On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Steven Brust wrote:
>But David, that is exactly the point. I cannot make an elegant point of
>how vague a character is being unless he has the ability to precise and
>doesn't take it.
>
Then are we really disagreeing about anything?
Let me restate how I see things, and you can tell me what part
you disagree with.
The fact that some words have become ambiguous [1] and some
vague phrases have come into vogue [2] doesn't really bother
me because the clear and precise words *are still there*.
Ultimately, the decision to use a vague or specific phrase
is a personal one, and it's not really the fault of the
*words* that people use them that way. In addition, I can
certainly understand how some people might *want* to be
vague on certain matters, because those matters are very
private to them, or because they aren't quite sure themselves
how things stand.
For example, the hypothetical person saying "Susan and I are
in a relationship" might use that phrase because the speaker
doesn't want to say anything more on the matter, or because
he might not be 100 percent sure of Susan's feelings on the matter
and doesn't want to divulge that uncertainty.
But if he *is* sure, *and* does want to communicate the nature
of that vague term, he can surely be specific if he wants to:
"Susan and I are soulmates with a deep and loving connection" or
"Susan and I are engaged to be married" or "Susan and I are just
fuckbuddies but we have no deeper emotional attachment" or "Susan
and I meet once a week to play chess and drink coffee and natter
on about current events and grammatical minutiae. We don't have
sex."
But it's the speaker's choice, so I don't feel bothered by his
lack of specificity. The only reason I would have to feel annoyed
is because something is being obscured that's important to me (such as
if I were interested in Susan).
And there I can agree with you - if someone is *supposed* to be
communicating something important, and is using a lot of vague
words and phrases, I would be annoyed *at that person*, since
he's obviously hiding information that I want or need to know.
This contributes to why politicians so often find themselves
despised [3].
But again, I'd be annoyed at the person for choosing to *use* those
words and phrases, not the words themselves. If this vagueness was in
writing, it would have to be a damn good story to keep holding my
interest - but it would be the writer's fault for deliberately being
vague, not the exact words the writer chose.
Finally, I don't think the language is weakened by the examples
you've given. Yes, there are some blunt tools out there, and some
sharp tools may have been slightly blunted by giving them an
additional ambiguous meaning, but there have always been such things -
and the sharp tools are still there for everyone to use. [4]
There. I hope that was clear enough.
[1] I was going to write "vaguified", but I
decided that I didn't want to piss you off.
[2] I like alliteration.
[3] Can you say "Slick Willie"?
[4] Afterthought: Or are they? The recent spate of archaic grammar
reminds me that we no longer distinguish between single and plural
second person, for example. Although I note that certain phrases have
been coined in certain dialects to re-create that distinction - I am
thinking of "you all" or "y'all" in the Southern U.S.
Is that what you see happening with the vaguification [5] problem?
Wouldst thou mayhap support the resurrection of the archaic forms?
[5] Oops, sorry.