The Death and Birth of English

photo from Grammarly

A friend of mine recently posted the photo from Grammarly featuring the quote from Conan O’Brien. The most surprising thing about it is that it is almost a year old and still making the rounds. I have previously mentioned various words of the year as named by various groups. Each so-named word-of-the-year generates the usual pitiful wails from the language purists who remain convinced that Shakespeare, or Dickens, or (insert favorite English author) had the language in its perfect form and we are fools for changing it.

To those purists who have nothing better to do than grouse about the perversion of our language based on societal change I say, “Get over it! English ain't Latin." (Like it or not even spell check knows ain’t is a word.)

Some argue the words selected are too silly or represent a fad. Often they do. Not!* The truthiness** of the Occupy*** movement was challenged by some, but not if they had a subprime**** mortgage. The rise of words expressing the dynamic of society generate the energy that keeps English alive. Rather than killing the language, these words represent the continual birth found in any living language.

Truthfully, those decrying the various words of the year are not attacking the word so much as they disagree with the circumstances that promoted the word to prominence. That is not a question for the linguists who study trends in language but for the society that allowed “selfie” to become a thing. Why are people so preoccupied with taking photos of themselves? I would argue that in a world where everything is social, it’s a cry for attention, “Hey, look at me,” and when the world does not, the selfie offers the illusion of attention, “I’m looking at me.”

Maybe selfie is not so silly.

People, look beyond yourself.

No. Really. Pay attention to the background! No one wants to see your dirty underwear or any of the other embarrassing things captured in that moment of self-affirmation.

In November the various organizations that compile the lists of influential words will again offer their collections. At this point in the year I am at a loss to predict what words will be selected, but I know there will again be the usual uproar predicting the death of our diseased dialects. If it is the typical year, my voice will rise with the others - with the understanding that those cries do not draw us to the funeral parlor, but to the nursery, where we view the continuing birth of English.

*1992, **2005, ***2011, ****2007 words of the year. We may not use them as much, but we still know what they mean.

Lost - or Gained - in Translation

Last week as the anniversary of the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran approached, some groups in Iran were marking the day with celebrations, calling it a “Great Day of Death to America.” The political me wants to get mad at them and be insulted, but the linguistic me thinks it just sounds like too much fun! They have the naming business down!

I want to go! Where can I get tickets for this “great day”?

I cannot even say it without my voice naturally taking an optimistic lilt. Maybe something was gained in translation. I could not help but think about each time I heard some news report mentioning the activities of the day: it sounds so great.

“Death to America” has been a standard translation for anti-American sentiments since the uprising in Iran surrounding the takeover of the embassy and holding the staff hostage for 444 days. It was one of the first great slogans I heard in my life.

Sadly, our politicians learned from the effective sloganeering. Now so much of what we hear is the message condensed to a soundbite - a news show teaser version of Twitter: lacking content, but catchy. The more media fragmentation allows everyone to selectively gather news, the better messengers have been able to shape their content. All manner of hatred has been couched in the most benign phrases.

Bigotry disguised by wholesome language is still bigotry. Labeling of the “others” separates. Demonizing anyone who disagrees becomes easy when hidden behind the latest motivational phrase. Name calling at the SAT level.

All sides are equally adept at manipulating language for their cause. If they were not, at this point, they would not be a side.

As strongly as I feel about certain issues, I intentionally follow sources who feel differently so I can maintain some perspective on the issue. When I feel strongly about an idea, it is because I have information and experience to support those beliefs and drive my actions accordingly. Others have different experiences that alter the way they react to the issue. As long as they have some kind of legitimate knowledge base and experiential case for their beliefs, we can discuss the issue somewhat rationally. When they have no legitimate knowledge base or experience to support their belief and are only relying on what a few talking head thought leaders are saying, there is no way to have a discussion.

Logic cannot debate emotion because emotion does not understand reason. Both are powerful tools at motivating people on issues, but logically approaching an emotional argument will not affect the position of the other any more than an emotional argument will not sway someone guided by logic. Both parties leave the encounter feeling the other as even more utterly wrong than upon entering the encounter.

As a word person, I find myself frustrated at each side’s use of generally innocuous phrases to convey a divisive idea. Whenever challenged about the idea motivating the phrase, the user immediately Shirley Temples some, “golly! How could you ever think that from what I said?” Meanwhile, racism, sexism, and religious bigotry exist openly more freely than in the last several decades.

Until we, in mass, stop letting a handful of “thought leaders” from each political spectrum dictate policy stances, we will continue function from the poles. Fortunately we always have the government we deserve. Despite the rhetoric, I continue to believe we are better than we have acted in the last decade and we deserve a government that is better than we have now.

Justice, Vengeance, or Something Else

Because of the energy-savings program at work in the summer months, we work four ten-hour days each week instead of five eight-hour days. As a result, I was home for the deluge of media – both social and mainstream – coverage of the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Everyone had an opinion about what happened, what could have prevented it, or what mental illness the shooter must have had. By the evening news, much of the originally reported information had been revised or corrected. Nevertheless many of the tweets, posts, and even online news articles remained accessible with the faulty information.

Common in all the media were calls for justice. Depending on the bent of the media, the level of rancor around the call for justice ranged from “string him up” to “life in a mental institution (because only a crazy person would do such a thing).” The more I listened to the discourse, the more it became clear that no one talked about justice: everyone imagined some form of vengeance.

venge•ance [ven-juhns]  noun

1. infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge

2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble.

3. the desire for revenge.

         From Dictionary.com

Vengeance comes naturally when we have been harmed by a known entity. The nature of the attack in Aurora threatened us all because it occurred in a situation common to almost everyone. People doing something people do every day suddenly found themselves caught in a situation beyond what a normal imagination could invent. We all felt the threat and found ourselves imagining that we could have been in that theater and wondering how we would have reacted.

We want to hurt the person who destroyed our sense of safety in a mundane activity.

We falsely latch onto the idea that vengeance guarantees that such an event will never happen again. History shows us that similar events happen repeatedly with new twists inspired by technology available in the time. Our entire penal system works on the principle of vengeance; if vengeance truly worked, far fewer people would be incarcerated.

jus•tice [juhs-tis]  noun

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.

2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason.

3. the moral principle determining just conduct.

4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

         From Dictionary.com

So many of the commentators felt they used the fifth definition of justice when they proposed penalties for the gunman. They failed to meet the definition by speculating without full knowledge of the story. They reacted to the events as the initial presentations captured the emotion of the events as recounted by survivors or assumed by commentators in watching the cell phone videos some took as the event unfolded.

We do not know if the shooter is mentally ill. We do not know the motivation. We do not know volumes related to the case. In the coming weeks and months, because the police captured the (alleged) shooter alive, we will likely be able to develop a more complete understanding of the story. Even so, a clear explanation of why or how the event came to be may never emerge.

Human nature desires concrete answers to events that shatter routine. When they do not emerge, we seek solutions that make us feel better. Vengeance serves that purpose. Justice, when viewed in its fullness, rarely alleviates our pain, so we turn to more drastic measures found in vengeance. I do not blame any of the commentators for their jump on the vengeance bandwagon. We feel better when we imagine the worst possible thing that can happen to a person who does such a heinous act. I simply think we need to be honest in our vocabulary. Justice does not always make us feel good. Vengeance often does.

When I believe I have been wronged, I never imagine justice; I only imagine vengeance. When I talk about it, I call it justice, but it is not. Justice, as a central principle of the United States, is the political word to say. Vengeance, though, orders my thoughts and wishes. It is not as ugly as we imagine; how often do we actually enact vengeance on those who have done us harm? When all plays out, I usually settle for justice. My mind, of course, still considers vengeance, and I let the situation drift into history with all the might-have-beens.

Justice in the Aurora shootings will be hard to define and even harder to enact. Too much pain and suffering extends beyond the walls of that cinema. All of us who go to a movie will, for a period (we have short memories), look at the arrangement and those sitting around us differently. The lives ended and the injuries incurred cannot be redeemed through one maleficent person – regardless of the punishment we inflict upon him.

We can, for a time, relish our darkest thoughts. Eventually we return to the world in which we live. In it we understand the shortcomings of friends and coworkers and we love them for their quirkiness and we compensate for it in planning our daily work. Vengeance has its place, but let us be cautious that it does not become a defining characteristic. Let us embrace justice, even when it fails to satisfy our base needs, and let it define who we are as a people.

Black Like...Really?

Recently a friend mentioned that he named his car Michelle “because it looks like Michelle Obama.” While it is not uncommon for people to name possessions after well-known people, I have never heard someone name a car after a person because they look alike. I did not quite understand the reasoning and pressed the matter.  It turns out that the looking alike was limited to color – both are black.

The admission astonished me.

This person claims to be a progressive Christian.

No wonder the so many people do not see the difference between progressive Christianity and the more traditional Christianity. Ephesians chapter 4 provides many useful guidelines for conducting our life, but very important among them and what should be a defining verse for all Christians is verse 29: “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear.” I freely admit that I have limited use for political correctness and frequently write about extremes in the use of language. Nevertheless, I have no use for statements or actions that are inherently destructive or damaging, whether they were made in all seriousness or for the sake of humor.  

My friend may have intended the naming of his car as a joke, but I think he actually meant it in some misguided attempt at acceptance. Unfortunately, though such comments may be made with a true lack of malice, they carry the full weight of inconsideration and do as much damage as those that are made with harmful intent.  The same Ephesians passage cautions us about being responsive to guidance from the Holy Spirit in all that we do. While no person is perfect, thoughtful consideration will lead to understanding of what is and what is not acceptable speech or behavior.

Such can be the challenge with attempts at being clever, but we have no excuse to damage the witness we have to the world as people called apart.  The last few years have brought too many headlines of the church behaving badly with sex abuse scandals, social stances that represent antiquated (unchristian) thinking, and numerous financial scandals. Such headlines give legitimacy to questions about the relevance of the Church in society. The Church as an instrument of anger and pain in no way reflects the calling of the Church in the world.

Ephesians chapter four defends the purpose of the church and those in it. We must examine how well we uphold the principles behind the purpose of the church and live that our consistently. Unless the church begins to function and garner headlines as an instrument of peace and healing, entire generations will miss the blessing that comes from being in relationship with God.

As much as my friend’s comment personally offended me, it led to the time of reflection about my own comments and my role in the church and the Church’s role in society. I have made many changes regarding the information I take into my mind and the media to which I expose myself in the last months. The more selective I have become in those areas, the more deeply I have been able to reflect on my personal status. At some point the reflection should translate into action or it serves only to be an egotistical exercise in self-aggrandizement – much like the behavior of the Church in the last few decades. For every thing there is a season; now that the season of gestation is complete and the season of growth has begun.

Beyond Necessary

Today I was visiting the classroom of one of the teachers in my department, and I noticed the box of labels on her desk.


I didn't know you needed a label to ship something on the Internet.


It even has permanent adhesive. I guess you cannot delete it once it is received.

My WTF Moment

This week while attending a conference, the information on one of the Powerpoint slides shocked me so much I wrote “WTF” next to the statement on the handout. Just as I wrote it in bold read ink, I remembered what “WTF” means and thought maybe it should not be in my notes from a professional conference.

I am no stranger to profanity, but as one who believes in the power of language, I use it sparingly and almost never in professional conversation. I use it so rarely, one supervisor implored me to use it more in his presence so he would not feel so conscious of his frequent “f-bomb” laced tirades in our leadership team meetings.

Despite all my care in using language, “WTF” was right there on the page in bold red ink. Am I slipping so much that C would be proud of me (and comfortable around me)? As I pondered the benefits of a scratch-out or white-out, I wondered if using it in the abbreviated form really was the same.

After all, 90% of the time I type "LOL" I’m not even smiling. It is to texting what Dr. Hibbert’s laugh is to uncomfortable situations on The Simpsons: it just happens!

The ubiquitousness of texting and Internet chat has created so many short-cuts and simplifications of language that a unique vocabulary emerges across those media, and in the moment of shock, thinking “they really didn’t just say that did they?” I put down the most succinct response I could. The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that “WTF” next to the graphic will draw my attention back to the statement for any future reference.

There on my notes for posterity to see and my one-day archivist to ponder is “WTF” in bold red ink.