Message-ID: <19991125222138.AAC25119@jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca@LOCALNAME> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:19:52 -04 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: still seeking stories... To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Christina, > ... I used the term "pan-African
> diversity." I realize now that this term has different meanings for
> different people. I was referring to the geographic and cultural
> diversity across Africa. Others took it as an allusion to political
> ideology. That was not the intention -- my Ugandan colleague who
> proofed the letter for just that kind of potentially offensive
> terminology also missed it. Thus, I apologize for that error, and will
> certainly endeavor to avoid such blunders in the future.
Apology? Blunder? Not at all! Doesnt every term have different meanings until the people who have an interest in understanding find the means (sic) to share meanings? Your intention stems from your experience; another's interpretation stems from theirs - so what? To apologize for 'potentially offensive terminology' under these circumstances is to apologize for living. (While the millenium is nigh, I dont believe Devel-L or any of its subscribers have a special right to accept such apology!)
Consider, as a pure hypothetical, a group which only used language that had been agreed to -- what would there be to say? More, how would one *learn to say it; how would one join the group? Apart from mathematics (which has its own special logic) and 'perfect languages' (see http://www.italynet.com/columbia/dream.htm ), by the time total consistency was achieved in the ordinary way, only the same old 'say- mold' would be available: no disputes, certainly, but neither any agreements, let alone 'reasoning together.' As for joining, one would have to be born into the group -- that is, to acquire the language before one even knew what language was -- and one could only stay a member, it seems to me, as long as one never found out what language was.
If explanation is not needed, forgive my digression, but there is a concept that is often overlooked, known as 'Significant Contrast.' For example, if you have never known wetness or light, clearly you will have no words for them -- but equally, you will have no words for dryness or dark either. Now, among the hypothetical group (which I shall call Us, for convenience), what is the need for the word, language? If everything has been 'agreed' (to use one of Their words), then the name of the thing is inseparable from the thing itself. But identifying what language is (in order to attach the name, 'language') means explaining what language does, which means that names are *not inseparable -- which contradicts Our ethos, and gets you tossed out on your ear!
Therefore (to return to the real world of online discussion ;-)), by no means should you "endeavor to avoid such blunders in the future." It is *only by illustrations such as you have provided (albeit inadvertently, innocently, accidentally - pick your term; take the opportunity, certainly, to consider what its *antithesis may be, but do not apologize) that anyone actually learns what some phrase *might mean. There is (as yet) no perfect language, and I hope we can count on your help in seeing that it never arises.
After all, it's obsequious 'political correctness' which has got us where we are today: able to say 'one learns from one's mistakes,' and then to strain to avoid making any.
Cheers, kerry