34 Rules of Writing

Here’s a tongue-in-cheek list recently sent to me.  Since it made me laugh, I’m passing it on. Actually, though, most of the “rules” are pretty useful—as guidelines. (Sent by Dean Hunt, copied from his website at http://deanhunt.com/bloggers-are-terrible-writers/.) 1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects. 2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with. 3. And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction. 4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive. 5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They’re old hat.) 6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration. 7. Be more or less specific. 8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary. 9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies. 10. No sentence fragments. 11. Contractions aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be used unless you don’t want to seem too formal. 12. Foreign words and phrases are not always apropos. 13. Do not use more words, phrases, sentences, or other linguistic elements than you, yourself, actually really and definitely need to use or employ when expressing yourself or otherwise giving voice to what you may or may not be thinking when you are trying to say how many words you should use or not use when using words. 14. One should NEVER generalize. 15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches. 16. Don’t use no double negatives. 17. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, i.e. etc. 18. One-word sentences? Eliminate. 19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake. 20. The passive voice is to be ignored. 21. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas. 22. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice. 23. Kill excessive exclamation points!!! 24. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others elude to them. 25. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas. 26. Use the apostrophe in it’s proper place and omit it when its not needed. 27. Eliminate distracting quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson is said to have once remarked, “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.” 28. If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly. 29. Puns are for children, not groan readers. 30. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms. 31. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed. 32. Who needs rhetorical questions? 33. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement. And finally… 34. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out. Original Source: Unknown (Seems to have been around for decades)

The Bell

(I picked this up from thepastorsblog.com website.)

THE BELL
I KNOW WHO I AM
I am God’s child (John 1:12)
I am Christ’s friend (John 15:15 )
I am united with the Lord(1 Cor. 6:17 )
I am bought with a price(1 Cor. 6:19-20)
I am a saint (set apart for God). (Eph. 1:1)
I am a personal witness of Christ. (Acts 1:8)
I am the salt & light of the earth ( Matt.5:13-14)
I am a member of the body of Christ(1 Cor 12:27)
I am free forever from condemnation ( Rom. 8: 1-2)
I am a citizen of Heaven. I am significant ( Phil.3:20)
I am free from any charge against me (Rom. 8:31 -34)
I am a minister of reconciliation for God(2 Cor.5:17-21)
I have access to God through the Hol y Spirit (Eph. 2:18)
I am seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:6)
I cannot be separated from the love of God( Rom.8:35-39)
I am estab lished, anointed, sealed by God (2 Cor.1:21-22)
I am assured all things work together for good (Rom. 8: 28)
I have been chosen and appointed to bear fruit (John 15:16 )
I may approach God with freedom and confidence (Eph. 3: 12 )
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Phil. 4:13)
I am the branch of the true vine, a channel of His life (John 15: 1-5)
I am God’s temple (1 Cor. 3: 16 ). I am complete in Christ (Col. 2: 10)
I am hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). I have been justified (Romans 5:1)
I am God’s co-worker (1 Cor.. 3:9; 2 Cor 6:1). I am God’s workmanship(Eph. 2:10 )
I am confident that the good works God has begun in me will be perfected. (Phil 1: 5)
I have been redeemed and forgiven(Col.1:14).I have been adopted as God’s child(Eph 1:5)
I belong to God
Do you know
who you are!?

Do You Use Sarcasm? Don't! It's Deadly... and the User? He's an Adult Bully!

By Mary Gardner

www.eslteachersboard.com

“Ouch, those words hurt. I know you were joking, but what you said isn’t funny.”

“WHAT are you saying? Would you please be quiet? You are embarrassing me in front of all of these people!!!!”

“Oh my gosh.. I can’t believe she said that to that person. Doesn’t she know that SHE is the one who looks bad?”

Have you ever mumbled these words to yourself after someone used their razor sharp tongue to slice you or someone you know? Have you ever felt your temperature rising and meanwhile you had a smile plastered on your face?? Someone just zinged you and it was couched as a joke, but it really stung like a bee?

These are some of the internal things that are going on in the midst of a person who doesn’t have control over their tongue. They use sarcasm and they think it’s funny. They think that they’re the big shot, because they’re constantly on top. They can get out of any situation without hurting. They can survive any where because no one is going to take advantage of them!

I know. I used to be a user of sarcasm. I used to be the one who would unintentionally hurt people.

I’m not any more. I’ve learned that it was a defense mechanism for the hurt I felt inside. And now, I want others to know, there is HELP for you.. and the other side? IT:’S BETTER!!!

I experienced a person who was throwing zingers every chance she got. If you’d ask her to hand you a pen, she’d make you beg. If you said, “How is your day, she’d say, “it was good until I saw you”. People laugh. They smile. But really, what is happening inside is they are screaming, ‘GET ME AWAY FROM THIS PERSON!!!”

It’s hard to look back at myself and realize that I was a repeat offender. I was the young and cocky one. I was the one making a lot of money so I could shoot down anyone and win. My bank account told me that I was as cool as they come. I was successful on the world’s eyes and nothing I could say or do could hold me back. I knew how to play the “Nice” game. I had clients who knew me as a loving and fun agent, and I knew that I worked hard and could make them happy. What else did I need? Who else did I need? I had money and a close friend or two, and my mom and dad always loved me… so everyone else could just kiss off!

In reality? I was hurting. I knew that I didn’t have the ability to be vulnerable. I knew that I was covering up a lot of sensitivity that was hurting. I didn’t ever MEAN to be mean, or a bully, but I couldn’t seem to help it. Every time I’d get close to someone, I’d end up saying something mean, sarcastic or cocky that would turn them off to me. I hated it, yet I didn’t know how to stop it.

I was an adult bully. And if you use sarcasm? You are too!!!

Let me tell you how it starts. You were bullied yourself. You had to pretend to be bigger and tougher than you really were so you wouldn’t be hurt all the time. Your verbal finesse got good because you were defending yourself. It probably happened to you when you were a kid. You were probably defending yourself from an older sibling who picked on you all of the time or even a parent who thought that teasing was funny. Maybe it was common place in your family to tease one another. Maybe the others enjoyed the back and forth joking, but you? You were a more sensitive person who took it to heart. You had no other way to survive but put up your dukes.. and strike back.

At the world!!!

I keep thinking about that song that my son is learning in preschool, “Hit me with your best shot. Come on and hit me with your best shot.. fire away” It’s a Pat Benetar song and it’s a classic. You can see how the victim of bullying can BECOME the BULLY!!!

How do you get over it? Well, it’s not always easy!! But it is possible!!! Start by STOPPING ANY SORT of SARCASM. You’ll catch yourself over and over, but find an alternative way to express yourself. Put a rubber band around your wrist and snap it every time you are sarcastic, but just STOP DOING IT.

Next, everyone who is around you knows that it is a defense mechanism. We’ve all watched Dr. Phil or Oprah enough to know that you are truly hurting inside. It’s NO SECRET. You are a BLATENT ADVERTISEMENT for what it feels like to be hurting inside. TRUST me… the SECOND you say something sarcastic, people know that you are on the defense. You aren’t fooling ANYONE!!!

Myself included. When I go back to those old habits, which I occasionally do when I’m challenged, I know that the person is just ruffling my feathers and that I can back down and still have my self esteem in tact. It sometimes takes a minute, but I usually get there.

The ULTIMATE thing you can do is to find someone to discuss how you were so hurt as a child. You can go back and relive those things so you can find it in yourself to forgive those people and be able to move on as a healthy person. Yes, THERAPY is a great place to do that. And don’t give me that , “DON”T TELL ME TO GO TO THERAPY CRAP” or say, “that’ s too touchy feely for me”.

I know. I used to say the same thing. But trust me, when you really have courage, you’ll face yourself. Sometimes that is the hardest thing to do. And when you really have courage, you’ll be able to discuss yourself with another person. And in the context of therapy, it’s confidential. You might even shed a tear or two. “OH NO.. HORRORS!!! SHEDDING A TEAR!!! “

Ooooops.. there I go again!!! Sorry.

I just want to tell you, that a healthy man or woman has all sorts of feelings. Good, bad, indifferent. They are all apart of the human psyche. We are supposed to be able to express anger. And you should express anger if you were bullied as a child. And if you don’t address this bad habit that you endured, you’ll possibly pass it on to your family and that will continue the hurt at a deep level.

Words are the best things that you can give a person. They are also the most painful thing that you can ever inflict upon another person if they are filled with venom. It’s hurtful and it’s nasty. And if you inflict horrible, mean jokes on other people and pass them off as funny, then you need help. You need to change. And if you don’t, you’ll hurt and be lonely for a very long time.

I’m happier now as a person. I’m able to laugh and cry and express every emotion that I’m capable of having. I know I’m an extremely sensitive person now, but that is what helps me in sales, and it’s what I use as a coach. I can feel for others and know how they feel. I don’t have an emotional void anymore. I feel free to love and be loved.

So please pass this on to anyone you know who uses sarcasm. I don’t care if it’s the priest or pastor of your church. If they use it, they can get over it. And they need to know, that they are being a BULLY!!!

Life on the other side can be great. But get to work guys.. and let me know what happens! I can’t wait to hear what this blog stirs up. I’m sure it will…

But I’m ready. Give me your best shot! Fire away!!! I can handle it. But the question is…CAN YOU?

Language as a Weapon

“Who is to say that robbing a people of its language is less violent than war?” —Ray Gwinn Smith by Alfonso Valenzuela In this issue of The Cultural Knowledge Newsletter, I pay tribute to our Native American brothers from the Navajo Nation, which includes parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. They—like millions of brown-skinned “Americans” whose ancestors co-existed in the Southwest long before an invading European contingent stepped foot on this continent—also know about “linguistic prejudice.” Their experience in this country as true “Americans,” has something in common with us mestizos—the direct descendants of the Spanish Conquistadores and Mexican Indians. Other than sharing physiological similarities such as skin color and height, perhaps the most significant feature that sets us apart from individuals who migrated here from Europe, has to do with linguistics. Our native languages as well as our physical characteristics make us different from the majority population whose linguistic origins came from another continent. In spite of our linguistic differences, we have contributed in many ways to the growth and development of our country—at peace and at war. And, at different time periods in the history of our nation, people who choose to preserve their identity through their cultural values traditions, customs and language, fall out of grace with those who have lost theirs. But, we will talk about that some other time. During World War II, a former military serviceman fervently sought a way to help the US devise a code to transmit and receive messages by telephone and wire, that the Japanese military could not break. Philip Johnston, who came to northern Arizona on a covered wagon with his missionary parents, firmly believed that using Navajo men who had proficiency in their native tongue and English, could deceive the Japanese. His early formative years living among the Navajo provided him with the best cross-cultural education, by playing games and learning how to speak the language of his friends. He became so proficient in Navajo that in 1901 at age nine, he served as interpreter when he accompanied his father and two elderly Navajo leaders to Washington, D.C. to talk with President Theodore Roosevelt. His interest and concern for fair treatment of the Navajo and the Hopi prompted the young boy’s father to appeal directly to Roosevelt for help. At the time, the US considered the land where the Navajo lived, public domain. As a result of that meeting, Roosevelt agreed to withdraw that area from sale or settlement; several months later, he went further by issuing an executive order designating that land a reservation, known today as the Leupp Extension. The idea of using Navajo males to serve in the military as Communications Personnel has an interesting background. After Philip Johnston had finished his military service during World War I, he went to college and graduated with a degree in civil engineering. He went to work in Los Angeles as a civil engineer soon after completing his studies. During this time, he gave lectures about the Navajo culture and described his experiences as a young boy. Meanwhile, he kept reading about the US military’s inability to come up with a fail-safe secret code for transmitting and receiving messages by voice and wire during combat. He felt an obligation to his country even though he had already served his tour of duty in World War I. Feeling frustrated and eager to find a solution, he decided to get in touch with the US Marines to describe his proposal to use Navajo young males as communications personnel. He had no doubts that his plan would work and make a difference for our men in combat. His chance came on February 1942, when he met with Marine Lieutenant Colonel James E. Jones, Area Signal Officer of Amphibious Corps, Pacific Fleet, headed by Major General Clayton B. Vogel. This meeting took place at Camp Elliott, just north of San Diego. Philip Johnston felt confident that the use of Navajo as a code language by the Marine Corps in voice transmission—radio and wire—would work. Moreover, he assured them that no one could break security. He now needed to prove his theory worked by actually showing the Marine Corps commanders how it worked. With the approval of the top commanders at Camp Elliott, Philip Johnston took four Navajo males from Los Angeles, plus another one stationed in San Diego, to Camp Elliott on February 28, 1942 to put on a demonstration for the Marine Corps. In the test, two Navajos went into a room with six typical messages written in English used during military combat operations. These two men then transmitted the assigned messages in Navajo to the other two Navajos in a different room, who back-translated them into into English. Repeatedly, the Navajos showed that they could take voice or written messages in English, translate them into Navajo, transmit them in Navajo and then send those same messages back in English. Some very important military officers witnessed the simulated test, including Colonel Wethered Woodward, of the Division of Plans and Policies, the staff agency who would later make the final decision to recruit Navajo men to begin working on the project. With both Major General Vogel and Colonel Woodward acknowledging the positive results, Philip Johnston prepared the necessary papers to submit their recommendations to the Commandant of the US Marine Headquarters in Washington, D.C., in March of 1942. Initially, Major General Vogel had recommended the Marine Corps recruit two hundred Navajos who would become “Code Talkers.” But, the Marine Commandant limited the number of the first group to 30. Meanwhile, Philip Johnston put in for a waiver that would allow him to enlist in the Marine Corps in spite of his age and previous military service. He got clearance and ended up with the rank of Staff Sergeant, recruiting young Navajos for the Marine Corps and later training them in the code after finishing boot camp at Camp Pendleton. With the approval of the Navajo Tribal Council, the Marine Corps began locating and recruiting young Navajo men at Window Rock, Arizona, the capital of the Navajo Nation, in May of 1942. The Code Talkers had so much success throughout various campaigns in the Pacific that they became indispensable as communications specialists. According to Kenji Kawana in his beautiful tribute, Warriors: Navajo Code Talkers, “the way the code was set up, even an untrained Navajo who knew the language couldn’t make out what was said. Besides the alphabet words, they learned the 413 code names in a word test.” To give you a better idea of the training involved before assignments to combat areas, these Navajo Code Talkers had no easy task at hand. During their initial training at Camp Pendleton, recruits took 176 hours of instruction in communications procedures and equipment over a period of four weeks. They had a syllabus that covered a variety of subjects such as printing and message writing, the Navajo vocabulary, voice procedure, Navajo message transmission, wire laying, pole climbing and organization of Marine Infantry regiment, among other things. Because no words in Navajo existed for common military terms used in combat, the Code Talkers resorted to a very simple approach, which reflects their traditional way of seeking harmony with Mother Earth. Instead they came up with an oral code, taking familiar words from their native tongue, such as humming bird to designate a fighter plane, iron fish for a submarine, as well as using clan names for different Marine units. Also, these men had to come up with alternate terms in code for letters frequently repeated in the English language, consequently these letters had three variants that the Code Talkers used accordingly. To complicate matters even more, all Code Talkers had to memorize both the primary and alternate code terms while the basic material was printed for use in training in the United States. In addition, the Code Talkers could not take the vocabulary lists with them into combat areas to prevent the enemy from getting hold of them and compromising the entire project. They even faced danger from their own fellow countrymen, who mistook them for Japanese soldiers impersonating Marines in combat uniforms! Yet, they performed admirably everywhere they went and received praise from commanders at all levels. In The Navajo Code Talkers, Doris Paul cites G.R. Lockard, commanding officer of the Special and Services Battalion of the First Amphibious Corps at Camp Goettage, who sent the following message on May 7, 1943: “As general duty Marines, these people are scrupulously clean, neat, and orderly. They quickly learn to adapt themselves to the conditions of the services. They are quiet and uncomplaining and in eight months I have received only one complaint—a just one. In short, Navajos make good Marines, and I should be very proud to command a unit composed entirely of these people.” Kenji Kawano, who served in World War II in the First Marine Division’s Headquarters and Service Battalion, learned that one of the units in his battalion—the Division Signal Company—had Navajo Code Talkers. “By the end of the war, Code Talkers had been assigned to all six Marine Divisions in the Pacific and to the Marine Raider and Parachute units as well. They took part in every Marine assault, from Guadacanal in 1942 to Okinawa in 1945.” Until he came to Window Rock, Arizona in July 1971 to do research for the Marine Oral History Program, Kawano knew little about the Navajo culture. Because of his interest in the Navajo Code Talkers, he became official photographer of the Navajo Code Talkers Association. “Window Rock and the Navajo people were an entirely new experience for me, for not only had I no real knowledge of or an association with Native Americans, it was the first time I had ever been in an environment such as that in Arizona. It was an exciting and interesting experience, for I saw that the Navajo are beautiful and proud people who cherished and relished their traditions and customs despite the many years of effort on the American government to direct them into Anglo ways.” I offer the following testimonials from two Marine Code Talkers: “Throughout the war against the Japanese in the Pacific, we Code Talkers had to brush up on our codes at every opportunity. When the fighting got bad, words would fail us for a second; it was a good thing we [Navajo] have so many sounds in our language.”—William Kien, 4th Marine Division, Marshall Islands, Saipan, Tinian, Iwo Jima. “When I was inducted into the service, one of the commitments I made was that I was willing to die for my country—the U.S., the Navajo Nation and my family. My [native] language was my weapon.” David E. Patterson, 4th Marine Division, Roi Atoll, Marshall Islands, Kawajalein Atoll. I could add much more to this interesting, informative and amazing historical episode involving young men who lived in an isolated area, away from the many conveniences that others enjoyed—and took for granted—in populated areas all over the United States. They proved themselves in every way conceivable, proving their worth, intelligence, bravery, loyalty, sacrifice and patience, during a very critical period in our history. I have no doubt that had Philip Johnston not persisted in his belief that the Navajo language could serve as a communications system that no one could decipher, World War II would have had a different outcome. Finally, let me leave you with a thought, a phrase that I heard on Nova, broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service, on KUAT-Channel Six, our local educational television channel : “Language is the mirror of humanity…and only by studying its reflections can we understand its contributions.” (October 5, 1995 Tucson, Arizona) Written by Alfonso Valenzuela, President, Cross Currents, International, Cross-Cultural Marketing Communications, 295 N. Meyer, #2, Tucson , Arizona 85701 June 1996c Tel.: (520) 882-2855 Fax: (520) 882-2855 . Sources for this article: Philip Johnston and the Navajo Code Talkers, Syble Lagerquist; Warriors: Navajo Code Talkers. Photographs by Kenji Kawano, Foreward by Carl Gorman, Code Talker and Introduction by Benis M. Frank, USMC; The Navajo Code Talkers, Doris A. Paul; Braided Lives: An Anthology of Multicultral American Writings, Minnesota Humanities Commission. Questions and Comments: AZDBC@aol.com © 1996-99 Cultural Knowledge, all rights reserved. Note from J. Mark Jordan:  Our recent visit to Lawton, OK to attend the Native American Conference inspired this reprint.  A Navajo church in New Mexico is affiliated with the UPCI and some of their members were at the conference. I have great respect for them and the work they are doing.  You can reach them www.newcomblupc.com.

Donuts for the Class

(This article was written by an anonymous author.  If anyone knows the source, I would be happy to provide the attribution.) 

There was a certain Professor of Religion named Dr. Christianson, a studious man who taught at a small college in the Western United States.  Dr. Christianson taught the required survey course in Christianity at this particular institution. Every student was required to take this course his or her freshman year regardless of his or her major. Although Dr. Christianson tried hard to communicate the essence of the gospel in his class, he found that most of his students looked upon the course as nothing but required drudgery. Despite his best efforts, most students refused to take Christianity seriously.

This year, Dr. Christianson had a special student named Steve. Steve was only a freshman, but was studying with the intent of going onto seminary for the ministry. Steve was popular, he was well liked, and he was an imposing physical specimen. He was now the starting center on the school football team, and was the best student in the professor’s class.

One day, Dr. Christianson asked Steve to stay after class so he could talk with him.
“How many push-ups can you do “
Steve said, “I do about 200 every night.”
“200 That’s pretty good, Steve,” Dr. Christianson said. “Do you think you could do 300 “

Steve replied, “I don’t know… I’ve never done 300 at a time.”
“Do you think you could ” again asked Dr. Christianson.
“Well, I can try,” said Steve.
“Can you do 300 in sets of 10 I have a class project in mind and I need you to do about 300 push-ups in sets of ten for this to work. Can you do it I need you to tell me you can do it,” said the professor.

Steve said, “Well… I think I can…yeah, I can do it.”
Dr. Christianson said, “Good! I need you to do this on Friday. Let me explain what I have in mind.”

Friday came and Steve got to class early and sat in the front of the room. When class started, the professor pulled out a big box of donuts. No these weren’t the normal kinds of donuts, they were the extra fancy BIG kind, with cream centers and frosting swirls. Everyone was pretty excited it was Friday, the last class of the day, and they were going to get an early start on the weekend with a party in Dr. Christianson’ s class.

Dr. Christianson went to the first girl in the first row and asked, “Cynthia, do you want to have one of these donuts “

Cynthia said, “Yes.”

Dr. Christianson then turned to Steve and asked, “Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Cynthia can have a donut “

“Sure.” Steve jumped down from his desk to do a quick ten. Then Steve again sat in his desk. Dr. Christianson put a donut on Cynthia’s desk.

Dr. Christianson then went to Joe, the next person, and asked, “Joe, do you want a donut “
Joe said, “Yes.”
Dr. Christianson asked, “Steve would you do ten push-ups so Joe can have a donut ” Steve did ten push-ups, Joe got a donut. And so it went, down the first aisle, Steve did ten pushups for every person before they got their donut. And down the second aisle, till Dr. Christianson came to Scott.

Scott was on the basketball team, and in as good condition as Steve. He was very popular and never lacking for female companionship. When the professor asked, “Scott do you want a donut ” Scott’s reply was, “Well, can I do my own pushups “
Dr. Christianson said, “No, Steve has to do them.”
Then Scott said, “Well, I don’t want one then.”

Dr. Christianson shrugged and then turned to Steve and asked,
“Steve, would you do ten pushups so Scott can have a donut he doesn’t want ”
With perfect obedience Steve started to do ten pushups.

Scott said, “HEY! I said I didn’t want one!”
Dr. Christianson said, “Look, this is my classroom, my class, my desks, and these are my donuts. Just leave it on the desk if you don’t want it.” And he put a donut on Scott’s desk.

Now by this time, Steve had begun to slow down a little. He just stayed on the floor between sets because it took too much effort to be getting up and down. You could start to see a little perspiration coming out around his brow. Dr. Christianson started down the third row. Now the students were beginning to get a little angry.

Dr. Christianson asked Jenny, “Jenny, do you want a donut “
Sternly, Jenny said, “No.”
Then Dr. Christianson asked Steve, “Steve, would you do ten more Push-ups so Jenny can have a donut that she doesn’t want ” Steve did ten….Jenny got a donut.

By now, a growing sense of uneasiness filled the room. The students were beginning to say “No” and there were all these uneaten donuts on the desks.

Steve also had to really put forth a lot of extra effort to get these pushups done for each donut. There began to be a small pool of sweat on the floor beneath his face, his arms and brow were beginning to get red because of the physical effort involved.

Dr. Christianson asked Robert, who was the most vocal unbeliever in the class, to watch Steve do each push up to make sure he did the full ten pushups in a set because he couldn’t bear to watch all of Steve’s work for all of those uneaten donuts. He sent Robert over to where Steve was so Robert could count the set and watch Steve closely. Dr. Christianson started down the fourth row.

During his class, however, some students from other classes had wandered in and sat down on the steps along the radiators that ran down the sides of the room. When the professor realized this, he did a quick count and saw that now there were 34 students in the room. He started to worry if Steve would be able to make it. Dr. Christianson went on to the next person and the next and the next. Near the end of that row, Steve was really having a rough time. He was taking a lot more time to complete each set.

Steve asked Dr. Christianson, “Do I have to make my nose touch on each one “

Dr. Christianson thought for a moment, “Well, they’re your pushups. You are in charge now. You can do them any way that you want.” And Dr. Christianson went on.

A few moments later, Jason, a recent transfer student, came to the room and was about to come in when all the students yelled in one voice, “NO! Don’t come in! Stay out!” Jason didn’t know what was going on.

Steve picked up his head and said, “No, let him come.”

Professor Christianson said, “You realize that if Jason comes in you will have to do ten pushups for him “

Steve said, “Yes, let him come in. Give him a donut”
Dr. Christianson said, “Okay, Steve, I’ll let you get Jason’s out of the way right now. Jason, do you want a donut “

Jason, new to the room hardly knew what was going on. “Yes,” he said, “give me a donut.”

“Steve, will you do ten push-ups so that Jason can have a donut “
Steve did ten pushups very slowly and with great effort. Jason, bewildered, was handed a donut and sat down.

Dr. Christianson finished the fourth row, then started on those visitors seated by the heaters. Steve’s arms were now shaking with each push-up in a struggle to lift himself against the force of gravity. Sweat was profusely dropping off of his face and, by this time, there was no sound except his heavy breathing, there was not a dry eye in the room.

The very last two students in the room were two young women, both cheerleaders, and very popular. Dr. Christianson went to Linda, the second to last, and asked, “Linda, do you want a doughnut “

Linda said, very sadly, “No, thank you.”

Professor Christianson quietly asked, “Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Linda can have a donut she doesn’t want ” Grunting from the effort, Steve did ten very slow pushups for Linda.

Then Dr. Christianson turned to the last girl, Susan. “Susan, do you want a donut “

Susan, with tears flowing down her face, began to cry. “Dr. Christianson, why can’t I help him “

Dr. Christianson, with tears of his own, said, “No, Steve has to do it alone, I have given him this task and he is in charge of seeing that everyone has an opportunity for a donut whether they want it or not. When I decided to have a party this last day of class, I looked at my grade book. Steve, here is the only student with a perfect grade. Everyone else has failed a test, skipped class, or offered me inferior work. Steve told me that in football practice, when a player messes up he must do push-ups. I told Steve that none of you could come to my party unless he paid the price by doing your push ups. He and I made a deal for your sakes. Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Susan can have a donut ” As Steve very slowly finished his last pushup, with the understanding that he had accomplished all that was required of him, having done 350 pushups, his arms buckled beneath him and he fell to the floor.

Dr. Christianson turned to the room and said. “And so it was, that our Savior, Jesus Christ, on the cross, plead to the Father, ‘into thy hands I commend my spirit.’ With the understanding that He had done everything that was required of Him, he yielded up His life. And like some of those in this room, many of us leave the gift on the desk, uneaten.” Two students helped Steve up off the floor and to a seat, physically exhausted, but wearing a thin smile. “Well done, good and faithful servant,” said the professor, adding “Not all sermons are preached in words.”

Turning to his class the professor said, “My wish is that you might understand and fully comprehend all the riches of grace and mercy that have been given to you through the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He spared not only His Begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all for the whole Church, now and forever. Whether or not we choose to accept His gift to us, the price has been paid. Wouldn’t you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it laying on the desk “

- Author Unknown

---

Truths About Governments

The following pithy statements have been mistakenly attributed to Abraham Lincoln for many years.  Lincoln may have indeed believed them, but it was left to a man in a succeeding generation to spell them out in the form below.  Regardless of their origin, they bear reading and thinking about today.  The contemporary political dialogue that routinely rages in the public square too often pushes the exact opposite of these bedrock truths.  Every time you hear a politician speak, measure his words against this template.  I promise you that it will be an enlightening experience.

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
   
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
   
3. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
   
4. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
   
5. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
   
6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
   
7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
   
8. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
   
9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence.
   
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

The “Ten Points” appear every February 12 in newspaper ads honoring Abraham Lincoln. In fact, these aphorisms are from the pen of Reverend William John Henry Boetcker (1873-1962).

The Ten Most-Wanted Men

1. The man who puts God’s business above any other business.

2. The man who brings his children to church rather than sends them.

3. The man who is willing to be the right example to every boy he meets.

4. The man who thinks more of his Sunday School class than he does his Sunday Sleep.

5. The man who measures his giving by what he has left rather than by the amount he gives.

6. The man who goes to church for Christ’s sake rather than for himself or someone else.

7. The man who has passion to help rather than to be helped.

8. The man who can see his own faults before he sees the faults of others.

9. The man who stands firm in his convictions, based on the Word of God, i.e. a “backbone” Christian.

10. The man who is more concerned about winning souls for Christ than he is about winning honor.

—Western Messenger    ^[1] Tan, P. L. (1996, c1979). Encyclopedia of 7700 illustrations : [a treasury of illustrations, anecdotes, facts and quotations for pastors, teachers and Christian workers]. Garland TX: Bible Communications.

Does the Language I Speak Influence the Way I Think?

by Betty Birner

Is it true that the language I speak shapes my thoughts?

People have been asking this question for hundreds of years. Linguists have been paying special attention to it since the 1940's, when a linguist named Benjamin Lee Whorf studied Hopi, a Native American language spoken in northeastern Arizona. Based on his studies, Whorf claimed that speakers of Hopi and speakers of English see the world differently because of differences in their language.

What we have learned is that the answer to this question is complicated. To some extent, it's a chicken-and-egg question: Are you unable to think about things you don't have words for, or do you lack words for them because you don't think about them? Part of the problem is that there is more involved than just language and thought; there is also culture. Your culture—the traditions, lifestyle, habits, and so on that you pick up from the people you live and interact with—shapes the way you think, and also shapes the way you talk.

There's a language called Guugu Yimithirr (spoken in North Queensland, Australia) that doesn't have words like left and right or front and back. Its speakers always describe locations and directions using the Guugu Yimithirr words for north, south, east, and west. So, they would never say that a boy is standing in front of a house; instead, they'd say he is standing (for example) east of the house. They would also, no doubt, think of the boy as standing east of the house, while a speaker of English would think of him as standing in front of the house. Has our language affected our way of thinking? Or has a difference in cultural habits affected both our thoughts and our language? Most likely, the culture, the thought habits, and the language have all grown up together.

The problem isn't restricted to individual words, either. In English, the form of the verb in a sentence tells whether it describes a past or present event (Mary walks vs. Mary walked). Hopi doesn't require that; instead, the forms of its verbs tell how the speaker came to know the information, so you would use different forms for first-hand knowledge (like I'm hungry) and generally known information (like the sky is blue). Of course, English speakers may choose to include such information (as in, I hear Mary passed the test), but it's not required. Whorf believed that because of this difference, Hopi speakers and English speakers think about events differently, with Hopi speakers focusing more on the source of the information and English speakers focusing more on the time of the event.

Objects are treated differently by the syntax of different languages as well. In English, some nouns (like bean) are 'countable' and can be made plural (beans), while others are 'mass' and can't be made plural (you can have two cups of rice but not two rices). Other languages, like Japanese, don't make this distinction; instead, classifiers like cup of are used for all nouns. Researchers are studying whether this property of the language makes English speakers more aware of the distinction between substances and individual objects.

Here's one more example. Whorf said that because English treats time as being broken up into chunks that can be counted—three days, four minutes, half an hour—English speakers tend to treat time as a group of objects—seconds, minutes, hours—instead of as a smooth unbroken stream. This, he said, makes us think that time is 'stuff' that can be saved, wasted, or lost. The Hopi, he said, don't talk about time in those terms, and so they think about it differently; for them it is a continuous cycle. But this doesn't necessarily mean that our language has forced a certain view of time on us; it could also be that our view of time is reflected in our language, or that the way we deal with time in our culture is reflected in both our language and our thoughts. It seems likely that language, thought, and culture form three strands of a braid, with each one affecting the others.

But people think in language, right?

Much of the time, yes. But not always. You can easily conjure up mental images and sensations that would be hard to describe in words. You can think about the sound of a symphony, the shape of a pear, or the smell of garlic bread. None of these thoughts require language.

So it's possible to think about something even if I don't have a word for it?

Yes. Take colors, for example. There are an infinite number of different colors, and they don't all have their own names. If you have a can of red paint and slowly add blue to it, drop by drop, it will very slowly change to a reddish purple, then purple, then bluish purple. Each drop will change the color very slightly, but there is no one moment when it will stop being red and become purple. The color spectrum is continuous. Our language, however, isn't continuous. Our language makes us break the color spectrum up into 'red', 'purple', and so on.

The Dani of New Guinea have only two basic color terms in their language, one for 'dark' colors (including blue and green) and one for 'light' colors (including yellow and red). Their language breaks up the color spectrum differently from ours. But that doesn't mean they can't see the difference between yellow and red; studies have shown that they can see different colors just as English speakers can.

In Russian, there are two different words for light blue and dark blue. Does this mean that Russian speakers think of these as 'different' colors, while having one word (blue) causes English speakers to think of them as the same? Maybe. Do you think of red and pink as different colors? If so, you may be under the influence of your language; after all, pink is really just light red.

So our language doesn't force us to see only what it gives us words for, but it can affect how we put things into groups. One of the jobs of a child learning language is to figure out which things are called by the same word. After learning that the family's St. Bernard is a dog, the child may see a cow and say dog, thinking that the two things count as the same. Or the child may not realize that the neighbor's chihuahua also counts as a dog. The child has to learn what range of objects is covered by the word dog. We learn to group things that are similar and give them the same label, but what counts as being similar enough to fall under a single label may vary from language to language.

In other words, the influence of language isn't so much on what we can think about, or even what we do think about, but rather on how we break up reality into categories and label them. And in this, our language and our thoughts are probably both greatly influenced by our culture.

But what about all those Eskimo words for snow?

You may have heard it said that Eskimos have dozens (or even hundreds!) of words for snow. People often use this claim to show that the way we view the world and the way we talk about it are closely related. But it's simply not true that Eskimos have an extraordinary number of words for snow. First of all, there isn't just one Eskimo language; the people we refer to as 'Eskimos' speak a variety of languages in the Inuit and Yupik language families. And even if we pick a single dialect of a single language, we won't find much evidence that it has more words for snow than English does. For one thing, there's the question of what counts as a word: In English, we can combine words to get compound forms like snowball and snowflake, and we can add what are called 'inflectional' endings to get snowed and snowing. The Eskimo languages have far more word-forming processes than English does, so a single 'root' word (like snow) could be the basis for hundreds of related words. It hardly seems fair to count each one of these separately. If you only count the roots, you'll find that these languages aren't that different from English. After all, English has lots of words for snow; we've got snow, sleet, slush, frost, blizzard, avalanche, drift, powder, and flurry, and if you're an avid skier, you probably know even more.

So learning a different language won't change the way I think?

Not really, but if the new language is very different from your own, it may give you some insight into another culture and another way of life.

For further information

Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1996. "Snowblind." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: p. 205-213.

Pullum, Geoffrey. 1991. The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.