Quote and Note: Jane Austen

Perhaps this will become a little series, or perhaps not, but while reading Persuasion by Jane Austen I was struck by her keen eye for understanding human nature, which the movies convey somewhat but not nearly well enough. So, here is the first quote and a bit of a note.

"When the evening was over, Anne could not but be amused at the idea of her coming to Lyme, to preach patience and resignation to a young man whom she had never seen before; nor could she help fearing, on more serious reflection, that, like many other great moralists and preachers, she had been eloquent on a point in which her own conduct would ill bear examination."

Jane Austen did seem to posess a healthy scepticism of individuals who are moral busybodies and killjoys, which the movies portray quite well, and, yet, I get the sense that she is not cynical about the Christian faith in a modern way at all. I think she does really believe that it is a useful thing to learn of "patience and resignation" in response to a Providence that seems to be frowning for the time being. And, still, the final line of this quote is so true. Is it not?

Posted by jackdas at 3:15 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 14, 2007

Ah, the Shame of It...

...of using a word wrongly, sometimes for years, only to find out later the error of one's ways. Even when someone has not overtly pointed out my error to me, which usually involves defensiveness and then humbling in a quiet moment upon checking a dictionary then returning with my tail between my legs, I even feel the shame when I find the error myself. Groan. How embarrassing is it that I have been misspeaking all these years, not only for the shame of it, but the sheer garbling of communication, which is hard enough as it is, a tenuous landscape that is so eaily pierced with fissures of misunderstanding.

And, why does it happen so often? Well, it does to me at least. First, I think it arises from a desire, partly vain, partly useful, to expand one's vocabulary, to nuance communication with a broader vocabulary, which makes it all the more tragic when one has misunderstood a word, because exactly the opposite is the result. I also think it occurs because we largely learn words by hearing them used, and words, though they cannot be used with an infinite set of meanings, often have rather large set of meanings. And even this set is not set.

I remember when I learned the concept that language is conventional, that words only have meanings as groups of people use them in certain ways. I like to picture the term conventional itself here as a little groups of people meeting in "word conventions" for each and every word deciding what it will mean. Of course, most such deciding is pretty unconscious and constantly ocurring, and is done as easily as we breath, as a function of our creation as intensely social, meaning making beings.

If you doubt this dynamic of how words come to mean certain things, I submit that you should simply consider slang, and how words acquire and lose meaning in that context. It seems to me as if slang is a cocentrated, fast-moving version of the process that occurs with all words.

And, so, because words have semantic ranges that are fuzzy around the edges and constantly shifting, sometimes I think if one hears a word used at the edge of one range, well, one might simply map it to a different semantic range that is somewhat relted and then begin to associate it more strongly with the main word in that range. Does that make sense?

All that is to say that my most recent faux pas (that's pronounced "fox pass" if you live in the Midwest ;), was to use the word "quixotic" to mean puzzling, mysterious, secretive or to have a hidden meaning. It means no such thing, but rather is derived from the story of Don Quixote and means: 1) foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action 2) capricious, unpredictable. Groan.

I think my worst mistake, though, actually occurred in another language, in Urdu. Mind you I did not speak Urdu often and consistently, but for years when I thought I was using the word "strict," I was actually using the word "lazy." I remember several conversations in which I described one of my teacher as being "sust" and saying that I still liked him, meaning he was strict, but I still appreciated him. Alas, groan, my assessment of my teacher and my listeners assessment of me were radically different than intended, about which only a few minutes ago I still laughed nervously, heartily, after all these years, with the relieved, cathartic laugh one sometimes experiences when being delivered from great shame.

Do you have any examples of similar fox passes? Yeah, mispronunciation of words you have only read but never heard will work too. I am not dyslexic but for years "debris" was "der-bis" for me and "hereby" was "her-bie," as in "Hey, Virgil, are you going to herbie will me something on your yearbook page?"

P.S.
Oh, and, yes, I have been playing FreeRice, why do you ask?

Posted by jackdas at 9:51 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

May 9, 2007

What is in a name (and how it's written)?

The visual image continues its assault on written and spoken words. If it were not bad enough for words that a picture is a worth a thousand of them, well this article shows that the power of words itself is even modulated by how they are pictured.

Seriously, though, the article is a fascinating look at how fonts express meaning, either through serifs and embellishments or by the lack of these. The article marks the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the font Helvetica, a name which is derived from the ancient Roman, Helevetia, name for a province encompassing Switzerland, which I knew before I even looked up because of reading this comic book (see what the right kind of children's books can accomplish).

Helevetica, like the country from which its name is derived, conveys through its simple lines, neutrality and stability and security, qualities which are prized by many advertisers and corporations.

As Wildenberg notes, its Swissness is part of the appeal. The land where clocks run meticulously and the streets are spotless carries the kind of cultural resonance that the logo makers and brand masters of the major corporations might like a bit of. For others, its neutrality is a platform for daring design.

Even though it is easy on the eyes and conveys stability, not everyone is a fan though, crying "Boring!"

When people choose Helvetica they want to fit in and look normal. They use Helvetica because they want to be a member of the efficiency club. They want to be a member of modernism. They want to be a member of no personality. It also says bland, unadventurous, unambitious.

Typefaces control the message. Choice of font dictates what you think about something before you even read the first word.

Do you have a favorite font? Are there any you despise? Oh, and make sure to read the first reader comment for a groan-worthy joke.

Posted by jackdas at 9:47 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack