So I am going to beat this dead horse just a little bit more because I just experienced a manifestation of this language issue I addressed in the last post. I also want to harp on this a little because it’s important. Let me give you an example. When the war in Iraq was but a year old, there were protesters in Washington with signs that read “Get out the war!” They then chanted “Get out the war! Get out the war!” not “Get out of the war!”English is a complicated language due in large part to our odd colloquialisms. Most people in non-English speaking countries attempt to learn these in order to get by. When they learn little phrases like “Get out the word” and accept it also means “spread the word” and then hear “Get out the war!” what do you think, they think that means?
A bunch of crazy Americans chanting: “Spread the War! Spread the war!”
To the typical Iranian, a chilling prospect.
Back to what just happened to me. People have gotten so used to speaking in terms of context rather than actually using the correct language that they forget that you are not inside their head. In other words, to them language is entirely experiential. So that if they just had a thought, or got off the phone with someone else, they presume you know the context of their thoughts or previous conversation. This results in them speaking to you as though every sentence begins halfway through the thought.
I was in front of our building having a smoke and was approached by a repair man of some sort.
Guy: I installed some vending machines here?
Me: Excuse me?
Guy: Vending machines. In this building.
Me: Yeah?
Guy: There are vending machines. By the red awning. Vending Machines… like pop and candy and potato chips…
Me: I know what vending machines are. What are you asking me?
Guy: Are they in here?
Me: Yes. Are you asking me where the vending machines are located?
Guy: Yeah.
Me: Down this hall, first right.
You see, he was thinking that he needed to repair some vending machines that his company had installed in our building. Apparently his company gave him directions to the building indicating that it had a red awning in front. Because all language has become experiential, it never occurred to him that he would need to simply ask the question in a way that ANYONE would be able to answer regardless of the situation or whether or not I was riding shotgun with him in his repair van. So he just assumed that I knew everything that had just happened to him. Or, more likely he is unable to wrap his brain around constructing a sentence outside of his own contextual world of recent experiences and therefore unable to speak to anyone else who hasn't just come from the same set of experiences.
You can tell when someone is afflicted with this condition. They fail to define their pronouns. How many times have you heard this one:
“I had lunch with Susan, Rachel and a couple people from our sales department. She told me that our revenue forecast needs to be changed. So I asked him if that was because she didn’t have the right information but he said that it wasn’t hers that was bad, it was Steve’s way that he delivered it to her.”
Who the fuck is Steve?
Listen. You know that big round thing that you shove food into? That’s your head. And guess what… I’m not inside it.
3 comments:
One of my favorite new colloquialisms (neoloquialisms?) is when people punctuate discussion points with the word "clearly," as in, "Clearly, banana bread makes an excellent aphrodisiac," even when (or particularly when) the arguments are not clear at all. It's as if, as you argue here, Malaprop, that such arguers expect others to see things exactly the way they do (i.e., clearly)--as if sharing the same set of eyes. Or else, such arguers are simply trying to hide the fact that they don't have any evidence to support the argument.
To "clearly," please add "literally" and "frankly." The misuse of "literally" is pretty well documented ("I was literally bouncing off the walls!") Really? I don't see any bruises...
But "frankly" is another empty qualifier coming out of the politisphere. It frustrates me because I still fall for it. Tim Russert asks some Senator a good question, and when he starts with, "Well, frankly, Tim..." my ears actually do a Pavolvian perk up, like I'm thinking, "Oh my God, he's going to say something honest!"
And of course, it's the exact opposite.
"Literally" and "Frankly" are the pseudo-intellectual's version of saying "I don't got none."
Like a double negative, they always mean the exact opposite of the intended message.
Your post cracked me up though, I figuratively laughed out loud.
Post a Comment