words' worth
Again, I come to this neglected hovel to write for the sake of writing. And, so that the letter and spirit of this endeavor might compliment each other, I choose to write about, well, writing.
It's a cliché to the utmost degree that artists will create works that reflect their art. Webcomics have characters that are webcomic artists, musicians will write songs about the effect of music, and writers will converse ad nauseum about the plight of writers. On the one hand, this is simply a consequence of art imitating life and artists conveying that which is familiar and/or important to them. The problem is the elitism it causes; this particular portion of society come to be overrepresented in the course of history. It's very similar to a key problem within politics: you need trained politicians to get the job done according to standard without (ideally) repeating past mistakes or misjudging the system, but then, the entirety of society comes to be represented by individuals who are devoutly interested and invested in politics. All in all, these issues are noble traditions that lead to stasis, or at least a slower evolution.
That being said, language, in all its pomp and circumstance, is a living, breathing organism. It is predominately self-sustaining, however it mutates, as long as it has a healthy ecosystem (daily usage). Evolution does happen, whether we like it or not. You need only compare everybody's favourite go-to linguist, Shakespeare...
("Blessed are you whose worthiness gives scope, / Being had, to triumph; being lacked, to hope.")
... to T.S. Eliot...
("I should have been a pair of ragged claws / Scuttling across the floors of silent seas")
...to Sylvia Plath...
("Marble-heavy, a bag full of God, / Ghastly statue with one gray toe / Big as a Frisco seal")
...to b.p. nichol...
(who happens to be very difficult to quote, as my favourite work from him is from a book I've since lost and was scrawled across a few pages; here's the general idea:
pp. 72 - If this is page 72
pp. 73/74 - and you rip out this page
pp. 75 - is this still page 75?)
... it is easy to see that language constantly redefines the physical laws, as it were, that governs its existence.
That being said, I am a stickler for certain rules that are, by and large, outdated. After all, the crucial aspect of language is the expression and conveyance of an idea or sentiment; theoretically, as long as that is translated clearly from on individual to another, the difference between "who" and "whom", or "good" and "well" is fairly inconsequential. And yet, such confusions grate my nerves. I know I'm not the most grammatically correct individual out there; I frequently end sentences with propositions, and I have a propensity for claiming to invent words when I've simply mixed terms together. And yet, I still have my pet peeves. For example, just yesterday a co-worker offered me some Pocky and pronounced it, several times over, as "Pokie". This continues to upset me, even though I can't, for the life of me, justify the strength of my reaction. It is so trivial as to be negligible, especially considering we speaking of a term that is already assumed from a foreign tongue, and yet, it stuck with me. Ah well, I s'pose evereyone is entitled to their own expressive quirks and pet peeves, the only issue is if you use these preferences to justify violent acts against society. I may do my best to avoid saying "anyways" (as was a former english teacher's/mentor's pet peeve), but I won't give someone the evil eye for using it. I think this counts as being fair and just. Or, so I hope.
And so we come to what, probably, inspired the entirety of my focus today. A friend has recently come to willfully neglect the utility of dictionary definitions. Now, honestly, I see where he's coming from; dictionaries rarely encompass the connotation and usage of words, especially when you take into considerations puns, double entendre, or cultural references ("d'oh", and "wassup?!?" come to mind as expressions that have a life well beyond the parameters of their definitions). And yet, the definitions and etymology of words are their personal history, and act to govern their usage. Indeed, rules are made to be broken, and by no means should definitions act as boundaries. However, they are crucial to mitigate translation, whether between languages, cultures, or individuals.
My favourite scene from "Waking Life" emphasizes this issue, and seems to express my philosophy on the matter. Language was intended to express physical, tangible matters like "look out; tiger!" or "there's food over there". When it comes to more abstract concepts, such as love, there's suddenly this reservoir of personal experience that defines the context and relevance of the term. I do not think this is an insurmountable issue. It simply means certain terms need to be said with reverence, or extrapolated upon through further discussion or action, in order to best express their extent.
I think this all comes down to me wanting to quote one of my favourite lines of poetry ever, from the contemporary Toronto poet Stuart Ross, which serves as the opening line to "The Surface":
"The words agonized over their own inertia."
*swoons*
~RA~
It's a cliché to the utmost degree that artists will create works that reflect their art. Webcomics have characters that are webcomic artists, musicians will write songs about the effect of music, and writers will converse ad nauseum about the plight of writers. On the one hand, this is simply a consequence of art imitating life and artists conveying that which is familiar and/or important to them. The problem is the elitism it causes; this particular portion of society come to be overrepresented in the course of history. It's very similar to a key problem within politics: you need trained politicians to get the job done according to standard without (ideally) repeating past mistakes or misjudging the system, but then, the entirety of society comes to be represented by individuals who are devoutly interested and invested in politics. All in all, these issues are noble traditions that lead to stasis, or at least a slower evolution.
That being said, language, in all its pomp and circumstance, is a living, breathing organism. It is predominately self-sustaining, however it mutates, as long as it has a healthy ecosystem (daily usage). Evolution does happen, whether we like it or not. You need only compare everybody's favourite go-to linguist, Shakespeare...
("Blessed are you whose worthiness gives scope, / Being had, to triumph; being lacked, to hope.")
... to T.S. Eliot...
("I should have been a pair of ragged claws / Scuttling across the floors of silent seas")
...to Sylvia Plath...
("Marble-heavy, a bag full of God, / Ghastly statue with one gray toe / Big as a Frisco seal")
...to b.p. nichol...
(who happens to be very difficult to quote, as my favourite work from him is from a book I've since lost and was scrawled across a few pages; here's the general idea:
pp. 72 - If this is page 72
pp. 73/74 - and you rip out this page
pp. 75 - is this still page 75?)
... it is easy to see that language constantly redefines the physical laws, as it were, that governs its existence.
That being said, I am a stickler for certain rules that are, by and large, outdated. After all, the crucial aspect of language is the expression and conveyance of an idea or sentiment; theoretically, as long as that is translated clearly from on individual to another, the difference between "who" and "whom", or "good" and "well" is fairly inconsequential. And yet, such confusions grate my nerves. I know I'm not the most grammatically correct individual out there; I frequently end sentences with propositions, and I have a propensity for claiming to invent words when I've simply mixed terms together. And yet, I still have my pet peeves. For example, just yesterday a co-worker offered me some Pocky and pronounced it, several times over, as "Pokie". This continues to upset me, even though I can't, for the life of me, justify the strength of my reaction. It is so trivial as to be negligible, especially considering we speaking of a term that is already assumed from a foreign tongue, and yet, it stuck with me. Ah well, I s'pose evereyone is entitled to their own expressive quirks and pet peeves, the only issue is if you use these preferences to justify violent acts against society. I may do my best to avoid saying "anyways" (as was a former english teacher's/mentor's pet peeve), but I won't give someone the evil eye for using it. I think this counts as being fair and just. Or, so I hope.
And so we come to what, probably, inspired the entirety of my focus today. A friend has recently come to willfully neglect the utility of dictionary definitions. Now, honestly, I see where he's coming from; dictionaries rarely encompass the connotation and usage of words, especially when you take into considerations puns, double entendre, or cultural references ("d'oh", and "wassup?!?" come to mind as expressions that have a life well beyond the parameters of their definitions). And yet, the definitions and etymology of words are their personal history, and act to govern their usage. Indeed, rules are made to be broken, and by no means should definitions act as boundaries. However, they are crucial to mitigate translation, whether between languages, cultures, or individuals.
My favourite scene from "Waking Life" emphasizes this issue, and seems to express my philosophy on the matter. Language was intended to express physical, tangible matters like "look out; tiger!" or "there's food over there". When it comes to more abstract concepts, such as love, there's suddenly this reservoir of personal experience that defines the context and relevance of the term. I do not think this is an insurmountable issue. It simply means certain terms need to be said with reverence, or extrapolated upon through further discussion or action, in order to best express their extent.
I think this all comes down to me wanting to quote one of my favourite lines of poetry ever, from the contemporary Toronto poet Stuart Ross, which serves as the opening line to "The Surface":
"The words agonized over their own inertia."
*swoons*
~RA~