Yesterday’s Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4 struck a chord with me. Written and presented by Elaine Storkey, it was about the ambiguity of language and the arrogance of conceit. It’s well worth reading, but for anyone who can’t be bothered to click on the link above, here are two of the best parts:

There is nothing more telling than language for conveying differences of outlook and perception. That is very evident right now in Iraq. Even amongst the key players words tell their own story. One of the marine Commanders outside Falluja describes the assault about to take place on that city as an ‘epic battle’, whilst the Prime Minister of Iraq, declares a 60 day ‘state of emergency.’ The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan refers to an attack on Falluja as ‘an escalation in violence which could disrupt Iraq’s political transition’, whilst Lt Colonel Brandl commanding one the battalions of the American marines talks about it as uncovering the hidden face of the enemy. His words are graphic. He says, ‘The enemy has a face. He is called Satan. He lives in Falluja and we’re going to destroy him.’

So why does language offer so many perceptions of reality, especially the shape and meaning of evil? One of the obvious answers is that we are all partisan. Each of us uses language to depict our own point of view. We notice most fully the evil done to us or to our group, whilst rephrasing the evil we do to others with the language of justification and exoneration. And when this becomes habitual and uncritical, partisanship can move into self-deception. We can come to believe, at both personal and national levels, that we own the language of evil, that we decide on its use, and it is one from which we are excluded.

As if in support of Storkey’s commentary, today’s Guardian carries a frightening story on its front page that includes the following quote: “They call us terrorists because we resist them. If defending the truth is terrorism, then we are terrorists.” It seems language is also a weapon in this war.

Have you ever wondered what it’s like to judge the world’s most prestigious English-language book award? If so, Fiammetta Rocco’s article Man Booker prize in this week’s Economist is for you.

Apparently “More than 100,000 books are published in Britain each year, virtually the same number as in America, which has five times the population”.

Given its origin, it’s ironic that the term “liberal” should have become a dirty word in the US. It’s derived from the Latin word liber meaning to be “free”, so you’d think that a nation that was willing to make great sacrifices in the name of freedom must be full of liberals wouldn’t you? Not so apparently, which makes me wonder what all that talk about encouraging democracy and freedom is all about.

The Online Etymology Dictionary has an entry for “liberal” and it’s quite interesting:

liberal (adj.)

c.1375, from O.Fr. liberal “befitting free men, noble, generous,” from L. liberalis “noble, generous,” lit. “pertaining to a free man,” from liber “free,” from PIE base *leudheros (cf. Gk. eleutheros “free”), probably originally “belonging to the people” (though the precise semantic development is obscure), from *leudho- “people” (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute “nation, people”). Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of “free in bestowing” is from 1387. With a meaning “free from restraint in speech or action” (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, “tending in favor of freedom and democracy” it dates from c.1801, from Fr. lib