Jake

Idle Thumbs 170: Esophagus Sarcophagus

Recommended Posts

I like grok, it has an emotional connotation to internalized knowledge to me that is lacking from other words.  Lots of languages have words that simultaneously communicate an idea and an emotion, something that American English by and large attempts to divorce.  I think having a few of those words is useful. 

 

I also think it's an extraordinarily silly word that I only use when around my hardcore sci-fi nerd friends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also say Term of Art instead of jargon, but I think most people who would quibble about it are more familiar with the latter than the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is fine to have words that only appear in certain cultures that express things important to that culture. Part of the appeal of language is how you can see the history and philosophy of a culture baked right into how it communicates - like the idea that the words werewolf, woman, and wife all tell the story, in little pieces, of a culture that used to differentiate between males, females, and the species, and how that eventually changed to females being relevant only as an extension of males. Or, for a less contentious example, the colour orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I largely agree with what's been said here, but I want to echo the sentiments raised by Chris: while jargon does have an important use, and does represent the language growing and evolving, way, way too often it's used as a signifier of exclusive knowledge. Within the realm of video games, as this is, ostensibly, a video game podcast, it's incredibly difficult to gain a toehold into many game discussions because of the sheer volume of arcane jargon that tumbles out when you open the door. Trying to watch any "e-sports" competitions can be enormously difficult at first because of the stupid terminology applied to everything, all shouted loudly by the announcers. I do agree that much of it was necessary, but damn if it isn't a challenge to sift through the necessary jargon from the inside-joke stuff. (This is also very true with physical/non-e sport broadcasts as well) I'm not suggesting jargon be thrown out the door, but I wish that people would be much more thoughtful about when they use it. As a way of creating a common culture, it can seem super duper forced.

 

(Ha, wow, I had to go through that paragraph and add a lot of qualifiers to back off of making any concrete statements. How wishy-washy!)

 

As a side note regarding jargon, it seems as if the internet has a habit of creating specific terminology in order to label something and somehow "remove it's power." For instance, the term "social justice warrior" is something that drives me completely insane when I realize that the purpose of the term is to belittle. "Because I have given you a term, and put you into a box, you have been reduced to a cardboard cutout, and therefore you have no power here." It happens all the damn time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is fine to have words that only appear in certain cultures that express things important to that culture. Part of the appeal of language is how you can see the history and philosophy of a culture baked right into how it communicates - like the idea that the words werewolf, woman, and wife all tell the story, in little pieces, of a culture that used to differentiate between males, females, and the species, and how that eventually changed to females being relevant only as an extension of males. Or, for a less contentious example, the colour orange.

 

Yes, but jargon makes language less expressive, not more. These words are either too highly specialized or too opaque to mean anything to anyone but a very specific group of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but jargon makes language less expressive, not more. These words are either too highly specialized or too opaque to mean anything to anyone but a very specific group of people.

 

The problem is that in a competitive context like the post above, the things that are being said have to be conveyed quickly and in rapid succession. So instead of saying 5 fast sentences and already being behind on description, they can say 2 jargon-y sentences and keep things together and in sync.

 

The things I dislike are jargon for its own sake, and made up words. Also the use of "ulti" in LOMA games. That the most useless letter "I" in the entire gaming industry and I hate it. Why shorten a 3 syllable word and then add another damn useless syllable back on? Ult or ultimate or just don't say anything at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that in a competitive context like the post above, the things that are being said have to be conveyed quickly and in rapid succession. So instead of saying 5 fast sentences and already being behind on description, they can say 2 jargon-y sentences and keep things together and in sync.

 

The things I dislike are jargon for its own sake, and made up words. Also the use of "ulti" in LOMA games. That the most useless letter "I" in the entire gaming industry and I hate it. Why shorten a 3 syllable word and then add another damn useless syllable back on? Ult or ultimate or just don't say anything at all!

 

Ult or ulti are equally common in DOTA2 casting at least. Or just saying the ability name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but jargon makes language less expressive, not more. These words are either too highly specialized or too opaque to mean anything to anyone but a very specific group of people.

That's not the special province of jargon. A lot of higher-level vocabulary, the kind used by some of our greatest writers, is too specialized and opaque to mean anything except to people with extensive education. I don't really follow how it's less expressive for meaning to be less than entirely accessible.

Reading what I've typed, I guess it is worth acknowledging that someone who only used five-dollar words would be annoying like a person who only used jargon, but I don't see an inherent problem with either unless the person's a dick about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fascinating to me when people get upset at language changing and adapting. I mean, I do it, too, absolutely, but every time I sit back and try to be objective about it I realize I'm just being a grumpy old man about it.

Not that you're necessarily doing this (you don't address your comment at anyone in particular), but I don't think it's at all fair to characterise not liking individual terms to "being upset at language changing and adapting". There are all sorts of reasons, practical and aesthetic, that people can object to or simply dislike specific neologisms, or, for that matter, words that have been around for centuries. I don't like the word "chortle", and that's been around over 140 years. And I'd be cautious about presuming people are prescribing anything when they voice their displeasure, too. I don't like the words "grok" or "grognard". I think they're silly and don't fit in well with the language in general, but I wouldn't tell people not to use them, or think them wrong for doing so. It's a matter of taste. I don't like the idea that I'm some sort of hopeless stick-in-the-mud just for disliking a few words. I'm all for linguistic creativity and flexibility.

Well, at least somewhat for.

A bit for, at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Chortle" is a fantastic word! Apologize. ):

 

I honestly don't want to get into it because I clearly fall very far on the other side of the fence from the majority of people here. I love new words. Even new words that I hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Chortle" is a fantastic word! Apologize. ):

I shan't. It sounds like something someone with a sense of humour I really can't get on board with would say.

(We don't all have to like the same things.)

I honestly don't want to get into it because I clearly fall very far on the other side of the fence from the majority of people here. I love new words. Even new words that I hate.

I don't know; it seems pretty evenly split. Besides, I don't think I dislike new words in general. Just those new words. Again, I don't think you should infer some sort of general ideology from specific preferences.

Or are you saying that you love all new words just for being new? Fair enough.

Wait, you said you didn't want to talk about it. In which case, forget about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(We don't all have to like the same things.)

???

 

I can't grok this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ult or ulti are equally common in DOTA2 casting at least. Or just saying the ability name.

 

Oh yes, I know. What I'm saying is the people who say "ulti" are doing horrible things to language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a slight risk of a straw man being setup here. No one is claiming that all use of jargon is bad. However people should be mindful about the use of jargon, and what it is in service of.

 

I studied a fair amount of philosophy and literary theory in college. While some jargon is necessary just like in any other academic field, I also saw papers, talks, and class discussions where an excess of jargon noticeably degraded the quality of discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I know. What I'm saying is the people who say "ulti" are doing horrible things to language.

 

I also wince when I hear "ulti"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a slight risk of a straw man being setup here. No one is claiming that all use of jargon is bad. However people should be mindful about the use of jargon, and what it is in service of.

 

I studied a fair amount of philosophy and literary theory in college. While some jargon is necessary just like in any other academic field, I also saw papers, talks, and class discussions where an excess of jargon noticeably degraded the quality of discourse.

Yes, but jargon makes language less expressive, not more. These words are either too highly specialized or too opaque to mean anything to anyone but a very specific group of people.

Both of these points reflect in part how I feel.

I think I should point out that, while noting that especially in professional contexts jargon has its place for increasing clarity and brevity, in a lot of cases it actually DECREASES specificity because people fall in love (generally unconsciously) with the idea of using the jargon because of the cachet or flavor it conveys rather than because it actually communicates anything more useful. I would say terms like "franchise," "IP/intellectual property," "product," and "exclusive" fall into this category in the video game industry, among press and developers but also non-professional game players on forums and social media. (There is a gray area here between what counts as jargon and what counts as buzzwords.) But most of these words end up getting applied slapdash in FAR more situations than they probably should, which dilutes meaning, flattens language, and plays into the hands of corporate structures that rely on this kind of linguistic dilution to create excitement without having to justify the source of the excitement in great detail.

A similar thing applies to nerd neologisms like "squee," "feels," "so much this," "said no one ever," and the like, which I'm sure have very specific emotional meanings, or at least did at one point, but get overused to the point that they become rote, dead responses.

I realize I'm straying a bit from "jargon" specifically here but I feel these are useful examples for conveying what I find unappealing about unconsidered usage of jargon as well, because I think many of the causes of overuse and tangible results are the same.

I also recognize that I have certainly been guilty of this on the podcast as well. I should be more careful because I would not like to be responsible for spreading unnecessary usage of phrases like "IP" and "franchise."

Finally I will say that acknowledging that "language evolves" should not be interpreted as a blanket statement that "any usage of language in any context is inherently as valuable or worthy as any other usage of language." Of course language evolves. But language is also the most powerful tool we have for expressing thought, and there's no harm in thoughtful evaluation of its use. That doesn't mean we should beunreasonable militant linguistic police, but we also shouldn't shy away from treating it with consideration out of undue concern of being either elitist or anti-intellectual, polar opposite descriptors that are often each thrown around in these discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But language is also the most powerful tool we have for expressing thought, and there's no harm in thoughtful evaluation of its use.

 

:yep:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to stop myself from replying to every single post in the Emergency Baby Animals Jif thread with "Squeee!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wince when I hear "ulti"!

 

Well some commentators aren't native english speakers and in some languages ULTI is easier on the ear than ULT. Everyone speaks with english "jargon" wherever it fits, noone translates them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some commentators aren't native english speakers and in some languages ULTI is easier on the ear than ULT. Everyone speaks with english "jargon" wherever it fits, noone translates them.

 

Almost all of the commentators I've listened to are native English speakers with the exception of the occasional eastern European commentator so my comment was definitely not meant as a criticism of people whose primary language is Romantic, or other languages that typically feature vowel sounds at the end of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of these points reflect in part how I feel.

I think I should point out that, while noting that especially in professional contexts jargon has its place for increasing clarity and brevity, in a lot of cases it actually DECREASES specificity because people fall in love (generally unconsciously) with the idea of using the jargon because of the cachet or flavor it conveys rather than because it actually communicates anything more useful. I would say terms like "franchise," "IP/intellectual property," "product," and "exclusive" fall into this category in the video game industry, among press and developers but also non-professional game players on forums and social media. (There is a gray area here between what counts as jargon and what counts as buzzwords.) But most of these words end up getting applied slapdash in FAR more situations than they probably should, which dilutes meaning, flattens language, and plays into the hands of corporate structures that rely on this kind of linguistic dilution to create excitement without having to justify the source of the excitement in great detail.

A similar thing applies to nerd neologisms like "squee," "feels," "so much this," "said no one ever," and the like, which I'm sure have very specific emotional meanings, or at least did at one point, but get overused to the point that they become rote, dead responses.

I realize I'm straying a bit from "jargon" specifically here but I feel these are useful examples for conveying what I find unappealing about unconsidered usage of jargon as well, because I think many of the causes of overuse and tangible results are the same.

I also recognize that I have certainly been guilty of this on the podcast as well. I should be more careful because I would not like to be responsible for spreading unnecessary usage of phrases like "IP" and "franchise."

Finally I will say that acknowledging that "language evolves" should not be interpreted as a blanket statement that "any usage of language in any context is inherently as valuable or worthy as any other usage of language." Of course language evolves. But language is also the most powerful tool we have for expressing thought, and there's no harm in thoughtful evaluation of its use. That doesn't mean we should beunreasonable militant linguistic police, but we also shouldn't shy away from treating it with consideration out of undue concern of being either elitist or anti-intellectual, polar opposite descriptors that are often each thrown around in these discussions.

 

I agree completely with examining our use of language in order to challenge institutional power structures, but that's very different from discussing how anyone uses "grok." It feels like you've got issues with three separate modes of language in this post alone:

  • Intentional repetition of buzzwords, especially corporate, for connotative rather than denotative purposes, which is very much worth discussing, because language is a way that control is exerted over culture. Ever since you brought it up in the cast a year or so ago, I've been more careful myself to use "franchise" and "IP" because those are top-down prescriptions intended to affect how ideas are understood in a way that benefits large multinational companies.
  • Potential for in-group jargon to be unnecessarily confusing or exclusionary, which is also worth discussing but has less that can really come out of it. We can agree that it's often annoying, but so what? If they're understood by the people whom they want to understand them, why should they change? I certainly don't want to tell anyone how to talk, not when it doesn't actually affect me or my own command of language.
  • Natural semantic drift and wear, the commentary on which rarely turns out to be anything besides old-guard grumbling. You can read hundreds of literary tracts over the millennia, especially from the eighteenth and nineteenth century in England, complaining that words don't mean what they used to mean or that they lack depth that they used to have. Sure, words wear out, but when they do, people stop using them or start using them differently. It's a natural process that can't be stopped, so what are we accomplishing with a discussion of it besides pointing the motes in other people's eyes?

To group all three of these under a distaste for non-professional jargon strains the meaning of that word, not that I'm specifically complaining about that. That's how some definitions can be anti-intellectual and others can be elitist, because no one's conception of language in the ideal is going to be totally consistent, not even Samuel Johnson's. I mostly just dislike hand-wringing from people who fear that language is being "ruined" by something. If that were even possible, surely there'd be at least one language out of the six thousand five hundred out there in which it is impossible to communicate anything but the most basic concepts because most of their words have been made "dead" by rote use, but there isn't, because language is as durable and innovative as its speakers. I feel as much as anyone the pain of having a word you like get ground into another meaning (or alternately have a word you find irritating or imprecise become popular), but beyond being careful about our own individual usage, one way or another, there's not much that's terribly useful about policing someone else.

 

That said, feel free to say whatever is annoying. "Squee" is certainly annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now