After reading what I wrote, thinking about it, and then having the great comments, I realized that I focused considerably on the wrong aspect of the conversation.

Loren’s original conversation was about what “passion” meant to her with her knowing the root and associating it with things many don’t. My argument was more about external meanings, referents, and such.

So the middle ground, as Vered and Jared point out, deals with what the words mean for people who do not carry the historical baggage of meaning with them. For them, passion may work fine.

Jared also correctly pointed out that words gather their full meaning in a context – so “passion about productivity” and “passionate for chocolate” can have a different meanings.

There’s an analogy here which seems true to me. There are some people who can work with the TV on and it increases their productivity – or at least they’re in their normal productive state. There are others – myself included – that absolutely cannot work with the TV on. For some of us, the noise of “misused” words and language are like the distractions of the TV; others filter out the noise quite well.

I still think that we can do better than “passion” – but that’s because I’ve probably spent far too long in dictionaries looking for the “right” words and recognize that language is a vehicle for communication. The right word for me is not necessarily the right word to use – because of these shared conventions. Precision with language is one of the mores of academia, especially among philosophers and people from the language arts.
And one of the roles of academia is to preserve cultural information and pass it on – part of that cultural information is the history or our language.

Another ending analogy: visual artists will often times have these types of discussion about colors. Blue and navy blue just shouldn’t be used interchangeably. Likewise, musicians know that a C major and a C major 7 have different applications, though one can be swapped for the other in a pinch. Words are the medium for the art of blogging (because bloggers are writers), though many don’t consider it that way.

So my considered stance is far closer to the middle than the hard etymological-determinist stance above. Etymology, agreed, is not intrinsically the most important feature to think about. Instrumentally, though, it can be very important, as it often has an important relation to what words mean and the contexts in which they’re used. We must also recognize that some people are more sensitive to words than others, and your mileage may vary.

Clay Collins | The Growing Life’s last blog post..How to Take the Red Pill

‘nazi’ or ‘porchmonkey’ conjure up deeper images, and that’s why they’re both powerful and controversial. Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi” was unusual in its application and that’s why it’s stuck. But it was risky. For instance, as a productivity writer who at times gets a little obsessive with productivity, I’ve considered labeling myself a “productivity nazi” in some settings…but I know its meaning would be lost on many. Heck, you probably don’t even get what I’m after.

Other powerful words that don’t have cultural baggage can also carry more weight than typical words–for instance, it may be appropriate to say the Terps murdered the Blue Devils, but it would catch your eye to hear that the Terps raped the Blue Devils. You might say that to a friend, but you probably wouldn’t write it on your blog.

Understanding these discrepancies is part of being a writer and an effective communicator–that’s what you and Clay and Loren are good at.

The issue here is that etymology is the least relevant reason to use a word in a setting like this. You know the difference between “passion for etymology” and “passion in the bedroom” because of their context. Vitality is not a replacement for passion, both because of its often differing meaning and because people just don’t always get it. For instance, my discussing the nescience of a conversation like this wouldn’t mean anything to you. (Sorry to be pleonastic.)

So yeah, it’s important to be precise–but that precision should be applied to clearer meaning rather than based wholly on a word’s roots. If the word’s roots are significant then you’ll probably feel deep down that there’s something to it (like the difference between complacency and contentment–most people feel the difference but can’t pinpoint it).

If there are implications to the word passion for YOU then skip it. Just don’t do it because of the OED, do it because of what it means for you.

Jared Goralnick’s last blog post..15 ways to make the most of your phone calls and keep in touch

10pm. Been a long day. Off to bed. Thanks for a thought-provoking discussion!

Vered’s last blog post..Best Shot Monday: How Important is Your Wedding Band?

OK, so obviously we all don’t get to create our own dictionaries and expect the rest of the world to interpret what we saw as per those dictionaries. What I was talking about was our “internal (and even external) personal development dialog.”

Which is to say that it really don’t matter what the entomological root of “passion” is. If that word evokes the feeling that I want to to evoke, then I get to use it in my journal, in my goals, in my blog etc.

If I wanted to use the word “nazi” to mean “nice person,” then that’s another story. But it’s also a qualitatively different situation.

What I was saying is that we get to use the word “passion” if that’s the word that speaks to us. It wasn’t a larger argument about whether every word in the English lexicon gets to be used in a way that we choose and without regard to convention or the dictionary.

Great discussion, by the way! I’m flattered that you took my comment and made it into a post .

–Clay

Clay Collins | The Growing Life’s last blog post..How to Take the Red Pill