Terminology

It's not questioned openly on a regular basis however, it would be wrong to not articulate this somewhere. It's wrong to assume that you are always fully understood when you speak. It's even more wrong to assume that terminology and vocabulary for what's a single language is universally understood by all speakers of one language. Dialects and regional variations have always been the reality for all languages around the world. That's not even addressing the complications and implications of slang. Slang can also transform into proper words with enough exposure, usage, and time.

Why did this come into my mind? a response to the last post before this one. Why did I choose to say eyeglasses rather than something less formal like glasses, frames, specs, lenses, or any other number of terms. It was an attempt to avoid confusion. I can think of a language based conflict with any of the terms I've just used to describe eye glasses. The words I'm thinking of are solely based on general North American English. The English used in North America isn't even fully standardized. There are dialects and variants with different pronunciations and word meanings. Take the version of the English language found in Rap music. I love Rap but, I understand how it could be incomprehensible to be understood after a single listen by somebody newly learning English. I haven't even mentioned that there are differences between, British English, Australian English, and English spoken in other countries where English is but one of several languages spoken in a nation.


I've recently been reading a novel by the Author Evelyn Waugh named A Handful of Dust (1934). It's written in whatever was contemporary British English of the period. I wouldn't be surprised at all if even British readers would need to use the chapter footnotes of places and word definitions while reading. It's an enjoyable satire that comments on the rise of divorce in 20th century relationships and is a fictionalized account of the life of its author around this period. It is an entertaining read but I continually find myself checking off words that are no longer in common use or are footnoted in the back. The footnotes are great for terms that seem straightforward but are actually entirely different in meaning. An example of a common word that could cause confusion in understanding this book without definition is Tight.

Tight could be understood as the state of being drunk like in the novel. It could be understood as slang for something that's cool in the context of some dialects of North American English. It could be understood purely as something being more constrained in. The context in the novel leaves no doubt that it's a euphemism for being drunk but, how can you assume that it will be understood that way.

You can't. Be aware of your language. If you understand the differences, by all means have fun joking with friends speaking different dialects or variants of your language. Differences just need to be understood by everyone talking.

That was a fascinating articulation for me. I'd guess that it was dreadful for the rest of you though. I'm not sorry about it, hah hah. Sorry about the horrible resolution of the cover image for the novel. It's the cover of the version I'm reading from. Apparently, tiny and unreadable is good enough for book retailers and libraries listing this book. It's a simple cover. Would higher resolution really be that hard to incorporate on the web. I think not. I promised a random tangent in the tags. I'd like to think that I've partially delivered on that promise. lol

On the REAL. LATER Y'ALL BLOGGA HOMIES. Word (to ya Mother?) !