9-8-25<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those who follow these weekly thoughts know that I occasionally obsess over language, grammar, and precise meanings. I realize that it sometimes is annoying \u2013 even to me, believe me. But I want to be understood when I speak and write; and so should we all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are many friendships and business partnerships and marriages that have blown up over misunderstandings; and many wars have broken out because of crummy communication. Too often. Needless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
English is full of linguistic land mines because it is the recipient of two major strains: Indo-European via Germanic; and Romance languages. This results in a potential for rich communication (despite contrary examples like Icelandic, which has 100 words for \u201cwind\u201d) but also leads to confusion. Germans and French are logical languages and scarcely permit exceptions to their rules. The French even have an official body, the Acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise, that regulates usage and abusage of grammar, spelling, and literature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In contemporary America\u2026 well, you suss where I\u2019m at.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I am as much an observer of the American language as a practitioner, and sometimes a slave; a latter-day Diderot or Mencken in my own way. I am fascinated by memes for several reasons. They frequently summarize a thought, even substituting for longer explanations, often with heightened clarity. They are almost by definition clever and humorous or ironic. Many memes rely on a visual component, which pleases me as a cartoonist and illustrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Memes are paths to clarity, which has positive effects on social communication. But some of those paths have potholes and detours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A friend of mine is one of the Internet\u2019s wisest meme-mistresses. As Adri Ana she consistently posts terrific words and quotations and images that start the day with Good Morning coffees, and fill the day with humor, provocative thoughts, and wisdom. (Does that make her a \u201cposter\u201d girl?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She recently posted one of Ana\u00efs Nin\u2019s most quoted passages: I weep because you cannot save people. You can only love them. You can\u2019t transform them, you can only console them<\/em> (\u201cNearer the Moon\u201d from A Journal of Love: The Unexpurgated Diary, 1937-1939<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n I am ambiguous about La Nin (that is, I agree with only some of her peripatetic thoughts: her emotional inconsistencies are compelling) but her statement is not pessimistic. It is where reality meets love, and compassion is the result. A reader of the meme\u2019s post replied: Sure you can <\/em>[save people], good advice at the right time is the difference between a bad choice and a good choice. Most of the bad choices happen when you don\u2019t have someone to give you proper advice. Giving love is not enough.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is where language can seduce us into acceptance of perceived wisdom, but can dig some potholes. And it might cripple some peoples\u2019 search for truth. Of course the subject under discussion is \u201csave\u201d \u2013 what is the definition? Physical? Emotional? Spiritual? For the moment? For eternity? \u201cSaved\u201d from what, and for what?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The pitfalls of English, and common misunderstandings. Many of us think that words are interchangeable when they are not. And some people respond, \u201cOh, you know what I mean,\u201d when I don\u2019t, and neither oftentimes does the speaker. Not guilty<\/em> is very different than Innocent<\/em>. To Dismiss<\/em> is not to Forgive<\/em>. A Reprieve<\/em> is not a Commutation<\/em>, nor a Pardon<\/em>. And Saving<\/em> someone has deeper implications and nuances than Rescuing<\/em> them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nin advises \u201cloving\u201d and \u201cconsoling\u201d as effective, and maybe definitive, alternates to \u201csaving.\u201d Yes, they are precious actions. For my part, responding to that, I have always resisted telling people I will keep them in prayer: it takes the same amount of time, and breaths, to actually pray with them on the spot. And God never advised postponing prayers, especially to fit our schedules of comfort zones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, you knew I\u2019d go spiritual on you. The words saved<\/em>, salvation<\/em>, and, you guessed it, Savior<\/em> all have common roots, at least conceptually. Human beings, at all times and in all places, have myriad dissimilarities\u2026 except for one common aspect. We all need a Savior; we all have sinned; we all fall short of holy standards; and we all know this is the case, instinctively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ana\u00efs Nin came close in her secular deconstruction. She says that love and consolation are decent substitutes; her correspondent replies that even love is not a sufficient response, suggesting palpable action. I think that we \u201ccannot save people,\u201d which made her weep, is a profound statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And that<\/em> is what completes this discussion\u2019s circle. The most intense compassion we can summon \u2013 the spiritual context \u2013 indeed cannot save anyone. We can love, we can forgive, we can excuse, we can pardon, we can rescue, and yes again, we can love. But we cannot save a single soul. They can seek salvation; they might accept salvation \u2013 but that is not ours to give.<\/p>\n\n\n\n God grants salvation; it is why He sent the Holy Spirit, to lead us to salvation. Through Him we accept Jesus, the \u201conly way unto salvation.\u201d All other ground is sinking sand. This proper understanding is not to denigrate our love for friends and family and humankind; but to think we have the power to save is an insult to God\u2019s ways. We are to plant seeds; the Holy Spirit\u2019s job description is to reap the harvest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Properly speaking \u2013 to coin a phrase \u2013 it is a privilege to discern our places in God\u2019s plan for humankind. Word up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n + + +<\/p>\n\n\n\n