Letter to the editor:
Words are malleable, and they can deceive
Wed, Jul 23, 2008 (2 a.m.)
David Brooks’ commentary in Thursday’s Las Vegas Sun, “Human behavior is, after all, a mystery,” is an excellent summation of a puzzling phenomenon. He breaks it down into (1) the genetic process, (2) environmental factors and (3) the fuzziness of words.
I’ll limit my comments to the meaning of words. Meanings change, sometimes frequently, sometimes dramatically. Consider the word “sanction,” from Latin through French to English. Originally it meant “to render sacred.” Not the way President Bush uses it. When he urges the world to sanction Iran, he wants to penalize that country. Bottom line: Meanings are in constant flux.
And yet words, in the hands of a master, can occasionally slice through time and place to touch a small portion of the ultimate reality. Case in point: Shakespeare’s “Bees to the honey/Moths to the flame.” Genetic determinism?
Here’s a little experiment for all the teachers of literature and creative writing. Distribute copies of the short story “The Glass Man” to your students, but not before you black out the name of the author. Ask them who wrote it. Most of them will probably say Ray Bradbury, the great American science fiction writer. Any fool can see that. Wrong! It was Cervantes, hundreds of years before Bradbury was born.
Unfortunately, the flux in the meaning of words more often leads to confusion, evasion, even deliberate deception. (Example: It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.)
Jargon in the soft sciences frequently hides ignorance (see especially “psychobabble”). Spouting jargon is like an octopus squirting ink to hide from a predator. What’s a sloppy thinker to do, if challenged? He can reply contemptuously that, to paraphrase Lewis Carroll, his words mean exactly what he says they mean, nothing more, nothing less.
It’s time for hard science to step in.
Discussion: 2 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Boy, 17, stabbed to death in church parking lot identified
- Casino win on Strip declines 8th straight month
- Court: Wynn tip dispute to be decided by Labor Commissioner
- Drug cartel’s hidden Nevada pot farm seized
- Gambler pursues very small claim
- Man arrested in deadly stabbing of mother
- Wynn: Encore will take hit despite ‘position of strength’
- Obama rally brings Timberlake to town
- Dust affecting travel on Interstate 15
- Corrections department unaware of potential voter fraud
Blogs
Elsewhere
Klitschko aims to reclaim WBC title
Sports: UNLV
Women's soccer match moved to noon Saturday
Lopez '100 percent' a Rebel; two ex-Pilots return to Findlay (4 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Group accuses Beers opponent of "fuzzy math" (2 Comments)
Elsewhere
UFC's White upset by rumors of fixed fight (1 Comment)
Sports: Upon Further Review
Pardy is first Wranglers skater to play in NHL
Dyachenko nets a 2-2 tie for United in Costa Rica
The Greene Room
Mayne excited to do what he does best at Thomas & Mack next Friday (1 Comment)
Calendar
- Oktoberfest at Casino MonteLago (5 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
- Start! Las Vegas Heart Walk at Mountain's Edge Exploration Park (8 a.m. to noon)
- On Being Good at Reed Whipple Cultural Center (9 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
- Family, Fur & Fun Festival (10 a.m. to 4 p.m.)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.


If you want hard science to step in and try to control the meanings of language, good luck. You'd be better served reading the vast body of writings in semiotics, particularly those devoted to language practices. Who, exactly, do you propose will police the limited-meanings approach you advocate? Are you going to fine me, or jail me, if I fail to use an expression according to its "intended and appropriate" use? Like it or not, language is a 2-edge sword. Yes, its flexibility does lead to ambiguity, but that same flexibility leads to creativity and discovery. Would it not make more sense to promote advanced education of the masses so that they are not so prone to manipulation by the linguistic abuses you identify, rather than trying to follow the same language control path of all fascists?
I don't think the author realized how unclear this article is. Oh the irony.