Language – Serenity Through Sweat

Merriam-Webster

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This week, I wanted to share another interesting story I found while researching my linguistics project.

The history of dictionaries may seem like a boring subject. You write down words, and you define them. How hard could it be? There are actually a lot of questions that must be answered when deciding how to make a dictionary.

“What is the relationship between words and phrases? How far should a dictionary go in recording nominal phrases? (Fire escape, forest fire)”

“How strictly should a dictionary confine its inventory to recorded usage? Can a spelling form be shared by more than one word (record as a number and record as a verb).”

“How much attention should be paid to etymology? (Weave intransitive vs transitive verb)” Weave in and out of traffic, and Weave clothes on a loom come, from different origin words as an example.

Making a dictionary becomes a little more complex than just a book to check when you don’t trust your scrabble opponent.

One of the most popular dictionaries in the US, is the Merriam-Webster brand. Their story was featured in the chapter I was researching, on the history of lexicography.

“The Merriam dictionaries trace their history back to the American Dictionary of the English Language dutifully compiled by the polemical lexicographer Noah Webster in 1828. It contains no fewer than 70,000 entries”

“Webster was an indefatigable collector of words with a rare gift for definition writing.”

“Unfortunately, his etymologies were influenced by his belief that modern languages, including English, are derived from something called Chaldean, which he believed was the language used by Adam and God for their conversations in the Garden of Eden and the immediate precursor to Hebrew.”

“After his death, his successors-including his son-in-law, Chauncey H. Goodrich, and the redoubtable Noah Porter, president of Yale College- quietly abandoned the Chaldaean hypothesis and brought the etymologies into line with the findings of Germanic and Indo-European scholarship.”

That is a lot to unpack for a book that has been mostly superceded by online reference checking. But recall that for generations, the Webster dictionary reigned Supreme. It is eerie to think about how much power definition holds, and how that power was held by a religious fanatic.

I grew up Roman catholic, and considered myself fairly devout until after high-school. Even I had never heard of Chaldean before.

After some very preliminary research it seems that the Chaldean people were in Mesopotamia around 11-12 thousand years ago, and were assimilated into the Babylonians. You may recognize that name from it’s own biblical reference the tower or babel.

Apparently there are multiple references not only in the Bible, but also from other renowned scholars, (Pliny the elder and Cicero) to Chaldean knowledge. There appears to be multiple references to their expertise in astronomy, astrology, vibrations, and numerology.

Some or all of that may be nonsense. I don’t know. And frankly, I don’t know how to know if any of it is real or not. Either way, it is fun to think about next time you have to check the dictionary when your five year old asks the difference between gunk and sludge.

We base our lives on definitions. How we identify ourselves, each other, the occurrences of our day to day experiences, they all depend on agreed upon definitions. The ability to set those definitions is a great power. And, as Uncle Ben would say, with great power comes great responsibility.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Trade-Off

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This week I want to revisit communication, specifically the trade-offs we make in expressing ourselves.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading and research about language and communication lately. The more I read the more fascinated I am. The more I read, the more I realize I don’t know. Not only do I not know, but really none of us do.

Our primary means of expression, the mechanics of language that come innately to us as children, are largely a mystery. This, despite the fact that it is fundamental to our existence as humans. The ability to reason, plan, and communicate via language.

I stumbled across the following article in Neuroscience, which described an experiment in language production.

The experiment tested a group of healthy participants, and a group suffering from primary progressive aphasia (PPA). You may recognize that condition, as it was in headlines recently that it is affecting actor Bruce Willis’s career.

The experiment first devised a frequency based method for characterizing syntactic complexity of naturally produced utterances. It then used that method to test the hypothesis that “patients who have difficulty producing complex syntax might choose semantically richer words to make their meaning clear, whereas patients with lexicosemantic deficits may choose more complex syntax”

The participants were asked to describe a picture of a family at a picnic. This is a common assessment used in diagnosing PPA. “Healthy individuals can shift between the use of complex syntactic or complex lexical items, perhaps depending on what is more accessible in the moment or what might facilitate comprehension.”

“The results showed that if a sentence is syntactically complex, it likely incorporates simple words. On the other hand, if a sentence contains more complex words—such as words that are not commonly used—its syntax is more likely to be simple.”

This hypothesis was tested against both the test group (those with PPA) as well as a healthy control group. The results showed a significant correlation (n=79 and n=99) respectively) “suggesting that it may be a general property of the process by which humans turn thoughts into speech.”

There are some “semantically rich” words in there that are really more for neuroscientists and language nerds, so let’s unpack a little bit.

There are two elements of this experiment that struck me as profound. First, any general property by which humans turn thoughts into speech is a significant property. One worth some time to digest. The second, reminded me of teaching, coaching, and parenting.

Teaching and parenting have a great deal of overlap. One of the greatest points of overlap is effective communication. Specifically communication that must be effective over a broad range of topics, ages, and levels of understanding.

Even if you are only teaching one subject, to one grade level, the variety in language comprehension among students can be staggering. As a parent, your effective communication must now span a lifetime, and an endless myriad of topics.

The best teachers, coaches, and parents, are able to effectively communicate their message in a way that is understandable by their ever changing audience. This means seemlesly transitioning between complex syntax and complex lexicon depending on what is more suitable for comprehension.

While this may seem intuitive, and some are certainly more gifted in this areas than others, it is a talent that we admire in the orators and authors we idolize.

Transition between complex syntax and complex lexicon, is a skill that can be developed. It is even fun to do, and has been effectively monetized. Whether they realized their contribution or not, the game developers exploding kittens, capitalized on this very concept with their game poetry for neanderthals.

I bought the game for my wife and I and we played recently during one of our date days. Similar to charades, one person or team will draw a card with a complex lexical term (caveman definition: big word) and then must get their team to guess the word describing it using only one syllable words. If the person uses a word with more than one syllable in their description, they are bopped on the head with the inflatable “NO” caveman club. Must talk like cave man, or else get hit in head.

The rounds are timed and the object is to describe and guess as many big words as possible while speaking like a caveman (simplistic, monosyllabic, but syntactically complex).

As we saw from the experiment, there is an inverse relationship between the complexity of the words used and the syntax. These differing language construction pathways have differing neural pathways. The game forces you to use both interchangeably in rapid succession. Plus you get to hit people with an inflatable club when they screw up.

Being flexible in the way you communicate, being able to engage different neural networks and neural pathways, and finding the best path (semantically or syntactically) to get your point across, is a fascinating phenomenon to study, and one that likely leads to serenity.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

One fish two fish?

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. We have spent quite a few of the recent posts talking about the importance of words. How they change and shape our lives. Sometimes these stories take amusing and unexpected turns.

I’m a sucker for a good dad joke. My favorite dad jokes have some form of double entendre. While the typical association of double entendre is something bawdy or an innuendo, it can also just be a double meaning with one being literal and one being ironic.

When is a door not a door? When it’s ajar.

Who doesn’t love a good dad joke? I found this article the other day that reminded me of this dad joke but turned out to be a whole lot more than I bargained for. When is a bee not a bee? When it’s a fish.

If you have the time, click on the article because it will make more sense. The headline I saw read “California court rules bees are now fish”. While a Floridian calling California crazy is a pot and kettle situation, this was still a little out there. However when I clicked on the headline it took me to the article linked above which provides the requisite details.

In order to use existing environmental protection laws to protect bees, a group of California judges ruled that bees are included under the California Endangered Species Act. The act does not protect the bees but rather protects “native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant.”

The law further defines “fish” as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” The judges noted that many of the protected classes under “fish” are not in fact fish, and that the terrestrial invertebrate bees would qualify under the protections extended to invertebrates.

It should be noted that a previous judge decided that “invertebrates” being under the subset of “fish” applied only to marine invertebrates and therefore bees were not protected.

There is a lot to unpack here. Bees being protected seems like a good thing to do. Maybe writing the correct language into the law is a better strategy than interpreting “fish” all willy nilly. California is still a little crazy (I know pot and kettle)

Just like our discussion on “sanitation” words are important. Definitions are important. The way that we intend our words to be taken can have a significant real world impact on our lives. (Or the lives of terrestrial invertebrates, as it were)

What is also important is a willingness to interpret those words and intentions based on a desired goal. Saving bees is certainly a noble and worthwhile pursuit. The classical question arises, do the ends justify the means?

If bees can be fish (albeit a little bit of an oversimplification) what other language and protections can be reinterpreted? If a new end is deemed to be a noble and worthwhile enough pursuit, the reinterpretation of something more close to home could easily be justified. Something that has more impact on our everyday lives than classification of terrestrial invertebrates.

Words mean what we intend them to mean, not what we decide later on that they mean in order to justify a new position. This is literally the foundation that our civilization is based on.

Without communication, without meaning, and without intention, there can be no civilization. And, there can certainly be no serenity.

A lot of miles and elevation while learning a new airplane

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Chronic

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. As I’m finishing up training on my new aircraft and trying to squeeze in some research work I came across the concept of synchronic vs. diachronic language. It is an important distinction, and one that I wanted to share.

Last week we talked about philology. The study of language and words as they change through time. Philology has a focus on determination of intent. What did the chosen words mean at the particular time of use, and what did the author or orator intend to communicate?

Philologist are concerned more with validation and interpretation of documents and texts. Etymologists focus on the origin and development of words, which brings us to today’s focus.

Diachronic: of or concerned with phenomena, such as linguistic features, as they change through time.

Synchronic: of or concerned with phenomena, such as linguistic features, or of events of a particular time, without reference to their historical context.

Linguists have figured out (at least in an academic sense since I don’t actually know any linguists) that a word’s meaning and communication intent change over time. The same word does not have the same meaning as time flows and cultures shift.

Studying how words change through time (diachronic) is interesting. It reveals a lot about the people using those words. How their communication needs shift with new technology, cultural norms, and ideas. How those words need to evolve or be created to meet those needs.

The study of words under a synchronic frame is a much harder task if you take the definition at face value. Like taking a Polaroid picture but ignoring how everything got into place. It is studying in a time bubble.

We would never examine a person this way. If someone makes a decision or initiates some sort of action. That action is not examined in a bubble, but rather in the context of the person’s history. How were they raised? What kind of transformative experiences have they had? What kind of learning, friends, hobbies, are they engaged in? What type of people do they associate with?

The action can only be viewed effectively through these many lenses. There are so many events and factors that lead up to every decision. To ignore them and view decisions in a vacuum seems at best a disservice, and at worst an intentional misrepresentation.

But with words we have a unique ability to take a snapshot in time. Specifically with regard to communication intent. When words can have multiple meanings across multiple contexts, the communication intention is what matters in a synchronic sense.

Synchronic and diachronic language both have their place in understanding, and they are united by empathy.

“I’m not sure if that move is legal, but I also can’t count that high, so let’s call it a draw” (Speedy, probably*)

You might not agree with someone’s word choice. You may even find a particular word choice incorrect or offensive. However, without knowing the author/speaker’s diachronic and synchronic understanding of the word in question, their communication intention, you have an incomplete set of data to assess.

Empathy and exploration of their intention, finding out how they have chosen words in the past, and what they intended they’re words to convey in the vacuum of a particular communication exchange, while challenging and time consuming. Will ultimately lead to more understanding and serenity.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Philology

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. As part of my language and communication project I have been doing a lot of reading. Most of it overly academic, and written solely for the academic community. Every once in a while though, a gem will shine through that affects all of us in a profound way.

I didn’t know what philology was until I was introduced to the word while reading John Marco Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Marco was a scholar who helped translate the Dead Sea Scrolls, and compare them to original source languages, (think Sumerian, Aramaic and Hebrew).

This was very interesting stuff in my mind, but I understand it is a niche audience. But shooting down the federal mask mandate, that might have some mass appeal. Coincidentally, also a task based in language and philology.

Kathryn Kimball Mizelle is the Florida district court judge whose summary judgment declared that the Federal Mask Mandate exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority. To understand why this is pertinent to our discussion of language, a little background information on both the history and timeline of these regulations as well as the legal system are important. (my mother and my wife have often told me I should have been a lawyer, turns out I’m more interested in arguing linguistics, which is more annoying and less lucrative)

The CDC relied heavily on the Public Health Services Act (PHSA) of 1944 as the statutory basis for their authorization to issue mandates to help manage the Covid pandemic. In Mizelle’s decision, she relies in part on the plain language and context of the PHSA to determine if the CDC’s action where in line with the intention of the original act.

While you and I as everyday non legal types might not be familiar with this process, you have probably heard some political pundit or politician say something like “this is what the founding father’s intended”. Same idea here. What did the authors of the PHSA intend with the act? What powers were granted or restrictions placed? And, more importantly for our purposes, what language was used, in what context, and what was it’s meaning at the time of writing?

When examining the plain language and context of the PHSA, the court found that the relevant portions authorized regulations to prevent the spread of diseases for specific limited circumstances: (1) individuals traveling from foreign countries into the States; and (2) for the purposes of “inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction. . . and other measures”.

The court referenced the Corpus Linguistics database to verify the meaning of ‘sanitation’ in 1944, and determined it’s primary use was ‘to make things clean’ rather than ‘maintain a level of cleanliness’. The court concluded that “wearing a mask neither sanitizes the people wearing the mask or the conveyance”. There are other procedural and legal issues that are at play, but again they are beyond the scope of this language focused discussion.

Philology is the study of literary texts and of written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning. So when Allegro is studying the Dead Sea Scrolls and validating the original Sumerian and its intention before it was translated into Hebrew or Aramaic, he is engaged in a philological task. Judge Mizelle, when referencing the Corpus Linguistic database for the context and meaning of sanitation in 1944, is engaged in a philological task. One that has a tremendous impact on my day to day life in airports.

As I have said often on this platform, and will continue to repeat, words are important. The intention with which they were spoken or written is important. The study and exploration to determine that meaning is a noble and worthwhile pursuit. A pursuit which has an effect on our everyday life via our legal system disproportionately more significant than I think most of us understand.

When analyzing laws and regulations like the PHSA, a single word can change the context, meaning, and intention of a whole section, having major implications. The same is often true for anyone who works in business contracts, or (as this work is sometimes focused) in aviation.

Aviation is heavily regulated and standardized, and most of our processes and procedures need to be approved by the governing body the Federal Aviation Administration or FAA. The FAA, being a federal government agency, is governed by, you guessed it, laws. The Code of Federal Regulations or CFR, is the codifcation of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Because the FAA is tasked with governing the aviation industry, the rules it makes become federal law. This is why you hear that it is a federal crime to tamper with lavatory smoke detectors every time you get on an airplane. It also means that a company manual, specifying a company procedure, that has to be approved by a federal regulating (read law making) body, is going to require a specificity of language akin to a federal law or a business contract.

Full blown summer mode in the sunshine state

Words like “may”, “must”, and “shall”, can be easily slipped into the middle of a lengthy and convoluted sentence, in the middle of lengthy and convoluted manual, but they represent, not just a company procedure, but a Federal mandate for how to operate an airplane. So when the captain tells me to select the required flap setting for our takeoff and I reply “flap handle one” instead of “flap lever one”, I am not operating my airplane in accordance with our company, and thus federal, requirements.

While that may seem a bit anal and pedantic, (it definitely is) “flap lever___” is in quotations, and thus is a required call out. There are areas where (as Austin has said) “a certain laxness in procedure is permitted, otherwise no university business would ever get done!”, and where a strict adherence to procedure, no matter how anal or obnoxious, is required.

I am reminded of this important distinction as the instructor smacks my shoulder for the fourth time today for referring to the flap lever as a flap handle, or the thrust levers as the throttles. Learning a new airplane is fun, and I have spent an inordinate amount of time proclaiming the importance of words and meaning. Still even a linguistics nerd like me is more than a little frustrated by the minutiae that we can get hung up on. I can appreciate the origin and necessity, and despise the outcome and how it impacts my life for the next month in training all at the same time.

Language literally creates, shapes, and defines our world. Searching for the original intent and meaning of language then, seems like a natural step toward serenity. One I’m excited to be taking and happy to share with you.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

New relationship

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. I mentioned last week that I was training on a new aircraft. This week I want to reflect on that process.

Training on a new aircraft is always an exciting and nerve wracking experience. It is very similar to starting to date someone new. There is an excitement attached to the newness. There is anxiety of the unknown. There is a hope of good things to come in the future together.

My happy little corner in the hotel room for the month

Just like a real relationship you show up with your past baggage. After all, you are getting out of a long term serious relationship with your last airplane. You learned what she liked and what she didn’t like. You learned her strengths and her weaknesses. The areas where you had to help her along, and the areas where she had your back, even when you had screwed something up.

You have to learn all of those things all over again. You have to get to know each other. You have to learn how she reacts to your inputs. What can you do to make her happy, and what you can avoid doing that will make her cranky?

In some cases it is like learning to speak a different language. Talking to your new airplane the way you talked to your old airplane is like calling her the wrong name. Nobody ends up happy, and the reaction is going to be undesirable at best.

On this Mother’s Day Sunday, I count myself very blessed to have strong women in my life. Women who set an example for my boys and I to follow on how to interact with the fairer sex.

Despite my interest in communication, and my academic endeavors into language and theory, this is still an area where I need all the help I can get.

The mother’s in my life have always been there with a firm but kind reminder. My mother was always reminding me, “It’s not just what you say but how you say it.” My wife is a miracle worker with my boys and I, making sure we are communicating with each other in a clear and respectful manner.

At the end of the day, isn’t that what the cornerstone of a new relationship is? Learning how to communicate with each other effectively. Falling into the patterns of familiarity where you know the right questions to ask, and the right answers to give. Where you know what is expected of you and your partner (or airplane as it were) knows what is expected/asked of them.

Regardless of the airplane you are flying, monitoring the flight path and ensuring the safety of flight is largely an exercise in those two questions. What have I asked the airplane to do, and what is it doing?

Have I actually asked it to do what I think I asked it to do? Is it doing what I think it should be doing? If it isn’t doing what I want, why not? Did I not ask the right questions or provide the right inputs?

These are questions I am asking myself on a daily basis here in training, with regards to the new airplane. How much of a better communicator could I be if I took the same approach with my wife and kids? Double checking my inputs before executing. Wouldn’t life be easier if you could try out your words in a temporary flight plan page to see how they look first?

Zwift sweat sessions maintaining my sanity and serenity while training

Training on a new aircraft necessarily takes up a lot of mental bandwidth. Maybe after this new relationship is established, it will help bring some lessons learned and serenity to my existing ones.

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Standstill

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. While working on my linguistics project I have come across a lot of universal wisdom disguised as bland academia. Thoughts and quotes that produce a lasting effect well beyond the initial reading. I wanted to share one of them with you this week.

One of the best ways to truly understand a thing, is to study it’s history and development. Things rarely take a linear path to their current status. Those twists and turns are often filled with difficult decisions, decisions which alter trajectory.

The study of language and communication is no different. If anything I have found it to be even more interesting, because there’s is so much we don’t know. Hypotheses rise and fall on new data and discoveries in a never ending change of tides. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics, tells this story across the millennia and across the various areas of linguistic study.

Our current understanding of language, is in large part due to understanding the process of change. What data we have an ancient languages, and mapping the changes through the years to where we are now.

One of the beautiful things about language is that it is dynamic and mobile. A word’s meaning, connotation, even it’s spelling is all subject to change.

“There can never be in language, just as there can never be in the continually blazing thoughts of men, a moment of true standstill.” (von Humboldt 1836b: 184)

Linguists draw a comparison (which could also be expanded to fit humans) that languages only become static when they stop being used. These are then considering “dead” languages. People are very much the same.

Even the most obstinate toddler (not that I have any experience with those) is constantly being exposed to new information and experiences. They are a bundle of new patterns and changes.

When we stop our continually blazing thoughts, when we stop learning and growing, we reach a mental standstill. We become our own dead language. Something other people have little use for, except maybe a passing curiosity.

Spring emerging from the gloom along the trail in Augusta

The standstill is akin to death in this mental metaphor, which translates well to the physical realm. In grappling sports constant motion is required to set up an technique. Being at a standstill is a surefire way to get beat, or worse, injured.

In endurance sports a standstill is the classic sign of defeat. Haunched over, heaving, hands on knees, halted. The picture of an athlete who cannot progress any further that day.

A beautiful day for a tour d’ stade in Gainesville

Von Humboldt’s words are beautiful, and I think they are accurate. It seems with any judgement of people (and language for that matter too) it becomes necessary to add a caveat. An asterisk.

Never is a powerful word. An absolute. One that begs no argument. Humans, and language, can only find themselves at a true standstill of their own accord. When they fail to forge forward along the path, is when they die literally or metaphorically.

No standing still on the zwift pedals, freewheeling doesn’t work.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Interesting

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. As I continue my research on language and communication, I continue to find little tidbits that transcend communicology, and have relevance to the areas we tend to discuss here.

Obviously, the things we discuss here, (flying, fitness, fatherhood, etc…) are all things that I, and I presume at least to some extent you, are interested in.

With that in mind, the following passage from Noam Chomsky’s On Language struck me as especially appropriate.

“I think this whole discussion comes down to a confusion between two senses of the word interesting. Certain things are interesting in themselves- for example: human action. But there is another meaning of the word interesting, in physics, for example. A phenomenon in itself does not have interest for a physicist. What happens under the conditions of a scientific experiment is of no importance itself. It’s interest lies in it’s relation to whatever theoretical principles are at stake.

There are a great many things that I have read recently in the course of my research that I find interesting in the second sense of the word. Frequently, after reading some academic passage three or four times to make sure I understand it, and cursing the author for forcing me to look up definitions every other sentence, I will find a nugget (like the one above) that is interesting as it relates to my life, or experiences, or the project I’m working on.

When I excitedly share these findings with my wife, I am very quickly reminded of the difference from the first sense of the word interesting. Many of these theories, findings, hypotheses, are so steeped in academia and so far removed from real life that they are difficult to digest, much less get excited about.

But, because the have a relation to a project, or a passion, they become interesting in the second sense.

The two different types of interesting can also be thought of in terms of the way they affect people. Anything can be interesting in itself to someone without being of interest to someone else. But when it can be related in some other way it’s interest broadens.

Getting stronger with IM FL 70.3 approaching quickly

Linguistics and communicology is not interesting in itself to most people, (as I’m reminded when I discuss it with my wife). But when it can be related to a specific event/topic/situation, (see my previous post about a tough road to hoe) it becomes interesting because now there is context and real life application.

This interplay of interesting is fascinating, especially with my boys. There are some easy guesses on what they will find interesting, but other times I am surprised and fulfilled by their interests.

I recently had lunch with my wife and El Duderino on a layover. We sat down at an old timey diner burger joint. I had a little bit of nostalgia listening to the blues guitar oldies play over the speaker as our burger, fries, and shakes were brought out to the table.

El Duderino’s meal even came served up in an Old school Cadillac dinner tray, wing tips and all. What four year old American boy doesn’t love cheeseburgers, fries, and milkshakes? But when asked what his favorite part of lunch was, (I was sure it would be the milkshake) he told me it was playing air keyboard along with the diner music.

Layovers don’t get much better than this

You never really know what someone else will find interesting, or how what you find interesting will relate to someone else’s lived experience. But sharing our interests, and finding those sometimes hidden relations is a sure path to social connection and serenity. Thank you for sharing in some of what I find interesting.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Tough roads

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. My wife said something to me this week that I had never heard before and it fell right in line with our ongoing discussion of words.

I don’t even remember the context of the conversation, but my wife said “that is going to be a tough road to hoe”. Having never heard that expression before I started thinking about it figuratively, literally, and maybe even a little etymologically, and decided I couldn’t make any sense of it.

I understood the meaning that my wife was trying to communicate, so an effective transfer of ideas did in fact happen, but the line didn’t make any sense to me. Why would you use a hoe on a road, that’s not what the tool was designed for. (As a humorous aside, I told her a tough road to ho, would make sense, but that’s not the point and I digress)

After some very quick phone research (what a time to be alive and be able to settle marital discussions with a device in our pockets) I discovered the etymology of the phrase is “a tough row to hoe”. The phrase has been misheard and then repeated incorrectly enough times to stick, as was the case with my wife.

What is particularly interesting to me in this case is the exchange of meaning. I knew what my wife meant. She knew what she was trying to convey. The exchange took place in spite of the words being used to transmit the message being somewhat nonsensical.

This phenomena happens all the time with parents and kids. I had always attributed that to kids being language learners, and some level of translation as a parental ability.

De la Soul providing the offeratory hymn for this kettlebell session at my backyard temple of SerenityThroughSweat

El Duderino for example is very fond of saying “green beans go”. He says this as a parroting response to hearing my wife say “green means go” when she is stuck behind a driver playing on their phone as a light turns from red to green.

The changing of one character of the twelve, completely changes the implicit meaning of the sentence. But, when used in context, (El Duderino in his car seat behind a stopped car at a freshly changed green light) I can still understand what my three year old is trying to convey. (When he says it at dinner after I’ve smoked green beans for three hours it is equally adorable despite it’s semantic inaccuracy)

It failed to occur to me that we are all continuous language learners, and that a similar level of translation is necessary for effective communication amongst adults, albeit at a much lower frequency.

In the grand scheme of things correcting” a tough road to hoe” versus “a tough row to hoe” is really rather pedantic. In many relationships it could have led to a argument or fight, and I understood what my wife was trying to tell me. So why bother with correcting it or even trying to understand the phrase, especially when an effective communication had taken place?

In discussing the language philosophy of how performative utterances can be “unhappy” J.L. Austin says “in ordinary life a certain laxness in procedure is permitted- otherwise no university business would ever get done!”

I think the tight rope to walk here, is the level of laxness that allows business to get done, along with level of adherence to proper protocol that ensures communication is not unnecessarily degraded. That is a treacherous tightrope indeed.

Words are important, communication is important, and true understanding is even more important, (and of course the most difficult of the three to truly accomplish). It may be a tough road, but it seems to be one worth walking (or hoeing if your level of laxness will permit)

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Uh-Oh

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. Over the last couple of weeks, I have been doing some research on a new project that is a somewhat related labor of love to the blog. While I’m not ready to reveal the details of the project just yet, it is based around language and communication.

I remember having a conversation with one of my ultimate frisbee and triathlon friends Josh, where he used the analogy of an iceberg to describe hobbies. Like the behemoth that sank the Titanic, only 10 percent was visible from the surface, the rest was hidden underwater. Almost any activity worth pursuing, tends to have the same characteristic, especially when being observed by a beginner.

The only way you will ever know how big the iceberg is, and how deep it goes, is to get wet and dive in to the topic headfirst.

So for the past few weeks I have been swimming in the waters of language and communication, getting just the beginnings of sense, of how big the iceberg really is.

This blog in many ways, has been a learning tool for me. A means by which I can grow as a writer, communicator, father , and so many more things.

This quote from Jerrold J. Katz in The Philosophy of Language, describes this idea eloquently, if not for the over academic rhetoric;

Don Quixote and sancho out to slay the dinosaur

“the process of linguistic communication is conceived as one in which the speaker, in his production of speech, encodes his inner, private thoughts and ideas in the form of some external, publicly observable, acoustic phenomena, and the hearer, in his comprehension of speech, decodes the structure of such objective phenomena in the form of an inner, private experience of the same thoughts and ideas. Language is thus viewed as an instrument of communication of thoughts and ideas which enables those who know the same language to associate the same meanings with each of the significant sound sequences in the language.”

Katz is obviously talking in this example about spoken language, but the same concept applies to written language. It is an instrument by which we convey inner, private experience of thoughts and ideas to one another.

Yet as anyone who is married, or has kids, or both, can attest, there is great frustration when the inner private thoughts of the speaker (or writer) and the hearer (or reader) don’t sync up.

Meal prepping for my solo stay with the boys, brisket, burnt ends, sausage lava balls, and smoked cream cheese.

This is one of the greatest causes of frustration for all humans, and the instrument in question (language/communication) is one whopper of an iceberg.

It was with this research fresh in my mind, that I noticed a particularly behavior in Speedy that is as relevant as it is adorable (except for the cleaning up)

Speedy is babbling a lot, (as most 16 month old do), but it’s also becoming more effective at communicating his wants and needs. One thing he has picked up on is “Uh-Oh”

Speedy before he starts experimenting with gravity

It normally takes him a few tries, you may hear an “uh-uh”, an “oh-uh”, or even an “oh-oh” before he gets it right, but eventually the “Uh-Oh” comes out, normally followed by a parentally reciprocated smile.

Speedy has figured out that contextually, this particular instrument of language is often uttered when something falls. Of course for those of us using it in a classical sense this means whatever was dropped was on accident.

Speedy often takes a more deliberate approach in order to practice his new favorite language instrument, throwing whatever he can get a hold of off his highchair tray and then practicing his vocalizations.

Speedy mastering the Uh-Oh after the food throw

Without totally ruling out that my 16 month old has a strong grasp of irony (not unreasonable considering his genetic makeup), he is using his language instrument in the way he has observed his brother, mother, and me use it. When something hits the floor we often say “Uh-Oh”. Still, I can assure you regardless of my reciprocated smile, our private inner thoughts are not the same after the fourteenth broccoli floret finds the floor.

His I can only presume is an inner thought of triumph at both the correct usage of “Uh-Oh”as well as the mastery of the modern marvel that is gravity. My inner thoughts vary from amused to annoyed based on what iteration we are currently on.

It is relatively easy with a 16 month old to see when the communication process breaks down. Especially with modern means of mass communication, how many “Uh-Oh” moments do you come across in a given day? Is it possible you have some without even realizing it?

Lots of sprint watts and lots of miles on the trainer

Words are hard, finding the right ones is even harder, and trying to understand someone elses private inner thoughts based on sometimes inadequate word choices is next to impossible. Language is the instrument that sets us apart, and serenity awaits those who can matter their instrument.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.