As we discussed last week, in our article on the genetic effect on nomenclature, the reason that things are named identically is no coincidence; it is ingrained in our genetic code. Dr. John Goldstein-Schweiss is well known for drawing the connection between Kevin Bacon, Sir Francis Bacon, and Bacon (explaining why all are so beloved), but has now moved on to a new subject: Moles.
In the English language, there are four types of moles:
- The alternative name for a spy
- The small, furry rodent
- The small, sometimes furry skin spot
- The small, rarely furry measurement of quantity, used in chemistry
(Additionally, if you use the uncommon dialect of English only spoken by dolphins, “mole” can also mean a small, furry starfish)
As you can see, none of these are clearly related. Goldstein-Schweiss, however, theorizes that this naming convention is no coincidence, instead relating directly to our genetic language.
So, to be broken down further, we look into the ancient language, Chromosan, where we find the word “mole” to be made of two, shorter words:
These descriptions do seem to fit fairly well for most of the definitions (even the definition of the dolphin). However, the first one seems to be an outlier. How is it that the others fit, but that one doesn’t? Goldstein-Schweiss has insight:
“We can’t really interpret all Chromosan words entirely; genes speak in a language of high context, with lots of idioms that we may not understand. For example, if we were to say, “Where is my hat?,” using Chromosan contextual language, it would translate more directly to “Moroccan gunslinger quad-core new years eve.” This is a very common expression in Chromosan, it just doesn’t translate well.
Based on this, some scientists are concerned that we could cause great harm by misinterpreting these context cues: Cyanide, for instance, comes from three words:
De: Yum yum
This, of course, is a direct result of high-context speech by sarcastic genes.