What do you mean?

Day 3,710, 14:15 • Published in USA USA • by MaryamQ


We’ve all seen it -- people using the same words , yet talking at cross-purposes, almost as if they are speaking different languages. How does this happen? Even if we heed RF Williams' recent call to a more mindful use of language, why do we so often misunderstand one another?

Any student of the English language knows that it is filled with ambiguities, false cognates that appear to be drawn from other languages, and a constant evolution of meaning and usage, in addition to a wide variation in regional and national dialects. These problems are compounded by the various meanings of a single word, which may not be understood similarly by even the most fluent speakers. Love, the topic of my most recent previous article, is a perfect example of this. Modern English uses a single word for various emotional states, each of which may have its own word in another language.



These are only a few of the Greek words that have been used to describe types of love. Others may include ideas such as mania (obsessive love). So when I am talking about playing with love, there is an immediate problem in discerning what type(s) of love I mean or what that word connotes to the reader. Add to this, that many (including me) consider that love should be expressed in action, not just held as a passive emotion, but we may differ on whether or how those actions show love, and even to whom they show it.



Sometimes, we arrogantly assume that others see things as we see them. When I am tempted to believe that, I remember a poem I once wrote, which was meant to describe for a nonmusician friend how it felt to sing in a large community chorus. When I posted it, I was stunned to find that some who read it thought it was about sex. Okay, I will admit that I often don’t see symbolic meanings in things, and some of those making the comments were young and male and possibly saw sex in everything, but really, the feeling I described wasn’t THAT good.



We also need to remember that not everyone reading an article or a post is a primary speaker of the same language as the poster. This can also lead to misunderstandings.



Sometimes the misunderstandings are intentional and humorous, although that may not be clear to the reader at first.



Other times, the speaker may be intentionally manipulating language to mislead.



Masha Gessen argues that, not only does the autocrat mean what he says, but also that the normalization of hate speech degrades all public discourse while increasing the power of the autocrat to manipulate society.



It is evident that the society may not resist if the change is gradual.



The rather infelicitous rebranding of USWP to The Constitution Party is another illustration of disagreement about the meanings of what appear to be common words. Aside from the ever-present argument about whether an eRepublik community can or should be governed by meta rules, the connotations of that word, “constitution” and the misunderstandings of its use and importance are even more problematic in game than they are in RL. While a constitution may, on the surface, provide structure and context for a community, in practice, it may be used as a weapon against those who do not choose to participate in the meta-game, or worse, against those who are not liked by a certain core of players. This has proven to be true in both large and small communities, and is reflected by many of the comments on the announcement article. Even the best of intentions may be met with resistance if words are not used with care.


In conclusion, I would like to thank RF Williams, Niemand, and TheNorm for their insights about some of the ideas in this article. Their collective wisdom and shared experience are a never-ending inspiration to me.