English Language A Pain When It Comes To Describing Pain

With more than 988,000 words in the English language (according to the Global Language Monitor), one would be justified in assuming that there would me more than enough to describe any situation, feeling or item.  Yet, in the Inuit, English & Sami languages, there are several hundred words to describe one English word: snow.  For most of us, that one word is sufficient, yet, the further north we go, the greater the need for better descriptors of the white stuff.  Situations often demand better vocabulary options than the language offers.

Recently, my doctor asked me to describe the level of pain that he understood me to be experiencing with a torn shoulder tendon.  “On a scale of one to ten…” he suggested.  I could not rank my experience in that manner.  In fact, his interpretation of pain was radically different from mine.

Pain is one of those words that is completely inadequate  in the English language.

A few years ago, I had a tooth that was not decaying, but had some nerve damage and slowly was loosening.  On a daily basis, I experienced significant discomfort, but it was not a classic toothache.  It did not “ache.”  However, from time to time, in addition to the discomfort, the nerve would be agitated, and a sharp sensation would knife through my jaw.  Still, to me, it was not pain.

In 1986, I sliced sixteen tendons, the nerves, artery and vein in my left arm.  During the healing process, my doctor prescribed high-power painkillers.  I never used one, as I did not feel that I was in severe pain.  My arm throbbed constantly, and, to this day, my hand feels like it is being pinched in a set of vise-grips. However, my wife was experiencing intense headaches, and used up the entire prescription, with only moderate effect.

In 1972, in the last years before my mother died of cancer, the hospital attempted to have her accept her morphine to alleviate the pain of the illness.  She refused, stating that she wanted to wait until the pain was sufficiently severe.  She felt that using the medication too early would make the painkiller less effective as the last stages of the disease ravaged her.  She died, never reaching the stage where she would accept the morphine.

I have had numerous broken bones, none of which gave me pain, yet all of which induced some inconvenience, with unusual stabs reminiscent of being sliced with a utility knife.

Headaches are different from bruises, while the flu or a severe cold is different again, from a basic headache.

A strained muscle is very unpleasant, but is the pain of the strain equivalent to a deep cut?  How about the unpleasant experience of a paper cut?

Pain extends to the emotional, as well.  A relationship breakup is different from the death of a loved one, yet both bring great pain, and heartache.

Back to my doctor’s query.  On a scale of one to ten?  Well, the shoulder hurts, but my arm laceration was more severe.  So, it cannot be a 10.  The chronic nature of my tooth problem was more aggravating than the arm laceration, so down the scale a notch goes the shoulder.  I have worked for weeks with broken bones, not understanding that they were broken, but knowing that they hurt considerably.  Prolonged and fairly intense, they relegate the toothache down the line.  My mother’s experience with the rot of cancer, no doubt, dwarfs the broken bones.  Again, move the shoulder further back in the line.  I have seen the intense pain that the death of my wife’s aunt caused. Obviously, the anguish of the sudden death eclipses the slow evolution of my mother’s.  Once again, my shoulder takes a backward step.

 So, on a scale of one to ten?  Probably a minus one.  Not because the shoulder feels fine.  It feels far from it.  A minus one, because I cannot claim that the shoulder discomfort is painful, and cannot rank it against other, more serious pains. 

We need more words to describe pain, because this torn shoulder is causing me a good deal of inconvenience, and the inconvenience is a pain in the butt.  An 11 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Irresponsible Media and the Toyota Prius Problem

Throughout 2009-10, the public was inundated with media reports of the failings of the Toyota product line; particularly, the Toyota Prius. As individuals came forward to claim problems with random and uncontrolled acceleration of these vehicles, all media piled on to the automaker, reporting specific incidents where the drivers had applied the brakes, to no avail. Television carried footage of a driver being guided by the police to decelerate, without success.
As Internet media, television, radio and print media carried article upon article of failed software systems in this hybrid, almost none of those responsible journalists and reporters offered the distinct possibility that the drivers were at fault, and not the vehicle’s advanced programming.
Toyota claimed that many of these reports were not valid, and that others were the consequence of sticky gas pedals and floor mat problems. The media largely ignored this. When the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that they could not replicate some of this issues on the specific vehicles that the owners had claimed to have occurred, the media gave scant coverage. The story, it appeared, was much better, embellished and unsubstantiated.
The next phase of irresponsibility occurred when the US Congress summoned the head of Toyota to testify regarding the problems, and, instead of waiting for concrete evidence of problems, set about to publicly chastise the auto giant for its problems. In fairness to Congress, much of its public scolding focused on the delays in reporting problems of which Toyota was aware. That, at least, was valid. But senators and congresspersons alike displayed myopic gang mentality by making incorrect assumptions of the cause, even though their own government agency had cautioned against irrational and premature conclusions,
Throughout the spring and summer of 2010, media reports continued to flow – no, gush – on Toyota’s software problems, even though in August the NHTSA reported to Congress that 35 of 58 incidents that they had analysed to date showed no software flaw. At the height of the feeding frenzy of irresponsible journalism, a survey of 40 various media found 149 articles denigrating Toyota for its problems, insinuating that they were aware of a software problem or ignoring Toyota and NHTSA reports that there was not a software issue.
In February, 2011, the final report on the Toyota software failures came in. It agreed with Toyota’s internal examinations, and found absolutely no evidence of software failure relating to the sudden acceleration issue. With 11 million vehicles recalled by Toyota during the frenzy to crucify it, and obvious damage to Toyota’s reputation for reliability, one would assume that a plethora of news articles on the findings would have followed the release of the report. Instead, in the following week, an independent survey of a similar 40 media sources found only 9 articles or items reporting on this conclusive discovery.
It would appear that each of these responsible reporting bodies would have found it both morally and journalistically imperative to contribute to a public awareness effort that mitigated the damage of inaccurate, incorrect and irresponsible journalism. It would appear, though, that the requisite truth and responsibility in dealing with the public that the media demands of others does not extend inward. It is unfortunate that “free speech” allows us to say what we want, but does not require us to amend what we later find to be wrong. Perhaps, free speech needs to be redefined to be the freedom to speak accurately and fully, not in a way that serves our own purposes.