And He told them, in plain English...

I shall caution my readers that this post will be far from profound. Somehow, today I was smiling, remembering a friar I knew who was preaching about Jesus' sermon on the mount. At one point, he said, "And what did he tell them - in plain English?!" Actually, the friar was not a native of any English-speaking country himself - but I was giggling inwardly, knowing full well that "plain English" did not exist until long after Jesus' time, in any form, and that, however active were the markets of Galilee, no one there would have heard anyone speaking even one of the ancestors of the English tongue.

(Fear not - Cranmer remedied this. But I digress... Bear with me. In my in box today, there not only were the usual number of announcements of my having won lotteries or been left inheritances which, in total, would allow me to buy Harrod's. There was one which supposedly had to do with my estate, and asked for confirmation of whether I was alive or dead. The temptation to respond 'from the grave' was nearly irresistible.)

I indeed love language - even when I use it badly (which sometimes is intentional - rather fun, is it not?) I cannot recall the source, but, some years back, I remember hearing an esteemed scholar of literature comment that spoken English is "the vernacular of vernaculars." I'm sure I am not alone in that I like formality in written English and such situations as liturgical services and legal transactions. Still, dialects are just fine. It is political correctness and trendy, annoying stunts which I abhor.

Certainly, to use religious terminology as an example (well, I would, wouldn't I?), there can be times when misunderstanding stems from that a technical, theological term has a far different meaning in the vernacular (as is true for all seven of the capital sins... and, if you really are a glutton for punishment, try Neo-Thomism.) That is true of many fields, including the natural and social sciences. Way back in the 14th century, Walter Hilton (a doctor of both civil and canon law) wrote the first work on spirituality in the English language, and what a chore that must have been. Many terms which are very precise in Latin or Greek lose something in translation - to any other language, the more those which continue to evolve.

But political correctness is quite another matter. One would need a daily update to discover just what word had changed meaning (for example, the perfectly respectable term "issues" now is used as a euphemism for "problems"... and old timers like myself who use the word in its true sense will be taken for commenting that something is wrong when nothing is.) Words which never were offensive suddenly can lead to ire - as I learnt, for example, when I referred to 'diversity' meaning 'diversity of thought,' and was assumed to be speaking of race. Many professions can no longer be referred to by names by which they've always been known - as if the work someone did was so shameful that it cannot be mentioned. Yet (ask any female manager...) now that secretaries have all sorts of ridiculous titles, the women who genuinely are in higher positions are assumed to be ... secretaries with ridiculous titles. I've also learnt that referring to someone as blind (which I thought merely meant that they could not see) or deaf (could not hear?), neither of which were states I thought implied a defect in character, morality, or intelligence, has horrid implications, such as meaning (I got this from the Internet..) that they had no recognition of their sexuality. (I cannot imagine what the connection is, nor why it is assumed that everyone is so preoccupied with everyone's sexuality.)

It's all getting exceedingly boring - and those who are inspired (God help us) to explain the deeper meanings for every term they use are not assisting communication, but merely broadcasting to all and sundry that "you must watch every word you say to me, or I'll go into a highly condescending and pedantic mode (normally playing psychologist in the process." I've had my quota for boredom filled amply in recent months. For example, a mother I knew, when asked by someone else if she had children, delivered a mini lecture on how, where she used to say she "had five children," she now must substitute "I am the mother of five children," lest she be possessive. Another major bore explained how 'diet' (which, to my knowledge, means only what one of any species eats... one may well refer to the diet of a bear) means 'a food plan one follows temporarily' - and of course went on, in some detail, about the reasons for substitute terms. (Why this character thought anyone gave a damn what she ate is beyond me, but I'd bet my last penny, if I still had one, that she belongs to Weight Watchers. People in that organisation will bring up what they were 'taught' there if someone mentions the weather, the war, or that the continent of Australia sank into the ocean this morning.) Perhaps worst of all was a very young woman, who clearly finds herself totally fascinating and talks ad infinitum about her therapist, in as many contexts as those for the Weight Watchers bores, who will explain "I language" at any provocation.

I'm just as naive, but I've lived longer. "When you did this, I felt that way" will undoubtedly make many people, especially those of my generation who used to get psyched out on EST training, respond 'well, then you chose to feel that way.' (Many of the love and peace generation got their kicks from treating others like dirt, then insisting the other 'chose' to feel bruised as he tumbled down the stairs from their kicking.) Others will wonder why they are supposed to care how you felt. And, sad but true, people indeed do sometimes mean to be offensive or hurtful... and some greatly enjoy seeing that they achieved that goal.

I'll not accept a plea of 'not guilty' for all in religious work, many of whom, of course, take political correctness to even greater extremes and assume that psycho babble makes them look relevant (or whatever 'relevant' is in its current incarnation - remember I'm a 1960s-70s throwback.) Believe it or not, someone who asks for the schedule of services just might not be inclined to pay the church a visit if their simple question is answered with elaboration about how "the common worship is at 11:00, but the service should be a part of everything about how we live." (You know perfectly well what the person meant - don't pretend you weren't playing a game!) One priest for whom I otherwise have the highest regard has a similar way of twisting and turning words if anyone mentions "going to church," and responds with "I never go to church...", then expounds in a manner not unlike "the service has just begun..."

These games do not improve communication. They more often curtail it, or even make it impossible. (Those who recognise the game will think that the speaker is a fool. They are in less danger of alienation than those who are timid or feel ignorant, who are likely to 'choose to feel' that they are the fools. The former are correct...)