Who gets to name things and who decides when a word is a "word"? I suppose that if you are going to make something for a particular purpose you can name it beforehand, but if something already exists, who gets to name it? Who named a stone "stone" and why and what makes it valid. Why couldn't it be named something else? Were other names submitted and if so, did some committee decide? If there was a committee, were they susceptible to lobbying or intimidation like, " Would you rather be stoned or hacked to death?" Some names suggest the nature of the thing named but most don't give you a clue. I repeat an age old question, "What's in a name?"
Words are another question. On the street, in books and in movies, we hear and see words that cannot be found in word bibles, dictionaries. If these "words" are not words, what are they? They are used like words but are not given the recognition of words. They have definitions and convey a communication, often very effectively and quite descriptive. Should we discard or incorporate them? If, as I suspect, it comes down to "common usage", these qualify in spades. Perhaps there should be a separate dictionary for non-word words and the dictionaries be named "GOOD WORDS" and "BAD WORDS". This way, whenever there's a dispute over the precise meaning of "bad words", there would be a means to clarify and resolve the question.
Word definitions sometimes are not to be taken too literally since their meaning can vary based upon the tone and context in which they are used. For example, if you call someone a "bastard", it can mean he was born out of wedlock or that he is a low-down, no-good despicable person even if he had been born in wedlock. If in fact he had been born out of wedlock, he becomes a double bastard and could be identified as a bastard bastard. A knowledge of the "bastardization" of language is required to make these kinds of distinctions.
I suppose we should be grateful that someone else took up the task of creating, defining and recording words but, in a way, I resent someone else telling me that I must call something by a name someone else thought appropriate and if I choose to call it by another name, no one would know what I mean. Do you know what I mean?
Words are another question. On the street, in books and in movies, we hear and see words that cannot be found in word bibles, dictionaries. If these "words" are not words, what are they? They are used like words but are not given the recognition of words. They have definitions and convey a communication, often very effectively and quite descriptive. Should we discard or incorporate them? If, as I suspect, it comes down to "common usage", these qualify in spades. Perhaps there should be a separate dictionary for non-word words and the dictionaries be named "GOOD WORDS" and "BAD WORDS". This way, whenever there's a dispute over the precise meaning of "bad words", there would be a means to clarify and resolve the question.
Word definitions sometimes are not to be taken too literally since their meaning can vary based upon the tone and context in which they are used. For example, if you call someone a "bastard", it can mean he was born out of wedlock or that he is a low-down, no-good despicable person even if he had been born in wedlock. If in fact he had been born out of wedlock, he becomes a double bastard and could be identified as a bastard bastard. A knowledge of the "bastardization" of language is required to make these kinds of distinctions.
I suppose we should be grateful that someone else took up the task of creating, defining and recording words but, in a way, I resent someone else telling me that I must call something by a name someone else thought appropriate and if I choose to call it by another name, no one would know what I mean. Do you know what I mean?
No comments:
Post a Comment