As second languages go they say that English is the hardest non-pictographic based language to learn mostly because it is full of idioms. These expressions that change from city to city, region to region, and country to country can vex even the most conscientious student. Sometimes they even cause problems for those of us who grew up speaking the language.
I should say at this point that it is specious to refer to English as “the language.” I know my friends from outside the U.S. would wholeheartedly agree that we’re people separated by a common language. Yes, it’s true: I can swear in two languages (English and American…three, really, if you count Australian) and while I’m really good with context there are still some things that confuse even me. Take the phrase “Man’s reach exceeds his grasp.” As idioms go, it’s a doozy.
If you pick it apart its meaning is, at best, confusing. In American English “reach” means a couple of contradictory things. As a verb it means, among other things, to stretch out toward something, to strain after something, clearly, of course, implying ambition and the desire to achieve a goal. Grasp, as a noun, means the power of seizing and holding, of comprehending. Looked at from that perspective, the idiom makes complete sense: Man strives for what he can never hold in his hand. In other words, man’s ambition outstrips his ability to achieve. But in this particular idiom, reach isn’t a verb, it’s a noun.
As a noun the definition breaks down, not so much in the sense of not functioning but in the sense of having so many meanings as to be completely obscure. Reach as noun refers to the ability to reach, it’s true, but it also refers to the extent or range of knowledge or comprehension. So…the extent of man’s knowledge or comprehension exceeds his power to seize, hold, and comprehend? When you add to the mix that idiomatically “reach” in American English means to attain a goal and “grasp” means to hold onto you get a mix of being able attain something that while you can touch it you can’t keep. This, in some ways, is the meaning that fascinates me the most as I’ve been feeling excessively Buddhist lately.
And I blame The Clash for all this thinking about language. I didn’t do punk when it came around the first time (um…thanks, really, but actually being able to play your instruments is the difference between noise and music) but as I was listening to the radio last night this lyric from Should I Stay or Should I Go caught my ear: “Should I cool it or should I blow?” Seemingly contradictory if you know that “blow” means to leave: in AE “cool” when describing an action means “to stop” as in “cool it.” Given that the singer is asking the object of his affections if he should hang around or take a hike it’s a lyric that plays with the head. But it only plays with the head because of how the meaning has changed.
If you look at the history of The Clash, when they were popular and when the came of age, you find out that not only are they British (which screws with the meaning of language for an American ear in and of itself) you find that they came of age during the 1950s and 1960s when “cooling your heels” meant waiting around. Context…it’s all about context.
Language is power, it’s true. And people develop their own languages, little phrases that having meaning to them because of context, so is it any wonder that we have global strife in a world where our government is run by people who specialize in twisting language and are influenced by movement groups that claim to be “pro-life” (i.e.: no abortions for you, young lady) yet turn right around and support the death penalty?