Click to save the rainforest (#52 - Down but not out)

Setanta,
IMHO Wolfie is the most outstanding genius to write a note for us.

. . . While in the real world published genius seems to arrive from personal strife - apparently, Mozart could be alluding to his relationship with his father. (?) shrug

Sedition: Fifty-three ways to lie

10/10/03 - There are two effective ways to lie. The first is to tell only part of the truth. The second is to tell the truth in such a manner that nobody will believe you. - Robert Heinlein

The English language is a magnificent and fascinating construction. It contains in its non-scientific vocabulary nearly 620,000 words, which is the most of any language and more than twice that of the runner-up (Spanish, with about 290,000). This is primarily a consequence of the checkered history of the British Isles, combined with further evolution of the language beyond the borders of Britain in America, India, and Australia.

Since most modern languages provide adequate means to express objects, actions, qualities, and ideas both concrete and ephemeral, one might wonder what function all those other words perform in the proper application of the English language. Surprisingly, most of the words do not fulfill some grammatical function idiosyncratic of English; most languages have the same principle parts of speech as English and are nearly equally verbose in executing those parts, the exceptions to this rule mainly being dead languages or languages that have not changed much from their ancient forms.

The vast plurality of the vocabulary surplus is, surprisingly, in nouns and verbs. However, this is not so nonplussing once you stop to ponder it. Most objects or concepts have at least two nouns that indicate them, and many have more. A pen is a pen, but it's also a writing implement, a stylus, and a stylograph. Noun synonyms, however, don't hold a candle (to use an idiom) to verbs that indicate conceptual action.

Let's take a verb that is dear to the heart of every politician: to lie (in the sense of truth, not physical position). Off the top of my (politician's) head, infinitives that are functionally equivalent to 'to lie' include: to fib, to prevaricate, to dissemble, to deceive, to obfuscate, to slander, and to equivocate. The politician sitting next to me added: to embellish, to spin, and to fabricate. A quick look at a pocket thesaurus indicates several more, including such juicy ones as: to falsify, to mislead, to malign, to perjure, and to pervert. All told, in common usage, there are no less than fifty-three different verbs that hold in common the expression of the concept "to not tell the truth". And that doesn't count compound verbs, of which there are hundreds. Each verb describes the same concept, but have different connotations or preconditions attached to them, thus greatly expanding the ability for subtle and accurate communication in English.

This amazing plurality and great range of choice has some unpleasant consequences, however; the subtlety of English with regard to word choice is only useful if both parties to a communication have the same range of vocabulary.

The average English-speaking person never uses more than 15,000 distinct words in their entire life, and a person with a 'great vocabulary' rarely uses more than 30,000; the entire works of William Shakespeare, the writer with the largest demonstrated vocabulary, only contain 29,066 unique words. The upshot of this startling statistic is that no English speaker really knows the English language in any exhaustive sense; the most gregarious writer employed, at best, 5% of the language. Not even addressing the issue of flexible grammar (which English has probably more than any other living language), vocabulary alone would indicate that native English speakers often confront a serious barrier to communication when it comes to connotation, subtlety, and word choice.

Why should you care? Well, the realm of unsure meaning and muddled implications is the haven for those who wish to mask their crimes in clever language, or to impugn an innocent person's reputation. It is exceedingly easy to take any immoral act and describe it in positively praiseful language, and just as easy to take any moral act and describe it such that it seems to be a horrible crime. You don't think so? Not too long ago, I watched as Faculty Senate vetoed a change proposed by Student Senators to the academic calendar rules to guarantee two weekday reading days because, in their words, it would encourage students to have 'poor academic rigor'. Now, I have to ask, how many of those professors were motivated by 'academic rigor' (a phrase most can't define if you ask; I asked), or whether it was it would interfere with their vacation plans or their academic symposia. Here we have a case of a despicably selfish motive being dressed up as a virtuous defense of the halls of academia. All it took was judicious use of the powerful instrument that is the English language.

The point is, whenever you listen to someone (especially a person of authority) justify themselves or their actions, always be wary. A fun thing to do in your head while you're listening is to take some of the words in their speeches and replace them with synonyms, and see whether it still sounds as good or as bad as the speaker intends. You may be (un)pleasantly surprised.