Communification

Maybe most of the turmoil in the world boils down to misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is with the English language, and our American dialectic permutations of it. Messages can be befuddling, and the receiver may not perceive what the sender intends. Let’s just say that we need unification of communication - communification.

President Bush is famous for his malapropisms and mispronunciations. He talked in his first debate against then-presidential candidate Senator Kerry about how the enemy fought “vociferously.” You’d think that would have made them less deadly and easier to find. He talks regularly about looking for nucular weapons, but somehow I don’t think he’ll find any in Iraq, North Korea, or anyplace else, for that matter. But in the debate, he probably meant “fiercely,” and just got caught up in the moment. We also know that many people mispronounce nuclear, but if Bush hopes to be able to eradicate the threat of nuclear devastation, he needs to find a new, clear word. Maybe “atomic” would work better for him.

After the election, President Bush stated that he had a mandate. I’m not sure if that was intended to be an admission of an indiscretion or a declaration of victory. Given his “homo-pathy,” I doubt that he was making a veiled confession, à la former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, whose man-date clouded his judgment and compromised his ability to lead. Then again, based on the divisive nature of his campaign and the resulting polarization of the electorate on many issues, it’s inconceivable that the President meant that he had a clear direction from the American people, right?

Aside from mistakes or duplicity (intentional or otherwise), there are words that just don’t say what they mean. After all, we park on our driveways and drive on our parkways; our noses run and our feet smell. Grocery store circulars are rectangular. This is probably the result of someone’s grand design to keep people guessing.

Then there are words that are inadvertently distorted by their users, and through their colloquialism, become accepted parts of the language. Take, for example, “irregardless.” Though probably a blend of “irrespective” and “regardless,” it really breaks down to mean the opposite of what it says. And how about “inflammable,” which means, oddly enough, “flammable.” If indecent means, “in really poor taste,” why doesn’t ingenious mean, “really stupid?” And since “oversight” is either the act of overseeing or the result of inattention, is Congressional Oversight a responsibility or an excuse?

We also make words much more complicated than they need to be, or use words that are obscure, and in the process, obfuscate the irrefutable derivations of their etymologies. Of course, that’s an oversimplification.

Speaking of oversimplification, let’s not forget oxymorons. Many politicians are clearly vague about what they stand for, or consistently inconsistent in their deeds. Others are decidedly indecisive, or surprisingly unflappable.

It has been suggested that President Bush’s brother, Jeb, is being groomed for a run at the Presidency. Is it appropriate to groom a Bush? Shouldn’t they be pruned? And why isn’t “pruning” the effect of drying plums? Wouldn’t it just be plum dandy to have another Bush in the Rose Garden?

So it’s no wonder we offend people and don’t understand why. It’s difficult enough to figure out what we’re saying in our own language, but imagine the translation errors! On top of that, add a little Texas Swagger-Speak, and Lord a’ Mercy! Who knows what we mean?

Finally, the concept of fear and loathing may relate to clear communication: we often fear that which we don’t understand. In time, we hate that which we often fear. Maybe the key to peace is understanding. Maybe the key to understanding is using words that are less inflammatory…and so it goes.