Comments (0)

By Gary, September 16, 2008

You cannot watch television, read a magazine, do ANYTHING on the Internet, or even just take a walk around most towns without being bombarded by words and their meanings — words and meanings that shape the way we actually see and regard the world we live in.

Take the city of Las Vegas as an example. The concept of Vegas vacations have changed over the last few decades, largely because of the decisions Las Vegas merchants and the business community there make to reinvent the city. People think about Las Vegas in a certain way, whether they live there or simply travel there for vacations or business. And that perception has been consciously changed regarding the entire city and surrounding area throughout the life of the city.

In the 1950s and ’60s, Las Vegas changed from a sleepy desert town to an entertainment/gambling destination. In the 1960s especially, glamorous entertainers and big-name acts were in vogue, i.e., Frank Sinatra and his “Rat Pack” were hot.

But during the 1970s and ’80s, as I understand it, the mega hotels with games and a family resort-like atmosphere began to grow. Gambling and casinos never stopped, of course, because that’s where the real money is in Vegas. Yet business interests in Vegas changed their advertising and turned (tried to turn) the city into a family fun destination.

Then came the 1990s and recent efforts in the early 2000s — “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” was the slogan that took over, and it was suddenly a fun Sin City again. Currently, most of the advertising I’ve seen for Las Vegas seems not really clearly defined. They want to keep the “sin city” draw, but they want to appeal to a broader group of tourists, too. The most recent television ads I’ve seen for Las Vegas show a rather bizarre, screwy bunch of people self-destructing in a beauty salon, with so little identification to Las Vegas that I almost always forget what the ad is for until near the end. (In my opinion, it’s a very lame ad campaign, but they never asked for my opinion.)

What’s the point of all this? The point is that millions of dollars in revenue and the entire perception of this city of several million people rises and falls on the words used and the way those words are used to portray them. Is that good or bad? Good or bad, it illustrates the reality that words and the way those words are used actually shape reality, or at least our perception of reality.

Be thoughtful about using words today. As a writer, you have great power at your fingertips as they dance across the keyboard. Use that power for good, not evil.

Comments (1)

By Gary, September 10, 2008

In my last post I made reference to the sad plight our language and our nation may be in if we permit politicians and others in prominence or leadership in the country ignore or arbitrarily change the meaning of our language. I don’t want you to think I mean language never, or never should, change the meaning of words and phrases.

The English language, as with all “living,” i.e., currently spoken, read, and/or written, languages is constantly changing. But that change only happens as people USE the language, try out changes in meaning or spelling or whatever, and then spread that change. Language meaning or usage does not change “overnight,” it changes over time.

For example, look at the word “Hoover.” During the early part of the 20th century, the manufacturing company that created and builds Hoover vacuum cleaners became so successful in Great Britain that the word “Hoover” became a British idiom for vacuum cleaners and for vacuuming, and even for doing something quickly and thoroughly. It is still an accepted expression in Britain to say something like: “Hoover the upstairs hallway, would you dear?” or “Wow. He really Hoovered that plate full of pasta didn’t he?”

(I have personally heard the term “Hoover” used this way as a noun or verb in the United States.)

Would anyone in Britain or the U.S., however, understand you if you were to use “Oreck” or “Electrolux” or “Eureka” or “Dyson,” etc., this way? Of course not.

Language has meaning. Words have meaning. That meaning may or may not change, but such change when it comes generally happens slowly as many speakers of the language accept or reject a particular change.

Comments (0)

By Gary, September 10, 2008

I have another blog, Just a Guy Who Reads the Papers, where I sound off loudly about various politicians and political foibles. I have tried to keep this site very “apolitical.” I think I have succeeded pretty well.

But when I heard the latest idiocy concerning Republican leadership and their “truth squad” attacking Sen. Barack Obama for using the expression “lipstick on a pig” — they accused him of making a sexist remark aimed at Gov. Sarah Palin — I was aghast. The account I read said the accusation was being made by a woman who is a former GOP governor of Massachusetts. It appears something was lacking in her education regarding language usage and idioms. The phrase “lipstick on a pig” is a commonly used phrase referring to trying to make something appear different than it actually is. It has NO sexist references to it. Which brings me to the point of this post/”rant”: Have we truly lost all touch with reality when it comes to language meaning and usage??

Some years ago, I decided I had found a great way to invest some extra money and make my fortune. (It didn’t work.) I took $3,000 I had saved up, went to a futures broker, and opened an account to trade in wheat futures. In the course of this misadventure, two things happened: I learned enough insider “lingo” about futures and commodity trading that I could have written a convincing story about it, and I not only lost my money, I ended up several thousand dollars in the hole.

A great deal of the problems I had with futures investing stemmed from my ignorance of basic terminology. I had read some books about the futures markets, I knew enough to buy and sell contracts, I knew supposedly how to protect myself from sudden market ups and downs. At least I THOUGHT I knew all these things. When the markets actually began to shift rapidly, I was just slow enough to react as I fumbled around and tried to figure out what was going on that I lost my shirt. (See? Another common expression in the English language. I still have my shirt, but metaphorically I “lost” it, along with several thousand dollars.)

If our political leadership in this country, for whatever political party, has become so totally ignorant that “lipstick on a pig” is lambasted as a sexist remark, with apparently no understanding of the idiom itself, then I fear for the Republic.

Language has meaning. When we or our leaders choose to ignore that meaning and make it whatever we or they wish it to be, then we all suffer the consequences.