"Perfect" - how many of us have heard that response to some request to which we have said "yes", or to some choice we have made? Perfection used to be reserved for very rare occurences. Not any more it seems. "So" that brings us on to "so". This little word used to serve as shorthand for "therefore", but now it has come to mean, "Here's my answer to that question" or "Well...". This is not a complaint or a rant by the way, but a reflection on the way a particular use of a phrase or word if it catches on, can quickly spread through vernacular speech and become commonplace. Personally I like language to be as accurate as possible, with the exception of link words and noises obviously, so while I find the way "so" is being used as the new link word a tad irritating, I rail a bit more at the devaluing of "perfect". But that's just me. I recognise that I must accept the changing pathways of the way we speak, for after all the grammar and vocabulary that I have grown up with is simply the product of the evolution of the English language as it has been used in my little corner. My version cannot claim to be "perfect".
Language is also like photography. I can paint a true picture of a tiny bit of reality with it, but it may be that the wider context will show that the little bit that I have highlighted seeks to make you believe something that is the very opposite of the truth about the whole situation. Glance at any tabloid newspaper headline and you get the idea. Often, unfortuately, our conversation is a bit like that too. We pick up on a stray fact that outrages us, and suddenly it's the whole truth about a situation we know next to nothing about. I suppose that's the wind that fans gossip.
There's another use to which we put language - and that is the one of using words not to refer to actual realties, but simply for effect. Swearing can render good examples of this. But when we muddy the waters and use language in this way in contexts which demand a better correlation between meaning and truth, we are lying. This I believe to be a major fault of the way Donald Trump uses language. He principally uses it for effect. He doesn't trust scientists, and uses language for effect to discredit them. He wants us to believe in his ability to govern sensible and wisely and uses language, mainly vocabulary since his grasp of grammar is not to say the least "perfect", to create this effect. This means we have to take a whole new approach to the task of reading or hearing him. To constantly accuse him of lying is not productive, nor is journalistic interrogation of his pronouncements. So we hear or read what he says or tweets, and simply recognise that he's reinforcing one of his mantras. I'm not saying this excuses what he does. Far from it. He is distorting reality on a massive scale and creating mayhem in his wake. The approach I like is the forensic analysis of his style and work. The terrifying thing is that this approach will not change the minds of many of the millions who voted him into office, but nor of course will chants of "Liar liar pants on fire".
Moving away from my bete noire, D Trump, to one of my favourite subjects, The Bible, we find the same challenges of language there. The language that served the English speaking readership for centuries, faded fast during the 20th Century. There is now a plethora of very good renderings of the original Hebrew and Greek. But those who translate and those who read must remember that cultural context and literary genre are everything. There is no (or very little) plain surface meaning to be harvested from the pages of this complex and ancient document, which contains so much wonderful narrative, wisdom and truth. That makes it ripe for exploitation by the ignorant and the fanatical. But then, nothing much worthwhile ever came without effort and thought. So we need an educated group who can help us to navigate this book, which is why I deplore the dumming down of academic rigour when it comes to awarding degrees to people who need them to enter the professions. Don't get me wrong, I approve of allowing non academic people who have shown through practise that they can handle their area of speciality with care, respect and skill, to preach and lead in church groups. This doesn't apply only to religious leadership. We have seen this in many areas of life: surgeons used to go through a practical non academic apprenticeship before becoming accredited, (hence the now promoted to status title of "Mr"), teachers and nurses too followed this pathway. Sometimes I think there was huge merit in this, because if you were useless you were quickly weeded out or sorted, whereas now, the gaining of a certificate or degree seems to confer some kind of entitlement or authorisation which practical exposure can in some cases reveal as completely unwarranted. Here again we see an evolution in our approach to the professions and trades. The late 20th century produced I hope a hiccup in our development which the light of experience will correct. Long live apprenticeships, rigorous academic standards, examination results which mean something, and to get us back where we started, words upon which we can depend.
