It's life, Jim...
Among the myriad life forms which inhabit the Universe, occupying our portion of the Space/Time Continuum, we find ourselves in an almost unique position. On this insignificant green/blue planet, third from the Star, on an insignificant leg of the spiral arm of a distant galactic disc, we are all, as far as I am aware, carbon-based life forms. From the lowliest amoeba, to Bill & Steve, we are all C-based.

There is speculation that elsewhere, maybe on one of Jupiter's moons, there may be other life forms. But in the end, we reckon that H2O is the key to life for all things like us. There is speculation that there may be life based on other elements, such as Silicon or non-volatile gases, like Nitrogen. But in the end, as Carbon based life forms, we stick within the limitations set by our own perceptions of life as we know it. No N-based nor Si-based forms, of which we are aware.

So, forgive this poor multi-celled semi-sentient being from way down the evolutionary scale, whose tongue is not fit to lick clean the path before the feet of the Genius Grand Masters of Nerd, but why do we have to stop communicating like normals, in our mother tongue? Now, I grant you, it may be that some concepts are too big for single words to communicate the full scope their meaning. Over a period of time, we learn to speak in metaphors, which in and of themselves mean nothing but which communicate a broad spread from concept through description to final result.

This type of word evolves. It evolves from slang, from witticism, from everyday speech.

Douglas Adams suggests in 'The Meaning of Life' that there are a lot of words sculling around, which perform no known purpose and there are things for which no word exists. As anyone who has read his definition of a Skegness will attest, this can be a good utilitarian exercise. Skegness, other than being the name of a holiday resort, between which and the Urals, there is nothing higher than a hump-backed bridge to offer shelter from the wind, serves no useful purpose as a word. However under Adams‚ definition assumes a role for which a single word did not exist previously. For the meaning of the word, read the book- it's not for the hallowed data portals of this publication. This is not a hijack of meaning, for no meaning existed apart from in the Anglo-Saxon definition of Skegs Point or something like that. Its true meaning has been lost over time and the word has only one useful purpose in defining a location separate from other locations. 

Redefinition is something which happens through popular acclaim, over time. A classic example would be the word 'Gay', although some bemoan the loss of its true meaning, it now defines a behaviour as well as an associated sexual proclivity. 'Jolly' no longer mean happy or jovial but a free treat or activity which is supposed to be work but is enjoyable, covered by the portmanteau term Corporate Hospitality. But these have been generally accepted in common speech, by use and over a period of time, their revised meaning is understood.

I have no objection, either, to the creation of new words. With few exceptions most languages accept them. Terms like 'Bonk', or extensions of words, like 'Freebie' which had an obsolete meaning or did not previously exist are legitimate products of our human desire to communicate.

Which brings me back to Carbon based life-forms. We now have Carbon. This is chosen probably because one of the definitions of Carbon somehow fits into, well sort of fits, given a stretch of the imagination and a West Coast mind, the activity which the box performs, as if Carbon didn't have enough forms of itself.

Which come to the point of my missive, this is a plea for language. And who are the objects of this mini monologue? They are those who think they can create language themselves, without the cultural trappings and social endorsement which surround it. 

Isn't it about time that we started to object to the desire of the Computer Industry to assume that they can change our language without our consent. I am no Luddite but isn't it a terrible conceit to believe that not only can the Industry change all our lives, without our consent but also change our language, too. What I think we are all in danger of doing is accepting that this can be thrust upon us simply for the reason of brevity. And this, all done out of laziness in describing functions, actions or routines as they are, by the use of accepted linguistic terminology. We already have a situation where most of the world is excluded by language and if the Business is not careful, it will suffer.

In the 1950's science was the be all and end all of human development. We believed that science could solve everything. We allowed scientists to develop their own language because they had no responsibility to the rest of us and the results can be seen in global warming, in Chernobyl and in genetic engineering. 

Whether the products of the computer industry are quite so potentially catastrophic, only another 50 years of hindsight can tell us. But the mistake we made with science was to permit the creation of a new language which then denied to us the right to call it to account. We gave up the right to demand social accountability because we allowed ourselves to be excluded by language to the extent that we accepted that some concepts were too complex to communicate unless you were part of the club. 

As Mac users, our equipment may not be affected but we will all suffer the Fall-out from the millennium bug. Bug be buggered, it's not a bug. A bug is a mistake, an error, a cock-up in a line of code which no-one  is consciously responsible. The millennium error was a compromise that was made in good faith but about which the Industry has failed to act, knowing about it and it's consequences, since that bit of code was saved 40 years ago. It's not a bug, it's incompetence, it's arrogance but most of all it's laziness in ignoring it, in the hope that something will turn up. 

Now, the industry has the arrogance to charge us all for fixing it, mostly by the fools responsable, maybe not directly but somebody's £600-an-hour inflated salary of today will come down the pipe with your water, in the petrol in your tank and the groceries at the supermarket. 

That's the one computing Chernobyl we know about.

I think we should reclaim our language and demand that the Industry follows us. After all, even the Civil Service is having to change its ways to make its pronouncements closer to the English we speak in Britain. There is a plain English society, dedicated to pointing out the idiocies of corporate language. Maybe the next time we buy a lump of the latest software, we should demand a manual, written in our own language, which does not require us to change in order to comprehend it. We should demand that as consumers, we have a right to be spoken to, as equals, not as some group of acolytes supping at the fount of knowledge of some developer. An acolyte who can only achieve perfection by the use of a language only distantly related to his own, as English is, to Urdu.

Damn it, I'm a Customer and I deserve the respect to which I am due. Listen to me, because if you don't there will be people who, unlike me, will turn on computing in all it's forms, in the same way that, en masse, we are turning on science. Long after the damage has been done, good new science now suffers from bad, old science. And it all turns on language. Speak my language, whether it's English, Dutch, Tagalog or Inuit. Don't commandeer it, don't try to fiddle with the semantics, just simple words, simply written in such a way that an average well-educated human being can follow them. 

We could mildly chug along until the computing Chernobyl does more harm than mere nuclear meltdown ever could or we could demand a change.

Time for a revolution, I think, anybody care to join, but no sharp objects please?

Graham
graham@1984-online.com