Third observation

Gosh, realize where you are, or activate the literacy required to be in another place other than "where you think you are."

An immigrant from Africa arrives on Lampedusa. He has no papers. He gives you his name, and you don't know if it is really his or not. He doesn't tell you where he is from. He doesn't speak your language, but he has escaped from some hell or misfortune; and for all purposes practical he says he is your responsibility. You must treat him like a human being. You give him pasta with tomato sauce because he is hungry. He says this food is not fit for humans to eat.

He has only part of the context, his own, which he has attempted to force upon his interlocutor. He commits the sin of not understanding the relatio-spatio-temporal context. He is no longer living in his context; he is now in one made by and for Italians and Europeans. Thus, pasta with tomato sauce.

Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky got into it recently, and part of their now published discussion had to do with whether or not to publish an email interchange. Although not an easy read and embedded within are words as keys to who has said something of substance or not, my take is that here at the other end of the literate spectrum--"sophisticated" and nuanced writing and reading--context is (was) (also) all important.

My paraphrase of this aspect of their so-called "non-interchange" is this: At Sam's urging, Noam consented to publishing their emails even though he, Noam, found the idea weird and self-aggrandizing. As a result of the non-interchange, Sam felt he could claim the higher ground by showing that they(?) had reached The Limits of Discourse, which was not what their conversation was about to begin with.

What? The publication of a private conversation demonstrated the limits of discourse? What happened to the issues they were discussing? Weren't they the compelling reason for publishing? Apparently not, because Sam ignored or tanked 'em, that is created/framed another context.

But you decide.* This is just my reading . . . which is again, I contend, confusion about context, or the game, the two created as they jousted.

_____
* The Limits of Discourse : As Demonstrated by Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky : Sam Harris

Samharris.org, (2015). The Limits of Discourse : As Demonstrated by Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky : Sam Harris. [online] Available at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse [Accessed 19 May 2015].

Second observation

Words as the building blocks can lead us in right and wrong directions. Get a word wrong and off you go onto the shoulder and out into the wastelands bordering more direct routes to our destinations and fates.

James Krupa tackles a currently misshapen word as used in the context of science. He asserts that "To truly understand evolution, you must first understand science." He goes on to help develop this thesis about getting words wrong.*

Unfortunately, one of the most misused words today is also one of the most important to science: theory. Many incorrectly see theory as the opposite of fact. The National Academy of Sciences provides concise definitions of these critical words: A fact is a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it; a theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence generating testable and falsifiable predictions.

In science, something can be both theory and fact. We know the existence of pathogens is a fact; germ theory provides testable explanations concerning the nature of disease. We know the existence of cells is a fact, and that cell theory provides testable explanations of how cells function. Similarly, we know evolution is a fact, and that evolutionary theories explain biological patterns and mechanisms. The late Stephen Jay Gould said it best: 'Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.'

Theory is the most powerful and important tool science has, but nonscientists have perverted and diluted the word to mean a hunch, notion, or idea. Thus, all too many people interpret the phrase 'evolutionary theory' to mean 'evolutionary hunch.'

Ya gotta get the words right first, and by extension, the context in which they are used.

_____
* Orion Magazine | Defending Darwin

Orion Magazine, (2015). Orion Magazine | Defending Darwin. [online] Available at: https://orionmagazine.org/article/defending-darwin/ [Accessed 19 May 2015].

First observation

Dorothea Lange. On the Road to Los Angeles, California, 1937

I gave my students this instruction: Describe what you see in this picture.

One student answered in five hundred words beginning with this sentence. "I see the beginning or end of a story that has two characters who have decided they will not or cannot board a train for a distant destination."

Did he pass this part of the exit exam for English as a foreign language? Why, or why not?

Pleasure of hating*

What have the different religions been
but pretexts to wrangle, quarrel and to sin,
and set as target a mark to shoot at?
Does love of country make for friendly fiat,
or serve another bearing the same bend?
Does virtue make us see and our faults thus mend?

"No."

Hate makes adherence to our own vices,
and most intolerant of others' frailties.
Love of hate--a most universal fact.
It as well extends to good as evil:
makes us snipe folly and to shun merit;
inclines to resent the wrongs of others--
impels impatience their prosperity.
"Revenge injuries! Repay the ingrate."
Even partialities and likings
take this turn: What was luscious we now expel.
Love and friendship melt in their own fires.
We hate old friends, old books, old opinions.
And at last we are right here hating ourselves.

"Hatred devours from the inside, but Defiance
defeats and kindles truth-seeking's flames--Thus,
Resolution sufficient to move on and beyond.
__________
* Adapted from but closely adheres to Walter Hazlett's "Pleasure of Hating" (
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Pleasure_of_Hating). Interlocutor is another's voice.

You are welcome

Retirement or part-time status was immanent a few years ago, and so after a lifetime of writing and otherwise fiddling with words for others (students, customers, etc.), I began writing for me. I have placed the words I have wanted to preserve on five blogs and in a couple of e-books. The variety of interests and explorations seems to have dictated the different places to put stuff. Have I had many readers? The logs and occasional comments and email messages show that I have had less than ten people who have bothered. Which is quite all right. As Paul Auster has said, no one owes you anything if you choose to write. It is a thankless and sometimes lonely and dark undertaking. But if you must, that is if you have some passion about writing or a subject, go ahead.

I write to observe what I find interesting and to explore things so that I can be clearer about them. And I have made a lifetime study of writers and writing and close reading--interpretation of the valid variety. Not everyone knows about these activities and motives of mine except as they too might have thought about this way of embracing and trying to evolve the world, or they have surmised as such from others who evidence similar motives. Perhaps it is time to be more transparent, though, especially in light of current events in almost every country where speech is not free and agents work to end dialogue, example Russia. Also, in light of the great variety of experiences life offers up for us to deal with, these too deserve some space in consciousness, if only to come up for a breath of fresh air.

Here and elsewhere it is pretty clear that I write for no audience. It is about my education and evolution. If one wants to catch a short ride or contribute, they have that opportunity. If not, I don't much care. I write to identify and fix a thing as it appears in consciousness (noematics). I guess that means that writing is the writer's consciousness (noematics101), and I am still in the middle of investigating that. Local cultural color and amusement also have a space in my efforts (benanoblog). From time to time, I get bitten by something, often about language (see earlier posts), or I try to synthesize the disparate parts of my researches, and I post here using different ways to present or discuss. In every case, experimentation in the interest of matching the medium with the message is a criterion: How best to put the message. Of course, there are many failed attempts and dead ends, but that is as life is. I address no one in particular (see also About to the right).

However, there are almost insurmountable challenges with my project. I am sure with recent evidence added to the pile I already have from other sources, the following--always tentative, as in a quasi-scientific approach--cautions, or caveats, can be put forth after what amounts to an eight-year experiment.

1. People do not read what the writer intended and often what s/he wrote. There is no match of experience-to-be-had and what the writer crafts. People can't or don't read to understand. Words do not confine the fantasies they lay claim to.

Two people re-create an experience in mind from the same set of words, each from his own perspective. The resulting perceptions differ: Two spirals of interpretation drilling down and sedimenting into separate conclusions, that is as it is to understanding. Woe to the world.

2. People respond with their heart or emotion or self-interest first, and then--if convenient, needed, or appropriate--they might respond with their head, but only if it serves their heart or emotion or self interest. "It's about me."

3. Holding a subject at a distance and turning it round on the phenomenological axis to understand it better and then put it back down to earth, without feelings about who said what, is a myth. It is not possible. Never seen it happen. Ad hominem. "Kill the messenger."

4. On the other hand, it is very easy to present one's view or idea or whatever such that it affects the other's heart more than his or her head. Words can get you off the couch, or get you killed by one or a mob, but more to the point here: to kill or maim--revenge for perceived affront is said to be sublime.

Buncombe to all these things. But people do or show their limitations--they seem unable to restrain themselves (look at the comments written anywhere on the web where the comment entry box appears at the bottom of the web page).

5. Any statement is more about the speaker than the spoken to. Put another way, when one asks a question or makes a statement, that is about them and not the one they are talking to. Mostly and invariably. (Yes, it is a paradox.)

Enough apologetics. Read or not. You are welcome.

Language in culture

[Précis. Language is embedded in culture also. Serious students of a language need to dig deeper to get it, or have the benefit of some help.]

I have taught English as a foreign language for over twenty years. This has been both a secondary occupation and sometimes a first. In any event there are two teaching/learning opportunities I do not practice, which in fact weakens my effectiveness. I don't play games and I don't (often) listen to music. Thus, my efforts to help students learn are reduced, for both of these ways of learning a language are proven techniques.

Recently I asked a student who is passionate about music about the song "Knockin' on Heaven's Door." He said, "Oh, we all know that. It is the first song I learned to play on the guitar." I then asked him what the song was about. He said he didn't know, but that it was something about being dead. I asked dead or dying. He didn't know. I repeated this exercise with other Italian students of English and then a few Czech students. (I travel in these two cultures.) The results were the same.

I puzzled over this situation and immediately saw the problem. Well, I say the problem; whereas, I should say one problem. The one problem is that the key words of badge and momma eluded immediate recognition. For the native speaker, I mean specifically the American English speaker or one who is familiar with the cultural contexts for some of that language. Here is the email conversation around this matter. It begins with my correspondent's question (>>) and my reply.

>>Badge – I wonder what it feels like for you as a native speaker when listening to this song. Do you get the connection between the badge and Slim's [Slim Pickins] job immediately?
Connection was immediate. The only people who wear badges in the public consciousness in the US are officials of the law. Of course, other people wear badges (e.g., military, scouts, etc.). But what the song-speaker's job is is obvious. The immediate association is marshal or sheriff in the Olde West. For fun look up the expression, "We don't need no stinkin' badges." Place this word with guns that are no longer needed--to bury them in the ground--well, that seals the deal. Context is the frontier and the law and outlaws and gun fights . . . and he is dying. He has been shot, probably.
>>Momma – how come it is used even for a wife? Sounds like mommy or red-hot momma or lady of the night to me.
I can't say exactly, but this native speaker immediately associates this expression with rural folks, maybe farmers or at least ordinary and traditional American family people, perhaps central and southern US. The father of the family and kids call the mother of the children momma (or moma, mama, etc.). Then there is also black English, Ebonics, where young dudes call their girlfriends momma. But this doesn't work with the Olde West context.
Now if you try to look this one up, you will have difficulty finding this usage. But if you go to say, Hays, Kansas and have "supper" (evening meal) with a family that has lived there for several generations, you might encounter this expression--used by the father to address his wife. I suspect this is regional American English, although this comes close (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mama).
Someone needs to write an article about this usage . . . long story short, you just have to know the language very, very well, or have met lots of different American English speakers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjR7_U2u3sM

So, the first lesson is that a song such as "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" needs to be seen in context, its cultural context. Second and most important lesson, the student of language needs to dig deeper and not just accept melody over sense.

The final illustration of these points came up in an email to the same correspondent.

Language and culture. Yes, we need to have cultural knowledge and locational usage conventions in order to understand something like this,
We got some John getting off a limo.
Dumped her in the Alphabets.
Why did he have to cut me so bad? - They get him? - No.
Be on the lookout for Vincent Van Gogh in a Zegna fuckin' suit.
But in terms of what a Central European needs who uses English as a second language for travel and just getting along in the world, the cultural baggage is generally not necessary. Thus, my argument again for not teaching idioms and the uses of the definite article (in hospital (B-EN) vs. in the hospital (A-EN)).
Now if one really wants to dive into sitcoms or read literature or talk with a people from a specific native speaking place, then there is an argument for learning more and more cultural stuff, as well as looking stuff up almost constantly.

Now, what was all that about John? You know your homework.

A more detailed lesson

[Précis. Knowing how to use the verbs borrow and lend is sometimes difficult. Here are some reasons and examples for advanced students to consider and practice.]

"Ah," you say. "I understand. But I still can't use these words correctly when I want to say something."

"What seems to be the problem?"

What seems to be the problem? The second speaker must mean what are some of the problems. So your difficulty is not your fault. The explanation in the image above is good as far as it goes; however, it does not go far enough.

First things first, here are the principal parts of the verbs most often used plus a few other key words that may confuse you when you are speaking with a more proficient user of the language of requests-to-have and promises-to-return.

Verbs (infinitive, past, past participle, 3rd person singular present, present participle/gerund)

to lend, lent, lent, lends, lending

to loan, loaned, loaned, loans, loaning

to borrow, borrowed, borrowed, borrows, borrowing

Nouns (a partial list)

loan, noun, what is given to be returned

loaner, noun, informal, same as the noun loan, the thing loaned

borrower, noun, recipient of loan

lender, noun, giver of loan

Now do two things. First compare the verbs with the image above. Yes, loan is also a word used in the borrow-lend situation. Two, memorize the above nouns and verb forms.

Here is your short study guide.

borrow = take

lend or loan = give

These verbs can be used in the active and passive voices as well as in their participial forms.

The car was borrowed by his daughter.
The money, loaned by my father, he gave reluctantly.

Don't let word order confuse you, or a change in verbs, or the use of words meaning the same thing.

You might have done your own web search and found the standard definitions, explanations and examples given for the uses of these important words. They go something like this.

We use borrow to say that we take something temporarily with the intention of returning it.
Can I borrow your car? She borrowed $100 from her father.
We use lend to say that we give something temporarily with the intention of having it returned.
Can you lend me your car? Her father lent her $100. Her father lent $100 to his daughter.

Or

borrow: to take and use sth. that belongs to sb. else I'd like to borrow your umbrella.
lend: to give sth. to sb. that belongs to you I can lend you my umbrella.

Now here is where using these words correctly gets confusing. Imagine I am the one you are talking with, and I am asking if I understand you correctly by asking a question or by re-stating what you have said.

YOU: Can I borrow your car?
ME: You're asking me if I will lend you my car? 

YOU: She borrowed 100 euros from her father.
ME: Her father gave his daughter a 100 euro loan.

YOU: Can you loan me your car?
ME: Could you borrow my car?

YOU: Her father lent her 100 euros.
ME: Her father let her borrow 100 euros.

Sometimes the listener will avoid the anticipated verbs of lend or loan and borrow.

YOU: Her father lent 100 euros to his daughter.
ME: Her father gave his daughter 100 euros as a loan.

Sometimes the listener will change verbs.

YOU: He lent her the car.
ME: He loaned her his car?

Sometimes the listener will use a common expression to convey the idea.

YOU: Can I have your umbrella.
ME: Here you go. Don't get wet.

Or

Here take my umbrella. It's a loaner.

And don't forget the imperative.

YOU: Borrow my umbrella.
ME: Great. That's nice of you. I'll return it tomorrow.

These do not exhaust the possibilities, but the above is a larger sample of language than the usual textbook or dictionary discussions.

 It is no wonder people get twiddled up with borrow and lend and loan. Any variations from what is expected in a speaking situation is a challenge for the second language speaker to manage. Why is all this not simpler? Easy answer. The language and users and words are flexible and varied.

Here is a short video which can get you started if all this reading isn't your style. You can start with this and then come back here to review and expand your knowledge of

http://youtu.be/uTSmX6YI1FU

Once you have all the above in your head and you have practiced the variations, test yourself by decoding this and giving me your answer.

ME: Can you spot me a fiver? 

Will you spot me? I warn you. I'm a notorious deadbeat.