Something you may or may not know about me (I'll answer this for you, it's the latter) is that I help pay for websites like dictionary.com. How do I, a poorly paid server working in this megalopolis, (Brooklyn to be exact, my infamy will be forthcoming but for now I will be relatively forthright about the minutiae of me, numerous parentheses and ad nauseam rambling withstanding) pay for anything besides cigarettes, metrocards, whiskey, and beer? Food and rent are afterthoughts for your faithful servant: me.
Well, I'll tell you. I frequent these sites and in this day when the prospect of purchasing an item is somehow more valuable and desirable than an actual transaction my viewing of advertisements for "Ice skating in Orlando" (you read me) is worth more than my actual dropping of duckets to lace up a pair of ice skates and hit the rink to USA on Ice. But fear not readers (hi, mom and dad), this will not be some groan-inducing and banal retread of the same-ol' tired argument about the perils and looming destruction of Occidental culture at the hands of those no-goodniks in the advertising agencies of the world. That will be left to the pundits with more insight, knowledge and expertise in the field. It must be stated, however, I would be remiss and unscrupulous to not condemn the seeming stranglehold the commercial advertising world has on our collective consciousness and the dangerous power it wields in shaping, contorting and defining our world.
That being said, I liken the evils of advertising within the white collar/white male* arena of culture theft and destruction to the "made men" of mafia crime syndicates. As for who ("what?"-I refuse to recognize corporations as entities worthy of the rights afforded to humans, fuck off lobbyists) represents the Don or boss of this allegorical crime cartel, I, sadly, haven't given it enough thought.** But the hierarchy exists in my belief, but maybe I'm just too credulous. Which is what spurred this quasi-tractate in the first place.
As you might have deduced from my opening statements, I frequent online dictionary websites. I try to make a point to reinforce*** my knowledge of words from time-to-time as well as learn the occasional new word to vivify (I JUST did it) my language. These are the two primary reasons I make it a habit to regularly drop-in at the aforementioned websites; that and paper dictionaries are ridiculously expensive, not to mention their online siblings navigate much swifter.
Back to credulity, I was reading about that very word when I began thinking about the interesting way the two words and their respective changes of tense* (incredul[ous/ity] v. credul[ous/ity]) are not complementary or at least not dichotomous. For complete clarity I will include the dictionary definition of both.
incredulity-the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe.
credulity-willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility.
While these are static definitions that do not reflect the mutation of definitions through the different interpretations and usage (correctly or incorrectly), the origins are simply "skeptical" v. "naive." Which contradicts what the average person (the average nerd, actually) would assume when the formative "in" is employed. One need look no further that my parentheses three lines up to more clearly grasp my point: correct v. incorrect=right v. not right. But why do the denotations of credulity and incredulity deviate from this formula?
I do not have access to a dictionary that offers much in the way of these two words' etymologies to see if they arrived at their perceived dichotomous relationship serendipitously--as two similar words that through current affairs and various interpretations of two relatively linked words became, typographically at least, connected--or if these two words have been linked as gullible v. suspicious from the beginning.
I suppose my curiosity with the words stems from my view of their relationship as being grayer than most "in/un-" formative couplings. The relationship dynamic between "correct" and "incorrect" is much easier to observe than that of the "credulity" and "incredulity" marriage. Right and wrong (barring moral and ethical issues, I'm speaking superficially) is much easier to define or identify than the states of naivete and skepticism and the relationship therein.
Which I suppose a victory unto itself for the English language, albeit a minor one at best. Within a language with so many strict dichotomies (hard as a rock, soft as a pillow, but what about everything in between?) it is always a welcome feeling to be reminded that the language is more vibrant than at times perceived and with the capability to gain more hues, shades, and colors altogether.
But will anyone do it? Too many of us are all-too-willing to stop at being able to identify the meaning of a word within a certain context, while ignoring its overarching definition, varied as it/they may be. I'm reminded of a scene from the movie "Reality Bites" wherein Winona Ryder's character is attempting to speak to a member of management at some place of business**** and as the woman grows weary of Rider's presence she fires off "What's the definition of 'irony'?" prior to stepping into an elevator. Rider's character responds,"I can identify it!" At this stumble, the woman shakes her head and lets the elevator doors close between her and Rider.
This scene from "Reality Bites" perfectly illustrates a problem with our collective sensibility when it comes to language. We're content to be able to use it or identify it within the context of someone's spoken words or their text (very dangerous, with this attitude pervasive through our culture who's to say some random cat isn't guilty of the same behavior) but few are willing to take the minimal effort to actually learn the definition(s) of a word.
Take it from me, you don't want to look like the heel who uses "penultimate" when he actually meant something along the lines of "super-ultimate." I was that heel, and I felt/looked like one.
Let's keep the language clean (crass and lewd are ok), for remember Noam Chomsky gets more pussy in a week than Wilt Chamberlain did in a year.
*sorry ladies and minorities participating in the corporate crime land victimizing the world-at-large, but your contributions, while remarkable and worthy of a pat on the back, pale in comparison to that of your white, Western, male contemporaries; better luck next time and thanks for playing!
**Anyone reading, especially to this point, feel free to suggest a fitting equivalent to a boss in the respective mainstream realm of culture/thought larceny. Additional request, please think of something better than, "Durrrr....Enron!" Even I could come up with that and I'm pepped up on Red Bull, Emergen-C and egg sandwich. C-r-e-a-t-i-v-i-t-y. It's NOT just a synonym for homosexuality (Any homosexuals reading, especially anyone who had been wiling to or considering employing me on your writing staff, that was tongue-in-cheek; homophobia is gay).
***This script is my first attempt to ween myself from my guilty pleasure that is saturating anything I compose with parentheses. I like to think (with an unofficial vote of support from William Safire, wait, shit! did it again) it demonstrates how thoughtful I am to my subjects and readers, but in reality my usage has become a bit egregious so I am making a conscious effort to "lipo" my writing and "juice" my clarity. Getting back to the footnote, it serves as my parenthetical-methadone, a sub-motive within the reinforcement of knowledge/understanding motive for my habitual trips to dictionary websites is to accrue different, occasionally new interpretations of the word. How 'bout that?
****Anyone into angsty, Gen X, 1990s movies feel free to clue me into more details of this scene, it's hilarious from what I recall . I don't remember much of the film at all, in fact I had completely forgotten that Ben Stiller and Ethan Hawke were in it. Then again, forgetting Ben Stiller isn't such a bad thing, same for Ethan Hawke. Who the hell bails on Uma Thurman? Mr. Hawke, you, your balls, and your BRAIN need to have a pow-wow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment