Words do mean things

As a teacher of langauges, I am very concerned about how language is used. I, of course, prefer that language be used within the standards and correctly. At the same time, I realize that langauge is fluid and does, in fact, change. Vocabulary is added to through neologisms, of which some 200 are "unofficially" created each day, and also can undergo a process known as semantic shift. Let me provide a few examples.

Semantic shift can occur in a variety ways. One way is called pejoration where a word with a neutral or positive meaning becomes associated with a negative sense. The opposite of this process, amelioration, is when a word acquires a positive meaning when originally that word was negative. I'll provide two illustrations.

For pejoration, consider the word fair. Originally, this word connoted beauty and/or respectability. Ever heard "My fair lady?" But today, the word fair is used to express mediocrity or something that is middle of the road. For instance, if a kid brought home a report card with a lot of Cs on it, the parent might say that it was a "fair" report card, meaning "OK." Fair is also used to indicate impartiality. As far as amelioration, consider what has happened to the derogatory term, "bitch", for women. It has now become a positive term, in some circles.

What is the point of this? Genuine semantic shift in langauge happens organically; it's not just something that occurs. Groups may come together and develop their own "Secret language" but that has no bearing on the rest of the world. Remember when President Clinton in his deposition before the Grand Jury went to great lengths to change the meaning of the word "is." I've always taught my students that the linking verb "to be" should be regarded as an equal sign (=). Bill Clinton thought otherwise.

Well, this past week, a hacker got into files at the University of East Anglia (UEA) which has a research facility devoted exclusively to studying the phenomenon of global warning. UEA has also been at the front lines to provide the scientific evidence of global warning which would then be used to justify various types of legislation to stop the culmination of greenhouse gasses which, supposedly, warm the earth in an unnatural way because man is the cause. The emails and other information downloaded by the hacker were then spread throughout the world. One of the emails between a professor at UEA and another at the University of Pennsylvania had this interesting tidbit:

Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Now, if anyone were to read this, one would see the word "trick" and come to the conclusion that there is deceit at work, that there is some malfeasance going on with the reporting of certain climate data. And that is a resaonable conclusion.

However, Mr. Mann says to the New York Times that the word trick means something in scientific circles. He says:

scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.'

Again, semantic shift must happen organically and over time. Now, he does not say that such a definition is being used by society at large (I've never heard trick being used in a positive sense in regular conversation) but that this is a jargon that is located exclusively in the scientific community. I'm very curious to see how widespread the term "trick" is used in this exact manner amongst members of the scientific community. But, I'm willing to bet that it is not used this way at all.

The hoax that is globabl warming has been dealt a very serious blow and now the only way that the defenders of this hoax can continue to justify it is based solely on changing the definition of words. Unfortunately, many of the same people who are teaching this hoax that is global warming are also the same type of people who are teaching languages to our kids. Soon, no one will mean what they say. That's chaos.

More and more scare tactics

I love to get up in the morning and read the paper. I have this thing set up via google where certain articles are dropped in my inbox. One of the things that I want to read about is medical issues. It shouldn't come as a surprise as I spent the first three years of my college career as a double major in biology and chemistry (I have minors in both) and was planning on medical school. Boy, did my life change!

Well, I can't sleep so I went to my inbox and saw this particular headline:

Global warming may increase kidney stones: researchers

Now there are two possible responses I will have when I read something like this. It is laughable or just stupid. In this case, it wins both. OK, I will admit that I am a global warming skeptic. Just because every politician talks about and even some religious leaders do (even his All-Holiness, Patriarch Vartholomaios I of Constantinople has made this an issue hence why he is called the "Green Patriarch'), does not mean that I am going to subscribe to it. And I won't. Further research is clearly needed that man plays any part in the natural warming and cooling trends of this planet.

However, this issue has just been so overyhyped by the media and I am tired of it. In fact, in my first hour class this past year, it was the running joke that Rome fell because of global warming. I still get a chuckle out of that. Now, everything has to be reserached under the hermeneutic of global warming. It causes this; it causes that. Now, I'm being told that global warming is now going to affect my insurance rates because I'm going to need to see a urologist to remove kidney stones.

The researchers' rationale: Temperatures go up because of global warming thus increasing the chances of dehydration. Kidney stones are formed from dissolved minerals and the inability to maintain the equilibrium of the body from normal means of hydration will not suffice.

This is complete bunk. The researchers at the University of Texas have got to be smarter than this. I applied to go to grad school at UT. They didn't provide me any funding though so I blew them off. Maybe I'm glad that I did. Don't get me wrong--UT is a very reputable school. But if these researchers are going off of trends let's educate them with some basic facts.

1) Most Americans are dehydrated. This is a fact. Americans don't drink nearly the amount of water that they need and this trend has only increased over the last 20 years with new soft drinks and such which dehydrate you all the more.

2) Americans have confused hunger pangs for dehydration pangs. We all get that feeling in our stomach which we, most often, thinks that we are hungry. Most of the time it is telling us that we are THIRSTY. But we eat to cure it instead and don't drink water to go with the meal. Are you wondering also why there are so many overweight and obese people in the United States? Maybe global warming causes that, too! We don't drink enough water; that's why Americans are dehydrated. And that does cause kidney stones to form.

Global warming is the buzz word now in almost every aspect of life. We can't drive SUVS. Why? Global warming. We can't have our home temperature at 75 degrees in the summer. Why? GLobal warming. We have to go to the urologist to remove our kidney stones. Why? Global warming. Where will it end? Can it end? Again, we must realize that the whole issue of global warming is not settled science. It has become a dogma, a religious doctrine for many like Algore. And as much as many people are tired of Christians and Muslims threatening hell on those who don't believe the way they do, I'm equally sick and tired of these global warming panderers saying that terrible things will befall me if I don't think the way they do. Convince me; don't try to scare me. I teach kids for a living--that's scary enough!