I suspect that many (if not all) of the people reading this are likely to be pretty familiar with Internet discussions and the (complete lack of) rules governing them. Often, this relative lack of rules just leads to petty arguments and name-calling, but sometimes, oh sometimes, something truly magnificent can be born. That magnificence is known as ‘Godwin’s Law’.

Named after (and first formulated by) Mike Godwin, a well known attorney in the world of the internet, Godwin’s law states the following:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

When applied to real internet life (heh), it basically states that as a given argument/discussion/flame-war goes on online, it is nearly inevitable that somebody will compare some aspect of the situation or participants to Nazis, Hitler, or Nazi Germany. However, perhaps more well known is the corollary to Godwin’s law, which is far less formal, but far more well known, and could be roughly stated as:

If, in an argument or discussion, somebody makes a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, the discussion is automatically over, and the person making the comparison is considered to have lost.

Thus, it’s not uncommon on some message boards to hear somebody invoking Godwin’s law to end a thread, or to hear reference to somebody “Godwinning” a conversation or discussion. Generally, although discussion may continue after the Godwinning, it seems to take on a distinctly different tone, and the person making the comparison is expected to defend him or herself.

Of course, there have been other attempts to alter or amend this law. Some have claimed that if a person admits the violation of the law and justifies it, then the corollary doesn’t apply. Others feel that the law is unfair, and that if the comparison works, there should be no repercussions.

I personally believe that although there are times when such a comparison is inevitable and necessary, there are twice as many times where it’s not. Therefore, I feel that not only should Godwin’s law (and its corollary) be enforced online, but in person too.

Don’t be afraid to invoke Godwin’s corollary next time somebody references the Third Reich when discussing Hockey (yes, I’ve seen this happen). Next time PETA starts an ad campaign featuring pictures from the Holocaust (yes, they’ve done it before), feel free to inform them that the discussion is over and that they’ve lost.

In fact, don’t even be ashamed to point out that the very title of this post is a thinly veiled reference to a quote about Nazi Germany. I think it’s justified, given the subject matter of the post, but that’s irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that this post must now end, and somehow, I’ve lost. Ahh, the magic of Godwin’s law…

This just in: I’ve discovered an article titled “How to Post about Nazis and get away with it - The Godwin’s Law FAQ”. It’s amusing, informative, and worth a read, if you’re bored.

So, I was on campus today and stumbled across another magnificent strike by the Stall-Door Grammarian.
The whole interaction read as follows:

Fumar la molta!

FUMAN “To smoke the pot”

Fumar is infinitive you f***ing dumb stoner hippy

For those interested, here’s a picture (sorry for the quality, it’s a camera phone picture). Click to enlarge!

This is fascinating to me in so many ways.

To begin, the first inscription in Spanish reads, literally, “to smoke the Marijuana”, coming from a combination of Fumar, the infinitive of “To Smoke”, and “la mota” (misspelled and corrected on the stall), a slang term for Marijuana/Pot. A fascinating sentiment to be sure, and thoroughly ungrammatical. Leaving fumar unconjugated is a mistake that anybody with more than a few months’ exposure to the Spanish language would be unlikely to make
Luckily for any native Spanish speakers who might be unclear as to who exactly is smoking the pot, a second person issues the correction “FUMAN”, meaning “They smoke”, and points out the ungrammaticality of the first sentence using a word-for-word translation.

However, to add insult to injury, an angry Stall-Door Grammarian stepped in after the second person left his comments (the shape of the M’s changed, so I assume it’s a new person). He points out that not only is “fumar” in the infinitive form (which it is), but then goes on to state his belief that the original writer is, in fact, a “f***ing dumb stoner hippy”. This is clearly past the realm of simple grammatical assistance, and quite frankly, I’d even chalk this up to a very mean person, once again trying to raise himself up above another with his knowledge of grammar.

So, Mr. Angry Stall-Door Grammarian, I hope you’re proud. You’ve managed to comment on the same error as the Gentleman above you. However, you were trying to make yourself seem more intelligent and articulate than the writer, even though you were only correcting a beginner’s mistake likely made by a non-native speaker of Spanish.

Be forewarned, oh Angry Stall-Door Grammarian, if you keep down this path, you’ll end up in Mexico someday, write something on a stall door, and return the next day to find a big red X over it, labeled “Es subjuntivo, pinche necio Americano”. Of course, if that happens, take a picture and send it in so I can post it. Then, all will be forgiven.

Readers, I cannot tell a lie. It was I who cut down that cherry tree.

What did the above statement mean to you? Some people might see it as a sort of confession, my confessing to an act that you might not have been aware of, but without much in the way of context. However, for the readers versed in American history and mythology, that statement likely evoked the words of George Washington, declaring to his father that he chopped down a cherry tree and being a shining pillar of honesty in the process. So, perhaps the question for them was twofold: Why is he talking about this, and why is he pretending to be George Washington?

Well, not to disappoint, but I’ve never cut down a cherry tree, and, considering that the statement was false, I apparently can tell a lie. However, I can prove a point with it as well. For those who were familiar with George Washington’s quotation, that statement had an entirely different meaning than for those of you who missed the reference. At least a part of the meaning in that statement was dependent on your knowing something about the background behind my word choice.

Now, imagine you walk up to a coworker, relieved at the successful conclusion of a long, drawn out project. Smiling, you enthusiastically proclaim “It’s over!!” He stares at you for a second, and promptly breaks into tears and runs off to the men’s room. You just stand, mortified, unsure what you said or did to get such a reaction, until later, he comes back, still teary eyed, and explains that only a week ago, his now ex-wife had used those same words as she presented him with unexpected divorce papers, and that your using the unintentionally called back on that. He explains that he too is happy that the project is over, and apologizes for the breakdown.

There’s really nobody at fault here, this was just an unfortunate usage of a phrase which had a different meaning to each party in the communication. This is also a very extreme example, but still, it emphasizes the fact that meaning and connotation of words can be very individual, even on top of the widely agreed “definition” among speakers.

When you walk up to a person on the street and mention the term “dog”, their interpretation will be very different depending on their life experiences. Whereas one person with a phobia might get apprehensive, a veterinarian might smile or show concern, another person might think of Sparky, their childhood pet, and a dog breeder might start picturing a specific breed or characteristic. It’s unlikely that somebody would think of one characteristic or image to the point where they wouldn’t get the reference to a generic domesticated canine, but it’s also very unlikely that a person would only see a generic, faceless, breedless dog with no connotation.

I’m sure there are some voices in semantic theory that would disagree (and they’re welcome to comment or email me to let me post their opinion), but often, the “meaning” of a word for every individual person is the sum of their past experiences with that word and what it might have symbolized. If a child got bitten by a dog, the word “dog” might have a terrible connotation the week after, but if they were to go on to work at an animal hospital, that connotation might be replaced or altered.

One could pretend that all words have a nice, easy, abstract meaning, found in the dictionary and independent of the people using it. However, in practice, every word has both a general meaning, shared by most speakers of the language, and then a more individual shade of meaning, unique to their experiences. Knowing the context, both in which you’ll use a word, and in which the listener will hear it, is vital to understanding what to say, when.

This is easier said than done, of course, because you can very seldom get in the head of your listener to know just what a given word means to them. However, it’s always worth keeping in mind, because once you do, saying “I am glad for the successful completion of our newest project” to your newly divorced co-worker doesn’t sound nearly as awkward, does it?