2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #217 "WE THINK IN WORDS"

 We all think in words.  Thus if people do not understand the shades of meaning between two (or among three or more) different words, those people do not understand the concepts.  For example, I heard that there are more dialects in languages around the world that do not draw a distinction between the word “enemy” and the word “stranger.”  As a result, if I were to stumble out of the wilderness into your remote village, and you didn’t understand this distinction, I would automatically be your enemy.  Imagine how much needless violence, or at least lost opportunities, have occurred just from this situation alone!  Similarly, when we are driving our cars in the countryside and see the sign “Slow Traffic Keep Right,” what often goes through our minds?  “Oh, I’m not slow traffic, so I’ll stay in the fast lane.”  But if, instead, the sign were to say: “Left Lane Only For Passing,” our thoughts would more likely be: “Oh, I’m not passing, so I’ll move back to the right lane.”  Same intent, but different result.

                Other common but neglected differences in words that I find to be interesting and even fun are:

·         May vs. Can: permission as opposed to ability.

·         Imply vs. Infer: Speakers imply and listeners infer.  So many problems occur when the implications are different than the inferences.

·         Solution vs. Resolution:  Most human problems have no solutions.  If you want a solution, become a mathematician.  Human problems almost always are limited to resolutions, but they allow people to put those problems behind them and move on with their lives.  (I use this illustration often in my mediations.)

·         You’re welcome vs. No problem:  The former implies that the doer was happy to help; the latter implies that if it had been a problem, the doer wouldn’t have done the good deed.

·         Need vs. Want:  We want to be alive, but don’t need to be.  But we do need oxygen to be alive.  (Or, in a political context, a “need” is just a “want” that you should give me.)

·         Love vs. Like:  We can Like many things, but Love is special, and should be thought of in that fashion.  

·         Education vs. Indoctrination:  Upon reflection, that difference should be apparent.

·         Risk vs. Gamble:  Almost all things we do have some risks to them, but they can be controlled – think going for a swim.  Gambles cannot be controlled – think roulette.

·         Rule of Law vs. Rule of Man: The former strives to provide Equal Justice for All; the latter is often used to rewards one’s friends and punishes one’s enemies.

There are many more, and I think they’re both fun and important.  I hope you agree.

Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)

2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with

Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President

  Quote for the week:  “We travel not to escape life, but for life not to escape us.”  (And speaking of traveling, I will be on vacation for the next two weeks, so there will be an interruption in our series.)  And, BTW, last week I recommended people boycott the movie “Long Shot,” but this week I recommend people see the movie “A Dog’s Purpose.”  It was wonderful, and much redeeming social value!

Please listen to our weekly radio show entitled “All Rise!  The Libertarian Way with Judge Jim Gray” as we discuss these and other timely issues, and show how they will be addressed more beneficially by employing Libertarian values and approaches.  You can hear it every Friday morning at 7 Pacific/10 Eastern by going to www.VoiceAmerica.com, clicking on the Variety Channel and then upon the word “live.”  You can also hear past shows as well.  And, by the way, these 2 Paragraph columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejamesgray, and wordpress at judgejimgray.wordpress.com.  Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.

IT’S A GRAY AREA: The subtle nuances words have - by Judge Jim Gray

IT’S A GRAY AREA: The subtle nuances words have - by Judge Jim Gray 10/18/08

Consider this: When we think, we really think only in words or something else that can be written, like musical notes, or mathematical or chemical equations. That means that if some people do not understand the shades of meaning between one word and another, they will be limited in their ability to understand concepts and options in everyday life.

Does this make any difference? I think it makes a great deal of difference. For example, I heard that there are more dialects in the world that have no difference in their languages between the words for “stranger” and for “enemy.” That means as a practical matter that anyone who is a stranger to those people is automatically their enemy. This in turn has probably resulted in lots of needless waste, fighting and lost opportunities.

Even people who do seemingly understand the shades of meaning among words often get too lazy in selecting the most appropriate one for their situation. For example, in my courtroom in many of what we call auto v. auto cases, most attorneys lazily fall back on the tired word “accident” to describe what occurred. But maybe this wasn’t really an accident. What if one of the drivers had been driving under the influence of alcohol or another mind-altering substance, or maybe were involved in some form of reckless driving? Then it could be concluded that this was not accidental, but intentional.

Think about it. What other words could a plaintiff’s attorney use instead of the word “accident” to set the tone for his attempt for a more serious recovery? How about the words “impact,” “collision,” “striking,” “careening into,” “slamming together” or “smash up”? Or from a defendant’s perspective in trying more to downplay the incident, the attorney could, when appropriate, use words like “bump,” “touching,” “grazing,” “coming together” or “coming into contact.”

Another example that everyone should be aware of is that there is a world of difference between the words “solve” and “resolve.” Most of us in the court system realize that you can only find “solutions” for things like mathematical equations. But problems involving human conduct mostly do not have solutions, only resolutions.

Therefore, when people lose an arm because of a defective piece of equipment, nothing can be done to “solve” that problem. Nothing will bring back their arms. All we can do is try to “resolve” the problem, usually by paying them some amount of money. Would most people prefer to forgo the payment and have their arm back? Absolutely yes. That would solve the problem, but that is simply not an option. So all we are left with is a proposed resolution.

The same thing is true regarding almost all other problems we encounter in our everyday lives. There are no solutions, as such. Only resolutions. But if people cannot understand the difference, or shades of meaning, between the two words, those people will unnecessarily submit themselves to extra pressure and frustrations by trying to solve an unsolvable problem.

The same analysis can be utilized for virtually any problem you may be involved with. People with a strong vocabulary understand more nuances, concepts and options. And those are the people who usually get ahead in life.

Look at the issue this way. If you can only discern the colors red, green, blue, yellow and black, you are going to be genuinely at a disadvantage when confronted by a person who, in addition to your colors, can also see, understand, appreciate and describe vermilion, turquoise, cobalt blue and magenta.

So do not lose the opportunity to work to increase your and your child’s vocabularies. This can be done by using vocabulary flash cards, playing word games like “Scrabble” or by simply going through the dictionary with your child, looking at a descriptive picture of a word, and trying to figure out what the word is.

In addition, parents should lose no opportunities to discuss with their children the shades of meaning among different words. (I use the word “among” instead of “between” because the latter compares only two objects, and the former compares more than two.) As another example, there is a difference between the phrase “Mary may climb a tree” and “Mary can climb a tree.” The first discusses permission, and the second discusses ability. There are similar nuances between the words “infer” and “imply,” “courtesy” and “respect” and taking a “risk” as opposed to a “gamble.”

A big distinction to be discussed with children for many reasons is the definition of what a “friend” is. Someone who encourages your child to ditch school, shoplift a CD from a store, smoke marijuana or speak disrespectfully to a teacher, parent, or anyone else is not a friend. Why? Because a friend has your child’s best interest at heart. So someone who would encourage such antisocial behavior may be an acquaintance, or former friend, but not actually a friend.

So we think in words. That means that people’s vocabularies limit or broaden their ability to understand and deal with the world around them. Therefore, a strong vocabulary will not only be helpful for your children on the Scholastic Aptitude Test or on the high school debate team, it will also make a significant difference in how successful they will be in business, their social relationships and almost anything else.

And besides, when it comes down to it, becoming aware of the shades of meaning among words is actually fun. Try it and you’ll see.

James P. Gray is a Judge of the Superior Court in California, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It - A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001) and Wearing The Robe - The Art And Responsibilities of Judging In Today's Courts, has a blog at http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/. http://www.judgejimgray.com, and can be contacted at www.judgejimgray.com.