From A Certain Point Of View

One of my favorite lines from the classic film, “Star Wars”, uttered by the grandmaster himself, Obi-Wan Konobi. Such an influence he had on me with his anecdotes and ‘points-of-view’, like an old Chinese sage, high on a mountaintop. But let’s not get overly other-worldly, hypothetically speaking. Today’s English is so far removed from the old days, it’s a daily challenge to keep up with the latest terms. Most new ones are slang, nicknames created by the youth of today to differentiate from what is used in daily conversation and correspondence. And to keep others from understanding. You know, for the same reason “pig latin” was used so many years ago.

Slang evolves almost immediately, and what one culture calls something, is called something else in another culture. Keeping track of it all is useless and pointless, to a certain degree. “To a certain degree” is the sister term to “From a certain point of view”. A LaFeverism, for sure, as LaFever sees it.

So I thought it would be interesting to match up established terms that mean the same, for all intent and purposes, but somehow, after a little thought, and looking at it “from a certain point of view”, are really different, albeit slightly, and realizing that, yes, there really is a difference, no what the “point of view”.

attorney vs. lawyer

Good one. On the surface, it appears class distinctions are again responsible. Maybe so, but there’s more to it than meets the eye…from a certain point of view, of course. So let’s skim the surface before diving deeper. Pretty cut-&-dry, wouldn’t you say, when comparing the two using class distinctions. ‘Attorney’ obviously used by the upper-class and ‘lawyer’ relegated to middle- to lower class. First things first, you have to remember – it’s not an elitist thing, although some will obviously exhibit its usage in an elitist way. It’s simply based on education. In the old days, upper-class were educated, middle-class to a certain degree, and lower-class, generally speaking, more often not. So upper-class used terms they were taught in school, proper English. And those without education, created alternate terms, more commonly known as slang, but considering the uneducated were in the majority, those terms became part of the English language, and its usage became permanent within a short period of time.

See for yourself. While ‘attorney’ AND ‘lawyer’ can both be found in a dictionary, you won’t find ‘lawyer’ in a phone book. Dictionaries contain everything, for definitive and descriptive purposes, but as it pertains to usage, you can always rely on the ever-faithful phone book to set the record straight. The attorney section fills numerous pages, and rightfully so, as it is the official term for the service they provide. Check under ‘L’ for ‘lawyer’ and what do you find? “See attorney”. That, in and of itself, distinguishes the two as a matter of proper English and slang. At first.

Below the surface reveals meanings beyond that of ‘proper vs. slang’ and upper- vs lower/middle-class usage, although that is still prevalent today. But there is still another level of usage that transcends the class distinction. And that is the personal level.

All lawyers are attorneys, but not all attorneys are lawyers…from a certain point of view. If you need legal counsel, what do you say? “I need a lawyer”, not “an attorney”. So you look for one in the “attorney” section. After the selection is made, this attorney, who you’ve never met before, is now your “lawyer”. Still, the upper-class will always want to speak with their “attorney”. But if you think about it, here’s where it gets tricky. If you have a lawyer on retainer, you’ll still need to call your “lawyer”, who’s already on board, as “lawyers” are to the rest of us, unless you’re rich, in which case, it’s an “attorney”. I would only refer to counsel as a “lawyer”, even if he was already on board, as a retainer. Of course, his profession is “attorney-at-law”.

Helpful hint: No matter whether you’re rich or poor, upper-, middle- or lower-class, always refer to your “lawyer” as your “attorney”. Nothing scares anyone more than hearing “I’ll have to consult my “attorney”. If you say “lawyer”, it means you don’t have one.

carpet vs. rug

This has always been one of my favorites. What exactly is the difference between a carpet and a rug? Depends on who you ask. And where they live, unfortunately. My research has determined this to be a matter of class distinction, which explains why I say unfortunately. Not culturally-based mind you, but more education-related.

‘Rug’, it seems, came after the term, ‘carpet’. Where, I have yet to discover, but at this point, it’s obvious. ‘Rug’, by the very nature of it’s sound, it’s one-syllable utterance, is obviously slang for carpet. The difference had to be established somewhere. LaFever has a theory.

Carpets existed centuries ago. Obviously, the word itself, ‘carpet’, meant something. A floor covering, according to the dictionary. The term looks like a European or Middle Eastern spelling. It could have been pronounced, “carpeigh” for all we know. Very popular in the Middle- and Far-East cultures. Used to cover floorings. Hardwood floors are nice, but back then, hardwood floors were relegated to the upper-class. Concrete and dirt were more common as flooring. These ‘carpets’ were created, not for luxurious reasons at first, but as a matter of practicality. A necessity to keep the temperature up indoors, and for a softer platform. It caught on with the elite, who then incorporated patterns to match their palace décor.

Somewhere along the way, most likely, by visitors from other lands, gave it a nickname. LaFever is on top of it. LaFever guesses it was a European who came up with the term ‘rug’ for the carpet. Not sure when. After all, the famed ‘flying carpet’ was a rug. And here’s why, as it relates to the 20/21st century.

In a nutshell, anything that covers a portion of the floorspace in any given room, is considered a rug. If it covers the whole floorspace, it is considered carpet. Thus, wall-to-wal carpeting is actually a redundancy. If it’s carpeting, it covers the whole floorspace, from wall to wall. When one says they are carpeting the area, they are covering the whole area. Alongside that theory is the one where a rug is thrown down, and lays temporarily for an indefinite period of time. The carpet, on the other hand, is tacked down, to remain permanently.

There are exceptions, though. Today, it has become not just a matter of class distinction, but that of how a person perceives themselves. Example: someone from a bad neighborhood makes a concerted effort to advance, achieving a college degree, and securing a medium- to high-paying job, beating the odds in the process. Congratulations. In his first apartment, you’ll find wall-to-wall carpeting in every room. He’s happy. Vacuuming is easier than sweeping. But when friends come over, what does he say? “Glad you can make it. Don’t spill anything on the rug.” Conversely, you attend a dinner party at local celebrity’s mansion. To upper-class, wall-to-wall is tacky and beneath them. They want their expensive hardwood floors highlighted by imported rugs from the Far East. What do they say? “Glad you can make it. Don’t spill anything on the carpets.”

There you have it. Class distinction in action. But not always between the upper-class and lower- to middle-class. Much of it has to do with how one is perceived. Of course, LaFever believes it sometimes has to do with the rug/carpet itself. I found a ‘rug’ in the neighborhood that was still in good condition. I live in an upper-class neighborhood in a lower-class building. Don’t ask. I’m covered by rent control. Anyway, this rug was used, an I referred to it as a rug. After my cat decided his box was not good enough, he let loose a few times along the border (#1, of course). It stained the rug, and stained the hardwood below it. Embarrassing to say the least. I dumped the carpet after a neighbor moved out and left his rug behind. Cool contemporary pattern, but still a rug, as it was used.
Two years later, a linen store in the neighborhood was closing, and all rugs were %50 off. I grabbed one the same size as my others and replaced the used one. Turns out, this new one was thick and plush, and a pattern designed by Jerry Garcia himself. This was special. Mr. Garcia had become famous for his artwork outside of his music with The Grateful Dead. He did, ties, too, and sold well. Now, I don’t eat over it, and vacuum it regularly. Cat loves it (not the same cat, of course).

I held a small gathering one weekend. Wrestling fans. The same sloppy types you invite over for the Super Bowl or Daytona 500. The first thing I said? “Don’t spill anything on the carpet.”

Ah. This wasn’t about class distinction. It was about old vs. new. You can spill on the rug, but not on the carpet. Now there’s a revelation for you: a carpet becomes a rug when it becomes used. Well, how do you determine at which point it becomes used? If you drop something on it, and it can be picked up, it’s still a carpet. Food or liquid, on the other hand, is the deciding factor. If you can get it up of the carpet, or are able to remove the stain successfully, it’s still a carpet. If it stains, you’ve got yourself a rug.

Helpful hint: I learned this in the dojo. Aikido, to be exact. One of the first things taught – scooting across the canvas mat. Scrapes the toes of all beginners, causing bloodspots on the mat. The sensei handed me hydrogen peroxide and a cloth. I dabbed the cloth and began to rub, at which time he stopped me. He pointed to the blood stain I had just expanded by rubbing. He filled the cap and dropped drops onto the stains and laid the cloth over it. The blood from the mat had risen to the surface with the peroxide and the cloth soaked it up. Stain gone.

rug vs.toupee

Ha! You couldn’t ask for a better segue. Although there’s another one coming up later. Here’s another class-distinction example, with a double-meaning, to boot. “Rug”, in this case, is obviously the slang for a “toupee”, the male version of a wig. The “rug” in this case, and in the previous example in relation to carpet, connotes the same reference as ‘slang’. “Toupee” is the technical definition of the artificial hair replacement, with “rug” being the ‘slang’ nickname. Almost resembles a street term, if you ask me. Although “rug” as a slang for “carpet” doesn’t have the same semblance. Thank God. For some reason, and probably due to the amount of square footage covered, wall-to-wall-carpeted homes and apartments tend to cost more than hardwood-covered dwellings, with “rugs”.

doctor vs. surgeon

Again, one and the same. This pair follows the same pattern as that of attorney/lawyer, and based more in usage in context than as a difference in class distinction, at least not as much as the attorney/lawyer duo. The term “doctor” would be considered more slang in respect to definition. But I’m here to show you the difference. Something wrong? You should see a “doctor”. You don’t hear the suggestion to see a “surgeon”. When you go to the hospital, you’re going to the “doctor’s” office, not the “surgeon’s” office. The “MD” as a suffix to the “doctor’s” name is “Medical Doctor”.

When looking at the root of the word, “surgeons” perform surgery. But so do doctors. So all doctors perform as surgeons, and all surgeons perform as doctors. Enter the attorney/lawyer theory. “Doctor” is personal, while “surgeon” is general. Doctors have patients. Surgeons have patients. So what’s the difference? Easy. If your “doctor” performs surgery on you, he’s still your “doctor”. But if your “doctor” refers you to someone else for a procedure he’s not trained for, or for something of a specialist nature, that someone else is a “surgeon”. “Surgeons” also have patients, and are, of course, referred to as their “doctors”. The exception, “surgeons” who are so specialized in their skills, they only operate on other “doctor’s” patients. They have none of their own. So they are, for the most part, strictly “surgeons”, and do not act as “doctors” in the same vein “doctors” do. I think I’m gonna be sick.

mouse vs. rat

Whoa, the hits just keep coming and coming. The ‘domesticated’ mouse vs. the wild ‘rat’. How did this happen. I mean, think about it. How is it that a mouse always seems to be white, but a rat is always a combo of gray to black? Ever own a pet rat? No. Maybe it’s a term of endearment. If it’s a pet, it’s a mouse, but most likely, white. Yet, for scientific purposes, all those being used as test subjects, are referred to as rats. Even though the majority of them are white. LaFever believes they are mice, domesticated in the lab for scientific purposes. Yet, they are called rats, to remove the emotional attachment we would assume if they were called mice, during the course of experimentation. That’s not fair.

LaFever believes they are not one and the same, but cousins. DNA may be similar, but the differences are obvious. Size is one obvious factor. Personality is another, albeit different, simply based on environmental effects, dictating that difference out of sheer necessity to survive. But considering the DNA being almost an exact duplicate, and out of respect for the species, shouldn’t scientists use actual rats for their experiments? Not breeding the mice, making it easier for them to multiply their test subjects, but actually go out and hunt down the rats that dwell in the city’s underworld?

Sorry. The animal in LaFever escaped for a brief moment. But still, if you had a mouse for a pet, and someone came over, who was not particularly fond of mice, what would be their first response? “A pet rat? Ewwhewww.” Not fair. In all fairness, the mouse and rat, however close in DNA, appearance, and personality, are part of a larger species in general, even if they are considered distant cousins. Rodents. You’d be surprised to learn just how many and which pets fall into this category.

Obviously, mice and rats. Then there’s hamsters and guinea pigs. I’ve even heard rabbits referred to as rodents. Makes sense. As much as I’d like to disagree. But if that’s so, aren’t beavers considered a rodent? They certainly look and act like one. A way distant cousin, if so. And what about the bat? A flying rat as most refer to it. But still a mammal.

Makes you wonder? Does a rat domesticated, become a mouse? If dogs evolved from wolves, over time, shouldn’t the same be said for rats? How did their white hides become? If you set a mouse free, and learns to survive in the wild, does it become a rat? I suppose we’ll never know. RATS.

Funny how these differences-in-terms differ in reference (say that 3 times fast) to humans and animals. With humans, it’s the occupation, while, with animals, it’s the species. Interesting to note: with the human examples, they’re closer to being the same, differing in usage. With animals, on the other hand, the species appear to be the same, but only in appearance, and in some cases, behavior. They are, in fact different. Here are just a few of the examples of species that are visibly the same, but different by DNA.

alligator vs. crocodile

Here’s an example of not wanting to know the difference. After all, if you really wanted to know, wouldn’t you have to get up close and personal? Not yours truly. But there are subtleties. One is geographical, which makes it easy. Alligators and crocodiles are native to different countries, if anything, because of the environment. I’m not a zoologist, but thanks to the Net, and the Discovery and National Geographic channels on cable, ‘you could learn a lot from a dummy’. Whatever differences between the two, however slight, one visible difference should be ever so obvious, with hopefully just enough time to get the hell outta there. And we’ve all heard it before.

The alligator is the bigger and heavier of the two, with a wide, round snout, right up front. The crocodile, on the other hand, is smaller, and more lithe and agile, with a pointed snout. Sorta like the Siamese breed of cat. If it has a triangular head, it is a pure breed. Round, a hybrid mix. Who hasn’t seen “Crocodile Dundee”? Remember the seen where the lady reporter was attacked at the water’s edge, by a crocodile grabbing her water bottle? And did anyone wonder why she didn’t just lean forward and let go of the water bottle? Never mind. The term “crocodile” sounds more ferocious, and also rolled off the tongue better as far as titles go. But in reality, the next time you watch it, take a closer look at the reptile. It’s an alligator. Call it what you will, let’s just say, “I’ll take your word for it”.

dolphin vs. porpoise

Too close to call in my book. But still, genetics differ. Evidently, it’s in the snout, as far as appearances go, akin to that of the alligator/crocodile model. “Bottlenose” is often heard as the difference, with the “dolphin” having the bottlenose, or, elongated snout. The “porpoise” has the shorter, blunt snout. “Porpoise”? What is that? And what “porpoise” does it serve? Rhymes with “tortoise”. And perfect segue to our next example…

turtle vs. tortoise

I know “tortoise” should come first, but, come on. Everyone knows a “turtle”. “Tortoise”? What is that? Sounds like a color. No wait. That’s turquoise. Sorry. The difference for these two is easy. And obvious. A “turtle” is a land-dweller, hence the paws, or claws (claws on a turtle?). The “tortoise” is a sea-faring creature. In place of arms and legs, are huge fins. I’m sure age has something to do with it, but arms/legs vs. fins? I’m sold. While we’re on the subject of turtles (the segues are obvious, aren’t they)…
hare vs. rabbit

This one follows the same criteria as the mouse/rat scenario. One is wild, mostly (hare), while the other is primarily domesticated (rabbit). For the most part. There are wild rabbits out there, but no domesticated hares. Duh. Size is an issue, too. “Hares” are larger in size, strength and speed over their “rabbit” counterparts. Has anyone ever pulled a hare out of a hat?

donkey vs. mule

Even worse. I can’t tell. Still, there is a difference. The “donkey” is commonly referred to as “ass”. Which is why the dictionary also defines the “donkey” as a ‘stupid person’. Technically, the donkey is a pure breed, while the mule is a hybrid, as a result of the pairing of the donkey and horse. Let’s play ‘pin the tail on the mule. Huh??

cougar vs. mountain lion

Much ado about nothing. “Mountain lion” is obviously slang for “cougar” based on visual similarities, and that’s it. For the same reason tigers rule the jungle and “lions” rule the ‘serengeti’, or plains, cougars rule the mountain regions. Ain’t no “lions” found in the mountains. Period. And I don’t want to find out, even though I’m a ‘cat’ sign.


Okay. I’ve made my point. No doubt there are many more. But you can spend only so much time in the animal kingdom before running the risk of being hunted as food. Next up…

film vs. movie

Good one. Back to class distinctions. “Let’s go to the movies.” “How about taking in a film.” Class differences are obvious, but upon further observation, it becomes cause and effect. The class distinctions are a result of the subject itself. “Movies” are, for the most part, commercial in nature, catering to the general public, and released in mass production. “Films”, on the other hand, are produced for a niche audience, and released in independent fashion, at smaller, single-screen arthouses, hence the “elite” nature of its patrons. “Films” also enjoy a stature of old, movies made decades ago, are referred to as “films”. Storylines dealing with a dark side, outside of the norm of that day, are considered “film noir”. Movies considered classic, by critic and/or huge box office success, are relegated to “film” stature. And lest we forget those movies that win Oscars for ‘Best Picture”. “Films”, now, and forevermore. Of course, there are times I’ve seen been film on teeth.

pants vs. trousers

Another variation of the ‘slang vs. technical’ term, with “pants” being the slang. Same thing. A class distinction example. “Trousers” certainly does evoke an ‘upper-class’ version of the clothing item. For me, “trousers” seem to belong to a set, as it were, as in, ‘shirt and trousers’. Whereas, “pants” are sold separately, like batteries. “I need a new pair of pants.” Sound familiar?

jail vs. prison

Uh, I think if you don’t know the difference, you don’t want to know. For those who are familiar with either, or both, there is a difference. To those who don’t, both are used interchangeably. And fools they are, but only to those with firsthand experience. Personally, I’ve been to jail, but not to prison. Jail is an overnight stay. Or thirty days. Sometimes up to a year. But only in County Lockup. State and Federal correctional facilities are referred to as “prisons”. Wouldn’t you agree “prison” has a more ‘hardcore’ ring to it than that of a “jail”? I do. For the record, I’ve been to jail four times. Not to worry. All four were overnight stays. All four times the cases were dropped for insufficient evidence, or no desire to prosecute due to the minor aspect of the charges.

I discovered an interesting anecdote as it was laid upon me in a most enlightening way, most likely at a time when it was most dark, no doubt. When dealing with the justice system, in regards to arrests and convictions, law enforcement handle the arrests while judges handle the convictions. This is why a peace officer’s first question is always, “Have you ever been arrested?”, and a judge’s first question is always, “Have you ever been convicted?”. Why is that?

Personally, I think they are asked for two different reasons. Police ask when they already know the answer, after discovering the truth after they’ve run your name/license. They ask for the same reason parents and your boss ask, and after they already know the truth: to determine if you’re going to tell the truth to all questions thereafter. A judge, on the other hand, asks, well, hell, I don’t know, but I think it’s more a matter of, time. If you’ve been there before, “this won’t take long”. If not, “someone get me a cup of coffee, or a Snickers, we’re not going anywhere for awhile”.
I could be wrong. Then again, I’m not in any hurry to find out. Although if I’m ever in a position to answer the officer’s question if I’ve ever been arrested, I’m saying no. And when he says my record says I have been, “Uh, then why did you ask?” Probably more trouble than it’s worth, but just once.

floppy disk vs. hard disk

And now, last, but certainly not least, my favorite. And a continuing disagreement with IT personnel, the world over. Tunnel vision, obviously. Here’s the scoop: we start with the basics, come in midway, in reference to terms, and backtrack to prove the point. And when it’s over, you, too, will understand, even if it is simply, “from a certain point of view”.

We start with the computer. Assumed as one component, but in reality, three, as all three are interdependent. They are: the CPU, or ‘computer processing unit’, where all information is stored and processed. Next is the monitor, where this is information is viewed. Lastly, the keyboard, the tool used to enter said information into the computer. For all intent and purposes, the monitor and keyboard are simply tools, with no valued importance whatsoever in relation to the information, calculations and computations performed by the CPU, commonly referred to as the ‘hard drive’, or ‘brains’ of the overall unit.

The difference here when referring to floppy vs. hard disks is in its ability and performance regarding storage of information. It starts with ‘internal’ vs. external’. If you save a file to your hard drive, you are saving it to the ‘C’ drive. This is the CPU unit’s internal drive. Then there is the ‘A’ Drive. Why the internal drive was named ‘C’ first and not ‘A’, is beyond me. But, then again, we’re dealing with tech nerds here. So the ‘A’ Drive is considered an external drive, where you save files to a disk that is inserted into the slot on the front of the CPU unit, aka, the hard drive.

Here’s where it gets tricky, but only if you’ve been exposed to this from the beginning, and the reason IT has reluctantly resolved to accept the change. In the beginning, the ‘A’ Drive accepted a disk that was 5” in diameter, and referred to as a “floppy disk”. For good reason. It was constructed of a soft plastic that would bend. You could shake it and it would ‘flop’ back and forth, hence the term, ‘floppy’. Over time, as technology advanced, the ‘floppy’ gave way to a smaller, more sturdy disk made of hard plastic, measuring 3” in diameter.

Because of the size and dexterity difference of the two, IT personnel continued to refer to this disk as a ‘floppy’, since calling it a ‘hard disk’ would create confusion in the marketplace in reference to the ‘hard drive’. Didn’t matter. The ‘floppy’ disk was no more. And the majority of us referred to the new ‘hard disk’ as such, knowing full well the difference between that, and the ‘hard drive’. IT personnel continued to refer to it as a ‘floppy’, no matter how much we pointed out the difference. The ‘hard disk’ goes into to the ‘A’ Drive. The ‘hard drive’ was the ‘C’ Drive. What’s so difficult about that.

pros vs. joes

Psych. This is a reality series on television and has nothing to do with this paper.