OnWords

Alert listener Ryan Philbrick noted the current trend of using the words “no words” when one is overcome with emotion.

Indeed, there are plenty of words one can use in these situations, from “devastated” and “apoplectic,” to “saddened,” or, if you don’t want to commit, “deeply moved.”

One way of looking at the “no words” phenomenon is that the person doing it is trying to say that the words available don’t express the true depth of emotion, as in “I’m so incredibly saddened that the words ‘incredibly saddened’ seem inconsequential.”

I remember reading Plato as an undergrad and being interested in the way Socrates took pains to define his terms in the dialogs.

Western philosophy has continued this tradition, and by the 20th century, the problem of meaning in philosophical language became acute.

If there’s one thing I’ve come around to over the years, it’s the non-gender-specific pronoun.

Late in December each year, authorities on language such as those who curate the Oxford English Dictionary release their word of the year.

I use the word “curate” purposefully to describe what those who assemble dictionaries do, as the best description of a dictionary I ever heard was that it is a “museum for words.”

Recent sex scandals have seen an uptick in public apologies.

Some people are more satisfied at the sincerity of these attempts at amends than others are, but the public apology remains an important part of life in a country that constitutionally protects free speech.

I hear the word “compassion” in surprising places these days, such as in health service delivery, education, and even those who study communication patterns.

A popular idea about the way water freezes notes that all snowflakes are unique, beautiful latticeworks of crystals revealing themselves when magnified and properly attended to.

This notion has led some well-meaning folks to apply the word “snowflake” to people, implying that we are all beautiful in our own way and should be treated according to our own special needs.

Our friends in the media love to use the term “national conversation” about anything newsworthy and controversial. Lately we’ve had national conversations about sexual harassment, race, and the rights LGBT people.

I think it’s very important to talk about such things, and often it’s an indication that once taboo subjects no longer are.

But I don’t think these are really national conversations.

Mostly, pundits and self-declared experts repeat talking points on TV and regular folks share invective online.

When senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake recently announced they were not running for reelection, they both noted the tone, the manner in which the current president communicates.

This is all fine and good, but it seems somewhat strange coming from men who voted with the president more often than not.

Such complaints about the tone of public speech are understandable. We’d like to be proud of the quality of our political debate. It makes us feel good as Americans to have witnessed the use of words fit for the ages.

I think we’re using the word “crisis” wrong most of the time.

I don’t usually make such pronouncements, and, frankly, as someone who recognizes that language changes based on how it is used, I’m uncomfortable doing even this.

But right now we seem to have a crisis glut.

North Korea’s nuclear program is a crisis. Immigration is a crisis. Health care is a crisis.

Traditionally, the word “crisis” has referred to a turning point, a time after which everything would dramatically and suddenly change.