Have you ever noticed the way a verbatim translation of a term often differ from the actual meaning of that term? Take for example Arabic "sabah el-nur". Literally, it means "morning of the light", but what it actually says is "good morning". We could call the first translation an etymological one, while the second is concerned with usage. Unless one is specifically interested in etymology, the second meaning is the one that really matters.
This is all the more obvious when we see how often the etymological meaning is overlooked in speech, or even entirely forgotten. The result: sentences or compound words that remain in use long after their etymology has become obsolete. There are plenty of examples but here's one of the kind I am interested in: "to and fro". The expression is used, but you'll never hear the word "fro" on its own. See also the word "yesterday": once upon a time the word "yestereve" was used as well, testimony to the fact the word "yester" was still more or less a part of the vocabulary just as was the word "eve" (now relegated to such expressions as "Christmas Eve"). Both "yester" and "eve" have now gone the way of the dodo and only survive through their use within compounds.
In this case however every English speaker has a notion of what "yester" and "eve" mean, even though they're out of use. Sometimes the etymological meaning disappears completely leaving only the use of the word – that is, the speaker has no idea what a word means, he only knows how to use it. Personally I can think of several Arabic terms that I can use flawlessly despite a complex social code of what to say, when and to whom, but I can only guess at what they mean. The word "na3eeman" for instance. I would say it to someone who took a shower, washed their hair, returned from the hairdresser or beautician. There is no way I'd use it wrongly. However, I would need a dictionary to pinpoint its meaning; I am simply aware that it is a form of the word "na3em" meaning "soft, gentle" (French "doux").
[Note on the side: I would give an English equivalent, except no English word has a similar use and therefore no English word has the same meaning, although there very likely is a word with the same etymology. A dictionary may tell me for instance that it means "gently" – there, I just gave you the English for it, but it really tells you nothing about the word.]
Let me give you another example, "yakhze l-3ayn". The first part of it is a rare Arabic word, much like "fro" in "to and fro". Until recently all I knew was that it was used when expressing admiration for a handsome child. I then found out that it means "May He defeat the Eye" – in other words, may God keep the Evil Eye away from this tempting prey.
Meaning is a complex notion and I'm barely giving a glimpse of the many questions it raises. After the above reflection we might ask, what then does a word mean? Is meaning based on etymology or use? We actually cannot begin to answer before solving the following: What does "to mean" mean? I'm not trying to be smart. Many schools of thought have battled over this question, to no avail. It hasn't been answered -- or rather it has received so many different answers, that no final one can be settled on. What something means could be what it does; for instance the meaning of architecture lies primarily in its function (architecture without function is sculpture, but if we start discussing the meaning of "function" we're in trouble).
The question I'm basically raising is whether a word's meaning is what it does or what it is. Structuralists would argue that a word "is" never something. They would answer: The meaning is the usage, the interaction the word has with the receiver's mind, for that is the only kind of existence the word has. Other schools might disagree completely. I don't mean to go into details, as that would diverge from the real point of this article, which was simply to ponder on what I find to be an interesting trait of language. I'll therefore tiptoe out and leave the question open!
| Article © Joumana Medlej |