Language and words

[rhod01]

`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Do you recognise this? And what do you think about it?

[Nono]

I think that by repeatedly bringing words into proximity with each other you can alter the way people interpret them: semantic deformation.

Example: 911 & Saddam.

[dalin]

^ nice point.

I think we can engage in language. Ultimately, our previous contact with certain words, and as Nono said the context in which we encountered them shapes their meaning for us. Orwell examined that idea poignantly I think.

But as much as experience determines an individual's engagement with language, their particular use of it alters it in a way, by reinforcing or rejecting the nuances that are shoved in it. Moving from thought to language is an active process in which the speaker's "voice" ("individualness" I guess ) is instilled in the very diction.

[rhod01]

Hear, hear!

[Technosoul]

I always like to notice how people word things to make them sound better.

One news channel is headlining thier coverage of Iarq as "The war FOR Iraq. For Iraq instead of agenst Iraq. Fighting for them is better.

Ever notice how many times they have changed the word for a tolet room. Tolets remind people of shit, farts, and other sometimes nasty stuff, so the had to change the name, a "powder room". Or a restroom. And if people start to connect those names with what people do in a power room they will just come up with another "nicer" sounding word for it.

If the words "crusade on the axes of evil" has a bad ring to it in people's minds, you just change the title with better sounding words "spreading democracy for the sake of liberation and freedom". Sounds a lot better, but means the same thing.

Words work like secret triggers that can automatically cause certain reactions in people. So you can program people by pushing the right buttons (by knowing what words can effect what feelings) to get the results you desire. And for some strange reason most people are still unaware that they can be, and are being, manipulated by those "key words". They are tottally not prepared and will just react, almost hynotically, when they hear the word. And yet, they also know how to use words on other people to get what they desire.

I love you - God bless you - you are the greatest -

Postive words, and we have also negative words.

Let us say it is bad to call someone a "stupid idiot" in this forum, so they just change the words and say "You need to study more so you know what you are talking about". Sounds better, but means the same thing.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Tech
Ever notice how many times they have changed the word for a tolet room.

Yes, euphemism is a sure indicator of discomfort. So they called it a toilet. The primary meaning of the French word "toilette" is still the act of washing up. In Canada one also washes ("Gotta go to the washroom!"). In the US one rests.
I have a great affection for the word "shithouse".

The other use of euphemism is, of course, to pull the wool over people's eyes. Hence the semantic contortions re Iraq.

[Technosoul]

We have a problem here because people take a newspaper in the John and really rest, I think some of them are even taking naps, you wait and wait, wondering how long it will take for they to come out so you can use it.

I for calling it the Rush room.

Here they put pictures up on the washroom doors, one shows a woman in a dress, the other shows a man. That is because we had a lot of people from other counties who cannot read English and so they would just walk in to the wrong one. We are fussy about that here in Bush and Dick country. (pun intended)

Today I am going to watch the news with the intended purpose of trying to find some words that were altered to give a different impression in meaning. Will report back later with my findings.

Tech

[dalin]

lol @ rush room. And I'm sure you'll find plenty on the news. But a consicous choosing of words is important in journalism/reporting I think, so long as it isn't done with the wrong motive.

I did a paper last semester that actually touched on this issue. Much like journalists for the present, historians have the responsibility of effectively shaping the way the future will think of us and our times.

But do you think we can actually think "purely", i.e. outside a linguistic context and therefore free of outside influence? Or is all human thought shaped by previous thought?

[rhod01]

I'm glad you replied with such a thorough response. I first came across this quote on 'Tony Benn: A Political Life'. In reference to Tony Blair's use of language.

It does raise a few fundemental questions about purpose, language and ethics, I beleive. For example, I don't like it how teens have used some words. Like 'square' as a label for intelligent people, or blasting something as 'so gay' because it's not right.

Of course, when I confronted offenders about this, they said "I'll say what I like!"

In both Britain and the USA, the Defence Dept. used to be called the War Office. But we know our respective militaries engage in unprovoked invasions and internal subversion of states.

How politicians use language is interesting too. Like covering something up, by calling it 'modernisation' or 'reform'. Because you're being blurry and secretive.