Language Matters – Page 43 – Maverick Philosopher

Digital Camera Warnings

My Canon PowerShot SD600 digital camera is a marvel of engineering. The amount of human intelligence embodied in this object the size of a pack of cigarettes — please forgive the politically incorrect comparison — is staggering to this old engineering student. All the more remarkable, therefore, is the ineptitude of the writing found in the User Guide. The following bolded passages are verbatim quotations:

Do not look directly at the sun or at other intense light sources through the viewfinder that could damage your eyesight.

But isn't a viewfinder that could damage one's eyes a serious design flaw?

Wrist strap: Placement of the strap around the child's neck could result in asphyxiation.

So it is not just any child that could be asphyxiated in this manner, but only some particular child? A child whose head is so tiny that one could get the wrist strap over it?

Memory card: Dangerous if accidentally swallowed. If this occurs, contact a doctor immediately.

Is swallowing it harmless if done deliberately?

Continue reading “Digital Camera Warnings”

A Punctilio Anent the Post Immediately Preceding

I just wrote, quite consciously, "There are expressions whose currency is due to no good reason . . ." Strictly correct would have been, "There are expressions the currency of which is due to no good reason . . . ." Since 'whose' is the possessive form of the personal pronoun 'who,' it ought not be used when the antecedent denotes an inaminate referent. Or at least that is a rule purists will obey. It is a trade-off between strict correctness and stiltedness.

In the very next sentence I have "you can be sure" for the strictly correct "one can be sure." It is a similar trade-off. Do you want a tone that is formal or familiar?

The main thing, I suppose, is that a good writer writes consciously, aware of the rules, but breaking them when it serves his purpose. Split the infinite, begin with a conjunction, end with a preposition if it gives your sentence the flow and feel you desire.

On Being Impacted

There are expressions whose currency is due to no good reason, but simply reflects the suggestibility of people. Let someone prominently placed commit a linguistic howler, and you can be sure that others will fall in line. The perfectly good word ‘affect,’ used as verb, has fallen into desuetude to be replaced by the miserable ‘impact’ used as a verb. Thus, ‘Mary was deeply impacted by her father’s death.’ You mean her sire’s demise induced constipation in the poor girl? Why this barbarism when ‘Mary was deeply affected by her father’s death’ is available? Part of the answer has to be that people are lemmings who uncritically repeat whatever they hear.

'Impactation' is correctly used in this curious medical article dredged up from the bowels of the Internet: Rectal Impactation Following Enema With Concrete Mix.

On the Correct Usage of ‘Infers’ and ‘Implies’

Within the space of a few days, I caught two TV pundits and an otherwise competent writer misusing 'infer.' Why do people have such a difficult time with the distinction between inference and implication? I will try to explain the matter as simply as I can.

The test to determine whether a use of 'infer' is correct is whether or not the thing said to be inferring is a mind. If it is a mind, then the use is correct; if it is not a mind, then the use is incorrect. Some examples:

The author's citations infer that Serling drew inspiration from a diverse group of authors and philosophers. This use of 'infer' is incorrect because a citation is not a mind, and so cannot engage in any such mental operation as inference. 'Imply' would be correct.
Seeing Tom's car in front of Sally's house, Bill inferred that Tom was visiting Sally. Correct. It is correct because the thing doing the inferring, Bill, is an entity capable of the mental operation of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises.
Pelosi's 'astroturf' remark inferred that protesters at town hall meetings are organized agitators. Incorrect. A remark is the content of a remarking; it is something that a person says. What a person says is not a mind but a proposition, and a proposition, not being a mind, cannot infer anything. 'Implied' would be correct.
Pelosi implied that town hall protesters are organized agitators when she made her 'astroturf' comment. This is a correct use of 'implied.' But note that 'imply' has two main uses. One is the strictly logical use according to which implication is a relation between propositions. The other is the nonlogical use according to which implication is a relation between a person (or a mind) and a proposition. Pelosi implied that the protesters are organized in the sense that she suggested that this is so. In most cases one can substitute 'suggests' for 'implies' when the latter is employed nonlogically.
Are you implying that I'm a liar? This is a correct use of 'implying.' The word is being used in the nonlogical sense just explained. One can replace the question salva significatione with 'Are you suggesting that I'm a liar?'
Are you inferring that I am a liar? This is also correct inasmuch as the addressee may indeed be inferring that the speaker is a liar. The addressee may be concluding from the speaker's shifty eyes and other 'body language' that he is not telling the truth.
What you said infers that I'm a liar. This is incorrect because what a person said cannot engage in any mental operations such as the operation of drawing a conclusion from a premise. 'Implies' would be correct. 'Implies' would then be being used to express a relation between two propositions.

In sum, inference is the mental operation of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises. Only minds can infer. So uses of 'infer' and cognates are correct only in application to minds. Any use of 'infer' that implies that a nonmind can engage in inference is incorrect. So the following is incorrect: Any use of 'infer' that infers that a nonmind can engage in inference is incorrect. Implication in its strictly logical sense in a relation between propositions. Hence the slogan: Only minds infer; only propositions imply.

Unfortunately for the slogan, the water is muddied by the fact that 'implies' has the two distinct uses lately explained. So here is a more accurate slogan: Only minds infer; only propositions logically imply, though persons can conversationally imply.

On ‘Political’ and ‘Partisan’

People often use 'political' when they should use 'partisan.' A man appeared on C-Span some months ago whose name and the name of whose organization I have forgotten. The man headed an outfit promoting a strict interpretation of the U.S. constitution. Throughout his talk he repeated the remark that his organization was not political, not political, not political!

Nonsense, I say. What could be more political than questions about constitutions and their interpretation, and organizations that promote a particular style of constitutional interpretation? What the man wanted to say was that his outfit was not partisan, not affiliated with any particular political party such as the Republican Party, or the Democrat Party.

'Political' is not a dirty word. How could it be when the human being, by nature, is zoon politikon, a political animal? Aristotle, who appreciated the latter point, also appreciated that the political life cannot be the highest life. That honor goes to the theoretical life. The vita activa subserves the vita contemplativa.

Political Correctness in the U.K.

Is there no limit to PeeCee idiocy? Apparently not. Liberals will throw themselves into the arms of any incoherence. See this Times of London piece. 'Ethnic minority' is to be blacklisted as offensive. The same of course goes for 'blacklisted.' But if you are offended by these words and phrases, then your stupidity offends me! And you should be offended by it too. You should deeply regret that you have let yourself sink into this bog of nonsense.

Stateside, the totalitarian thrust of the Obama administration will bring in its train even more PC. So get ready for ever deeper assaults on common sense. Just remember what I told you: PC derives from the CP. See my Dorothy Healey on Political Correctness for documentation. And while you're at it, take a gander at Of Black Holes and Political Correctness: If You Take Offense, Is that my Fault?

Do you value liberty? Do you value free speech? Then speak out against the liberal-left assault on common sense and the English language.

‘Blog’ and ‘Blog Post’

I note that there are still people who confuse 'blog' with 'blog post.' 'Blog' is elliptical for 'weblog.' They are interchangeable terms. Presumably, no one will refer to weblog entry as a weblog. It makes as little sense to refer to a blog entry as a blog.

A blog is composed of blog posts. It is not itself a blog post, nor is a blog post a blog. Roughly, a blog is to its posts as a book to its chapters. Since you wouldn't refer to a chapter of a book as a book, you shouldn't refer to a post on a blog as a blog.

Every weblog is a website, but not every website is a weblog. A weblog is a regularly updated website consisting mainly of relatively short entries called 'posts' which are arranged in reverse chronological order. That's the essence of it. Hyperlinkage and comments I would not build into the definition, nor would I require daily updating. You are free to differ. I admit, though, that comments — assuming you can attract people capable of making good ones — and hyperlinks add considerably to a blog's interest. As a general rule, if you are quoting from a source that is available online, you ought to link to it.

Does the Left Own Dissent?

Battles in the ‘culture war’ are often fought and sometimes won on linguistic ground. Linguistic hijacking is a tried-and-true tactic, one sometimes found on the Right, but more often on the Left: a term whose natural habitat is some neutral semantic space is hijacked and piloted toward a Left Coast semantic subspace.

An example is ‘dissent,' a word in which leftists fancy they have a proprietary interest. It has two senses, one broad, the other narrow. In its broad usage, to dissent is to withhold assent, or else to differ in opinion. These are not the same, since if I withhold assent from your opinion about X, it does not follow that I hold a different opinion about X: I may suspend judgment by holding no opinion about X.

Continue reading “Does the Left Own Dissent?”

Crude Conservatives and Harsh Language

It is no surprise to find crude liberals. After all, liberals are big on toleration, including toleration of every manner of bad behavior. Indeed, some of them are so tolerant that they tolerate those with no respect for the principle of toleration. This is part of the explanation of why they tend to be soft on terrorism. And, since their toleration extends to the toleration of illogical thinking, they cannot see that to tolerate everything is to tolerate the rejection of the principle of toleration.

It is more of a surprise to find crude conservatives. Tucker Carlson on C-Span a while back used the ‘F’ word. Using it, he detracted from an otherwise excellent presentation, cheapening it, but also removing some of the force from a word that ought to be reserved for very special occasions. One occasionally meets people who need to be blasted with the strongest language one can muster, just as there are some folks who need shootin’ — as a Clint Eastwood character might put it. But just as you should never shoot a man who doesn’t absolutely need shootin’, you should never verbally blast a man who doesn’t absolutely need blastin’. And just as you can’t properly shoot a man without the right caliber of ammo, you can’t properly deliver a proper verbal blast if formerly strong words have been weakened by overuse.

So there are two reasons to avoid the overuse of harsh language. One is that it demeans its users, cheapens debate, and makes the world uglier than it already is. The second reason is that the overuse of harsh language, while coarsening its users and polluting the social atmosphere, drains these words of the punch they need to do their job on the occasions when it is appropriate to use them.

Baby Talk and First Grade English

It is annoying when a senator says that such-and-such is a 'no-no.' Closely related is the phenomenon of what might be called 'first grade English.' George Bush and others have spoken of 'growing the economy.' One grows tomatoes, not economies. But perhaps I am being peevish and pedantic.

What about the current overuse of 'broken'? One hears that the Social Security admininstration and the Immigration and Nauralization Service are 'broken.' One breaks things like guitar strings, bicycle chains, and glasses. That which is broken no longer functions as it was intended to. A broken X is not a suboptimally functioning X but a nonfunctioning X. Clearly, neither the SSA nor the INS are 'broken' strictly speaking. They just don't function very well and are in dire need of reform.

So why call them 'broken'? Is your vocabulary so impoverished that no better word comes to mind?

"President Obama has said plainly that America's health care system is broken." That from Peter Singer in "Why We Must Ration Health Care" (NYT Magazine, July 19, 2009, p. 40.) I guess that is why Canadians and others come to the USA for medical treatment they cannot get under a socialized system.

Why are people such linguistic lemmings? If some clown uses 'broken' inappropriately, why ape him? One has to be quite a lemming to ape a clown. (How's that for a triple mixed metaphor?) In a cognate rant, Issues and Problems, I take issue with 'issue' and its over- and misuse. I have a real 'issue' with that. A longer piece, English for Boneheads: Some Torts on the Mother Tongue, may also be of interest or at least get your blood up.

People who employ baby talk and first grade English in contexts that demand careful thought demonstrate their thoughtlessness and unseriousness. Precision in the use of language may not be sufficient for clear and productive thinking, but it is necessary. Language matters.

Of Black Holes and Political Correctness: If You Take Offense, Is That My Fault?

Suppose a white person uses the phrase 'black hole' in the presence of a black person either in its literal cosmological meaning or in some objectively inoffensive metaphorical sense, and the black person takes offense and complains that the phrase is 'racially insensitive.' Actual case here. Compare that with a case in which a white person uses 'nigger' in the presence of a black person.

I have just marked out two ends of a semantic spectrum. 'Black hole' used either literally or in some not-too-loose analogy to the literal meaning — as in 'black hole' used to refer to a windowless office — cannot be taken by any rational person as a racial slur. For 'black' in 'black hole' has nothing to do with race. But 'nigger' used by a white person is a racial slur.

Continue reading “Of Black Holes and Political Correctness: If You Take Offense, Is That My Fault?”

‘Islamophobia’

This is another one of those silly PeeCee expressions liberals love to use to obfuscate issues and slander their opponents. A phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing phobic about opposition to radical or militant Islam. To fear it is entirely rational. Militant Islam and Islam are presumably distinct. I could be wrong, but I doubt that Islam as such is the problem. But militant or radical Islam — sometimes called Islamism — most assuredly is a threat to the West and its values. Still, someone (Robert Spencer?) who thinks that Islam as such is the problem cannot be accused of suffering from any phobia. So when I heard the liberal Karen Armstrong use 'Islamophobia' or a cognate during a C-Span presentation, my estimation of her dropped several notches lower.

Someone who uses such words as 'homophobe' or 'Islamophobe' may as well just put a sign on his back declaring: I'm a dumbass PeeCee liberal!

An ‘Epidemic’ of Drunk Driving?

If you are a conservative, don't talk like a liberal. A while back I heard an otherwise intelligent C-Span presenter speak more than once of "an epidemic of drunk driving." But an epidemic, by definition, is an outbreak of a contagious disease in excess of what might normally be expected. To describe drunk driving as an epidemic, therefore, is to imply that it is a disease, which is precisely what it is not. Drunk driving is a freely chosen act. Use of 'epidemic' in connection with drunk driving aids and abets the cockeyed liberal view of the world according to which well-nigh every type of negative behavior is a disease.

Words mean things. Language matters. Don't talk like a liberal unless you are one.

Amateur and Professional

Amod Lele e-mails:

I've been enjoying your blog for some time now, and particularly appreciated your post Philosophy as Hobby, as Career, as Vocation. I recently mused on this topic at my own philosophy blog - http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/06/neither-career-nor-hobby/ – and you might find my remarks there of some interest. I'm intrigued, though, by your distinction between professionals and amateurs, as distinct from those who get paid and those who don't. I suspect that by your definition I aspire to be a professional philosopher who doesn't get paid; but I'm not sure, because I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Would you care to spell this distinction out further?

Here is what I wrote:

While I'm on this topic, I may as well mention two other distinctions that are often confused. One is the distinction between professionals and amateurs, the other between people who make money from an activity and those who do not. These distinctions 'cut perpendicular' to one another, hence do not coincide. Spinoza was a professional philosopher even though he made no money from it. One can be a professional philosopher without being a paid professor of it, just as one can be an incompetent amateur and still be paid to teach by a college.

A better way to put it would be as follows. 'Professional' and 'amateur' each have two senses. In one sense, a professional X-er is a person who makes a living from X-ing. This sense of 'professional' contrasts with the sense of 'amateur' according to which an amateur is is an X-er who does not make a living from X-ing. As the etymology of the word suggests, an amateur in this first sense is one who does what he does for love and not for money. In a second sense, a professional X-er is a person whose X-ing meets a high standard of performance, while an amateur in the corresponding sense is one whose X-ing fails to meet a high standard of performance. Examples:

A. Tiger Woods is a professional in both senses and an amateur in neither. Kant is an example among the philosophers.

B. Spinoza and Schopenhauer were professionals in the second sense and amateurs in the first sense.

C. Ayn Rand was a professional in the first sense, but a rank amateur in the second.

D. The vast majority of chess players are amateurs in both senses: they neither make a living from chess, nor do they play at a high level.

‘I Don’t Mind Losing’

'I don't mind losing' illustrates the non-identity of sentence meaning and speaker's meaning. Anyone who understands English knows what the sentence in question means. Its meaning is fixed by the rules of the language system, English. But what the sentence means is what very few people mean when they produce a token of the sentence.

A gentleman came to our chess club but once. And this despite our showing him every hospitality. For he lost every game. He had played seriously as a youth but hadn't recently. I explained to him that we are a bunch of patzers and that soon enough he would be winning games. He replied, "I don't mind losing." But he never came back despite a follow-up call or two.

In the mouths of most if not all 'I don't mind losing' means: I mind losing and I mind admitting that I mind losing, which is why I pretend not to mind losing.

ADDENDUM: If you read the above carefully, you will have noticed that I enclosed the sentence under comment with single quotation marks on two occasions but double quotation marks in the middle paragraph. Why? In the middle paragraph I was quoting an actual person, whereas on the two other occasions I was not quoting, strictly speaking, but mentioning a sentence. You may want to take a gander at my post Use and Mention. It's fun for the whole family. And from there you can get to my post On Hairsplitting.