The Danger of Words with More than One Meaning

I'm back! (That sheepshearing took a lot longer than I thought).  And guess what?  Neil Genzlinger is back too!

Remember Neil?  He’s the guy who writes the same terrible article over and over again for the Times.  Here’s his formula: Take a meaningless “development” on television, like bad mothers, or using the word “really?” too much in comedies, and write a piece bemoaning how that “development” foreshadows the end of civilization.  Write the article in a vaguely tongue-in-cheek manner in an attempt to avoid criticism for making such an asinine “point.”  And then go on and on and on and on (1155 words for this latest beaut).

I’m not the only one to take offense.  No, the one and only Tell Funnier Jokes hero Jerry Seinfeld has written in to complain, and not so surprisingly he really nails it.  I particular like his criticism of the “wrap your head around it” phrase Neil uses.  Here’s Neil’s immortal line:

Back when Einstein first announced that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, the “Reallys?” that resulted were saying: “I am astounded by your discovery, so much so that I can scarcely wrap my head around it. You, sir, are a genius.”

Yup, Neil, nothing works better in an article that tries to skewer a cliché than using a particularly egregious one yourself!

Seinfeld kinda took care of this one (“your column was so deeply vacuous that I couldn’t help but feel that you have stepped into my area of expertise”), but there’s just so much that’s terrible here I couldn’t help but single out a couple of other particularly stupid moments.

So Neil’s premise, if you can call it that, is that TV shows use the phrase “Really?” too much.  “Really?” in a mocking, condescending manner.  Like—“so the Times sought fit to devote one thousand one hundred and fifty-five words to this article.  Really?”

In example number infinity, Neil criticizes Veep’s use of “Really?”:

John C. Calhoun and who knows how many other oratorically inclined former vice presidents turned over in their graves.

So for your example of great vice presidents of the past, you chose notorious slavery defender John. C. Calhoun?  Really, Neil?  Even Spiro Agnew might have been preferable.

But then things get real.  Real stupid.

“Really?” was once an expression of wonderment that also acknowledged a gap in the user’s knowledge. 

Ah yes, the halcyon days when boys were boys and “really” was “really.”

The word also spent time as an interjection, an expression of dismay. “Really!,” a stuffy aristocrat might have said when she saw young people jitterbugging. I’m no etymologist; I don’t know when that exclamation point became a question mark and was wrapped in sarcasm. But “Really?” wasn’t the first to undergo the transformation from innocuous to malicious.

First off, the difference between “Really!” and “Really?” is barely anything—they both express contempt or disapprobation.  But I know, Neil, you’re not an etymologist.  Far be it for you to actually find the answer to that question you pose.  That would take you far too much time, I’m sure, and you’re clearly pressed for time having written an endless ass piece.  You know how long it took me to find the answer to that question? THREE MINUTES.  You don’t have access to the Oxford English Dictionary at the Times.  Really? 

And guess what, when you look shit up in the OED you find out some interesting stuff.  Did you know that Neil Genzlinger is included in it?  It’s true!  I’ll give you the entry:

Neil Genzlinger. n.  A known idiot who writes for The New York Times.

You know what else I found out?  (Again, three minutes this took me).  You know when the first recorded reference of “really” meaning “Interrogatively, expressing surprise or doubt” took place: 1753.  In everyone’s favorite novel, Sir Charles Grandison (almost as long as one of Neil Genzlinger’s articles!).  That was the closest definition to Neil’s “expression of wonderment that also acknowledged a gap in the user’s knowledge.”

But what about this newfound sarcasm, this “Really?” that’s destroying the foundations of American society?  How about “expressing asseveration, protest, or dismay”—that sounds like what you’re criticizing, right?  First use of that meaning? 1604.  So the sarcastic “Really” predates the earnest one, despite Neil’s lament of when the exclamation changed to the sarcastic question.  In other words, Neil Genzlinger is an idiot.  You couldn’t have looked this shit up?  Again, three fucking minutes!

Also, you know where that first reference to “Really” expressing “asseveration, protest, or dismay” showed up?  Motherfucking Hamlet, bitches!  Neil Genzlinger just said that Shakespeare was a hack.  Oh no he d-in’t (I hope you felt that glottal stop there.  It was an angry glottal stop). 

And it gets worse:

This linguistic co-opting cannot go on. For one thing, having words with more than one meaning is dangerous — who among us hasn’t been slugged after offering a pre-“Jessie” “excuse me” that was interpreted as an age-of-sarcasm “excuse me”? For another thing, there are only so many words in the language. Soon the only emotion we’ll have words to express is disdain.

Personally, I have not been slugged because of a linguistic misunderstanding.  But then again, I tend not to provoke as strong feelings of anger as Mr. Genzlinger’s articles clearly do in me. 

But let’s back up a second.  Because the above paragraph contained by far the stupidest sentence I have ever had the misfortune to quote on this blog.  Can you guess which one?  That’s right:

For one thing, having words with more than one meaning is dangerous.

Really?!  I can’t stress this enough: that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  Let’s just take one random word: hip.  So confusing!  I went in to get an operation to help me with some problems I was having walking and when I came to they had implanted a chip in my brain that just played Arcade Fire and Twin Shadow.  So embarrassing!  And so dangerous! 

Let’s try another!  Fuck--kind of a lot of different meanings to that word. And what about radical?  They’re coming to deport me, cause they think I’m a radical trying to undermine the government, when all I was doing was talking about square roots with my friend. 

You know how many meanings of the word “form” there are?  Thirty-two.  (and that’s just the noun form).  Most of the time we know what other people mean.  But Neil may just be a little slow. 

Also, by the way, it depends on the estimate, but there are a lot of words in the English language.  171,476 entries in the OED, and by recent estimates 1,013,913 individual words.  I think we’ll be able to express things other than disdain.  When it comes to discussions of Neil Genzlinger’s articles, though, maybe not.