The Just Man Just Is
The title of this post is actually derived almost directly from a famous poem. The point of the line really is that it's a pun based firmly on etymology.
The Latin jus means 'right' — that is, something which a person is entitled to obtain, have and/or possess. Justice is therefore the process by which a right is upheld. However, the Latin juxta means 'near' or even 'joined to'. It is this latter word that we get 'adjust' from. The problem is that sometime during the Middle Ages and with the later arrival of the printing press, 'just' as in 'upright or fitting in terms of the maintenance of rights' became conflated with 'exactly or very close to something'.
It's now pretty difficult to decide which sense was meant when we say something like 'make this text right-justified'. Nevertheless, it's important to think about it, because it might make the difference between being 'just a man' and being 'a just man'. It is the difference between 'justice' and 'adjustment'.
That leads me to realise that perhaps there are, indeed, two kinds of justice. The first kind, spelt 'justice', means something like 'fair dealing based on a code that maintains rights'. The second kind, spelt 'justice' as well, means something like 'shifting things around until everyone is equally unhappy or as nearly equally unhappy as possible'.
What? Two words with different meanings spelt the same way? Well, there are ample examples of that in English. Just the other day, I was reading an IB text proof in which the author had written, "Drugs are often derived from lead compounds extracted from natural sources."
Excuse me? Lead compounds??
Then it dawned on me. 'Lead' not as in 'dense grey metal' but 'lead' as in 'being foremost'. It made me realise that 'leader' too can have several meanings, and one of them is 'a person who covers things in lead (metal)'.
Why is English like that? Well, many people have written excellent books on this phenomenon. For me, it just is.
The Latin jus means 'right' — that is, something which a person is entitled to obtain, have and/or possess. Justice is therefore the process by which a right is upheld. However, the Latin juxta means 'near' or even 'joined to'. It is this latter word that we get 'adjust' from. The problem is that sometime during the Middle Ages and with the later arrival of the printing press, 'just' as in 'upright or fitting in terms of the maintenance of rights' became conflated with 'exactly or very close to something'.
It's now pretty difficult to decide which sense was meant when we say something like 'make this text right-justified'. Nevertheless, it's important to think about it, because it might make the difference between being 'just a man' and being 'a just man'. It is the difference between 'justice' and 'adjustment'.
That leads me to realise that perhaps there are, indeed, two kinds of justice. The first kind, spelt 'justice', means something like 'fair dealing based on a code that maintains rights'. The second kind, spelt 'justice' as well, means something like 'shifting things around until everyone is equally unhappy or as nearly equally unhappy as possible'.
What? Two words with different meanings spelt the same way? Well, there are ample examples of that in English. Just the other day, I was reading an IB text proof in which the author had written, "Drugs are often derived from lead compounds extracted from natural sources."
Excuse me? Lead compounds??
Then it dawned on me. 'Lead' not as in 'dense grey metal' but 'lead' as in 'being foremost'. It made me realise that 'leader' too can have several meanings, and one of them is 'a person who covers things in lead (metal)'.
Why is English like that? Well, many people have written excellent books on this phenomenon. For me, it just is.
etched with acid at 11:16:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home