Traditional Definitions

Will we soon see George W. Bush, of all people, take over William Safire’s famous “On Language” column?

He seems, after all, to have a newfound passion for linguistic fidelity in the form of “traditional definitions.”

This past weekend the vocabulary-teacher-in-chief used his radio address to express his abiding fear that tolerating gay and lesbian matrimony will cause irreparable harm not to the institution of marriage, an easily refuted inanity, but to the traditional definition of marriage, a clumsy but indubitable tautology.

It is, of course, impossible to demonstrate how gay marriage in any way harms the institution of hetero marriage and easy to argue the opposite premise.

So Bush suddenly feels compelled to defend the honor of the traditional meaning of the word marriage.

It’s as if slave owners had called a constitutional alteration meant to ensure the survival of their peculiar institution the “defense of citizenship amendment” because freeing slaves would alter the traditional definition of “American Citizen.”

But, okay, I guess I can get on board with all of this protecting of traditional definitions. While we’re at it, I’d like to suggest a few more words whose traditional definitions seem in dire need of protection.

Take “war” for example. Can we agree that war on a tactic, i.e. terrorism or eye-poking, is nonsensical? And can we agree that war is something that needs some sort of achievable end goal?

Hey, protecting traditional definitions is fun! No wonder they like it so much they want a constitutional amendment.

Let’s try another one. How about…hmmm…let’s see…oh, I know! “Torture!” Maybe we can get an amendment protecting the definition I found in Webster’s, “anguish of body or mind”. That would take care of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo pretty quickly, and, if my reaction to them is considered, might actually end Bush's weekly radio addresses as well.

Boy, once you start thinking of these it’s hard to stop. “Patriot,” as in “USA Patriot Act,” springs to mind almost unbidden.

Then, of course, you have to wonder about the word “elected.” The last time I checked “something the Supreme Court does” didn’t appear in the OED under “elected.”

And, not to epistemologize, but what about “know”, as in “we know where the WMDs are?”

And then there’s “accomplished”, like “mission accomplished."

“Intelligence” has a number of traditional definitions, and this administration has managed to wrong each one.

Why don't we have a contest? You, my nearly nonexistent readers, can suggest some of your own. Some more suggestions: "compassionate", "conservative", "uniter."

In the meantime, can we please take advantage of Bush’s nascent respect for the power and sanctity of language to get a constitutional amendment protecting some traditional pronunciations in addition to traditional definitions?

I’m particularly partial to an amendment protecting the traditional pronunciation of the word “nuclear.”