “The first time I met you

Was on our wedding day

I was scared'

Golde: “I was shy”

Tevye: “I was nervous”

Golde: “So was I”

Tevye: “But my father and my mother

Said we'd learn to love each other

And now I'm asking, Golde

Do you love me?”

The question was direct. What had never been on the table was there now. Did she love him? In context, there can be little doubt about what he meant. And Golde understood as she answered, “I suppose I do.” That understanding is even more clear when Tevye declares, somewhat hesitantly, “And I suppose I love you too.” The love they felt was one of comfort, familiarity, and, perhaps, resignation. It lacked passion, but they could not envision being without each other.

Yet here as elsewhere the word “love” is more defined by the context than by anything else. And without that word it is hard to express the feeling we may have for our children, for chocolate, for a parade, for our country, a platonic friend, a cool breeze on a summer day, a crush, and certainly not the passion a teen-ager experiences when seeing his (or her) heartthrob, nor the passionate, hot, urgent love so commonly depicted in the movies or on television.ⁱⁱ There are numerous synonyms offered, but when we want to use an “extreme” word, we always wind up with “love.” There's no common substitute that expresses the same degree of affection while suggesting a particular kind of object or activity.ⁱⁱⁱ

I'm more likely to deplore a person, shrink from an ugly monster, recoil at the proposed policies of the other political party, loathe an enemy, or scorn a walk in the woods with a serial killer. And, when appropriate, I can abominate, execrate, detest, or abhor. There's a wide choice of extreme words for “hate.”^iv I can even despise chocolate, but that's unlikely.

English is a huge language,^v and among the many major advantages it has over many others are the facts that words can be used in so many different and seemingly unrelated ways (for example, “kick” the habit, “kick” and scream, “kick” the can, “kick” the bucket), and also that there is a plethora of nuanced expressions – especially adjectives – for almost anything. That doesn't mean, however, that no changes are necessary. As is true of the word “love,” and many other common nouns and verbs, additional words may be needed. New terms are being introduced daily and the expansion of the vocabulary is both inevitable and healthy. That's your assignment. Help us define “love” better than we've done.

Combining meanings and deleting words, on the other hand, may be harmful.^vi As Big Brother demonstrated, the limitation of a word's meaning can limit the thoughts of the word's user.

“Do you love me?”

There may be two minds with but a single thought – but what is it?

Next episode: “For Better Or For Worse” – Hard to tell.

i      Synonyms for the verb “love.” There are equally long catalogs for nouns and adjectives, but I won't use any more space. This list is from some on-line thesaurus (with a few minor changes) – I don't remember which. I hope I'm not violating any copyright laws. This isn't meant to make any money for me or to be used as a thesaurus. It just seemed to be the best way to illustrate a point I want to make.

ii     At least I don't know of any single word usable in polite conversation that can convey this kind of love, and no words that can express the extreme pleasure of the others.

iii    That's not true of all languages. In some there are different words which can be used to designate the different types of love. (In some there are other differentiations that English lacks – perhaps specific words for the donning of shoes, a shirt, or another garment.) We lack a word that says “Let's not get into any discussions about love, I just want to jump into bed with you.” (Who wants to talk then anyway?) And it would be nice if there were extreme and specific words that connoted patriotic or other non-personal love as well as parental and non-sexual love of other people.

iv     Unfortunately, even though there is a wide variety of words that can be used to denote extreme hatred, they, too, require context and can't express the object of the hatred unless it is spelled out.

v      The large number of words in English – possibly larger than that in any other tongue – is not a substitute for words that are more expressive of particular ideas. In fact, the requirement that some words have an extensive delineation of the context may be the basis of the need for so many words.

vi     Consider a participant's loss of immediate understanding when, during a conversation, and for primarily political reasons, words like “marriage” and “partner” are used to describe same sex unions as well as those between members of opposite sexes. However appropriate the different unions, not that it's anyone's business, the language suffers because the old term is being made to cover very different situations, rather than would be the case with the creation of a new word to characterize a newly legitimated circumstance. Such merging of different ideas in a single word my cause confusion in the hearer. The blurring of distinctions leads to the blurring of thought.

Morons And Oxymorons

                                                                                                 

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 device^v 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.

xi     Second Edition, G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, Springfield, Mass. 1940.

xii    “A Dictionary of Euphemisms,” R. W. Holder, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Great Britain, 1995.

 

You Don't Say

                                                    

Language changes. There's nothing original in that thought. It's hardly a unique insight. Anyone who's tried to read an original version of “Canterbury Tales” will attest to it. Even Shakespeare's works are not fully understandable without explanatory notes. Many of the words and idioms have changed in meaning or have disappeared since he set them down.

But it's not only a process from the past, it is one continuing today. Slang has always been an important component of change. Perhaps it's a tool of rebelling youth – a way of linguistically setting themselves apart from their parents and from previous generations. And their punishment for it is that their slang will be laughed at by their own children, who will use newer slang as a secret language which is opaque to them. What goes around, etc.

Language is also changed by technology.ⁱ Everything is. It's happening more rapidly now, though, than it did in the past because modern technological change is raging, while before it was more likely to have been sauntering. New words are needed daily to describe the new technology and the ideas of a changing society. In addition, the tools, themselves, may demand language changes. Instead of writing we text; instead of sending a long hand-written letter to a friend, we limit our characters and send it 2 him (or her) via “the cloud.” When we reach out to touch someone we only have to go as far as our belt or fanny pack or purse. So we can connect more quickly and with fewer strokes. 2, 4, and 8 are no longer numbers, but words. And, as Cambridge University has been reportedⁱⁱ to have shown,ⁱⁱⁱ if words are used, they need neither be complete nor correctly spelled. As long as the first and last letters are properly positioned, the word will be understood. Orthography be damned.

School marms don't change, however. Deviations from what they learned in school are apt to be circled in red and criticized. They tend to be prescriptionists^iv when it comes to evaluating words. Not that such a perspective is so bad – especially when it comes to early learning. There's no question that kids will learn bad usages, expletives, slang, and dialect on the street. That's where they learn most of what we try to keep from them. And most of the basic language is learned – for better or worse – away from the classroom. So it shouldn't be a surprise, nor is it undesirable, that the subtleties of “standard” language, should be learned at school. Though they may turn in different directions, it seems reasonable that our children should all start on the same page. Whether they follow at all, we have to try to lead.

It's also important to teach the etiquette of speech. It's a large topic ranging from practices like bragging, disparaging, insulting, lying, gossiping, and interrupting, through such activities as speaking when silence would be preferable – like during a funeral or when attending a public performance. Speaking should also be avoided (especially loud speech) on a cell phone in a public place. Additionally, many would prefer not to hear your conversation at all, and would even take offense at your rudeness. It's almost as bad as putting someone on hold or call waiting.^v And when your talking distracts you from more something more significant, it should be avoided.^vi (Some adults should be seen and not heard.)

But those considerations simply reflect lack of concern for danger or for other people. Care and courtesy should accompany all our activities, whether we're descriptionists or prescriptionists.^vii There are many who believe that what makes us human, what distinguishes us from the “lower” animals, is the ability to speak and communicate. We're certainly not alone in possessing those skills, but we may be the only ones to find a way – actually many ways – to misuse that ability.^viii

So we try to use it carefully, and sometimes we monitor others too closely – not just as prescriptionists, but as guardians of all those who may take offense – or who we think should take offense – at the use of what really are accurate statements. The substitution of euphemisms and politically correct speech has been harnessed to protect the sensitive, and those who hear “hate speech” and abuse when it (often) does not exist; an act undermining basic freedom of speech, even if it doesn't actually discard it. But that's one of the ways that change takes place.^ix A genuine prescriptionist would probably have mixed feelings about such usages since while they do represent protective practices utilizing correct, though often misleading constructions, they were taught better and more accurate ways of saying the same thing with a more authentic historical basis. A descriptionist would nod and smile. (“Freudian slips,” spoonerisms, and other such slips twixt the tongue and the lip, on the other hand, reflect errors rather than alterations in language, but we must accept them for what they are.^x)

In any event, we're not going to slow change down. As a matter of fact it's likely to accelerate as modern devices spread new usages and new words at an ever-increasing rate. No matter what we do, that will happen. Prescriptionists may delay things but they won't stop them. And the descriptionists will keep the rest of us up on the results.

According to Voltaire,^xi “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But you don't have to do that, and it won't help anyway. The changes will occur whether you like them or not.

Next episode: “Mixed Messengers” – Sez who”

 

 

i       Marshall McLuhan said “The medium is the message.” That's not really what I mean. The message is the message – although how we express it may be governed by the way we say it, in terms of both the medium on (or in) which it's being expressed, and who or what [organization] is saying it.

ii    The claim has been made in many publications and widely circulated on the internet, but no original publication has been located.

iii    The idea is appealing, but it isn't at all clear that it is true.

See: http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/

iv   Prescriptionists tell us the RIGHT way to define and use words. They're the ones who are forever correcting you.

v    The same is true, of course, when you speak on the telephone while someone is standing next to you trying to get your attention (your child, perhaps), or when your call distracts you from someone – or something – nearby.

vi    The range of such activities is wide here as well. Most people would think of gabbing on a cell phone while driving, but people may also be distracted while walking. And in addition, people may waste valuable work time while standing around the water cooler when other tasks need to be done.

vii   Descriptionists tell us how words are actually defined and used. They don't pass judgment. They allow some of the greatest perversions of the language without making a peep.

viii    Our prosencephalons (look it up) let us do both.
ix    See the essay “Watch Your Language” that appeared August 5, 2012.

x      Don't give up the slip.

xi    “According to Voltaire” because he probably never said it. At least there is no written record of such a statement. Wikipedia contains the following citation: In his A Book of French Quotations (1963), Norbert Guterman suggested that the probable source for the quotation was a line in a 6 February 1770 letter to M. le Riche: “Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”