The nature of your language reflects (or "is")
the language of your nature.

Language is beautiful, and English is one of the richest languages. It's a "bastard" language (That's the proper term... really), made up of an amalgamation of many others. This gives us a large choice of words to fit our intentions. I'm not a linguist, but I bet all that borrowing has given us more synonyms than any other language. We don't have to recognize any absolute synonyms; there are always some minor differences in meaning or connotation that gives us the opportunity to chose the one that most accurately expresses our intent. There is also that much more chance of being wrong! (You can feel the difference between "stubborn" and "persistent" very well when there's a debate about which quality you have!)
. . We all hesitate to correct someone's misuse of a term, because it may be inferred as a "Make-Wrong". ("I imply; you infer.") If done tactfully, however, it's a favor to him and even to society. I think I can now accept corrections (almost) gratefully. Later, anyway. If I think about it. I'm sure Edwin Newman could find many, many mistakes in this site, but that's okay, I try to be wrong at least once a day, just for practice. I'm very successful at that.
. . I'm sure that it seems at first that I'm splitting hairs, or going overboard about definitions, but improvements in communication save not only time, but trouble, and vast wastes of effort and emotion. Communication ability is a good indicator of your personal viability in social situations --like marriage.
. That's why I am offended at careless destruction of unified language systems, passed on to us from the Greek and Latin, that promote clear communication. Within those languages were prefixes and suffixes with set meanings that could be combined into new words that could be understood, having never been heard before!

One word that used to mean one particular thing, but that doesn't matter any more, is "vaccine". It was named for cattle (in latin: vacca. Vacaville, Ca. was once a cow-town, literally & literarily!). Cowpox antibodies killed Smallpox, so vaccine was for Smallpox. Now, with Smallpox gone, it's just interesting history, and there are vaccines for many diseases.

It seems easier to learn the standard meanings of the words we use, without a deeper understanding of the "whys". For many words, this is easier yet; you can learn just the universal meanings of their parts. Knowing a hundred parts gives you ten thousand words that are combinations of those parts.

On the other hand (altermanuously? ugh! That's dysphonic!) I get irritated at destruction of this beautiful and useful system by those who know better. If schools would spend some time teaching the prefix/suffix system, it would save a lot of time we waste in learning all the combined words separately. Why learn ten thousand, when they have only a hundred parts, all with solid meanings? That's why we need to keep them solid! It's sooo much easier!

I can remember "a-ha" experiences from the recognition of certain of those words, because I'd heard the parts before. The "City of Brotherly Love" is described in it's name. ("philo-" means (one form of) love; "delphia", city.) Contradict says "against-speaking". You can see a philodendron wrapped around a tree--the word means tree-lover. More to our purpose, autonomy means self-named! (I feel exclamation points on all of these.) I'm often curious about similarities and suspected relationships like "aero-" and "arrow".

Many Greek and Latin word-parts are now part of our language. We stole 'em fair and square. Many more parts could be taken. I had fun once (ah, yes...) making neologisms (new words) to describe the likes of magician Uri Geller, who was then fooling a large part of the population. Words like diplofascial (two-faced), and lipocephalic (fathead!). How about "Cerebralitosis"? If someone got a "big head" from a compliment, it would be megacephalic. A very large person is megamorphic. Incidently, most of Geller's cohort does use good system-words like telekinesis, teleportation, and precognition. It gives the air of being scientific. (A cohort is a group.)

In looking up "diplo-", I learned that "diplomat" evolved from the fact that ancient governmental couriers carried papers (of course). Folded papers. "Doubled-over". Beautiful!

To coin a word that's probably been coined before: a woman client of mine had "androphobia": a fear of men. How about "Dendriatrist"? Tree-doctor! Arboriatrist doesn't sound as good, & mixes Greek & Latin. But for those who rail against the combo: the very word grammarian is a hybrid of Latin & Greek.

"Exo-" means "from outside"; so "exotic" is the opposite of "domestic". It does not mean it's unusual, esoteric (inner; secret), or strangely beautiful, despite the fact that most poor dictionaries say so. They have abrogated their supposed position of authority by blindly following incorrect usage. Very few dictionaries can be used as the authority that people imagine them to be. Test them by looking up "exotic" and "unique"; there are no degrees of either; they are absolutes, like "pregnant". (You know the jokes... "slightly pregnant"--& "very dead") If the dictionary fails the test, don't buy it. If you already have it, put it at the bottom of the pile. These are words in a great system, and to misuse one damages to the entire system.
. . When someone says "very exotic", the fumble-tongue is being destructive not only to one word, but to the whole beautifully unified system. I stopped buying Shell gasoline when they spent millions of dollars on ads that called it "very unique". How could I trust my engine to gasoline made by a company that spends many millions to get a message across, and then doesn't even hire a writer who can "talk good"! I challenge them to make a unicycle that is any more one-wheeled than any other.

I'm not at all against non-system neologisms, though; nor "verbifications" of nouns. The 1960's produced many very insightfully descriptive new words, like "upfront", descriptive of the bodily posture and, likely, the psychology of an open person. "Uptight" describes another bodily posture. "A drag" seems so connected to the feeling it describes. I would cheer a continuing evolution of the language. ("A bureau was once a woolen covering used to cover a desk. It eventually came to mean the desk itself and then the office that used the desks.")
. . However, the 70's specialized in turning good nouns into bad verbs, and the early 80's were noted for popularizing retardation, well, "gag me, fer sure, y' know?"
. . The 90's: "Where is it at?" "Don't be doing that." What if Nike's motto was "Just be doing it"? . But then, to talk without communicating is nothing new... (Y'know?) The illiterti are a large group.

We know what illiterate means, and that's bad enough, but so many people communicate so poorly that we need a new word to identify it and point up the problem. Something like "Illalic" or Alalic"; "Alingual" or "Illingual". Better: mal-lingual ("bad tongue").

It occurs to me now that, grammatically, "should" is similar to "hopefully", in that, just as there's no one in the sentence doing the hoping, the one who gave the should isn't referred to either. Worse, there's no one doing the wanting! You've left yourself out. Perhaps that's why shoulds feel, well, disrespectful to yourself. But we cover shoulds in another essay.

Language is psychologically important; much more so than it first seems. It distinguishes us from most other animals. Some of them communicate, yes, but it seems that only humans and sign-language-trained apes can pass on information other than that about feelings. (in fact, that's exactly what we're poorest at!) If that were the only definition of "human", you would be human only to the degree that you could accurately communicate!

As a former therapist, I'm aware of the effect of language on mental health. Language creates much of who we are; and most of that is accidental. Generally, the stronger the identity, the better the mental health. What of "Sybil", you say; isn't that a lot of identity and yet not healthy? No, I think it was more a retreat from her traumatized real identity into others she knew not of. Thus conscience ("with knowledge") does make cowards of us all--to some degree.
. Here's a tiny difference that makes a difference: "I don't think so" versus "I think not". Is not-thinking really what you want to tell people you're doing?!

In a real sense, separation from other people is not psychologically healthy. Contact is essential to good health. Ashley Montague told a story about premature babies born in hospitals that had no policy of giving the babies time in contact with anything human. (It's not called an "isolette" for nuthin'.) The death rate --compared with babies that had been held-- was significantly higher. Death! Greater conscious awareness of the things that separate us--along with our natural tendency toward health--will change us and lead us into more and better intimate contacts.

Language is the primary way we contact others; and it is itself an intimacy. Misuse of language obstructs communication; diminishes contact. Besides the trouble caused by misunderstandings, there is also a feeling of uneasiness; a separation; a feeling mysteriously akin to rejection. Misunderstandings often result in separations, and there's the frustration of not being able to "get it together" with someone. Also, it's possible that sometimes, subconsciously, a person would use it to achieve a separation; not a healthy or respectful way of doing it.

There are times when miscommunication is blatant and well remembered, but there are other times, when conscious attention is lacking, when simple poor communication accumulates, and feeds back in a subtle but viscious circle.

"I'm anxious to meet my friend."
Therapist: "That's too bad. What about him brings up your anxiety?"

Every time you've said such a thing has contributed to a negative feeling about the friend. Subtle inflences are powerful. It accumulates. If you say you're eager to see him, that's different, in fact, once you think of it, it's obvious that "eager" is the opposite of "anxious"! "Anxious" comes from German, meaning "going through a narrow place"(ask a claustro-phobe). (A good device to help you remember is: "anxious about; eager to.)

The issue of dependence/independence is especially crucial to women and adolescents. Those issues seem to conflict so often, and it does seem that we need both. But there is an alternative that, in one sense, lies between them. But mostly, it comprises the best of both. This is inter-dependence. Duties and rewards may be (overtly or covertly) traded and bargained-for with someone else (or several someones) to get the benefits of preference or economies of scale. "I'll make breakfast, you wash dishes and take out the garbage."

Good therapy doesn't create dependence, or give advice; it asks you to create yourself and examine your own advice. This book isn't therapy; only what you do with it is.

You'll can make a large collection of words to be aware of. Start with shoulds, of course, and slowly add whatever rings your bell...

I tell my clients they can let a warning "bell" go off when is heard such a discouraging ("bad/weak-hearted") word, i.e., shoulds and self-definers. Then they'll be aware and can rephrase them. There are a few others that we all say, and that won't get changed, and don't really seem very important. But connotations are subtle, and accumulate. "That makes me feel X." "Make" has a connotation of force: against your will.

There is some truth to your saying, "But that's not what I mean when I say that." But then, one might fairly ask: what do you mean? You could say it "causes me to" (sounds stilted), or "that leads me to", but I suspect that everyone, including myself, will go on saying "It makes me feel...". However, even the thought you've given this, and will give other phrases, has changed the connotation you have of it. If we can occasionally give thought to all such things, it will change at least the underlying meanings that effect us psychologically. I do not here include the Shoulds and Can'ts; always rephrase those.

As a therapist, I have a few extra bells (in my batfry). I notice hearing "try" and "control". "Control yourself" says a chorus of parents, teachers, and preachers. This means that you are using their "should" to force a change in your desires! It creates not only an internal war at that moment, but the habit of doing so. This is unlikely to work; I'm tempted to say it's impossible. You may well do as instructed, but you would have opted out of making that decision for yourself and thereby lost some identity. You would feel the loss.

It's best to be aware you wanna pull your hair out --and it's surprising how many aren't aware-- but it's also best not to actually do it.

A decision to not decide is usually not healthy or productive of identity. Deciding to not decide is a cop-out; you have given of permission for some other person or a mere coincidence to take over a facet of your life. The exceptions are those times when it's rational to postpone a decision, as when necessary information hasn't yet arrived.

"If I didn't push myself, I wouldn't strive to accomplish anything any more, would I?"
Therapist: "Why do you strive?"
"Because I want to.... Oh... Want!"

"To strive": to move with great energy toward a desire --is not passive. When I say that you don't have to try, I don't mean that it's better to be passive. To feel you must try is a good tipoff that you are unclear about your desire. With secure deservingness and permission, you can "desire, and allow" instead of "try, and control".

Speaking of "passive", the use of the passive voice not only is a mark of someone's personality, it also took a large part in the formation of it. A child will learn, without knowing what a "passive voice" is, that it seems to have a chance of helping her/him to avoid blame. "Her hair was pulled, so she cried." It sounds like a full explanation, and if s/he's not asked further, it would get him/her out of a bind. That would be very unfortunate for that little person, as s/he will begin to use it more. That will prevent a lot of growth, because it attempts to remove responsibility. While it's used, it trades responsibility for guilt and a lowering of self-esteem.

Assertion expresses identity; aggression expresses a desire to control others --this indicates a weak identity.

There's a big difference between "I don't want to" and "I want not to." The former tells one thing out of millions, billions that isn't on his "want-to" list. The latter tells one specific thing that is on the list.

I'm sure you would rather be autonomous and self-actuated than self-controlled. Self-actuation ("auto-matic"!) moves you toward your desires. Self-control is an internalized should that moves you to their goals, and that makes you an automaton; a slave. It's not healthy to be one or want one for a mate.

Before you read on, you might try (different meaning of "try", there...) making your own definition of "obligated" and "committed". It's close to the subject of shoulds and desires. (...pause...)

See if you agree that: you are committed to your desires, obligated to someone else's. Yes, you can agree to someone's desires, but then they're also your own. And you can promise to do something in return for some other thing, that's fair. But be careful of those times when you're not sure of what your return--your payoff--is. (This is not to say I'm promoting selfishness, just awareness.)

Is an obligation a should, and a committment a desire?

Now try the difference between "assertive" and "aggressive". I notice that people often use them as if they were interchangable. The difference can be important to the accidental programming of your subconscious that's going on all the time. Here's my definition, in the form of an equation: assertive plus hostile equals aggressive.

"Assertive" is simply saying what you want; and you are the world's foremost authority on that! You see that no one can say "No, that's not what you want/feel"! That gives you the permission to say it easily, without guilt or hesitation.

"Aggressive" comes from fear of scarcity; someone is going to try to keep you from what you want, and you think that you have to fight to get it or keep it. Yes, there is an increasing scarcity of material things, and it will get worse--much worse--as the population continues to explode. But there is no scarcity of precious human assets--like hugs.

Notice, being assertive may get you a hug; but aggressive sure won't! Assertiveness wins (and deserves) respect; aggressive doesn't, it just tends toward stupid violence. You can build from assertion, aggression tears it down. As your awareness rises with age and growth, you'll be the rational rebel.

It was, again, Ashley Montague who said, "The true source of all aggression is love frustrated." That's one to feel about! It's a very positive view of what could easily be depressing.

Everything you see and do has some influence. That's a fairly safe generalization. Every movie or TV show we see, every dish of ice cream we eat, every stubbed toe, and every bird that flies by. Very little of who anyone is... was purposefully decided upon. It's funny to see how hard we defend who we've accidently become, as if those accidents were our greatest accomplishments! It's easier to let go of that egotism when you see how silly it is. You have the choice of how you will influence yourself, and therefore the choice of who you will be!

Don't be reading this, read it.
Don't be working, work.
Don't be running, run.
Imagine if Nike's slogan wasn't "Just DO it.", but:
"Just be doing this." No, no, no! DO it!

BAD LANGUAGE
. . Recently (April '04) worsened by adding the "be doing" mistake. Note that I threw in one straight, even quotable, line.

Hey! This is being like a hopefully very unique, y' know, forward; and I was getting in a thinking mode an' was writing it my own self, right?

Y'know, at this point in time, in terms of writing this that, and the other thing, and 63 billion other littletiny, diminutive jobs, y'know, that I was not like exactly anxious to get crisis-orientated into this infinitely exotic undertaking, OK?

Then, hey!, I was meeting this one girl, or somethin', and she was like this phenomena, y' know? Irregardless! So what can I be saying, right?

So we were dialoguing a while, an' she was going, Hey! I was getting this greatbig idea for this book or somethin'. We should interface, ok? We could be co-operatic! The reason why is because, she goes, I know, y' know, you can be writing, uh, really good and aggressive, right? World class, huh? And you could be living at this point in space!

Well, at first I like misconscrewed what she said.

She was going: be utilizing your study-ology of whatever, y'know? Be prioritizing your parameters, I think. When all is like said and dumb -- Hey!-- most populace'd be giving you a consensus on that, ok? You could be writing a good read, really. I mean...!

Or, to be repeating my reiteration again, the other alternative, y' know, is to never be writing nothin', ok? 'cause intellectuallism is the last refuge of an obsessive, right? And then what's being left, right?

I was referencing the bottom line of this here time frame and, y' know, that what it is is like I was decisioning to be running with the ball, ok? That's like within the context of the name of the game: the megabuck sector. Really. That's the scenario in my methodology, y' know? I could like make up to $500,000 or more. What can I be saying? I am paying my dues and am owed a piece of the action, awready. It's the same differnce. I'm gettin' them good ramifications, y' know?

---------O--------

Allow me not to repeat my reiteration again; we haven't time! That would be to say it once and then fifteen more times! Here's why. First it's said (that's once). Then it's iterated (making twice). If that's redone, that's four. If that's repeated, that's eight. If it's all done again, that's sixteen times! Got it, or shall I iterate? [put this below]

For books, I love H.W. Fowler's Modern English Usage (old, but ok) CLIP: dont buy the "Third Edition," which isnt really Fowler. The second edition (edited by Gowers) is OK, but the first is really the nonpareil.
. . Origins, Eric Partridge.

. . The 24 different ways in which the spoken "oo" sound, as heard in moon, is spelled.
. . moon (oo) moon
. . group (ou) groop
. . fruit (ui) froot
. . glue (ue) gloo
. . drew (ew) droo
. . two (wo) too
. . flu (u) floo
. . canoe (oe) canoo
. . through (ough) throo
. . rule (u-e) rool
. . lieu (ieu) loo
. . loose (oo-e) loos
. . lose (o-e) looz
. . pooh (ooh) poo
. . coup (oup) coo
. . bruise (ui-e) brooz
. . jiujitsu (iu) joojitsoo
. . silhouette (hou) silooet
. . buoy (uo) booy
. . deuce (eu-e) doos
. . maneuver (eu) manoover
. . sleuth (eu) slooth
. . rendezvous (ous) rondevoo
. . mousse (ou-e) moos