Meaning – Serenity Through Sweat

Value

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. While continuing research for my linguistics project I found this interesting philosophical quote on value.

Values always involve:

(1) something dissimilar which can be exchanged for the item whose value is under consideration.

(2) similar things which can be compared with the item whose value is under consideration.

An easy example would be the value of a five dollar bill. With a five dollar bill you can buy a gallon of gas (maybe), and you could also get five one dollar bills, or a number of euros, based on a value exchange rate. The value consideration of the five dollar bill is based on both similar and dissimilar items.

Currency of any kind is an easy example because it comes in denominations that are easily changed. A less concrete (or more concrete depending on where you live) example would be a home.

The home would be priced in the local currency, but would also have it’s value partially determined by comparable homes in the area. Homes with similar features, amenities, square footage etc.

The brave and powerful cow knights of the order of Chick-fil-A

With dollars, the value determination from the similar category is really the same, where as with the home, the determination based on the similar category is only comparable. The difference may seem minute but it is important.

The examples given are tangible, but the discussion quoted was about linguistics, and specifically, linguistic units.

Whether you want to break down individual words, syllables, or individual signs (signs, has a very specific and nerdy linguistic definition, that we might get into at a later date) each has a value based on the two criteria above.

“A word can be substituted for something dissimilar: an idea. At the same time, it can be compared to something of like nature:another word. It’s value therefore is not determined merely by that concept or meaning for which it is a token” (Sassure, Course in General Linguistics)

Sassure then goes on to cite the value of the word mouton in French as compared with the word sheep in English. While the meaning is generally the same (a four legged wooly animal that Mary had as a pet) the value in each language is different.

In French mouton can be used to mean both the animal as well as the cooked meat. In English the animal is referred to as a sheep and the meat is mutton. So the value of the word in each language is different.

Giving speeches in his undies, and making friends with dragonflies

The difference in value is due to the presence, or absence of other similar items. It’s value is determined in part by how much it can be delimited from other elements in the same system.

The subtly of similar and comparable, and the variance between value determination in similar and dissimilar categories together form a complex process for effectively determining value.

This is something we do almost instinctively on a very regular basis. Something is on sale. Something looks like a good deal. Something is overpriced. As a consumer driven nation this is a process we engage in regularly.

But what about value determination for items without price? How you choose to allocate your free time? Things like opportunity cost. What value do you derive from your choices? How is that value determined.

This is mental exercise I engage in frequently. Comparing the money saved and the pride of completing a home improvement project yourself, against the time taken that could be spent doing other things with family or friends, the frustration that inevitably comes with these projects, and the workmanship that despite my best efforts will not be the same quality as a professional.

Each option has its own value. Delimited by what it can provide, and what it can exclude. A constant reexamination and assessment of value is important to properly align priorities. It is also a step toward 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.

Paradox

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This week saw less progress on my communication project than I would have otherwise liked, but life has a habit of getting in the way.

Still I managed to read another chapter out of the Oxford Handbook on the History of Linguistics and found this interesting gem.

“The history of sound symbolism is the history of the attempt to resolve this fundamental paradox: on the one hand, if sound determines meaning, we should know what a word means just by hearing it; on the other hand, the distribution of phonemes across semantic domains is not arbitrary.”

Said another way, if sounds are the only determinate of meaning, we would have one universal language. This is clearly not the case, but as some of the examples below show, there are some commonalities among phonetic sound and semantic meaning that appear more than coincidental.

“In this way objects that evoke similar impressions are assigned words with predominately the same sounds such as waft, wind, wisp, wobble and wish, wherein all the wavering, uneasy motion, presenting an obscure flurry to the senses, is expressed by the w, hardened from the already inherently dull and hollow u.”

“We need not limit ourselves to pairs, but may look for larger patterns. One tempting example is the cross-patterning of /gl/ ‘phenomena of light’ and /fl/ ‘phenomena of movement’ with (1) /itr/ ‘intermittent’, (2) /ow/ ‘steady’ and (3) /ur/ ‘intense’: glitter↔flitter, glow↔flow, glare↔flare […] as for the terminal ‘morphemes’ in the above words, we find (1) evidenced also in titter, jitter, litter, iterate; (2) in slow, grow and tow and (3) in blare, stare and tear.”

The commonality of the phonetic sounds to their meaning across multiple words is a compelling argument for sound having a significant affect on meaning. A strong case for more than words as pure abstraction to identify an agreed upon referent.

Interestingly, a lot of the study of sound symbolism examines artists and poets. Those among us gifted with a sense of the perfect word for the perfect situation. Instances where an author’s word choice invokes the desired emotion. Paints the intended picture.

The more information I consume on the topic, or off topic for that matter, the more awed I am for the complexity of language that goes for the most part unexamined and underappreciated.

It also leaves me humbled for the distinct gifts of poetry and prose that clearly delineate the artists from the aspiring.

While working my way through the handbook, I had read three previous chapters on phonetics and struggled to place their value within the context of both my own project and language at large. Sure I see my boys struggle with certain sounds, but they are 2 and 4. Barring any sort of abnormality, they will develop a suitable phonetic acumen and likely think little of it.

But reading just a few paragraphs on sound symbolism completely changed my perspective on phonetics. It has inspired me to pay more attention to their impact especially on my own word choice.

The sound symbolism paradox is quite interesting and worth exploring. It is also a testament to how quickly you can change your mind and appreciate something that you brushed by before. All that is required is a little curiosity, a closer look, and some serenity.

Montreal running across St Helens island and ile Notre Dame

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.