So I have a tendency to think a lot about language. I’m not sure why. In learning programming languages I’ve always tended to relate the syntax to that of the English that I know, and think usually that the most well-written code is the kind which reads most closely to natural language (making a contradictory somewhat to the typical definition of code, but I found recently that Richard Davey thinks this as well). Unfortunately, it seems this kind of syntactical or lexical interest doesn’t make me the most interesting conversation partner. I can quote my roommates as telling me that they “don’t want to have ‘semantic’ arguments” with me, though truthfully I only wished to denote better the thoughts they were having.
Recently I had a conversation with a friend and I brought up the word “ubiquity.” It’s not the most common word to say and she seemed a little confused by it. I’m sure she had acquaintance with the word, so could have probably picked out the meaning of it in context. She gave me a kind of puzzled look though, so I told her that it means about the same thing as the word commonplace (which in some circumstances is pretty close). Google’s definition of the word is this:
u·biq·ui·ty /yo͞oˈbikwədē/ noun
The fact of appearing everywhere or of being very common.
She then asked me why I didn’t just use the word “commonplace” instead. I made the remark that this replacement word for ubiquity is in fact actually two separate words conjoined together! Who would want to use a silly conjunction in place of an established word that has the same definition. This is probably not a good argument, though there are different contexts that it all really depends anyways, right? I think if some really good point ends in utilizing a word as unique and precise as the word ubiquity, then it must be better to end with that, something concise and functional, instead of some hideous amalgamation of two common words placed together. In any case, here’s what I think of the word. (Beforehand I must admit that I’m a little inspired by this blog.)
Ubiquity
Firstly, I believe it to have a negative connotation, though it certainly
shouldn’t be so. Truthfully, I can only support this fact by the rationale that
I can’t think of a way to use it in a good light (which is perhaps ironic). In a
conversation I had recently about the gif file formats, I said something along
the lines of:
If the only good thing about something is its ubiquity, then it’s probably not a good thing.
It was in relation to the fact that gif files can be large compared to other
graphics formats. It’s nice that Tinder and Facebook chat messengers have their
silly applets which allows people to share gifs in a native format, but it’s
common to come across some in a web browser that aren’t optimized, even though
it’s
easy to do with free software.
Alas, not all good things are ubiquitous, and not all ubiquitous things are
good.
Truth
In the same conversation I brought up the difference between two pairs of contrasting words. I list them as follows, and I hope it to be clear how they’re not exactly how I believe one likes them to be.
The first two are true and false.
true /tro͞o/ adjective
In accordance with fact or reality.
false /fôls/ adjective
Not according with truth or fact; incorrect.
The second two are truth and falsehood.
truth /tro͞oTH/ noun
The quality or state of being true.
false·hood /ˈfôlsˌho͝od/ noun
The state of being untrue.
(True and false just seem so together, both have one syllable and contrast each other in starting letter; whereas it’s almost bizarre that the contrary to truth is falsehood. Where the hell did hood come from? Is it another compound word?)
Again she made fun of me for having such a problem with the words. The first pair, true and false, are adjectives. I said that it’s convenient when something isn’t true, because then it must be that it’s false. For the second pair, however, before I could fully explain how it is that something is strange when it isn’t the truth, she cut me off to say “it’s not strange, it’s just false.” This perhaps verifies the point that I was trying make; that it doesn’t really make sense to call something a falsehood when that something isn’t the truth of the matter, but the question surrounding that idea isn’t so easy to explain in a single section of a blog post.
The things which we’re acquainted with couldn’t possibly be false. If that was true, then there would be no certain way to know anything about the world. If we believe that humans are a certain way and act accordingly, then it makes sense to say that humans act a certain way. Some might argue it could only be a set of beliefs. But if we make the assertion that our proclamations from thinking are falsehoods, then it doesn’t do us any good because humans still act seemingly in accordance with something; we just can’t make any reference as to why they act in that manner, when we deny that our implication holds. Said differently, it’s more sensible to say that either something is the truth, or it isn’t anything.
An Idiom
A different time, happening further back, I constructed a topic about an idiom to discuss with my friends. As per the last two terms, I shall give a definition:
id·i·om /ˈidēəm/ noun
A group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words.
The particular idiom I had in mind was
rose-colored glasses
which is interesting to me. Usually when somebody has on their rose-colored glasses, it is that they’re optimistic. I think in most cases it happens that they’re acting optimistic in spite of something. Here I want to note the contrary to optimistic, which is pessimistic. This is to say that one who is not optimistic is pessimistic and one who is not pessimistic must be optimistic. There is a dualism by which these words have meaning, and it is perhaps easier to understand one by knowing the other.
To say the same of the idiom rose-colored glasses doesn’t exactly make sense. What is the opposite of someone who wears glasses other than somebody who simply doesn’t wear glasses? If a person with rose-colored glasses doesn’t wear them then it must be that they are an ordinary person, which contradicts the relation between rose-colored glasses and optimism when the contrary of optimism is pessimism. The definition of the idiom must then make sense on its own. It is independent not only of the meaning of the words that compose it, but also the words in the same realm of description as the idiom. It is something peculiar to, representative of, or indicative of nothing but itself.
Though there is a second relevant definition in reference to programming I also think is important. It is this:
id·i·om /ˈidēəm/ noun (programming)
A programming construct or phraseology generally held to be the most efficient or elegant means to achieve a particular result or behavior.
Regarding the previous discussion, it makes sense to say that rose-colored glasses represents an efficient or elegant solution to detailing the description of someone who is optimistic in spite of something. To utilize the idiom is to make the point requested by the context without needing to disestablish the ordinary duality of optimism and pessimism.
A programming idiom is something commonly used by all speakers of the language. Clearly this definition is not limited only to programming. Clearly it is that the idiom described here is specific to itself and there is no easier set of words capable of describing the experience that one might acquaint themselves with.
Well, yeah. I dunno. The words here are probably related somehow.