Jake

Idle Thumbs 170: Esophagus Sarcophagus

Recommended Posts

Dota has also traditionally been most popular in non-English speaking territories, so it's only natural for their adaptions to find a way back into our language. Chalk this up as yet another thing I find odd to find odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know how to square "it's okay to have opinions about things" with "don't police other people and tell them how to talk." I mean, unless I'm only allowed to have opinions about my own usage of things, I'm going to have opinions about other people's usages of things as well. I'm not trying to pass laws, but I can't help but have opinions about things that occur in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know how to square "it's okay to have opinions about things" with "don't police other people and tell them how to talk." I mean, unless I'm only allowed to have opinions about my own usage of things, I'm going to have opinions about other people's usages of things as well. I'm not trying to pass laws, but I can't help but have opinions about things that occur in the world.

 

Maybe frame them just in terms of how you feel then, rather than also in terms of their totalizing effect on language as a whole? There's a big difference between "This usage is annoying to me" and "This usage is bad for language," even though the former sometimes assumes the latter. I suppose I failed to mark that distinction clearly myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you're talking to me - you're probably talking to Gormongous! - but that's not what I was saying. I just find it weird to have the kinds of opinions being expressed. I'm not saying you can't have them - just that I struggle to understand them in any capacity. U:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe frame them just in terms of how you feel then, rather than also in terms of their totalizing effect on language as a whole? There's a big difference between "This usage is annoying to me" and "This usage is bad for language," even though the former sometimes assumes the latter. I suppose I failed to mark that distinction clearly myself.

But I think such usage IS bad for language, or at least can be. Do you think that the fact that language evolves and is robust means that it is literally impossible for anything to weaken it? I'm not saying The Entire Concept Of Language Is Being Destabilized, I'm saying I think meaning can be weakened through unconsidered usage.

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.

 

My experience with the people who are abusing English is not excused because they're all native speakers and not trying to appeal to non-American audiences. They're just talking in mumble, or are native English commentators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think such usage IS bad for language, or at least can be. Do you think that the fact that language evolves and is robust means that it is literally impossible for anything to weaken it? I'm not saying The Entire Concept Of Language Is Being Destabilized, I'm saying I think meaning can be weakened through unconsidered usage.

 

I think we are going to disagree. I don't really know what a "weak meaning" would look like. I think there are weakened aesthetics and weakened intelligibility, but both of those are situational and subjective. Like I said, is there a language where meaning has been weakened systemically enough that people encounter difficulty communicating? Is that really a danger we should be looking out for?

 

I agree emphatically with you that "We're growing the IP for our franchise" is ugly and inelegant to the extreme, but I don't think its meaning is necessarily weak, if I understand what you mean by "weak." I also agree that "unconsidered usage" can result in such ugliness and inelegance, but I don't agree that it's necessarily a force for bad or good, beyond said aesthetics. It's just a thing that happens. Unconsidered usage is how "silly" changed from meaning "happy" to "blessed" to "innocent" to "harmless" to "pathetic" and finally to "foolish." None of these concepts were weakened by a shift in a word denoting them, not has "silly" become less useful as a word over this thousand-year history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently "nice" used to mean "stupid". I like to imagine it still does.

My experience with the people who are abusing English[...]

An aspect of my softening attitude regarding language is that I'm not really comfortable with the idea of English being abused, or under attack, or perverted, or whatever. Regardless of whether or not I like the way people use it, I have no greater claim to its proper destiny than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are going to disagree. I don't really know what a "weak meaning" would look like. I think there are weakened aesthetics and weakened intelligibility, but both of those are situational and subjective. Like I said, is there a language where meaning has been weakened systemically enough that people encounter difficulty communicating? Is that really a danger we should be looking out for?

 

I agree emphatically with you that "We're growing the IP for our franchise" is ugly and inelegant to the extreme, but I don't think its meaning is necessarily weak, if I understand what you mean by "weak." I also agree that "unconsidered usage" can result in such ugliness and inelegance, but I don't agree that it's necessarily a force for bad or good, beyond said aesthetics. It's just a thing that happens. Unconsidered usage is how "silly" changed from meaning "happy" to "blessed" to "innocent" to "harmless" to "pathetic" and finally to "foolish." None of these concepts were weakened by a shift in a word denoting them, not has "silly" become less useful as a word over this thousand-year history.

As you say I don't know how much farther we're going to get by going back and forth in this, but I'm not talking about the thousand-year long view of history and language. Also when I say "language" I don't mean "a language," e.g. The English Language, I mean "usage of language in particular cases." I'm talking about immediate usage. When people start applying the word "franchise" to everything, people start thinking of everything as "a franchise." This happens constantly now. Until relatively recently, that word was hardly ever used in the near-universal context it is used now, but now it's everywhere. Everything is a potential franchise. A lot of this has to do with business considerations that would be happening regardless of language, but I strongly believe that wholesale adoption of jargon helps to normalize the effect. When everyone is reporting on and talking about "franchises" it helps to create a self-fulfilling prophecy; of course entertainment "properties" naturally manifest as "franchises" that become "sequelized" "products" and are "extended" into wide-ranging "content" to "consume." It's just in the air, it's everywhere. I recognize that it would be naive to pin this all on words, but I think language is extremely powerful and can be used to flatten concepts, make them less specific. It can of course do the opposite as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An aspect of my softening attitude regarding language is that I'm not really comfortable with the idea of English being abused, or under attack, or perverted, or whatever. Regardless of whether or not I like the way people use it, I have no greater claim to its proper destiny than anyone else.

 

Thankfully in the "ult" vs "ulti" fiasco of shortening words, I haven't softened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I prefer 'ulti'. Sure it's not as brief, but it's more distinct to the ear and easier for a mumbler like me to say. Preferably people should probably just use the actual spell names during play-by-play and say the full word 'ultimate' when describing heroes during downtime though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best thread evar!

As you say I don't know how much farther we're going to get by going back and forth in this, but I'm not talking about the thousand-year long view of history and language. Also when I say "language" I don't mean "a language," e.g. The English Language, I mean "usage of language in particular cases." I'm talking about immediate usage. When people start applying the word "franchise" to everything, people start thinking of everything as "a franchise." This happens constantly now. Until relatively recently, that word was hardly ever used in the near-universal context it is used now, but now it's everywhere. Everything is a potential franchise. A lot of this has to do with business considerations that would be happening regardless of language, but I strongly believe that wholesale adoption of jargon helps to normalize the effect. When everyone is reporting on and talking about "franchises" it helps to create a self-fulfilling prophecy; of course entertainment "properties" naturally manifest as "franchises" that become "sequelized" "products" and are "extended" into wide-ranging "content" to "consume." It's just in the air, it's everywhere. I recognize that it would be naive to pin this all on words, but I think language is extremely powerful and can be used to flatten concepts, make them less specific. It can of course do the opposite as well.

My immediate reaction to this is that the language in this case is reflecting the dominant paradigm of commoditization rather than causing it. If I happen into a conversation with someone who uses these phrases, then I would think "Oh, this person must work in the marketing department or be their audience." I think I would have a similar reaction is I heard people speaking Spanish: "Oh, they must be part of the spanish-speaking community."

Maybe commercial interests are becoming more influential in the distribution-channels you are embedded in. Your distaste for this use of language could be a manifestation of your resistance to commercial interests replacing a competing paradigm that you value.

Or not. I just had to mention the possibility. In the off-chance that I nail it, you'll think I'm super smart!

You may be able to test this by applying the opposite assumption of the hypothesis. When someone uses a new word that you find more expressive, ask yourself what aspect of the subject that particular use of language is highlighting. In this way the paradigm that you value more may become more clear and you can then consider possible threats of mutual exclusivity.

For example, when discussing music, I prefer the word "exotic" more than "foreign" because one connotates a curiosity in difference and the other connotates (nationalism?). I perfer the term "alienating" compared to "weird" because I feel that the one term connotates that I have been left behind, while the other connotates that the subject is irrelevant*.

This allows me to discover my value-systems.

*as a side-note I feel like using these terms is a game of mutual exclusivity. Some people think that "weirdo" as a worthwhile genre while others would think that it is something that they should avoid. This could just be a matter of signifiers that help people find what they want and avoid what they don't.

In the case of "alienating" it is also complex. "Alienating" could be reasonably understood as intending exclusion rather than intending that the audience put some effort into opening themselves to new experiences. --edit: I should have said "perspectives" rather than "experiences"-- "Exotic" not only means cultural curiousity, but comes with connotations of colonialism, misrepresentation, and harmful fetishes. "Exotic" makes me think of Martin Denny. I like Martin Denny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My immediate reaction to this is that the language in this case is reflecting the dominant paradigm of commoditization rather than causing it.

 

I don't really think that's the case here. It's not just that we're familiar with the industry but that we are accepting this behavior as the norm. By using these words we're inherently accepting that all games should be sequelized and exploited and that they're just corporate products (Chris said all this better than I can/will). At best these are the sorts of things I, as an end user, shouldn't care about.

 

This sort of behavior happens in politics a lot. Events or platforms are spun via very carefully chosen (and endlessly repeated) words with the intent of influencing and being adopted by the audience. These may not all qualify as jargon, but look at things like "pro choice" vs "pro life", the insane overuse of the world "socialism", or the language being thrown around in the coverage of what's happening in Ferguson ie "protest" vs "riot" vs "angry mob". It's something to be aware of because the way these things can sneak into your own usage can be easy to miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of behavior happens in politics a lot. Events or platforms are spun via very carefully chosen (and endlessly repeated) words with the intent of influencing and being adopted by the audience. These may not all qualify as jargon, but look at things like "pro choice" vs "pro life", the insane overuse of the world "socialism", or the language being thrown around in the coverage of what's happening in Ferguson ie "protest" vs "riot" vs "angry mob". It's something to be aware of because the way these things can sneak into your own usage can be easy to miss.

You seem to be implying that there is a loss of identity involved, where people are being assimilated into groups that hold certain beliefs, thereby changing their own beliefs. Do you think that one groups use of the word "protestor" compared to another groups use of the word "angry-mob" could be a useful signifier of which group you want to participate in?

I think that the words chosen reflect who is winning in a particular group. For instance "climate-change" being used instead of "global-warming" makes me think that interests of environmentalists in most media outlets has been reduced. So I then take that as a sign that I should look elsewhere for an environmentalist perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Gormongous' premise that when people are policing language, they must be doing so out of fear of language becoming degraded. Language will endure just fine, sure, but our use of language has political and social implications. I don't think people were wrong to criticize the Bush administration for using the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" to describe torture. Part of feminism's success is getting a broader range of people to consider potentially sexist language. To say that any evolution in language is inevitable, and therefore we have no right to do anything about it strikes me as incredibly defeatist and incorrect. That language naturally transforms over time means we have a greater responsibility to consider how we use language, and to debate its usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebecca Schuman seems to have no concept of how much meaning lies in the connotation of chosen synonyms. While reading the article, I have a hard time distinguishing when Schuman is being ironic and when she is just blind to her own use of jargon. Should we really not use mythological allusions like "siren's call" because it's just our attempt to sound smart? I personally think it would be a loss.

Edit: I read the article again after sarah argobot's response. I now see that it's about not using synonyms without first learning their meaning. I had been reading it as a explanation of why jargon shouldn't be used. Then when I got to the part where Schuman says that no one "supposes" or "exclaims" I thought she was super wrong. Now I understand that the article is saying that use of jargon is fine, just know what it means first. I no longer suspect that any non-red words are ironic in the essay, before I thought she was demonstrating jargon to show why it is a bad idea. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebecca Schuman seems to have no concept of how much meaning lies in the connotation of chosen synonyms. While reading the article, I have a hard time distinguishing when Schuman is being ironic and when she is just blind to her own use of jargon. Should we really not use mythological allusions like "siren's call" because it's just our attempt to sound smart? I personally think it would be a loss.

 

Yes, because wanting to sound smart and actually understanding how language works are two entirely different things. Using jargon or the thesaurus to artificially pump up your speech ends up weakening it instead. If you don't know what a word means, it's probably best not to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be implying that there is a loss of identity involved, where people are being assimilated into groups that hold certain beliefs, thereby changing their own beliefs. Do you think that one groups use of the word "protestor" compared to another groups use of the word "angry-mob" could be a useful signifier of which group you want to participate in?

I think that the words chosen reflect who is winning in a particular group. For instance "climate-change" being used instead of "global-warming" makes me think that interests of environmentalists in most media outlets has been reduced. So I then take that as a sign that I should look elsewhere for an environmentalist perspective.

But do you not accept that the way in which things are presented to us, particularly when we first encounter them, biases the way we perceive them? I don't imagine the majority of any media audience is being attentive enough to question everything they're told by their news sources. If I'm told there's been a riot, I'll tend to take that at face value, even if, on seeing it for myself, I would have described it as a protest. For sure, your opinion or understanding of a matter will inform the words you choose, but the words chosen by others can likewise inform your opinions and understanding. You know, feedback loop and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ sarah argobot

I agree that it is poor form to use a word without knowing what it means.

@ James

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best thread evar!

For example, when discussing music, I prefer the word "exotic" more than "foreign" because one connotates a curiosity in difference and the other connotates (nationalism?). I perfer the term "alienating" compared to "weird" because I feel that the one term connotates that I have been left behind, while the other connotates that the subject is irrelevant*.

This allows me to discover my value-systems.

*as a side-note I feel like using these terms is a game of mutual exclusivity. Some people think that "weirdo" as a worthwhile genre while others would think that it is something that they should avoid. This could just be a matter of signifiers that help people find what they want and avoid what they don't.

In the case of "alienating" it is also complex. "Alienating" could be reasonably understood as intending exclusion rather than intending that the audience put some effort into opening themselves to new experiences. --edit: I should have said "perspectives" rather than "experiences"-- "Exotic" not only means cultural curiousity, but comes with connotations of colonialism, misrepresentation, and harmful fetishes. "Exotic" makes me think of Martin Denny. I like Martin Denny.

I decided to look up these words to make sure I knew what they meant. Looking through the synonyms and their meanings, I think that "anomalous" and "eccentric" are more expressive of what I am often trying to say than "alienating", "weird", "foreign", and "exotic" so that's great. Onwards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Gormongous' premise that when people are policing language, they must be doing so out of fear of language becoming degraded. Language will endure just fine, sure, but our use of language has political and social implications. I don't think people were wrong to criticize the Bush administration for using the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" to describe torture. Part of feminism's success is getting a broader range of people to consider potentially sexist language. To say that any evolution in language is inevitable, and therefore we have no right to do anything about it strikes me as incredibly defeatist and incorrect. That language naturally transforms over time means we have a greater responsibility to consider how we use language, and to debate its usage.

 

That... wasn't my point at all. Interrogating and understanding language as a component of social and political power structures is a useful and worthy enterprise. I've never argued anything else. I just feel that people who resist all language change out of a belief that not just language but meaning itself is somehow being weakened by imprecise word choice, as several people have explicitly stated in this thread, are missing the forest for the trees. There's a big difference, in which no one else seems interested, between choosing not to use "IP" (or finding it annoying) because it advocates a corporate-based concept of idea ownership and choosing not to use "grok" (or finding it annoying) because it's not useful to you or you don't identify with groups that use it. They aren't the same. I'd even argue that insistence on the latter detracts from an effective response to the former.

 

Honestly, I have no idea how the anti-jargon crowd could claim the side of social justice, when one of the greatest tools of social justice is a robust and informed jargon, which gradually trickles down into popular consciousness. Look at "privilege" of all things, which has become an actual social concept very distinct from its original meaning and is even used by opponents of feminism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Jargon" has a specific meaning that is not just "word that means something." Jargon is specific to a discipline or field or hobby or social group. It is language that is by its nature exclusive. In some cases, within a professional field, it is extremely useful to keep from having to explain common concepts again and again. But in a lot of cases it's used implicitly condescendingly (as when marketers or financiers use it to deliberately obfuscate or mislead those not in the know), or is just nerds using terminology as a badge or social identifier.

 

Also, you know that thing babies do before they learn to talk where they babble with inflection that sounds like adult speech but it's just nonsense syllables that don't mean anything?  Pediatricians refer to that as jargon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to substitute "baby babble" for "jargon" from now on.  Thanks!

 

This has to be a fairly accurate representation of some corporate meetings:

 

The final stage is known as conversational babbling, or the "jargon stage". The jargon stage is defined as "pre-linguistic vocalizations in which [executives] use adult-like stress and intonation".[5] The general structure of the syllables that they are producing is very closely related to the sounds of their native language...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of binged on the recent Thumb episodes, so I don't know anymore where this was said, but y'all need to see Werner Herzog's Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call: New Orleans: Nic Cage Freaks The Fuck Out And Dances Edition.

 

(I also wrote a spoilery review on the film for Filmadeus: http://www.filmadeus.com/2012/11/the-bad-lieutenant-port-of-call-new.html

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