The beast of double meaning: Why ambiguity in language rattles the overly literal

Recently, in a courthouse near you, a very nice judge said about an accused that ‘the entire projection is that he is anti-war, saying families of army people, civilian in border areas etc., suffer. But some words have double meaning also.’

That last sentence seems to hold an ominous secret – that of [sinister music] the Beast of Double Meaning.

For a significant set of humanity, the double entendre – a fancy way of calling a word or phrase that is open to two interpretations (its fanciness itself susceptible to cause further suspicion) – is a weapon of mass destruction.

To them, language must be as hygienically sterile as an operating room – free of nuance, purged of shades. The mere hint of ambiguity sends them into full existential crisis mode. ‘What did he really mean?’ ‘Was that a jab at us?’

But it’s not just the words themselves – it’s also who says them. If you’re on their list of approved individuals, your wink-nudge phrasing is delightful, sophisticated even. But if they don’t trust you?

Well, then that phrasing morphs into a Machiavellian plot to topple civilisation as one knows it. Could the greeting, ‘How are you?’, for instance, insinuate doubts about one’s well-being?

Double meanings hold trapdoors for the paranoid. Not to suggest that those uncomfortable with layered language suffer from a complicated complex, of course.