Language

Language has always fascinated me. When I was ten years old my family moved to Germany and I was amazed that anybody spoke anything other than English. I didn’t understand how anybody could speak in a language other than the one I grew up with. Thus began my love of language. Of course it began as a rocky affair in grammar school, learning how to dissect sentences. What a bore! Later I found it similar to the way others have described logic, boring but important. Today I find intrinsic value in just about every aspect of linguistics. Literature was, for the most part, enjoyable until I got out of high school. While in Germany I learned to speak German quite well. I did attend American schools (Department of Defense Dependent’s Schools) but German was a required course until I reached the 7th Grade. That is not why I learned German though. We lived a half hour’s drive away from the military community so when I was at home I was completely surrounded by the German community, of course I had German friends and the local businesses were all conducted in German and we lived on a cul-de-sac in which everyone were friends (the adults I mean), so whenever we socialized with the neighbors it was in German.

Once I got into college I discovered I did well in English composition and the literature I found was so much more enjoyable than in high school. I even took English courses as electives! I was in love with it! Other than that I was required to take several psychology courses. Linguistics was one of the subjects we studied. Some of it seemed natural and common sense, but it stimulated thought that I was not normally in the habit of doing and my love of linguistics grew. One of the old German proverbs returned to me in that class. “If you want to think like a German you have to speak like a German.” Sentence structure, word case and gender suddenly became important to the way I think! These are things that affect my view of life and the order in which I perceive things.

Of course we all know that language changes over time. It develops and adapts to a changing world. Not very long ago in Germany there was a very different class structure than existed when I lived there. There used to be an aristocratic class and a lower class. There is an example of how quickly and subtly a language can change. Two words that both mean bad in German are “böse” and “schlect.” They didn’t always mean bad. In fact, they meant different things to different people depending on which class you belonged to! To the upper class böse meant “strong” or “powerful” which was good, while to the lower class it meant “oppressive” which was bad. In both upper and lower class schlect meant “popular” or “common.” On the lips of the upper class that was bad but on the lips of the lower class that was good.

So, how does that affect the price of tea in China? What good does that kind of knowledge do anyone, other than for someone like me who loves linguistics? And why is a subject like that brought into the religious arena? One reason is to address what has been called, by the pope, the American Heresy. That is the idea that I, as an individual, am capable of interpreting the scriptures for myself (unfortunately it has become quite large spread, even within the American Catholic Church!). Even though I lived in Germany for six years and spoke German fluently, I never knew that schlect meant common until I recently read a book on philosophy. Sixteen years after returning to America I have to learn from an American the original meaning of a German word! When I was sixteen years old I never discussed linguistics with my friends and I am sure they never discussed it with anyone either. I do not even know if my German friends knew the original meanings of schlect or böse. Two hundred years from now who knows how English will change and who will think to comment on the subtle changes that have taken place other than a linguist? Would it even enter the mind of a protestant preacher that this type of thing is important to pay attention to? Will they consult the teachings of Cotton Mather? With they even know who he was? Possibly not, they don’t have saints! Will they know who Lewis Speary Shaffer, D.L. Moody or J. Vernon McGee were? They would be Baptist saints, if the Baptists had saints! If today I said something was common but did not make the distinction that I meant it happened frequently rather than it was a poor experience, will it be interpreted as a poor experience in four hundred years? That is the danger with individual and unguided interpretation of Holy Scripture.

The whole point of it all is that we need to depend on the Magisterium to help us interpret the Holy Scripture. We need to listen to people like Pope Benedict who know and hold the truth about our faith. That is not to say that we are not thinking people and have no independence of thought. It means we should temper our thinking with the wisdom of the ages, with the wisdom of the Apostles as handed to us by those responsible for delivering and preserving their teachings. It means when we hold a view vastly different than the Church we should examine it thoroughly to find out why we hold a different view than the Church. That is no small or easy task and definitely not one that should be taken alone!