Showing posts with label words. Show all posts
Showing posts with label words. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Eating My Words

"If it doesn't pan out exactly
as I've said," I told him,
"I guess I'll just have to eat
my words."

The very next day, as a matter
of fact, I started in
on the nouns. I plopped them whole,
one at a time, in my mouth.
First I sucked the juice out,
then I swallowed the pulp.
One caught in my throat
and I had to wash it down
with a few slurpy adjectives.

The verbs crunched and crackled
as my teeth bit down. I seasoned
them with a few unattached
but tasty articles.

In a small gesture of rebellion
I saved the prepositions
for dessert. As any sous chef
knows, you can't end anything
with a preposition, so that's exactly
what I did.

All in all, it was a most
satisfying meal.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Bodacious Quakers



I collect words.  Rather than dolls, coins, stamps or old cars, I gather quotations, descriptions and interesting specimens, delving into their histories when I can, and trying to understand their contemporary uses.
Recently in my reading I came across the sentence, “They were bodacious old men, the lot of them” (in Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead).  I immediately took to the word bodacious, enjoying the mouth-full-of-pebbles sound it has when said out loud, wondering what “bodacious old men” would be like and if I knew any.
Webster’s to the rescue.  I learned that the word combines Latin and Old English roots and probably was a blend of “bold” and “audacious.”  Yes, I do know some people like that.
George Fox and other Quaker ancestors come to mind. I love how Fox’s Journal dispels stereotypes of Quakers as silent, passive mystics who wear odd clothes and eat oatmeal. Fox confronted his context full of the energy and prophetic fire of the Spirit.  In short, he was bodacious.
Bodacious doesn’t necessarily mean noisy and rude.  In its most positive connotation, bodacious Christians are those who have the courage to speak and act, in specific times and places, according to God’s leading. 
What are some of the ways contemporary Quakers are (or should be) bodacious?  I think of two of our core testimonies: 1) We hold that Jesus as the living Word speaks to us today. (This often, but not always, comes through the Bible, the written word, and is always in accord with biblical teaching.)  2) And we believe that as we follow the Word, God uses us as agents of peace and light in our context.
I teach a doctoral level class to Latin Americans on “Culture, Spirituality and Mission.” (For me, just accepting to teach this class was a risky, bodacious move.)  Last year the nine students who gathered in Buenos Aires came from Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and Hispanic USA.  They also represented as many different denominational traditions.
Class participation is always high and discussions often heated (part of the Latin American learning style). But at one point in last year’s session, I felt the discussion was getting out of hand and decided to introduce the Quaker practice of silence for group discernment. (After all, it was a class on spirituality!)  So I called (shouted, actually) the group to order and briefly explained the process.
The reaction was not what I expected. After a short, shocked silence, several students protested with obvious anger.  How could I suggest such a thing? Why was I trying to silence them?  Was I a facilitator or a dictator?  Again I tried to explain, but they weren’t buying it.  It became obvious that group silence was not going to work then and there, and we resolved the issue in other ways.  Later that day, the Brazilian student, the most passionately expressive of the group, apologized to me for his attitude, at the same time defending the importance of free, heated discussion.
While I agree with him on the value of open expression, including the right to disagree, critique and argue, I also believe that we Friends have certain insights and practices that would be of service to the greater church in learning to listen to God. And I believe there are ways to include God in our discussions, no matter how controversial.  (Yearly Meeting sessions are great training grounds!)
This year, as I teach the same course in Lima, I plan to prepare the class ahead of time for the possibility of “a spiritual experiment in group discernment.” Maybe then my call to silence in the middle of conflict will not seem quite so bodacious.
Peace-making in today’s world is a bodacious enterprise, whatever form it takes.  It requires humility and the mercy of God.  Let us live ever alert to the voice of Jesus in all the contexts and situations in which we find ourselves.  And then let us act and speak in ways that are appropriately (sometimes quietly) bold and audacious.  For the glory of God and peace on earth.

(First published in Quaker Life, August 2007)

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

On being distinguished



Earlier this week I received an email from a student addressed to “Distinguida y apreciada Dra. Nancy.” I appreciate knowing that Roberto appreciates me, but finding myself addressed as “distinguished” gives me pause. I picture a rather staid elderly man with a mustache, smoking a pipe, standing in a library. Quite distinguished.
My mind immediately went into overdrive, exploring possible roots and meanings. Assuming that “dis” was a negative prefix, I asked what “tinguised” might mean and if it was related to “extinguished.” Even at this preliminary stage of research, I decided I would rather be distinguished than extinguished.
With my friends Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) to the rescue, I began to dig. (Please understand that this sort of “research” is to me the serious business of play. I relish it.) I discovered that the prefix of “distinguished” is not the negative “dis” but “di,” a Greek/French prefix meaning “twice.”  The original meaning of “stinguere” (Greek/Latin/French) is “to stick or prick.” The root sense of “distinguish,” then, is “to separate in two by pricking.” The image that comes to mind is cutting an apple in two with a sharp knife. Thus I distinguish the apple before sharing it with you.
Of course we don’t use the word that way today. Among the shades of contemporary meaning, the one that comes the closest to Roberto’s salutation is “possessing distinction; marked by conspicuous excellence or eminence; remarkable, eminent; famous, renowned, celebrated; of high standing.” Can you see why I hesitate to claim this adjective for myself?
I realize that Roberto is acting appropriately according to his culture. This is how a Latin American of a certain generation addresses professors and other worthies. He is being polite and perhaps a little kind, to boot.
While I’m still in the dictionary, let me bring to your attention two related words, the first being “extinguished.” The prefix “ex” intensifies the root word, “stinguere,” but here the OED traces it back to a Latin root meaning “quench.” I’m not sure what happened to “stick or prick.” The first definition intrigues me: to extinguish is to put out anything that shines (like fire or light). It can also refer to silencing a voice or someone’s hopes and dreams. The final grim meaning reminds me of why I’d rather be distinguished: “to put to a total end, to do away with completely, to blot out of existence.” The image that comes to mind here, bringing back the “prick,” is stabbing someone to death.
The other related word is “instigate.” Here the OED goes back to the Greek root, “stig,” which is definitively “prick;” the prefix “in” gives it a forward motion. Today the word means “to spur or urge on; stir up, stimulate, incite, goad,” mostly referring to something evil. The image is one of a farmer with a stick, goading his cattle down the road, not an evil image unless the farmer is using too much force.
I sincerely hope that jealousy over my distinguished state doesn’t instigate someone to extinguish me.
On a serious note, I want to say something about Roberto who, to my mind, is a truly distinguished person. A Guatemalan, he has served his denomination, the Church of God, for many years as regional and international superintendent, overseeing some 3000 congregations in Central America and Mexico. While no longer in this position, he still teaches in several seminaries and pastors a local congregation.
Six years ago Roberto, with his wife and children, planted a new church in one of Guatemala City’s more violent barrios. The church today has some 110 members, a modest size, but people in the congregation have planted five other congregations. Roberto meets once a week with the leaders of all six churches to pray, plan and encourage one another. This year alone he has baptized over 80 new Christians.
All of this, however, isn’t what distinguishes Roberto. Roberto has become distinguished through suffering. And by the attitude he shows in the face of his suffering.
When Roberto first became a part of our doctoral program in 2008, he was in remission from cancer, but the illness has continued. There were times when he showed up to our bi-annual seminars fighting with the chemotherapy, but not wanting to miss the encounter with his colleagues. Then in 2010, he was involved in an auto accident that still affects him physically and economically.
But it isn’t all the suffering or even his impressive history of ministry that come to mind when I think of Roberto. It’s his joy. It’s his spirit of service and his words of encouragement to other students and even faculty. It’s the times I listened to him pray over other people for physical healing, even as he battled cancer in his own body. (Roberto is Pentecostal and exercises the gift of healing, reminding me of Henri Nouwen’s phrase, “the wounded healer.”)
He is doing his doctoral research on the topic of the influence of the local congregation toward social transformation in places of urban violence. But in his last letter he told me that he will be moving forward on this project somewhat slowly. The cancer is back and he is currently under treatment. He claims that having the research project helps him focus on something other than pain. He asked for prayer.
I am humbled before my brother, friend and student, humbled before one who is distinguished in ways that go beyond any dictionary definition. I pray God’s mercy on his life, even as I express my gratitude for one who has given me a new image of what it means to be distinguished.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Ladies and other unskillful persons

I love dictionaries. I love to just open one to any random page and make choice discoveries. My all-time favorite is the Oxford English Dictionary. Fortunately I live close enough to a university library to be able to browse at my heart’s content.
Right now I am re-reading that fascinating book by Simon Winchester, The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary (1998). Among other fascinating facts and anecdotes, Winchester provides some of the history of English dictionaries. (I realize this may not be fascinating to everybody, but it is to me.)
We learn that in 1604, a schoolmaster named Robert Cawdrey published “the very first true monolingual English dictionary,” thus providing “a pivotal moment in the history of English lexicography.” (Now, is that fascinating or what?) It was a small book with only some 2500 entries that didn’t attempt to cover the field. He entitled it A Table Alphabeticall…of hard unusual English Words.
The quote from the preface that I want to share has less to do with a fascination for dictionaries than with cultural attitudes toward women. In the preface to his dictionary of hard words, Crawdrey notes that the book is chiefly “for the benefit & help of Ladies, gentlewomen or any other unskilful persons, Whereby they may more easilie and better vunderstand many hard English wordes, which they shall heare or read in the Scriptures, Sermons or elsewhere, and also be made able to vse the same aptly themselves.”
If it weren’t so funny, I’d probably be mad.
I’m glad I live in the 21st century.