Check Under "E" for "Effort"
The Postmaster, having been privvy to the most intimate thoughts of humankind, is rarely surprised to find that what one expresses and what one actually thinks are often two separate entities altogether. On the surface, humans are social creatures bound by guidelines of etiquette and communal understanding, but there are often a multiple of layers to any individual. Therefore, and as no surprise to myself, it is not uncommon for a deep-seated fear of one thing to be expressed as a strong opinion against some seemingly unrelated thing.
The issue of marriage is certainly rife with such instances. It has come to The Postmaster's attention of late that a certain number of people who write against same-sex marriage are not actual homophobes, but are, in fact, merely concerned about another issue altogether:
"What is being proposed is not marriage in any sense of the word. To term it as such is contrary to its meaning in the dictionary.
If this legislation passes I assume that the tax payers will be burdened with the cost of replacing the dictionaries in the schools and libraries across the country to accommodate this new definition."
"Supposedly the Federal Government has the authority to change the definition of marriage.
Does the government have the authority to change the dictionaries, too? My dictionary gives the definition of marriage as follows: "married life, living together as husband and wife"
Frank, a tree wearing pants: "Mable, about this bill C-38, Do you ralize the impact it'll have on us?"
Mable, a tree wearing a skirt and high heels: "Yes, Frank, Think of all those gov't forms, books and dictionaries. they'll have reprint."
Frank: "I know, It must not pass."
Mable: "Or, we'll be DOOMED."
Together, while holding "hands": "We'll work on it together and WIN"
The Postmaster is both unsurprised that certain individuals' objections to same-sex marriage are actually straw men for a different issue, and surprised to find that said issue should be the protection of dictionaries. Even more surprising is that despite their apparent devotion to their cause, these individuals seem to have remarkably little knowledge as to the nature of dictionaries. For example, said individuals seem to be unaware that most reputable dictionaries are republished every year as new words are added constantly and old meanings altered; this because language evolves to match our changing society (this explains why the average English-speaker may have difficulty reading the language of Shakespeare, although The Postmaster has doubts as to whether these same individuals have ever attempted such a feat).
Therefore, the young artist who composed the fine cartoon featuring a terrified couple of pines may have peace of mind that, regardless of whether or not his or her gay acquaintances marry, there will still be trees left in Canada. Said artist may also want to use his or her much-treasured dictonary to look up the word "tree", where he or she will doubtless be surprised to learn that trees do not follow gender-specific modes of dress as common in humans and, moreover, have no gender at all since this is a social construct unique to humans, but do often have both male and female characteristics for reproduction.
As for questions of cost, The Postmaster can only say that sometimes, on rare occasions, the expenditure of money is both necessary and beneficial - to put simply, not all of the best things in life are free. For examples, life-saving antibiotics often come with a cost which an individual may choose to pay, if she or he values her or his health and well-being. Perhaps certain individuals would rather be buried with their money - The Postmaster is not discounting this possibility, as I have seen and read much stranger things. That being said, "it costs money" is not generally considered a damning argument against something.
However, The Postmaster would like to congratulate these writers and others who have taken the first step toward mastering their one and only language by recognizing the importance of uniformity and clarity in language as expressed through dictionaries. Should the cost not be too prohibitive, The Postmaster would also reccommend the purchase of a style guide to ensure that as their vocabulary grows, so do their abilities to write correctly.
The issue of marriage is certainly rife with such instances. It has come to The Postmaster's attention of late that a certain number of people who write against same-sex marriage are not actual homophobes, but are, in fact, merely concerned about another issue altogether:
"What is being proposed is not marriage in any sense of the word. To term it as such is contrary to its meaning in the dictionary.
If this legislation passes I assume that the tax payers will be burdened with the cost of replacing the dictionaries in the schools and libraries across the country to accommodate this new definition."
"Supposedly the Federal Government has the authority to change the definition of marriage.
Does the government have the authority to change the dictionaries, too? My dictionary gives the definition of marriage as follows: "married life, living together as husband and wife"
Frank, a tree wearing pants: "Mable, about this bill C-38, Do you ralize the impact it'll have on us?"
Mable, a tree wearing a skirt and high heels: "Yes, Frank, Think of all those gov't forms, books and dictionaries. they'll have reprint."
Frank: "I know, It must not pass."
Mable: "Or, we'll be DOOMED."
Together, while holding "hands": "We'll work on it together and WIN"
The Postmaster is both unsurprised that certain individuals' objections to same-sex marriage are actually straw men for a different issue, and surprised to find that said issue should be the protection of dictionaries. Even more surprising is that despite their apparent devotion to their cause, these individuals seem to have remarkably little knowledge as to the nature of dictionaries. For example, said individuals seem to be unaware that most reputable dictionaries are republished every year as new words are added constantly and old meanings altered; this because language evolves to match our changing society (this explains why the average English-speaker may have difficulty reading the language of Shakespeare, although The Postmaster has doubts as to whether these same individuals have ever attempted such a feat).
Therefore, the young artist who composed the fine cartoon featuring a terrified couple of pines may have peace of mind that, regardless of whether or not his or her gay acquaintances marry, there will still be trees left in Canada. Said artist may also want to use his or her much-treasured dictonary to look up the word "tree", where he or she will doubtless be surprised to learn that trees do not follow gender-specific modes of dress as common in humans and, moreover, have no gender at all since this is a social construct unique to humans, but do often have both male and female characteristics for reproduction.
As for questions of cost, The Postmaster can only say that sometimes, on rare occasions, the expenditure of money is both necessary and beneficial - to put simply, not all of the best things in life are free. For examples, life-saving antibiotics often come with a cost which an individual may choose to pay, if she or he values her or his health and well-being. Perhaps certain individuals would rather be buried with their money - The Postmaster is not discounting this possibility, as I have seen and read much stranger things. That being said, "it costs money" is not generally considered a damning argument against something.
However, The Postmaster would like to congratulate these writers and others who have taken the first step toward mastering their one and only language by recognizing the importance of uniformity and clarity in language as expressed through dictionaries. Should the cost not be too prohibitive, The Postmaster would also reccommend the purchase of a style guide to ensure that as their vocabulary grows, so do their abilities to write correctly.
posted by floyd at 8:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home