Musings: Why etymology should be an olympic sport.
Words are important to me.
Without them, we are locked behind a wall made of the difference in our viewpoint from everyone else. We all agree on the shared dream of the colors 'black' and 'white', so we can speak to each other about all the colors in between. Words allow us to bridge the wall between life and thought via the magic of universal meaning and thus express our inner thoughts with precision and ease.
However, there is a trade-off in any language. As a word becomes more well-known, more used, and more expansive, it loses its precision. The word becomes accessible and gains general efficacy at the cost of its precision and specific applicability.
Why is this a bad thing? To further propound the lemma, when we communicate with words that are very generalized, we incur the potential for miscommunication. When I say "I love you" to another, what does it mean? Simply put, the word is amply ambiguous to give rise to awkwardness (the effect of context later discussed)
If I instead used the greek phrase s'agapo, my meaning would be much more precise. The recipient knows I am addressing them with feelings of goodwill and general comradery. If the subject of the endearment is not familiar with the phrase's meaning we again run into the potential for miscommunication.
In the examples above, albeit simplified, I tried to illustrate why the tradeoff between accesibility and precision leads to a fascinating dichotomy. If a word is common enough that everyone knows it, it's meaning becomes inclusive to the point where it becomes unsuitable for precise usage. Likewise, if a familiarity of a word is rare, it becomes unsuitable for general usage. Either way, words lose their power to express thoughts.
To counteract this, we use context to define general words or to give contextual clues for precise words. In the aforementioned example, if I said "I love you like a brother." the recipient knows the exact meaning of love I intend to express. Conversely, if I said "s'agapo, my brother in spirit" contextual clues would allow the subject to divine the intent of goodwill behind the foreign phrasing.
Back to etymology, and my tact on it's importance: in order to fight this inborn tendency towards miscommunication, we also need to develop an extensive vocabulary in addition to adding context. The more extensive the pooled vocabulary between the conversing individuals, the less context is needed to alleviate miscommunication. Faster conversations, and more possibilities as to what can be effectively discussed.
Why tout it as an olympic sport? Because it's so important - words are what we use not only to talk to other people, but what we break down what we see, hear, taste, feel, and smell in our minds. The more extensive your vocabulary, the better you can remember real-world events and internal happenings.
Besides, nothing feels better than getting exactly the right word in exactly the right place.
There's even special words for just that: Mot Juste.
Without them, we are locked behind a wall made of the difference in our viewpoint from everyone else. We all agree on the shared dream of the colors 'black' and 'white', so we can speak to each other about all the colors in between. Words allow us to bridge the wall between life and thought via the magic of universal meaning and thus express our inner thoughts with precision and ease.
However, there is a trade-off in any language. As a word becomes more well-known, more used, and more expansive, it loses its precision. The word becomes accessible and gains general efficacy at the cost of its precision and specific applicability.
Why is this a bad thing? To further propound the lemma, when we communicate with words that are very generalized, we incur the potential for miscommunication. When I say "I love you" to another, what does it mean? Simply put, the word is amply ambiguous to give rise to awkwardness (the effect of context later discussed)
If I instead used the greek phrase s'agapo, my meaning would be much more precise. The recipient knows I am addressing them with feelings of goodwill and general comradery. If the subject of the endearment is not familiar with the phrase's meaning we again run into the potential for miscommunication.
In the examples above, albeit simplified, I tried to illustrate why the tradeoff between accesibility and precision leads to a fascinating dichotomy. If a word is common enough that everyone knows it, it's meaning becomes inclusive to the point where it becomes unsuitable for precise usage. Likewise, if a familiarity of a word is rare, it becomes unsuitable for general usage. Either way, words lose their power to express thoughts.
To counteract this, we use context to define general words or to give contextual clues for precise words. In the aforementioned example, if I said "I love you like a brother." the recipient knows the exact meaning of love I intend to express. Conversely, if I said "s'agapo, my brother in spirit" contextual clues would allow the subject to divine the intent of goodwill behind the foreign phrasing.
Back to etymology, and my tact on it's importance: in order to fight this inborn tendency towards miscommunication, we also need to develop an extensive vocabulary in addition to adding context. The more extensive the pooled vocabulary between the conversing individuals, the less context is needed to alleviate miscommunication. Faster conversations, and more possibilities as to what can be effectively discussed.
Why tout it as an olympic sport? Because it's so important - words are what we use not only to talk to other people, but what we break down what we see, hear, taste, feel, and smell in our minds. The more extensive your vocabulary, the better you can remember real-world events and internal happenings.
Besides, nothing feels better than getting exactly the right word in exactly the right place.
There's even special words for just that: Mot Juste.