Subscribe to Print Edition | Thu., November 26, 2009 Kislev 9, 5770 | | Israel Time: 21:56 (EST+7)
Haaretz israel news English
web haaretz.com
Jewish World Haaretz Toolbar
Diplomacy
Defense Opinion National
Print Edition
Car Rental
Focus U.S.A. Strenger than Fiction Business Travel Magazine Week's End Anglo File Books
Share |
Pen Ultimate / Semantic antics
By Michael Handelzalts
Tags: israel news

Every once in a while I become entangled in a verbal argument. I prefer not to get into this predicament, as I hate being entangled in anything. But the main reason for my lack of willingness to argue is that such exchanges are rarely conducted simply for their own sake.

As anyone who has ever argued a case knows, there is a moment when words and phrases stop being just words or phrases. Indeed, the moment you become emotionally involved in an argument - and if you don't, what's the point of arguing? - every utterance carries with it a wealth of meanings that pluck the very strings of the soul, and every string reverberates with other strings. Then you react, not always cognizant of the fact that your interlocutor may not be responding to what you have chosen to say, whether carefully or not, rather to whatever resonates within his or her own soul, whether it's a word, a phrase or a tone of voice.

The point I'm making is that when I do get into arguments I nearly always get to a point where I'm stuck. This occurs after I've responded, usually heatedly, but with an impeccably articulated riposte, when the person with whom I am jousting verbally - of either sex, but more often than not, a woman - reacts with a retort that begins with, "I just said that." It does not really matter what comes after this. It may be a repetition or a rephrasing of what was said (which prompts me to respond by blowing my top big-time). But by then, I've stopped listening. I'm stuck on those four little words. Now I'm trying to understand why they exasperate me so much.
Advertisement
The key word for me among the four is the second, "just." In English - although I have to admit that most of my arguments are conducted in Hebrew - that word is double-edged. When used as an adjective it means "reasonable" or "proper," and derives from the Latin jus, which is also the origin of "justice." That's why, when I'm served a delicious last course after a very good meal, I always say I'm getting my just desserts.

However, when "just" is used as an adverb, as it is in the phrase in question, it means "very recently," "precisely," "barely," "only," "simply" or "merely." But the etymological origin is the same, meaning that what has just been said - not by me, but to me - was also said justly. So at the outset, the subtext of the phrase is actually that whatever was said - and which prompted my strong reaction - was indeed the proper thing to say, and therefore bears repeating.

But when the word "just" functions as an adverb, it conveys two messages: One is that something was only uttered, as opposed to having been done, or expressed through an action of some sort. The person who starts by saying that he/she has "just said" something is thus giving me a sign that he/she is limiting himself/herself to verbal sparring, sparing me, as it were, from a fate much worse than words.

The other message - the one that usually mires me in the argument and propels me to split hairs over meanings - is that the other person is merely repeating his/her previous declaration, which I allegedly and apparently misunderstood or misconstrued; therefore, I should listen to it again, reconsider it, and then I will realize that it does not merit a heated response. And in any case, they were just words, nothing to get excited about.

Having considered carefully all the innuendos and implications of the four-word response, I can now formulate a counterargument. I'd first like to point out that nobody ever "just" says something. The sounds that are made are never "just" words, sentences or arguments. Rather, they embody worlds of meanings, semantic and emotional, cultural and personal, which can never be taken at face value, just as one can never predict with any precision which face the words/sentences/arguments present to the listener, or what value will be associated with them at that particular moment.

I also maintain that - after being presented with the "I just said that" gambit, patiently hearing out my interlocutor yet another time, and listening to perhaps another formulation of his/her response - repetition of the argument does not make it any more valid than it was the first time. If it ruffled my feathers when I first heard it, why should those words seem any more reasonable when I hear them again?

There is a possibility that I will see (or rather hear) reason, however, if I pay more attention to what was said, and do not respond (heatedly) to what I thought was implied by the words when uttered the first time. But at that point, the person who has just retorted "I just said that" should have been paying more attention to what I said when I initially countered his or her comment (but I won't stoop to saying, "I just said that") - and not assume that I didn't get the message that was intended and therefore repeat it.

In other words, if you want to sidetrack me in an argument, you have only to say: "I just said that." Not that I will be left speechless (I rarely am), but I may become flustered and thus incoherent.

Indeed the moment an argument reaches the point when one of the parties says, "I just said that" - everything gets stuck, like a needle in the groove of a vinyl record, with both sides repeating what they said, but without actually saying anything new. Which, I strongly suspect, has just happened in this column.
PROMOTION: Mamilla Hotel
Bookmark to del.icio.us  
 
Settlement freeze
Netanyahu declares 10-month settlement freeze in a bid to restart stalled peace talks.
'Kick a Jew Day'
Florida students suspended for taking part in the 'South Park' TV show inspired day.
Special Offers
Advertisement
Eldan Rent a Car
Israel's leading car rental company offers you a 20% discount on online reservations
Award-Winning 'Obsession'
Watch 'Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West' Online FOR FREE!
Protea Hills
A Retirement Village in Nature Nestled in the Foothills of Jerusalem
Date Local Jewish Singles
Ready to meet your match? Join Jdate today!
Junkyard
Junk a car - get free towing nationwide and a tax-deductible receipt
More Headlines
20:47 IDF foils terror attack along Egypt border
21:35 Barak to IDF: Issue the order to freeze settlement construction
19:32 Two Israelis stabbed near Hebron; attacker shot
21:22 Likud Min.: We are in the hands of a terrible U.S. government
20:18 Report: Lebanon says Hezbollah has right to fight Israel
11:26 Report: Israel will release Barghouti in Shalit deal
21:08 Are Bar Refaeli and Leonardo DiCaprio together again?
22:21 TV ROUND-UP: Netanyahu declares 10-month settlement freeze
21:55 Statistics bureau: Muslim growth rate on the decline in Israel
19:49 Medvedev to European Jewish Congress: Iran threat very real
18:06 Israel wages campaign to win support for settlement freeze
15:18 Report: IDF troops allegedly abused comrade for eight months
18:23 23-year-old Israeli backpacker missing in South America
14:02 Israeli doctors in Romania egg-trafficking probe return home
Home | TV | Print Edition | Diplomacy | Opinion | Arts & Leisure | Sports | Jewish World | Site rules |
| Advert: Recommended Restaurants | Makom: Engaging on Israel
| Search engine marketing
Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, offers real-time breaking news, opinions and analysis from Israel and the Middle East. Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.
© Copyright  Haaretz. All rights reserved