I ought first to mention that there is a slight touch of what is euphemistically called mature content in this piece. That is to say, it contains a rude reference. I was trying to think of a better example; at one point I thought of an other example, but it was not as good and I did not remember it. Whatever their disadvantages, rude examples are often memorable.

Smack in the middle of the nineteen eighties I had my one experience working in a large company in an urban area. I had worked in large companies in suburban and rural areas, and in small companies, but there was a slightly different flavor here. Specifically, there was an urban jargon with which I was entirely unfamiliar, which was often rude, possibly crude, and at times opaque to outsiders. In the several months over which I was immersed in this organization, I was exposed to words and phrases whose meaning was shared by those around me but unknown to me. I was also clearly aware that some of these terms were euphemisms, and that asking what they meant would be embarrassing to everyone.

Prominent among these was the word hump. I was familiar with the word as a noun. It was the thing on the back of a camel, an unexpected rise and fall in a road, a pile of dirt in the field on which kids played King of the Hill. However, in the local vernacular the word was used as a verb, a stand-in for a form of human interaction not normally discussed in polite company. Let’s say I did manage to derive the meaning from the usage, and saved everyone the embarrassment of an explanation.

I also found myself assessing the character of my coworkers. This was not a judgmental process in the way that term is usually used, but rather merely a coming to understand who these people were individually. Some could be expected to be crass and crude as a matter of course, while others were more polite and refined. I was thus very surprised one day when one of the girls said something I had not heard before. It was a use of an expression in a then to me unfamiliar form which, given such reconstruction of the jargon as I had by then managed, sounded completely out of place in her mouth, she being one of those more reserved souls who endured rather than encouraged the lewd talk of coworkers. She said she was in a good mood, because tomorrow was hump day.

I must have stared at her aghast, because she immediately knew that something was wrong. She asked. I answered, “Hump day?”

The adage (I would call it old, but I think it is not so old as I) says, I know that you believe that you understand what you think I said, but I’m not certain you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. She blushed (I had never seen a black girl turn quite so pink), and immediately addressed my confusion. Wednesday is hump day, apparently, because in a five-day work week it’s the day when you get over the hump, half the week behind you and only half of it left to go. I hadn’t known that. I suppose in most of my jobs, five day workweeks were not the norm, so the term had never arisen. The confusion was abated, and although she was flustered by my wrong understanding the embarrassment was short-lived, but the memory thereof continues.

Euphemisms, slang, colloquialisms, terms of art, jargon, expressions, idioms all have the potential for significant misunderstanding. There are undoubtedly uncounted examples of someone saying something which was perfectly clear to the speaker and completely misunderstood by the user. A few have come to my attention over the years.

• An animation scriptwriter wrote of a character that he was belted into his seat on a spaceship. The animator in Korea returned an image of the character tied to a chair with ropes.
• An American missionary speaking through a translator said that his friend was tickled to death at some turn of events; the confused translator admitted his uncertainty and informed the audience that the man’s friend scratched himself until he died.
• Some years back a Hindu engaged me in theological discussion by E-mail, and raised the subject of dualism. I immediately wrote back, explaining what I saw as the inherent problems of dualism as a theological position, and he was clearly confused by my response. It took several letters before I recognized that we were talking about completely distinct concepts. To me, dualism was a theology of co-equal opposite deities, the good and evil gods vying for influence over the world. He was referring to a completely unrelated concept of dualism, the spiritual/material dichotomy that is so central to Platonism and so many Gnostic belief systems. We were talking past each other, because of one word to which we each ascribed a very specific, and very different, meaning.
• Irish evangelist Dr. J. Edwin Orr tells of a time he was visiting America and staying with a minister’s family as he conducted evangelistic meetings. As he was leaving, he wanted to thank his host and say something kind, so he said, “I think your wife is one of the homeliest women I’ve ever known.” The host was visibly shocked, so Dr. Orr immediately sought to correct himself. “I think she’s one of the homeliest ladies I’ve ever known.” The minister admitted she was no beauty queen, but wasn’t she pretty? “Oh, yes, she’s pretty; but even more homely.”

  “What does homely mean where you come from?” the man demanded.

  “Well, quickly means quick-like, and sweetly means sweet-like, and homely means home-like.”

  “Well, I don’t know how we got it wrong, but here it means ugly. You know, you ought to watch what you say–if I wasn’t a Christian, I’d have punched you right in the nose.”

  It seems that on this side of the pond, we started calling girls homely in an effort to make them sound attractive when they weren’t particularly pretty (she’s no beauty queen, but she would make a wonderful wife and mother), and ultimately this backfired as people came to read it as code for visibly repulsive.

We’ve talked about such things before. Over two years ago Words discussed the use of jargon; Language considered how the languages we know influence the way we think and our ability to communicate on various subjects; even as recently as last Halloween’s Treats we were looking at the oddities of language, and a couple of weeks back we were looking at ways to pursue misdirection through tricks to the ear in Sounds Like. This time we’re focusing on the way in which things are misunderstood because they are not clearly stated.

I’m a stickler for precise statements in wishes. You get what you wish for, in my fantasy settings; you had better be sure you’ve wished for what you want. If you wish you were able to speak another language, that will not enable you to understand what anyone else says in it. This is one place where close attention to what is said, rather than what is intended to be understood, can make for interesting play experiences.

Characters often deal with those from different backgrounds whose native tongue is not the one in which the discussion is held (or perhaps it is the player characters who are out of their element). The use of an idiom in an instruction, or even in a question, can lead to great confusion and completely unexpected results, if either of the speakers is not familiar with the idiom. I have probably mentioned the short story my high school French class read, in which the American tells the hotel concierge, in French, “Don’t let the fire go out.” That statement making no sense in French, the concierge understood it to mean, “Don’t let the fool go out,” and thinking that the character’s friend in the hotel room must be a madman, locked him in the room.

As characters travel to new places, there is always the risk that they might give offense through a word or phrase which has a completely different meaning here than it does elsewhere. This would seem very difficult to do from one perspective–how can the referee create a culture in such detail that he would know what references would innocently cause offense? However, it can be done easily in at least two ways. If the player or his character is known to use a particular phrase quite frequently, the referee can target that phrase by writing it into the sketch of the culture from which he’s working. Similarly, if the referee wants to have some sort of cultural misunderstanding, he can put up his antenna and listen carefully for the use of some expression which can be misunderstood, pulled out of proportion, or given some euphemistic meaning. Such innocent euphemisms are not so difficult to devise with a bit of creative consideration. Gypsies will excuse themselves to water the horses when they mean they have to relieve themselves. Ancient Hebrews spoke of knowing a woman. No matter how carefully your players watch what they say, they will say something that can be taken the wrong way, if you just pay attention.

It’s one more way to enliven a game.

Next week, something different.

—–

M. Joseph Young is co-author of Multiverser and Vice President for Development at Valdron Inc. His many contributions to online literature are indexed for convenience, and he looks forward to discussing these things by e-mail or on our Gaming Outpost forums.