Pith
Let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about.
In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is to surrender to them.
George Orwell, Politics and
the English Language
Opinion in Online Content Exchange: "The topic of ageism
is an important one."
Response from Alan Atkinson, author, DunWork@aol.com
No it isn't. It isn't a "topic" at all. It isn't even a
word…or wasn't, until it was made up by an editor with some space to fill. Said
editor being more concerned with empty space than with actually saying anything (I make no
reference, accidental or otherwise, to said editor's head).
Neither are racism, drugism, school violenceism, child
abuseism, or a great many other eternally unsolved problems (can't those D.C. guys do
anything at all?) "topics." I suppose they might, against all good sense, be
"ism's."
A topic is something of
mild interest. Something you chat about around the water cooler. An example would be the
secretary's legs, if he's wearing shorts that day.
An "ism" is several interest-level steps above a
topic. If a group of people have a common interest and concern themselves greatly with the
matter, then what they're interested in might be an "ism." This is a gray area.
If the Elks decide to have a cookout, they are not necessarily concerned with cookoutism.
If they really, really want to have that cookout, maybe they are. If they march on the
capitol to demand that hot-dog grilling be taught in the schools, it's a done deal and the
cookoutist lobby becomes a power in national politics.
But this has little to do with those folks around the water
cooler debating the merits of the UPS guy's legs vs. the secretary's.
What is does have to do
with is the Humpty Dumpty Rule. Quoth that savant, "When
I use a word, it means precisely what I wish. The question is which is to be master, that is all."
Mr. Dumpty's sentiment is admirable, but not always practical. It
depends on whether you want people to know what you're talking about. It also depends on
whether you want to clearly state your view of the matter, or just generally muddy the
waters.
If you want to make
things as murky as you possibly can, then redefining words is probably a very good thing
to do. Claiming, for instance, that the murder of school children makes for a good
chat around the water cooler…and the secretary went to lunch anyway…is so
contrary to any human sensibility that people might listen in amazement, just to see what
you'll say next. Then, once you have their attention, you can probably sell a few tickets.
But if you're not selling anything, and instead your purpose is
to point out, say, that murderers should be brought swiftly to justice, you probably
wouldn't try to convince people that it's all just chit-chat anyway. You might say,
"National disgrace," or, "An issue demanding immediate resolution,"
but it just isn't very likely you'd describe the whole thing as, "An interesting
topic of conversation."
Words. Such powerful things they are. They ring in a human mind
and, shortly thereafter, stars move in different orbits. The latest style of krashingly
kurious kombat is not to be compared.
It all rather depends on what you're trying to do. If your
purpose is to speak clearly, it can't possibly do any harm to occasionally look inside a
dictionary.
On a personal note, I don't mean to imply that any of these
"ism's" I've mentioned are actually important or unimportant. I only use these
as examples. What actually matters or doesn't in the greater scheme of things, I leave to
the judgment of those more qualified, such as editors. |
