Richard wrote:
Robert, the strategy of word clarification which you have chosen, seems
to assume that either (1) there was at some point in history, a clear
agreement (or god-given definition) relating a meaning to the word
'work', which only needs to be recovered, the puzzle being, which point
in history?, or (2) there is a range of operative meanings implied in
everyday speech, which the dictionary only roughly indicates, but which
need sorting out. I suspect you are pursuing the latter - an exercise
which I undertook some years ago.
Thomas:
Unfortunately, the meaning of the word is the mind of the perceiver. It
appears words and meanings get sort of hard wired in the brain/memory system
and for most of us are extremely different to change. Jack Trout and Al
Reis have explored this in an advertising sense in their books dealing with
the marketing concept called "Positioning". They make quite a case for the
idea of getting a brand name into the consumers mind first as it then
becomes very difficult to dislodge. A simple question, "Which is the best
laundry soap?" For most, a name will spring up into awareness. Changing
this automatic response is the most difficult challenge a
marketing/advertising campaign can become involved in and the chances of
success are extremely limited.
Therefore, Trout and Reis usually suggest a new name rather than trying to
change a mind that is already made up. This is called re-positioning and
has a higher chance of success. So, going back to this word "work", which
as I have pointed out is not a noun, but a nominalization of the process
word "working", my advice would be a new word. However, going back to Trout
and Reis for a little more practical wisdom, I find that they advise against
the concept of line extension. For example, it is better to give a new
product a totally new name than it is to try and incorporate parts of the
previous successful brand name. So in your example Richard in trying the
addition of prefixes and suffixes, according to Trout and Reis is usually
not successful. Nor would concepts such a "paid work", which is like
calling a new soap, New and Improved Tide. It is better, if you have a new
soap to have a new name.
Well, after that lengthy bit of ego tripping, you should expect me to have
the answer. I don't. Finding a new name is one of the most challenging
exercises one can engage in because to make a new word work, working, you
must find a new definition to attach to it that conveys the meaning you are
trying to identify. Work has become as you mentioned Richard, so generic
that it covers too much and is therefore vulnerable. However, the challenge
is to decide which of the aspects of work is releveant and to find an
underused word that you can attach your new meaning to.
To give you a small example, I am currently reading a book called
Cosmopolis. Now, this book was referred to on the Internet and I requested
it from the library without really thinking about the meaning. When I got
the book, I tried to decipher what Cosmopolis might mean - to no avail.
However, after reading the book, I now know the author meant the word to
mean there is a relationship between the Greek words cosmo and polis which
was explored in the 16th and 17th centuries by the philosophers of the day.
A new word, complete with meaning has been added to my brain/memory system
and yet if I use that word, for most it will have no meaning as it took time
and effort for the meaning to develop in my mind.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lund
