Pin It

ImageSMART TALK

by Dr. Viva Palaver



COMMUNION: A touchy subject today. Here at the Center for English as a First Language, therapists report a linguistic disorder that may indicate a deeper problem. A compulsion to use a combining prefix with a word that already denotes combining fascinates me as the staff psychologist.

Words like commingle and copartner are obvious cases and may indicate a lack of personal closeness, which is to say a desire for intimacy. Wouldn't a truly secure person say mingle and partner?

Do all medical professionals say conjoined twins, or should we blame the media? These twins are joined at the hip, chest, or wherever, and that says enough.

Or maybe not. Maybe using an improper word for an improper condition makes sense. We can join hands, but perhaps this so-called conjoining is doubly intimate, and potentially deadly to undo, so we want to say it twice for creepy emphasis.

Coconspirator and coequal, rather than conspirator and equal, look as silly as duvet cover and wall sconce. But many don't know what duvet or sconce mean, so perhaps they're just trying to conceal their ignorance with redundancy as overcompensation.

But then we come to communion. My language therapist colleagues know the word is as redundant as prerequisite. After all, a union is a coming together, a joining. The prefix is related to "co-" and also indicates togetherness, so communion means together coming together.

However, I have asked my colleagues to ignore this redundancy. The word is so tightly tied to many beliefs and faiths that to change it might trigger all sorts of psychological problems. After all, I have only so many office hours.

v8i4
Pin It