What's in a word?

The other day I was sitting in a group trying to interpret Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, or the part of it known as the Beatitudes. They start with something like “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Why I was doing this is not all that relevant, and the way my mind wandered from there into this blog relied little on Christianity. Nonetheless, even if you are not Christian the Beatitudes are worth reading, as they are both beautiful and thought provoking.
But what about the words themselves? What do they really mean? We got as far as the first word, blessed, before arguments started, but at least we were all within close boundaries in our interpretation of that word. When we got to the concept of poor in spirit, we found many wildly different interpretations, ranging from depressed to downtrodden or uncertain.
Later we got to meek, which could be humble, timid, unassuming, powerless. Quite different things really. And this happened time and again. Even people who had been familiar with the text for years and listened to countless sermons on the subject found themselves in very different places.
In an earlier discussion the same thing occurred with the word grace. I was clear what graceful was, and could even describe graceful behaviour, but the noun was more difficult.
Moot is a lovely one. The word has two distinct meanings, almost opposite to each other. It either signals a sort of red herring or the crux of the matter. No wonder we get confused when we try to communicate with each other!
The Beatitudes were very likely a real homily from Jesus to his disciples, spoken in Hebrew. Almost a hundred years later, word has passed from mouth to mouth before Matthew wrote down what he thought was said, or at least meant. Over centuries, the language passed from Hebrew to Greek, then Latin and many other tongues, each language subtly developing over this time and each translation owing much to the interpretation, and even bias, of the translator.
One of those translations celebrates its 400th anniversary this year, the King James Bible, and I recommend an article on this in the Spring edition of Intelligent Life. That brings to life the dilemmas of translators looking to produce something compact and beautiful but also authentic in meaning, as much as is possible.
One conclusion I reached was that translators have had a lot of power over the years. Imagine the different homilies if meek had been replaced by humble or one of the other close synonyms? The course of human history could have been quite different. Even today, those people sitting at the back in EU or UN meetings trying to simultaneously translate speeches must have quite an impact on how those speeches are interpreted and hence the consequences.
For language is not an exact science. It does reflect culture to an extent, whether or not the Innuit really have a hundred different words for snow. A Dutchman once tried to tell me that one reason the Dutch were so direct was due to the nature of the imperative form in the Dutch language. I beg to differ: it feels more likely that the reason the imperative form is as it is reflects the Dutch nature to be direct.
At least the Dutch and British are relatively closely connected, separated by just a small sea and linked by much history. Yet we interpret language very differently, and manage to confuse each other time and again. Someone once gave me a sheet of paper with the table below, which I have treasured ever since.
What the British say What the British mean What the Dutch understand
I hear what you say I disagree and do not want to discuss it further He accepts my point of view
With the greatest respect… I think you are wrong (or a fool) He is listening to me
That is not bad That’s good or very good That’s poor or mediocre
Quite good A bit disappointing Quite good
Perhaps you would like to think about... / I would suggest This is an order. Do it or be prepared to justify yourself Think about the idea, but do what you like
When appropriate locally, Do what you like Do it if you can
Oh by the way… / Incidentally The primary purpose of our discussion is… This is not very important
I was a bit disappointed that…/ It is a pity you… I am most upset and cross It doesn’t really matter
Very interesting I don’t agree/ I don’t believe you They are impressed
Could we consider some other options? I don’t like your idea They haven’t decided yet
I’ll bear that in mind I will do nothing about it They will probably do it
Please think about that some more It’s a bad idea: don’t do it It’s a good idea: keep developing it
I’m sure it’s my fault It’s your fault! It was their fault
That’s an original point of view You must be crazy They like my ideas!
You must come for dinner sometime Not an invitation – just being polite I will get an invitation soon
You’ll get there eventually You don’t stand a chance in hell Keep on trying for they agree I am heading in the right way
I almost agree I don’t agree at all He’s not far from agreement

And this is between two nations who think the similarly, trying to communicate honestly without agenda. Imagine the scope for misunderstanding when we try to communicate with Russians. Or Japanese. Or Aboriginals. No wonder colonial pasts are so fraught with bad memories, and regional rivalries linger.
So my second reflections are about how we speak, listen and interpret. Simple language wins out, if possible supplemented by body language or example. And we have to avoid jumping to conclusions about what the other party may mean.
Leaving aside differences in time or place, this advice still holds for those close to us. Especially when there is tension in the air, for example a dating situation or a subordinate situation, it is very easy to be misunderstood. Add in the other dimensions, and our confusion can be complete, unless we take very active steps to prevent it.
No doubt I break my own advice each week in my blog. But perhaps that is a moot point?