Subject: Word Contortions and its Implications

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 15:00:21 +0200 (IST)

Many people who are not natural speakers of Hebrew, would say that the
first Hebrew word that comes to their mind is Shalom, and that it means
peace. However, Shalom does not mean peace.

The word peace translates into "Shalvah" in Hebrew, or to the latin noun
tranquility. It has such meanings as peace of mind, "a peaceful person",
etc. The word Shalom is derived from the ancient Semitic base of s.l.m. or
sh.l.m. It has crontations of whole or whole-ness. Shalom means well-being
- i.e: a state in which nothing bad happens.

The chief meaning of the word Shalom, whether in the Old Testament or
otherwise - is exactly that. For instance: "Medinath Yisra'el Ta'aseh
Hakol Kedey Labti'akh Eth _Shlomam_ Shel Nos'ey Hamatos Hatuph". Which
means : "The state of Israel will do everything to ensure the well being
of the passangers of the kidnapped plane." It is well known that the War
of Lebanon was named "Milhemet Shlom-Hagalil" - "the war of the shalom of
the Galileee". While the War of Lebanon was pointless, bloody, and brough
a great amount of bad emotions and injustice to the region of the
Israeli-Lebanese border, it is in fact possible to have wars whose
ultimate cause is "Shalom". For instance, WWII ensured the "Shalom" of the
free world.

Now, to describe the relationship between two countries, the Hebrew choice
is Shalom, while the English choice is peace. You don't expect two
countries who have a fully normalized relationship to disarm themselves,
and behave "peacefully", do you?

I believe the word peace does not cognitively fall into place when it
comes to describing the relationship between two countries. And in any
case, it may induce various cognitive side-effects for Hebrew speakers.

----

Another common word contortions which has become common recently is for
the word "virtual". Recently it has been erronesouly used to describe
everyhting that is digital. Let me explain why it is used erronesouly.

The M-W defintion of virtual is:

1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or
admitted <a virtual dictator>

Note that it has nothing to do with computers or the digital revolution.
There are places where using it is applicable to real-life. Now, computer
workers use the word virtual a lot: virtual memory, virtual file-system
interface, a virtual method, etc. However, neither them would agree that
the Internet can be called "the virtual world" or that digital content is
"virtual content."

The Internet has a physical existence. There are routers, lines, servers,
etc. making sure that it would be possible to transmit the data from one
place to another. Much more importantly there are people who make sure
that is what happens. Media transported over the Internet can be
duplicated and used virtually[1] without cost. However, it is as real as
anything else, and took a lot of time by the one who created it to create.

An E-mail correspondant is not a virtual friend of yours. He's a real one,
whom you just never met face to face. By associating the word virtual with
anything digital, one claims that's there's nothing real or phyiscal about
it, which is very much incorrect. I believe then it is easy to claim that
source code or hyperlinks are not speech, and other such confusions.

I should say that I used to think virtual meant everything digital until I
was corrected by Omer Mussaev who told me there was nothing virtual about
it.

---

My final example would be for the word Humanist. Traditionally it was word
invented during the Renaissance to describe those people who idealized the
human mind and body. Later on it was used to refer to those studies that
study the human creation (i.e: "humanist studies")

Lately however, it is used to refer to people who hold a pragmatic
viewpoint that every political or philosophical agenda is legitimate. When
I asked my supervisors in a worplace whether they were Objectivists, they
told me that was not the case and that they were in fact "humanists".

Humanism is by no means accepting every viewpoint.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

[1] - this time the "virtual" base is used properly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       [email-masked]

"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:16:21 +0200

> peace. However, Shalom does not mean peace.

A good point. A very important important thing for translators to remember
(not very related to hackers, but what the heck ;))

What you noticed is a quite common occurance in human-language translation.
Two words in different languages ("shalom" and "peace") share a common
meaning (namely, "the state of not being at war") but each of these words
also carry other meanings, which are NOT common to those two words.

Another example: consider the word "right" and "yamin". They share one
definition, but not the others; For example, "right" also means "correct" in
English, but "yamin" doesn't carry this connotation (I'm not trying to
imply anything politically ;)).

Note that the choice of the word "peace" isn't only in English - it probably
comes from the latin "pax" (meaning peace, tranquility: see for example
the epitaph "requiscat in pace", meaning "rest in peace").
In the Roman world, "peace" meant exactly that, tranquility, a roman province
that doesn't start an uprising against the empire. They even had the term
"Pax Romana", the peace that existed when Romans ruled the entire Mediterranean
rim and countries could not fight one another.

By the way, the latin pax is related to pacisci, "to agree" (compare also
the English "pact", "compact"). So pax (and peace) also had the connotation
of an agreement between countries to have a peaceful (i.e., quite) border.

> tranquility. It has such meanings as peace of mind, "a peaceful person",

Actually, "a peaceful person" is usually taken in the sense of "some who
doesn't like to fight with others", not in the sense of peace-of-mind,
or being at peace with himself.

> of Lebanon was named "Milhemet Shlom-Hagalil" - "the war of the shalom of

Yes, I never noticed this irony. The words Milhama and Shalom right next
to the other...

> ultimate cause is "Shalom". For instance, WWII ensured the "Shalom" of the

This is also true for "peace". Romans had wars all the time to ensure the
"peace" in their empire (e.g., against those pesky Jews in Judea which
wanted to rule themselves and not be a Roman province). Many modern wars
have been about restoring "peace" in the world, and not about capturing land
or things like that.

> whom you just never met face to face. By associating the word virtual with

Reminds me of someone that I used to correspond and chat with, but which (at
the time) I hadn't actually met. On her home page, she had a list of friends,
with real-world friends labeled "3D friends", and Internet-acquaintances
labeled "2D friends". I tried to explain to her why this term was a bit
degrading, that I was actually 3D like any person :)

>...

This is probably a simple error. Humanism is *not* a viewpoint that all
agenda are legitimate. I never heard anyone think it was...
Look at www.m-w.com for the accepted meanings of humanism.

The word this person was looking for was probably "relativism", not
"humanism". Relativism means (from m-w.com):

 1b. a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups
     holding them

(which in essense means that other groups' ethics (e.g., that it is ok
to kill women who "shamed" the family) might be legitimate, and you can't
just claim they aren't because your philosophy says they aren't).

Not every error is worth a discussion to understand why people make it.
In my tironut, our "rasap" told us that "there is anarchy in the army"
(of course, he meant "hierarchy, not "anarchy") - he simply didn't know the
correct word, so he made a really amusing mistake.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Sunday, Jan 27 2002, 14 Shevat 5762
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Unix is user friendly - it's just picky
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |about it's friends.

---

From: Adi Stav <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 20:13:07 +0200

> peace. However, Shalom does not mean peace.

I disagree... "Shalom" has many meanings and many connotations, and 
one has to tell by the context. One of those meanings is 
"tranquility", but another is "peace". Some ambiguity is a part of 
any natural language.

> everyhting that is digital. Let me explain why it is used erronesouly.

I think you mean "online". That's a very specific word that means 
everything people think "virtual" means but which, in fact, it 
doesn't.

> Humanism is by no means accepting every viewpoint.

I think you mean "relativism". Relativist, humanist, liberalist 
(except in the US), libertan, universalist, are all different 
opinions distinct from one another, but since they are often held 
by the same people or groups anyhow, they are sometimes blurred 
around the edges. No biggie. I've never actually seen "humanist"
being used for "relativist" but I suppose that it's possible.

Of course, over time words change, lose old meanings and acquire
new ones. Some people take this as a license to use any word any
way they wish (which I call "linguistic relativism", even though I 
risk MAV jumping and exclaiming that the term is already taken by 
some obscure linguistic cult). I completely agree with you here -- 
it creates such ambiguities that virtually cause each person to use 
their own private language. Worse yet, it helps them win online 
arguments unjustly (which is why I am so suspicious of the practice), 
thus making those even more detrimental to the mental well being of 
their participants than they already are.

Nevertheless, as much as I hate the thought, we might some day see:

virtual, adj.: 
(2) online

Or even:

terrorism, n.:
(4) An unjust act of war or violence

---

From: Dan Kenigsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:06:59 +0200 (IST)

> English, but "yamin" doesn't carry this connotation 

Ani eyneni `omed la-khalutin l-yminkha b-noge`a l-nquda zo...

> Yes, I never noticed this irony. The words Milhama and Shalom right next

Notice that that war continued during the year 1984. I remember left-wingers
citing Orwell and his Newspeak in this context.

Dan.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:34:45 +0200 (IST)

> Ani eyneni `omed la-khalutin l-yminkha b-noge`a l-nquda zo...

That's not the same thing. "Le-yminkha" means "on your side" and has
nothing to do with correct.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---

From: Nimster <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:03:12 +0200

[Snip]
> imply anything politically ;)).

I'm going a tad off-topic here, but a History teacher once told me that
Smolani (left-winger) was actually a deregatory term invented by the
Yemani'im to refer to the *Smali'im*, as half-smali'im and half-yemanim -
therefor Smolanim - as they grew closer to the right-wing opinion.
Nice anecdote. I don't know if it's completely true, but it, too, was
adopted as a legit term. Once I verify this is true, I will stop using it,
just as I stopped using "My Lord" when refering to God (except at
ceremonies, when other people's feelings are involved), or "Irony" and
"Cynicism", two words which are commonly used incorrectly.

-Nimster

---

From: Tzafrir Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:15:37 +0200 (IST)

> therefor Smolanim - as they grew closer to the right-wing opinion.

AFAIK the origin of "left wing" and "right wing" was in the french
parliment during the french revolution.

The "left wing" were those that sat (physically) in the left side of the
assembly hall (or whatever it was) and happened to be the more radical
group. In the right wing of the assembly hall set the more conservative
delegates.

And thus the name "left wing" stuck to those reolutionary forces, and
"right wing" -- to the more conservative.

Can anybody confirm/deny?

> "Cynicism", two words which are commonly used incorrectly.

They have adopted a new meaning. Who care about the original one?

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:39:09 +0200

> the epitaph "requiscat in pace", meaning "rest in peace").

By the way, there are other languages too in which "peace" and death are
related. In German, a cemetery is called "friedhof", meaning "mansion of peace"
(I'm sorry if I'm spelling or translating this incorrectly - I don't really
know German, and my dictionary collection is at home ;)).

In Hebrew there's also a saying about a dead person "alav hashalom". I'm
not sure where this saying comes from, though - it might be a late translation
from a different language.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Monday, Jan 28 2002, 15 Shevat 5762
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Creativity consists of coming up with
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |many ideas, not just that one great idea.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:33:10 +0200

> know German, and my dictionary collection is at home ;)).

Actually, it appears that "hof" is a yard (chatser), and "frieden" is
indeed peace (apparently, with mostly the same meanings as the English
word).
I better stick to translating languages I actually know ;)

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Monday, Jan 28 2002, 16 Shevat 5762
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |The knowledge that you are an idiot, is
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |what distinguishes you from one.

---

From: Oleg Goldshmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jan 2002 23:13:22 -0500

> parliment during the french revolution.

Disclaimers - IANAP(olitical)S(cientist), and I fully realize it's
totally, inexcusably off topic (except the contortions of the term
"hacker" and the implications of that):

The etimology that I learned (too many) years ago went like this: in
parlaments of the 19th century Continental Europe the members would
sit in a semi-circle with conservatives to the right hand of the
presiding officer, often the king, and the socialists on the left. The
more radical the group, the further to the left they sat. Whether or
not this actually originated during the French revolution I don't
know.  There were no socialists to speak of then (and no king), so
maybe 1848 or something of the kind is a likelier starting point. I am
not sure, but wan't that the case that the more radical members of the
post-revolutionary French parlament sat higher up in the amphitheatre?

Note that while originally political divisions into left and right
were clear in terms of social and economic policies, it is not always
the case at present. In Israel, the difference is most often according
to the Middle Eastern politics / peace process, rather than according
to different views on social issues. In the post-perestroika Soviet
Union / Russia it is the (former) communists and socialists who are
called right-wingers, and the more one is into free-for-all capitalism
the further left one is. I guess it is still the traditional division
in terms of liberalism / conservatism, but inverted. I'd guess that in
most Western countries the division currently goes according to
positions on government intervention, taxation, welfare, etc.

> "right wing" -- to the more conservative.

Not true in Israel. If anything, it is the Labour who are the
establishment here. Not true in most of Western Europe - the left
are typically more entrenched in governments there, and have been for
a long time. Not true in the US - who is the more revolutionary,
Democrats or Republicans? So in most of the West it's "who was more
radical in the 19th century" ;-). And again, in Russia it's the other
way around.

> Can anybody confirm/deny?

My NIS 0.02

-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | [email-masked] 
If it aint't broken it hasn't got enough features yet.