Because we both make a living by words we are very sensitive
about them and more importantly, in our respective occupations,
with better or worse results, we utilize them as a mechanism to
communicate our thoughts. Sadly, from what we observe, the art of
effective communication by words is dying the death of a dog.
People throw words around like indescribably:
indescribably delicious, indescribably beautiful,
etc. If something is indescribable, how does putting the
word indescribable before the thing it is supposed to
describe in fact describe or even help in describing that
thing?
Before we receive e-mails (excessive e-mails) we know that
indescribably is an adverb. However, putting a respectable
name on a word that does not make sense, makes no sense, no more
than putting a Chanel dress on a streetwalker changes her
profession.
Similarly, people also toss around the word fabulous.
How was the girl? She was a fabulous girl. The chopped
liver? It was fabulous. How can you use the same word to
describe a girl and chopped liver — unless it’s some of the girls
we know?
Then we get words that really mean the exact opposite of what
they say. When a girl says the boy she went out with is
hot, she really means he is cool. When another
girl is asked to describe the guy who just picked her up, the girl
might say, “He is really Bad.” Usually this is pronounced
BAAAD, and of course she means he is real
good.
How about, “The rain kept up for an hour”? If it kept
up, it never would have come down. When somebody says
“kept up,” they mean down, unless, of course, they live in
Australia, which is down from us, on the other side of the world,
so when we are up, they are down. When it rains on them, in that
case, we would be correct if we say the “the rain kept up,” because
their up is our down. However, if you stand on
your head in New York, then in that situation up would
then still be down. We trust that we clarified this
matter.
The last place we expect to hear strings of words that are self-
contradictory or that don’t make sense is from the United States
Supreme Court. But what did we just hear from it? It says it’s
legal to have the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse,
but illegal to have them inside the courthouse. The
unworthy thought occurs to us that to get inside the courthouse you
have to walk there from outside, so the same person is walking from
a legal environment into an illegal environment, and doing nothing
more than putting one foot in front of the other. To make things
more clear, the Court also said you have to consider each case on
its own merits and its own facts, so theoretically, in certain
cases, you could have the Ten Commandments outside the
courthouse and it would be illegal, and yet
inside the courthouse would be legal. Actually in terms of
its own building where the Ten Commandments is inside the
courthouse, the Supreme Court said that was legal. But if it were
illegal outside, and legal inside the courthouse, people would have
to walk on the outside where it is illegal to get to the inside
where it is legal. And we didn’t even discuss the cases where it is
illegal both inside and outside, which seems to us to be a great
way to get out of jury duty, or showing up to pay a traffic
ticket.
In all this talk of language, we are not even mentioning
expressions like “Keep your shirt on,” when nobody in the house
ever thought of taking it off. Or “Keep your eyes peeled,” which we
find too painful to contemplate.
We like simple stuff — spit on the subway and you’re fined
$50.00. That we understand!
