Hello, Lady!

In one of my first posts, back in April of last year, i mentioned the word 'dreary' and how it's lost power and meaning throughout the centuries of use. That's now the only direction language flows. It also fills words with more depth, more meaning, more fullness as time wanes onward.

I came across the origin of the word 'lady.' It comes from the Old English (similar to the word 'dreary'). Originally it was spelled 'hlāēfdīge.' Don't ask me to pronounce it; i don't speak Old English. Through the Middle Ages, it transformed into 'lafdi' then 'ladi' to arrive at something close to our current 'lady'. However, the meaning was thoroughly different from what we hold today; 'hlāēfdīge' means 'loaf-kneader.'

The original lady was a job description, similar to butcher, baker, or candle-stick maker. (Maybe that last one went a bit too far.) Our current use, by contrast, is much more broad, and much more rich. We use the term 'lady' today to refer to a woman in a polite manner. We also use it as a title, referring to an individual's social status. We group it in phrases such as 'ladies and gentlemen'--an opening phrase of respect for both genders--and 'lady and the tramp'--a juxtaposition between two individuals of distinctly separate social standing. What once was considered a title of menial labor has become a dignified label of courtesy.

It has also kept a bit of a brusque nature. When used in lieu of a name--'Lady, please pass the salt'--it holds a more direct and impolite weight behind it. Yet even this is a filling out of hlāēfdīge. The word 'lady' projects more than the task of a simple loaf-kneader. It displays a certain vanity, a distinct femininity behind even the most abrupt usage, a femininity that extends beyond kitchen or housework.

Where 'dreary' acts as a cautionary tale of the life that can be drained from a word when used poorly, or overused, 'lady' is a standard to which we can aspire. Language is a sword. When used properly, it is the foil or sabre of fencing; designed for style and specific attack targets. Wielded carelessly, it becomes a machete, a utility that does the job, but tears down much in the process.

Tweet! Tweet!

Phil Corbett, the standards editor at the New York Times, has issued a decree: no longer will the word 'tweet' be used in news articles.

For the uninformed, a 'tweet' is a 140-character message published on Twitter, a social-networking site. For those who didn't quite understand all of that, Twitter is a company based in San Francisco that simply asks you the question 'What's happening?' and your answer to that (in 140 characters or less) allows you to connect with friends in small pieces. You can send status-updates on your whereabouts, thoughts, musings, interactions, overheard conversations, whatever you can fit. You can update through mobile phone, computer, instant messaging, email, and a host of other methods. (Which became useful last year when the Iranian government attempted to silence the political protesters; they still managed to keep the world at large updated through Twitter.)

So a tweet is a short message sent across the ether to the internet at large and your friend/followers specifically. Now that everything is squared away, here's what Corbett says about the word:

Some social-media fans may disagree, but outside of ornithological contexts, “tweet” has not yet achieved the status of standard English. And standard English is what we should use in news articles.

Except for special effect, we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. And “tweet” — as a noun or a verb, referring to messages on Twitter — is all three. Yet it has appeared 18 times in articles in the past month, in a range of sections.

His alternatives are that people 'use Twitter, post to or on Twitter, write on Twitter, a Twitter message, a Twitter update.' He also suggests that once Twitter is mentioned as the medium of communication, reporters 'should simply use "say" or "write" ' for what is published on the site.

I don't disagree with his assessment. The New York Times is a respected news organization. The use of jargon like 'tweet' is a chink in the armor of their credibility and readability.

Where i disagree is in Corbett's use of the attribution. In journalism, the attribution is the most often seen in the words 'John Doe said'. 'Said' is the go-to attribution in news. Simplicity is strength. No need to put 'I love raising beef,' MacDonald beamed. Not only does it distract from the quote itself, but how does beaming say anything? The only action that took place that resulted in the words 'I love raising beef' was MacDonald saying something. Not gufawing, not laughing, not joking, saying.

There are other words to describe this action (speak, utter, claim...), but all others indicate more beyond the simple transmission of words. To say something is enough. It's the neutral action that helps to keep the reporter neutral.

However, Corbett offers 'say' and 'write' as attributions for tweets. Again, this is where i disagree. I'm certain he put 'say' in there as the old standby. However, nobody says anything on Twitter, and i'm not being philosophical. Twits (people who use twitter) write, text, email, post or publish, they don't say. As much as 'Kutcher said' looks newsie, it would more accurately reflect reality, and be correct use of language to put 'Kutcher wrote.'

Big Pimpin'

If language has power (and if 'the pen is mightier than the sword,' how can we argue it doesn't), then we must first recognize what power does to understand what language can do.

There are two things in this world each of us is able to do, two ways of using power. Either we build, create, form and design or we destroy, eviscerate, ruin and obliterate. Create or destroy: those are our options, our only options.

Therefore, since language has power, it may either build or tear down.

We build when we preach 'Love is the final fight' or sing out 'One life but we're not the same/We get to carry each other.' We build when we tell our kids 'Good job,' 'I love you,' or 'Thank you for doing your best.' We build in those moments we talk about injustice as if it were a foreign invader to our way of life. We can build in the quiet moments and when we are louder than the mountains.

Even more easily, we can tear apart and destroy. What takes years to build in words of trust can be destroyed with one tactical lie. Biting sarcasm creates wedges which destroy relationships. The silver-tongued serpent inflicts more pain than brutal honesty from a true friend.

It is with this in mind that i read about Demi Moore and Kim Kardashian's clash over Twitter last week. This conversation via Twitter is what followed.

kk: Big pimpin w @SerenaJWilliams @LaLaVazquez @Kelly_Rowland Love u girls!

dm: Are you using the word 'pimpin' as in pimping?

kk: Doesn't everyone? LOL

dm: No disrespect I love a girls night out but a pimp and pimping is nothing more than a slave owner!

_lyricsexpress: [Kim] may have meant it in the "NEW AGE LINGO" - as in "pimpin" = Cool?

dm: Yeah but a pimp is nothing more than a slave owner!
if we want to end slavery we need to stop glorifying the "pimp" culture

jaeearly: tru but she doesnt mean it quite so literally

dm: It's not her! i/we have allowed it to be considered cool, but it still is what it is!
Just so ya'll are clear I like @KimKardashian I was just making a point about how we have used a word and desensitized the real meaning.
Clearly I stirred up a s**t storm, but to create change you have to be willing to take a risk and be willing to provoke thought & conversation

kk: Nothing wrong with dancing to Big Pimpin' by Jay Z in the club! Having a girls night out, gotta love that song!
Good point! I agree! It was just a song not literal

dm: Thanks for understanding!

Unintentionally, Kardashian used the word 'pimping' in a way that acted in a more destructive manner than necessary. On one level, she used the word as casually as any other and only to colorfully illustrate her night. Unfortunately, it seems more often than not we use language like a young toddler; our only goal is to navigate around our world, but we seem to be stumbling and knocking over mugs of coffee and falling down stairs more often than we gracefully traverse from kitchen to living room.

Using words casually, without knowing the weight of the meaning behind them is akin to tossing a sledgehammer onto the counter; it will break your grandmother's mug, or knock over the blender, spilling smoothie onto your best cookbook.

Carefully consider what words you use. 'Pimpin' glorifies the pimp culture of slavery and prostitution. 'Gyp' is a derivative of gypsy, equating that ethnic group with thievery and cheating. 'Hooligan' first referred to Irish immigrants in Britain who made a ruckus at the various pubs around London.


So watch your words; they have the power to either destroy or create. I know which i want them to do.

America the Beautiful

Sorry for the long delay in postings. In the interim, i have moved, nearly been hired at a new job, disappointed at not getting new job, gained more hours at work, and acted as temporary transportation for a girlfriend without a car. No excuses, but it is my life.

So, without further ado, fuss or any other interference, here are more thoughts on language and how we use it:

It goes without saying that citizens are proud of their countries. It should go without saying, but it doesn't seem to.

Yes, there are most certainly times when a government of whatever country acts in a way certain individuals disagree with, even strongly (universal healthcare, for instance). Yet the very heat of their indignation illustrates just exactly how much they care for and hold high their country, even as they are upset at how it is being run.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being proud of your home. It's natural, even healthy. It's common sense to understand that if you don't like where you live, you should move.

Unfortunately, some people take this natural attitude of appreciation and enjoyment to an extreme.

Let me back up a bit.

Words hold tremendous power. How you talk about something, or even use a word, informs people's understanding of that thing. Therefore, if the leaders of a country use language that refers to their country as 'blessed by God' or 'the place the world looks to for guidance' or other such lofty phrases, it places great weight upon the people.

C.S. Lewis wrote briefly about love of one's country in his book The Four Loves. In the book, he talks about how love becomes a demon when we make of it a god. Continuing the thought along the thread of patriotism, he writes, 'Demoniac patriotism in their subjects . . . will make it easier for [rulers] to act wickedly; healthy patriotism may make it harder.' Therefore, Lewis continues, 'they may by propaganda encourage a demoniac condition of our sentiments in order to secure our acquiescence in their wickedness.'

We see this strikingly in the era between the two world wars in Germany. Through propaganda and due to the countries depressed state, Hitler was able to convince and even encourage the citizenry to fall in line with his wicked plans, including the planned extermination of the Jews and other ethnic and people groups.

Yet even the not-so extreme propaganda is harmful.

Take a deeper look at the United States. How often do we, as citizens of that country, refer to it as the United States? Often, we shorthand it to America, even as we are told by the map and by history that America consists of the entire 'new world,' from Alaska and northern Canada down to the tip of Chile, just north of Antarctica; one pole to the other. The way in which we refer to ourselves betrays that, even subconsciously, we consider ourselves to be the standard to which the rest of the hemisphere should and must fall in line behind.

There is nothing wrong, as i said before, of thinking your home, your country, your nation is the best. There is a reason you have chosen to continue to live there, despite its faults. However, setting up your country as the favorite and degrading all others are close neighbors; one can easily hop the fence over to the other yard without much thought.

The more we idealize and idolize our country, the more prone we become to degrading all others. Yes, the United States is a beautiful country, but where is our Black Forest, our Amazon River? Yes, the United States is vast and grandiose, but can we hold a candle to Himalayas or the the congo? Our mountains are not the largest, our rivers the largest, our monuments the grandest.

Yet even how we speak of our fair country, the words we use to describe her, illustrates our nationalist point of view. Therefore, be mindful of the words you use, the phrases. Even so much as to call us 'America,' while acceptable, shoves a message of elitism into the face of the world.

What's in a Word?

Just finished reading an article. I'm generally not a fan of the word 'just' unless you're talking about if something is right or not. Most of the time people use it as a filler word, stealing away it's true meaning of 'no more than' or 'very recently.' In this case, however, it's true. I just finished reading an article written by Jon Foreman.

In in, he talks about some of the things i've talked about in this blog (see: Connotation of Words & Race). Except, he takes them both into new areas. It was a good read, an enlightening read. Here is an excerpt as well as the link to the rest of the article.

In many ways, words are metaphors pointing to the objects they represent. The word "tree" is not a tree; it is simply a placeholder for the real thing. Our understanding of the world is built upon a deeper set of presuppositions. Meaning demands meaning. Reason demands reason: 1+1=2, only when we agree upon the meaning of these symbols. The same is true for words. Words are our framework of meaning. Every one is a metaphor reaching to something beyond it's simple spelling and articulation.

(From What's in a Word)

Connotation of Words

Every single word has at least two meanings. There are the obvious meanings listed in the dictionary we all become familiar with. These are the definitions of the words. For example, we define the word 'home' as 'a place of residence' but it is also 'to move or be aimed toward,' like a homing pigeon. One word, two definitions.

However, there are more to words than definitions. In his book 'Everything is Illuminated,' Jonathan Safran Foer weaves an intriguing, and sad, tale from two disparate parts. One of them is that of a Ukrainian named Alex, writing a story about his adventure with the author. In his broken English he writes such titles as 'An Overture to the Commencement of a Very Rigid Journey.' His sentences unfold likewise: '[He] is always promenading into things. It was only four days previous that he made his eye blue from a mismanagement with a brick wall.'

What he says is accurate to the definition of the words; one of the definitions of 'rigid' is 'hard,' and 'to promenade' is 'to walk.' What he says is accurate, but how he says it indicates he's not a native speaker. His use of words falls strictly into the structural definitions they carry; his grasp of the language falls below the mark that gives one the ability to speak naturally and effectively.

Another example seems in order. I'm getting pretty heavy on the linguistic jargon.

When you are in a relationship with someone, and i'm talking about more than friendship, you can rightfully say you belong to them, you are theirs, they are yours. It's entirely appropriate to use possessive pronouns when talking about them: my girlfriend, my husband, my lover. However, were you to use 'possess' or 'own' instead of 'belong,' the meaning changes drastically, despite their shared definitions.

When i am owned by you, i become a slave. It's a useful word for property, but people are not property.

When i am possessed by you, my body is not in my control. Demons possess you, people do not.

Each word--possess, own, belong--shares at least one definition with the other two; this does not make them at all interchangeable. If A equals B, and B equals C, that does not mean A always equals C, at least not with language.

Every single word has at least two meanings: one is the definition listed in the dictionary and the other is what meaning we place behind it. This connotation of words drives our language. Without it, we lose nuance and subtlety. With it, we hold multiple meanings with a single word.

Dichotomy of Language

As a people, we enjoy classification. Look at our music: alternative, rock, hip-hop, r&b, reggae, classical, pop, etc. Each of those can then be broken down into sub-genres like hard rock, classic rock, new rock & pop rock.

Unlike music, other areas of life that are, in fact, more complicated than a string of notes and chords are classified much more succinctly.

We talk a lot about black and white but very little about the infinite shades of grey in between.

Your gender is male or female; if you have aspects of both, you are a girlie man or a tomboy.

The news speaks much of the rich and the poor, democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives.

Why do we talk this way? Authors of The Story of English Robert McCrum, William Cran & Robert MacNeil write, 'Of all the world's languages (which now number some 2,700), it is arguably the richest in vocabulary.' They list the number of words in English as over one million. (This is unique words, not counting various verb tenses or word forms.) Within this number are over half a million technical and scientific terms, which leaves 500,000 words that aren't specialized. (Neither do they count words of slang, having gathered their number from the Oxford English Dictionary, which does not catalogue the newest slang.)

We have the words. There is no need to speak in dichotomy, yet we are trapped by the language that surrounds us.

The real problem with this dichotomy is not that it limits how effectively we communicate, but how it creates the mentality that it is Us versus Them. 'If i am a male, then i must not display any feminine traits or i will be seen as less than a man and a traitor to all men.'

Not everything is a war and can be described as Us vs. Them. When we focus so much on what we belong to and what other people don't, or what makes each of us different from the people around us, we lose something. We lose the ability to interact with them fairly, without any prejudice.

I think this is especially damaging in the Church. What Paul describes as the Body of Christ should display unity and be less concerned with whether or not each individual subscribes to a certain and specific viewpoint.

Look how we describe ourselves. We are the Saved; the world is Lost.

Saved vs. Lost (The ultimate brawl will happen Sunday night on Pay Per View! Tune in or be left in the dark!)

When did our battle become with the people we are attempting to show the Light?