In Lewis Carroll's story,
Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty was explaining to Alice how it was better to get un-birthday presents than birthday presents. You'd have 364 days in a year to get un-birthday presents and only one to get birthday presents. "There's glory for you!" he finished.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't — 'til I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"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."
For instance, Humpty Dumpty later describes "impenetrability" to Alice.
"I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."
"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone
Welcome to post-modernism. Word definitions are nebulous. A wide or common definition is not reasonable. Words only mean what the speaker/writer intends them to mean and it would be wrong to suggest anything else. Of course, the ironic part is that Lewis Carroll's stories of Alice in Wonderland and Alice in
Through the Looking Glass were
dreams, intended to be
nonsense. Because, as everyone knows, it is nonsense to suggest that a word means "just what I choose it to mean". Well, everyone except those who make a practice of it today with
words like "marriage", "tolerance", "poor", "rich", "judgmental", "compromise", "fair", and so on.
4 comments:
There is also the problem with defining a word so narrowly that it cannot be used to suggest a point that the definer does not find to be advantageous. I have in mind the word "socialist", which is often applied to our current president. This is seen as inappropriate because some unapologetic socialists don't believe Obama is socialist enough to be included among them. Yet, he clearly has socialist tendencies and has expressed himself in socialist ways, such as his infamous remarks to Joe the Plumber.
And of course, as you've pointed out so often in the past, two people using the same word do not always apply the same meaning to that word. This is evidenced by the use of the word "monogamous", which to someone like myself, means a man and his wife having sex with no one but each other. There are some that have loosened this definition considerably, but will say "monogamous" without ever revealing that they have redefined the word. It is a tactic employed to deceive and is quite common amongst a particular faction.
Ha!, thanks for the link. I still update and add to ya know.
"Socialist" would be a prime example of the post-modern Humpty Dumpty. "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean." That means that you can't use the word (socialist in this case) to mean exactly what it means. You can only use the word as the grumpy socialist does. So the president is not a socialist ... by one socialist standard, but certainly is by another.
Side note: Your use of the term "monogamous" is actually an evolutionary use. That is, it never used to mean that. It used to mean "one spouse" (as opposed to "bigamous" -- two spouses -- or "polygamous" -- multiple spouses). We've evolved it to mean "one bed partner" to suit our immoral lifestyle.
You're the man, Dan, when it comes to words and their meanings.
Post a Comment