Jeffersonian language drivers

George Carlin, a man obsessed by the search for truth, had a notable routine about the common misuse of phrases. In itself, it is quite interesting.  Among the phrases he mentions are the terms sour grapes, cop out and get a monkey off your back.  He points out that these terms have specific meanings that have been misused by public speakers. For example, a person with sour grapes is not jealous but instead rationalizes a failure. Likewise, to cop out is admit some guilt, not to find an excuse. A team cannot get a monkey off its back by stopping a losing streak since the monkey in this case is an addiction that controls its life. Nobody actually seeks to lose, rendering the expression inappropriate in the circumstances.  The full video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn9elWR13Z4.

Aside from the cleverness and information in this video, it raises a much more profound issue. Specifically, is correctness determined by a small group of educated people or, to paraphrase Carlin, the mass of idiots out there? In other words, the unspoken debate, as in Ibsen’s Enemy of the People, is whether truth, linguistic in this case, is objective or subjective.

On the one hand, I would agree that poor language cannot be justified by the quantity of Google hits. As an English lecture, I insist on the non-use of but in the beginning of a sentence despite its frequent use there in journalism. Likewise, I correct effect to affect when it is used as a verb although countless native speakers don’t know the difference.  So, I support the insistence on language standards and calling a spade a spade.

Yet, when it comes to vocabulary meanings, I am not Don Quixote fighting the windmill of common use. People have always used terms as they sit fit even if the genealogy of the word did not justify such use. To take a modern example, the gay 90’s (1890’s) were happy times, supposedly, as compared to the gay 90’s (1990’s) when homosexuality became more accepted. The people of each period understood the term as they chose.  Beyond that, I even embrace the dynamics of language. Language defines each generation in terms of its thinking and technology. Cloud technology existed a half century ago but was used for creating rain as compared to today. The dynamics of language development is fascinating and legitimate even if it is driven by a bunch of “assholes” as my brother would say.

So, while I sympathize and appreciate the efforts of Carlin and others to maintain standards in a language, when it comes to lexicon, I am not in the camp of Hamilton but in that of Jefferson.  To explain, the meaning of the words is to be decided by the people, however uneducated they maybe, not by the elite, however superior they may be. Let the revolution continue, not that anybody can stop it.

Kosher thoughts

Pesach leads to much conversation about kashrut. How many calories are expended in considering which calories to intake?  It borders on an infinite number.  Yet, many non Jews (and some Jews) are not completely aware how complex kosher can get and how much it affects food choices.

On the surface level, kashrut involves the manner of slaughtering animals, the prohibition of certain foods (pork and shellfish, notably) and prohibition of mixing diary and meat. Yet, it also takes into account the preparation or storage of the foods.  For example, traditional wooden wine kegs use a mixture of flour and water as glue, making the wine stored in them unsuitable for Pesach. Likewise, gelatin is commercially made from animal fat, pig or otherwise, affecting its use with dairy products or use in general.  Since a restaurant that is open on Friday night cannot by definition be kosher, an observant Jew must not eat there even during the week. At Pesach, more prohibitions come into play, including most if not all grains (rice is a matter of contention). This is not even the tip of the iceberg.  Kashrut rules make inheritance laws look like child’s play.

The truly controversial issue is the raison d’être of this corpus of religious laws.  Some justify the logic in terms of health or ancient methods of preservation (or lack thereof). Yet, even if kashrut were unhealthy or completely irrelevant in terms of food safety, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Jews would continue to keep it. Fundamentally, the observant perceive kashrut as a basis of Jewish life (not necessarily identity). To openly reject it is to betray the religion, no more, no less. (Maimodides named it as one of the pillars of Judaism) In other words, to embrace God, you have to embrace his rules and limitations. 

Of course, many Jews in Israel and abroad do not keep kosher to one degree or another. The expressions of rejection include eating pork and cheeseburgers to only eating “traff” (non-kosher food) in restaurants while keeping the house kosher, to name just a few.  To a large degree, this refusal is an ideological choice in the same way compliance is a matter of faith.

In the meantime, many Jews are putting up with matzo and its companying stomach effects until Tuesday while quite a few others found the ceremonial matzo on the night of the Seder more than enough for their religious conscience. In my case, I have no problem living without bread and beer for a week. I give up those foods not as a matter of principle but as a practical means to keep my wife happy.

In terms of the importance of keeping kosher, two bits of philosophy come in mind. Sartre said that a Jew is a Jew because the world views his/her to be such while Bob Marley said “don’t worry, be happy.” In other words, to the outside world, keeping kosher is of little importance but, if it makes you feel truly Jewish, enjoy.  In the meantime, I’ll have some gefilte fish with homemade khreyn (horseradish). It helps clean the sinuses. Oh, the joy of Pesach!

Waterworks

Being an independent business person requires you to deal with the ebbs and flows of business since the only constant about business is that it is not constant. Curiously, these various business currents are often described using other water-related words.

On the bright side, every entrepreneur likes a steady stream of customers, not too many, not too few. Some businesses, due to their seasonal nature, require their owners to ride the wave of orders until they can relax in the dead season. In any case, nothing brings a bigger smile to a factory owner than having orders pouring in, allowing them to generate full production capacity. However, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. While a torrent of work may sound like a good thing, the poor freelancer may find him/herself flooded with work, bogged down in various tasks, so swamped that s/he can do nothing else but work or so mired that orders must be refused.  The tidal wave can be simply too much for one person.

The other extreme is not any better. While a bit worrying, if work is trickling in or coming in dribbles, there is at least some cash flow.  A long  flat spell may be sign of changes in the market. The worst feeling is when orders start to dry up and the business is facing a drought. In such a case, it is hard to decide what to do, to have sunny thoughts and wait for a change in the economic forecast or to look for greener pastures elsewhere with less dark clouds.

As we can see, entrepreneurs and sailors must be optimistic about the weather but realistic about its chances.

Deceiving appearances

English is a mélange of roots and forms from various languages.  This creates a rich language but unfortunately quite a lot of confusion. It can make guessing the meaning of word a bit of a crap shoot.

Here are some examples in the form of a short quiz.

1   “Appositive” is

a.      A type of blood

b.      Another name for something

c.       Negative

2 “Tortuous” is

a.      Curvy

b.      Painful

c.       Tasty like a cake

3  An infamous person is 

a.      Unknown

b.      Well known in limited circles

c.       Known for doing awful things

     An “inflammable” substance is

a.      Gasoline

b.      Water

c.       A gasoline can

5 To “ululate” is

a.      To constantly be tardy

b.      To sing Swiss mountain songs

c.       To imitate the calls of wolves

     A bimonthly magazine appears

a.      Twice a month

b.      Every two months

c.       Both a and b

7 A positive charge in electronics has

a.      Lost electrons

b.      Gained electronics

c.       Sometimes a and sometime b

8 A parkway is a place

a.      To park

b.      To drive

c.       To play football
A scarified road
a. has been the scene of many deaths.
b. is in the middle of repavement
c. has many warning signs.

In all honesty, if you didn’t know any of the answers, you probably still can express yourself perfectly well.  Still, English scholars, i.e., those who enjoy using the language to its best, actually enjoy the peculiarity of the language. As for the answers, to be really nasty, I won’t give the answers.  That way, you will remember what the word means! However, if you are unsure about any, write me.

Legal De-Scribing

Simple and complicated are a matter of perspective. What is child’s play for one person is a challenge for another. Likewise, a straightforward sentence in one language can be tricky for a translator in another language.

Take for example this short legal clause in Hebrew:

המסמך מחייב אישור מהמנהל.                        

Word for word, it says:

(   a)  The document requires approval from the manager.

That doesn’t work in English because documents are rather self-sufficient creatures and in themselves don’t require anything. So, let’s play with the grammar:

(   b)  The document must be approved by the manager.

(   c)   The manager must approve the document.

Sentence (c) is the active version of (b), generally a preferable form.  However, both sentences suffer from the same ambiguity. They could be interpreted to mean that the manager has no choice but to approve it, which is not true. The next example suffers from the same potential problem:

(   d)  Approval of the document by the manager is required.

The option that I chose in order to be perfectly clear is as follows:

(   e)  The document is subject to approval by the manager.

It may be that even better options exist. If so, I would like to hear. The search for perfection is the passion behind good translation. Like all so ambitions, it is very from simple.

Clothed masculinity

I am a product of a 1970’s Los Angeles. It was neither the most radical nor conservative of places but just slightly left of main stream American culture. When I observe males in their 20’s in Israel today, again not the most avant-garde of groups in the world, I am amazed at the change in male culture in almost two generations.

It has become acceptable for straight males to enhance their appearance using techniques limited to women (and gays) when I was growing up. For example, elite combat soldiers now often have one or multiple earrings. I see male students wearing short socks that don’t extend pass the shoe, once only used by women. I notice young males dyeing their hair and not because it has turned grey. Based on television and products available in the department store, some straight men apply makeup before dates. Their wardrobe may include pink and violet shirts, colors that American straight men would avoid when I was growing up.  

Coming from the extreme culture of the military and criminal world, tattoos have now become commonplace, with the only issues being how big, how many and where.  All in all, the culture of masculinity has significantly, as least as far as externals are concerned.

Of course, culture is subjective, i.e., conditioned by its time and society. As Mel Brooks so humorously reminded us, men once wore tights. Some would claim that society has advanced while other would argue that society has regressed. I merely say it this has become different in a certain sense. In my opinion, the reality, natural or imposed, fortunate or unfortunate, is the masculine culture is truly defined by its inherent belief that males control the destiny of themselves and consequently society, regardless of any external trappings.

Mislabeling?

The purpose of a label is to provide essential information at a glance. Proper labeling is not only required by law but is also an essential marketing strategy. Yet, a walk through the supermarket shows that some companies somehow fail in this task.

In some cases, the grammar confuses the matter. For example, in the United States, you can buy “free range chicken broth.” Somehow, Garry Larson’s cartoon showing a boneless chicken ranch (https://www.reddit.com/r/TheFarSideGallery/comments/48yk32/boneless_chicken_ranch/) comes into mind. Can you imagine gathering a flock of chicken broth from the courtyard?  What tool should you use? Likewise, in Hebrew, one of Israel’s national department stores has a tag that literally says “clothes for men on sale.” The question of why these men are less desirable naturally pops into mind. Spelling also counts.  I wonder who the intended customers of “black painty liners” are.

Other labels are correct but somehow illogical. For instance, in Israel, you can buy kosher air freshener. Now, koshrut laws deal with foods and are quite a complicated business, both in terms of rules and the body issuing the seal. The latter ranges from the official government supervision to numerous private and more demanding bodies. I can see how paper towels might make contact with food, making it important for observant Jews to check the kosher label. However, as far as I know, air freshener is generally in the bathroom, at the other end of the story, so to speak. I guess that you can never be too careful. For that matter, why would anybody advertise not to mention buy “no fat, no sugar yoghurt?” I suppose it is making virtue out of necessity, i.e., this yoghurt may have no taste but it is not unhealthy. Similarly, I was caught by some Girl Scouts (who can resist?) and bought some thin mints, chocolate and mint being one of my favorite combination only outranked by chocolate and orange. I thus managed to ignore the fact that the label read “vegan cookies.”

The most annoying phenomenon is legally correct labeling hiding unpleasant truths. Cars “made in America” must have “all or virtually all” of their parts produced in the USA. I would like to know what this virtual reality is. The term “100% juice” on a label does not preclude other ingredients (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.30) I am not sure ignorance is bliss in this case.

So, a rose is a rose is a rose but will only sell if properly labeled. Enjoy your next shopping trip.