USE OF SEMANTICS - THE POWER OF THE SPOKEN WORD

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • I heard, some years ago on Radio 4, John Humphries was questioning the head (top Bishop) of a UK church... not sure if it was Catholic or Church of England.... the question was to do with the many thousands of rapes and sexual abuse of young boys by Priests and Vicars... this Bishop replied..... "Where we have erred, where there has been a lowering of standards"???? this is the language this guy used in relation to the serious sexual assault on many young boys.

    Do you find the use of semantics and or an out of touch with reality something to worry about or is it of no consequence?

    Andrew - "stepped back" ?? when he was actually dumped and hung by his own petard. (this is not an Andrew thread it is a semantics thread)

  • It can work to help those who are oppressed by it, ironically. So in my activism I always used the phrase, "Words have wings."

    As words are my business, and my weapons in battle, I used words. Others used their feet and tramped the streets, others used their money and donated. We were suppressed, drubbed and falsely accused. More words, but , because they have wings, words have, I hope, flown to ears wherever they may be heard and this was and is my contribution as I can't do things any other way.

    I hope some day that words will condemn those who used their positions and their lies to bring down the birds of freedom. But this takes time and no matter how many birds are shot down, words still have wings and will fly.

    It's important to read. It allows words to enter the soul. I think this why culture has been turned away from literature and especially fiction. Too any thought-birds in all that.

  • It can work to help those who are oppressed by it, ironically. So in my activism I always used the phrase, "Words have wings."

    As words are my business, and my weapons in battle, I used words. Others used their feet and tramped the streets, others used their money and donated. We were suppressed, drubbed and falsely accused. More words, but , because they have wings, words have, I hope, flown to ears wherever they may be heard and this was and is my contribution as I can't do things any other way.

    I hope some day that words will condemn those who used their positions and their lies to bring down the birds of freedom. But this takes time and no matter how many birds are shot down, words still have wings and will fly.

    It's important to read. It allows words to enter the soul. I think this why culture has been turned away from literature and especially fiction. Too any thought-birds in all that.

    Exactly... good stuff. I have nowhere near your attribute in regards the written word but of course there is a place and time for pragmatism. I have a particular skill, I have been told and results prove it, in the written argument to do with breach of contract and consumer issues, I also have a gift, so I am told and results prove it, for verbal argument on the phone or face to face to do with contracts in consumer matters. Having helped many people and losing out only to Ryanair who literally told me where to go.

    Bullshit baffles brains is a useful tenet.

  • Every bit counts in the real fight against the smarmy world of pretend morality and fake caring and all that goes with it.

    I find the present shower of leftist operators to be not only nauseating and see-through but also capable of some hefty opposition if they target you as a bur under the saddle of their grand plan.

  • I think the tables are turning. Not on about extreme right good and extreme left bad. I accept and respect the necessity for difference and choice. The old adage - Her Maj Official Opposition must hold the government to account and all that goes with it. I respect genuine left, Labour Party supporters who strive for workers rights and investment in some services etc but in no way do I respect, in fact I have complete contempt for the leftie liberal, post modernists. As far as I am concerned they are evil, they are the cowboys in the black hat.

    You could show these morons cast iron proof via video and 100 independent witnesses showing XR or LGBTQ on parade stabbing Boris Johnson with a Cutless, they would still spout that Johnson repeatedly ran into it.

  • Fascinating subject. Branches off in so many directions.

    Sensitivity vs receptivity

    You, M99, are so very right in highlighting it as something to be concerned about. Consider that very last sentence of mine. It sounds patronising, where I've assumed I am the master giving you high marks and you are my developing pupil. To avoid this (it's not true, honest!) I have to tread carefully, altering my sentence to something along the lines of "I hadn't thought of it like that before but I'm sure you're right that it's all to do with the meaning behind the words". Or I could be one of those tediously humble pedants who prefaces everything they dare to think with "IMHO" (aaaarrrrgh!).

    In short, semantics may be affected by who one is talking to. Are they well educated? Touchy? Prejudiced? Disbelieving?

    Message sent vs message received

    It is one of the reasons I have always maintained to clients preoccupied with communication, that a message doesn't exist until it is received. All too often the so-called communicator presumes "mission accomplished" once the letter or notice or advertisement has been posted or broadcast to its intended audience but in fact the message withers on the vine, fails to be "received" until it is understood by its target recipient. (Heathrow ground control to Air India pilot on final approach: "How high are you?" Reply: "five foot eight")

    Communication vs Persuasion

    Now here's where I think it gets interesting, as we move from simple factual communication to attitudes to deeply held motivations and ultimately to persuasion. I offer a fun but true example which travels from anti-semantic to antisemitic:

    1) Jeffrey Epstein (as in teen)?

    2) Jeffrey Epstine (as in tine)?

    3) Jeffrey Epschtein (as in shteen)?

    4) Jeffrey Epschtine (as in shtine)?

    The first is the correct English (and American) pronunciation. But Jeremy Corbyn used (4). Why?

    1) Is it because Corbyn is antisemitic or simply semi-literate or just a schmuck?

    2) Jews think any deviation from correct pronunciation reveals antisemitism. Primarily "sht" rather than "st" but also "ine" rather than"een"

    3) Such thoughts are not just espoused by David Baddeil, who's a bit of a schmuck or schmartarse

    4) But also by Lord Daniel Finklestein, who insists pronouncing "scht" rather than "st" is the litmus test of antisemitism. At least the first syllable of his name sounds about right. It just takes a Baddeil or Finklestein to start off a media brushfire.

    5) The irony is Corbyn might want the right "original" pronunciation just to avoid possible disrespect that would be misconstrued as antisemitic.
    6) Or maybe Corbyn is trying to separate out Jeffrey Epstein as the bad Jew, where the other 99% are beyond reproach

    7) The Labour Party is treading on eggs (or matzo). Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

    8] Let's face it: the majority of Jews are terribly "touchy". "Remember the Holocaust" remains their trump card for being "touchy"

    So when you, M99, talk about "the use of semantics", I imagine you include the accidental or deliberate misuse of semantics, as well as the its well-meaning use to provide clarity and nuance.

    I reckon there is a 2-dimensional map (North-South and East-West) where one can broadly segment people in their use of semantics

    Capability: North = articulate/clarity/wide vocabulary /communicative, literate versus South = Inarticulate/vague/muddled/illiterate

    Personality: West = candid/straight-talking/transparent/honest versus East = evasive/oblique/repressive/calculating/dishonest

    Prince Andrew falls into the extreme South-East corner of this map. More sadly so does most of Royalty, due to presumption of superiority and privilege, maintained and reinforced by inbreeding, as does Parliament - but with inbreeding replaced by greed and personal ambition.

    I think it is regrettable when the use of words to convey an intrinsic goodness is suppressed, sabotaged or annihilated by sheer weight of outmoded tradition plus an army of minders, campaign managers, courtiers and perhaps worst of all, a feral media.

    ***

    As usual, I've gone on and on and on - no wonder I don't get many invites to dinner parties! - but I hope the above offers scraps of food for thought.

    Oh gawd, the semantics of fake self-effacement! ....... Royalty, here I come!

  • I am going to ignore you from now on. You're as irritating as a fecking mosquito.

    The feeling is mutual I can assure you

    But I still fail to see what an election in the UK is anything to do with or of any concern to someone who lives in Africa

    If we did the same in reverse there would be howls of "colonialism"

    But that is your problem

  • Good comprehensive reply. I leaned something from it.

    My main concern is the cynical use of words by politicians in particular but holding on to power is the objective.

    Example: British Steel will be better managed .... now, to the non questioning among us they would presume all is fine and getting better with BS. But the politician knows he means.. thousands will be sacked. The attraction with Trump, I beleive, is that he would say... In order to create a secure future for the steel industry many people will lose their jobs but thats the way it has to be. He sees being truthful as a valuable asset. He knows that people are sick to the teeth with bullshit.

    He did not say.. what Ed Miliband - Clegg - Cameron would say (lets forget location and look at the principle) "vote for me and I will try to manage our borders better - border management is good for britain".... Trump said .. "I will build a wall" !! He knew that was a gamble but saw honesty as a more advantageous declaration. He was right.

    Clegg lost his seat, following his "No tuition fees" big lie farce. This was an outright con. He did not use semantics but he knowingly lied.

    Clinton: "I did not have sexual RELATIONS with that woman" is a classic use of semantics but with sinister roots as Clinton's advisers thought up said terminology in a deliberate insult, contempt for the people. You can see the cog's in their heads spinning.... "Yeeaaah, got it... we will use the word RELATIONS, its literal Oxford dictionary meaning can mean that you are not lying Bill"??

    No person will apply Statutory Interpretation .. Golden Rule.. Mistake ... Literal etc etc the sad part is Clinton is happy to not only commit that sexual act but also lie and spin with contempt - but I feel good in knowing more and more people actually are not fooled and in the end they do hold these psychos to account.

  • PS: While burbling on in my earlier posting I noticed what a might have been a good example of semantics screwing up communication:

    Little Wing: "Farage has just announced that a political revolution is coming. I hope he's right".
    Bryanluc: "Why do you say that as you don't live here?"
    Little Wing: "I am going to ignore you from now on. You're as irritating as a fecking mosquito".

    Bryanluc's question either meant "as you're not a UK resident, why do you feel it's any of your business?" or, just possibly meant "what parallels do you think there might be between Labour's intended revolution and what been happening in SA?"

    I was all set to use this as an example of the casual, unclear, ambiguous communication that pervades across social media, often stunted by the continual use of that killer of semantics, the smartphone. But the more I thought about it, the stronger the conclusion that my second interpretation was unlikely. Which is disappointing really. Because it's easy to come to terms with someone who is a bit vacuous than someone who is so narrow minded, mean-spirited and hurtful.

    Anyway, the matter is concluded by Bryanluc's follow-up email to Little Wing, which amply confirmed her initial interpretation

  • OK... but what if I claim.. predictive speech?? LOL

    Good example. I recognise one dimensional publishing whereby we do not see body language, eye contact, mood, intonation etc.

    The Irish will say.. "thats grand" meaning thats lovely, nice, very good, fine. The English know "grand" as big, large as in Grand Piano. Massive landscape.

    It takes more energy to explain a word via typing the explanation than a more natural spoken word over a pint of beer. So the word "grand" is hanging there.

    Then there is varying understanding of the meaning of words. Assault for example? Most people I know 99.9% do not know you can assault a person without touching them. So when the word is used in a comment the actual word as understood by people has a serious context when in fact that may bot be the case. Basically ignorance is one thing and deliberate intention to deceive is another.

  • 1 Thanks for calling it comprehensive rather than tediously long!

    2 When MP's try to hold on to power, perhaps it's slightly forgivable and can be blamed on the system, in which the dichotomy of a left wing versus rightwing government coupled with an MP's 5 year employment contract, can leave him on a scrapheap even when he has performed well and relatively deceitfully, with nothing better to do than be a howling spectator. We don't need 650 MP's and we certainly don't need that turned into the mindless tribalism of partisanship, which ends up being an excuse for lying for one's party generally and for one's self-preservation particularly.

    3 British Steel will be better managed .... I agree with your justifiable cynicism. I can think of no better way to comment on this particular point than to invite you to be stimulated by a speech in a movie on a specialist steel company in decline, primarily the speech by the man who want to close it down and liquidate its assets, then the counter speech by the owner who is trying to defend his failure to come to terms with commercial reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kxPyNZF3Q. Do let me know what you think. The name of the film is called Other People's Money

    4 It's so sad that Trump, one of the most straight talking politicians, paints such a crass image of a US President. The sadness is that we live in a world where image or perception is more important than fact and reality. Fortunately for Trump - and maybe, fortunately for America, the Democrats have lost the plot and maybe, hopefully, all Trump has to do is carry on being Trump (just like "Let Bartlett Be Bartlett"). Trump's letter to Erdogan was brilliant ....... and did the job ...... mostly muzzled by media.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/world…-dont-be-a-fool.

    For me that's like a dream come true on how, when necessary, to exercise relationships between countries.

    5 Clegg lost his seat, following his "No tuition fees" big lie farce. But look where is now? Talk about garbage rising to the top.

    6 Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" is a classic example use of the deliberate and stupid mis-use of semantics. It says everything about the calibre of advisers (and the desperation and hopeless judgement of Clinton at that moment of personal reckoning) that he and his advisers thought it was a verbal weasel that would take him near-unscathed through the gantlet of media and congress. (It's like a clever political satire, eg Being There). Similarly, dd Prince Andrew's advisers think it was a brilliant rebuttal when he told them he had a temporary inability to sweat? You can just hear the second adviser asking "how come?" and Andrew saying it was as a result of being shot at in the Falklands and both advisers screaming "fan-fu#$ing- tastic! We make the slut a liar and we make Andrew a war hero at the same time - a win-win". "And don't forget Andrew that when you say "shot at", give more emphasis to 'shot' than 'at' ".

    7 You feel good in knowing people are not fooled and can hold the liars to account. I'd feel more good if the people had a better candidates to choose in the election and were better equipped to make that choice. But because it's a choice of party at least of not more than a choice of candidate, it become a sad necessity that I'd rather vote for a Tory plonker than a bright centre-positioned Labour candidate. That's why I think partisanship gets in the way of the fairness and integrity of democracy. And I'd feel better still if the people could differentiate between a complete con artist and someone who feels compelled because of voters and the media to accentuate the positive and de-accentuate the negative. That said, I think Boris's consuming ambition has let him become over-handled by his minders and he is in danger of becoming a blubbering version of Theresa May, just mouthing slogans rather than thoughtful comment. It's still likely he'll win because the alternative is a duet of Darth Vader and Trotsky; but against that kind of competition the Boris I once knew would turn that into a landslide. Maybe he's saving his best shots until the 11th hour when there is no time for a comeback from Labour or Lib-Dem.

  • OK... but what if I claim.. predictive speech?? LOL

    Good example. I recognise one dimensional publishing whereby we do not see body language, eye contact, mood, intonation etc.

    The Irish will say.. "thats grand" meaning thats lovely, nice, very good, fine. The English know "grand" as big, large as in Grand Piano. Massive landscape.

    It takes more energy to explain a word via typing the explanation than a more natural spoken word over a pint of beer. So the word "grand" is hanging there.

    Then there is varying understanding of the meaning of words. Assault for example? Most people I know 99.9% do not know you can assault a person without touching them. So when the word is used in a comment the actual word as understood by people has a serious context when in fact that may bot be the case. Basically ignorance is one thing and deliberate intention to deceive is another.

    I'm paying more emphasis on communication that encompasses nuance, feelings, sentiments, attitude, to achieve rapport, sympathy, empathy. You're paying more emphasis on on the problems arising from ambiguity or a failure to appreciate the broader meaning of a particular word that might only have be seen in a negative light (eg elite). Both are a problem.

    I remember testing a slogan for a brand of whisky where it's primary market was Scotland (phase 2 would then promote it in the South). So the slogan was "Now your talking Scotch!" It got a shrugging dismissal. Because Scottish people don't think about any other type of whisky. So the slogan became seen as the invention of an English ad agency or worse, a Scottish distillery proprietor who had spent too many young formative years in public boarding schools in England!

  • Great replies. You really do cover the subjects. I will look at the video. I get the "politics" exactly THE word in its right place. Good point, one of many, on the Tory plonker/bright Labour.

    You hit the nail on the head when you say "better candidates to choose..." and I example the demise (hopefully) of Anna Soubry. It would be brilliant if she is booted out on election day.

  • Just watched the vid. "Larry The Liquidator" LOL. Their faces when the truth confronts them?

    It is very powerful.

    Taking the medicine can leave a bitter taste but the end result, you live to fight another day.

    Inverting the point a tad... I regularly trekked a Greek gorge. beautiful with a waterfall and a feeling of total escapism from the rest of the world. Peace and harmony and a dive in the fresh water. I go early then I am on my own 90% of the times I do the trek. However, Trip Adviser emerged. Of course, people want to declare how lovely this place truly is. Result: instead of 20 people per day hundreds trek it per day. Litter, plastic bottles, dog poo, broken branches, idiots who dont bring water and carry tiny babies, over rocks in 33c + temperature. This is not progress. I digress.

  • These days every time I think of travel, I remind myself of how tourism kills the experience. It's sad to have run out of motivation to travel (especially when semi-retired and having more time) but we count ourselves lucky to done so much before tourists and, in the case of East Africa, also before mosquitoes were a major hazard

    Glad you enjoyed the speech(es)

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!