{"id":6352,"date":"2017-01-23T06:35:42","date_gmt":"2017-01-23T11:35:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/?p=6352"},"modified":"2017-01-23T06:35:42","modified_gmt":"2017-01-23T11:35:42","slug":"a-thin-gruel-of-words","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/?p=6352","title":{"rendered":"A Thin Gruel of Words"},"content":{"rendered":"

Do overused words run out of steam like a runner at the end of a marathon of meaning?\u00a0 This Jonathon Sturgeon<\/a> article from Flavorwire, <\/em>lurking in my pile of \u201cgems to re-read,\u201d asks that question. It\u2019s of renewed interest, in light of conflicting views on the robustness of the word \u201cfact\u201d and whether it means anything at all any more. A \u201cfact\u201d used to be something you could hang your hat on; now we\u2019re all like Alice in Through the Looking Glass.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\"Humpty

image: public domain<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cWhen I use a word,\u201d Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, \u201cit means just what I choose it to mean\u2014neither more nor less.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe question is,\u201d said Alice, \u201cwhether you can make words mean so many different things.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe question is,\u201d said Humpty Dumpty, \u201cwhich is to be the master\u2014that\u2019s all.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sturgeon cites data on the use of four descriptive words with literary origins that have gone in and out of fashion over the decades: Quixotic and Byronic were used in the 1800s, with Quixotic peaking around the middle of that century and Byronic\u2014a word I have never used\u2014in the 1930s. In the 20th century, these two were joined by Orwellian\u2014still the most popular\u2014and Kafkaesque, both of which may be destined for increased use. (There\u2019s no source cited for these data, so I can\u2019t find out how they were compiled\u2014probably by text analyzing software.)<\/p>\n

Do words like these presuppose at least some passing knowledge of their origins? Presumably a person can understand that a quixotic effort is whimsical and doomed to failure or that an orwellian environment is \u201cantiutopian\u201d and \u201ctotalitarian,\u201d as the dictionary would have it. Probably more people understand and use the word kafkaesque than have read\u2014or want to read\u2014The Trial<\/em>. But do they lose their punch when applied too freely, as people believe the word \u201cnazi\u201d has, by being applied here, there, and everywhere?<\/p>\n

Then Sturgeon asks a deeper question, one Humpty Dumpty would appreciate: \u201cDo words mean what the dictionary says they mean, or do they gain meaning through the way we use them?\u201d The answer, he says, is \u201cboth.\u201d By using words where they only sort-of apply, their meaning expands, even to the point of meaninglessness.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe idea that a word could lose its meaning because people use it is both funny and politically scary,\u201d he says. \u201cAnd so is the idea that a word could mean nothing at all.\u201d I suppose the best way to guard against diluting the meaning of words must be our own vigilance in how we use them. Unless we want the word \u201cfact\u201d to mean just what the user chooses it to mean, we must guard it carefully.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Do overused words run out of steam like a runner at the end of a marathon of meaning?\u00a0 This Jonathon Sturgeon article from Flavorwire, lurking in my pile of \u201cgems to re-read,\u201d asks that question. It\u2019s of renewed interest, in … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"A Thin Gruel of Words - Can you spread a word so thin it means nothing or, paradoxically, everything?","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[174,51],"tags":[810,808,809,811,414],"class_list":["post-6352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-first-draft-blog","category-words","tag-byronic","tag-kafkaesque","tag-orwellian","tag-quixotic","tag-writing"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2NkiT-1Es","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6352","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6352"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6352\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6355,"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6352\/revisions\/6355"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vweisfeld.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}