I've Stopped Using "understand"

[jimwell]

I enjoy learning and understanding various things, so the word "understand" is a very important and powerful word to me. I want to ensure I impose my style onto this word or the idea it refers to.

I've always been curious why it's "understand" and not "undersit" or "overstand", so I consulted Copilot.

Question 1: Why understand and not undersit? Because of that, I hesitate to use the word. I prefer comprehend. 

Copilot's Answer:

Quote

The word understand comes from the Old English verb understandan, which literally combines under and stand. Historically, it conveyed the sense of "standing under" something—that is, having a solid basis or support for an idea. The act of "standing under" an idea metaphorically suggests holding it up for scrutiny or grasping it from below, which aligns with the concept of sound comprehension. In contrast, undersit isn’t part of that linguistic tradition; replacing “stand” with “sit” would lose that historical imagery and isn’t supported by the language's etymological evolution.

While it's fun to consider more literal reinterpretations, such creative formulations rarely catch on if they disrupt established metaphors. The imagery of "standing" contributes to the idea of supporting or holding up a notion, whereas "sitting" doesn’t naturally evoke that same sense of foundational support. That’s why, even though you might favor comprehend—which clearly captures the essence of grasping or fully understanding an idea—understand remains the conventional choice in English.

Would you like to delve deeper into how the evolution of other everyday words similarly diverges from their literal parts, or explore additional alternatives that might resonate even more with your stylistic preferences?

 

Question 2: compare comprehend, understand, and grasp

Copilot's Answer:

Quote

Let's break down the nuances of comprehend, understand, and grasp. Although these words overlap in meaning, each carries its own subtle emphasis:

Comprehend

Definition & Nuance: Comprehend implies a complete, thorough mental integration of information. It connotes not just a basic recognition, but an in-depth, all-encompassing take-in of ideas, details, and contexts. When you comprehend something, you've fully taken it in and can often explain or elaborate on it in your own words.

Usage Example: "After revisiting the chapter several times, I finally comprehended the theory behind quantum mechanics."

Understand

Definition & Nuance: Understand is a broader, everyday term that means to correctly interpret or make sense of something. While it can indicate deep insight, it’s also commonly used for lighter or more immediate cognitive acknowledgment. It encapsulates both a basic grasp of ideas and a more profound appreciation of subtleties.

Usage Example: "I understand why you decided to change your plans."

Note: In casual conversation, many native speakers use understand and comprehend interchangeably. However, understand can sometimes feel less formal or complete than comprehend.

Grasp

Definition & Nuance: Grasp originally has a physical connotation—literally to seize or hold—but it is also frequently applied in a cognitive sense. When you grasp an idea, you quickly catch or snag the essence or the main point. This may be an initial moment of recognition, which can serve as a stepping stone toward a deeper understanding.

Usage Example: "I quickly grasped the key concept during the lecture."

Note: While effective at conveying a swift mental "capture" of an idea, grasp might imply a more surface-level or initial phase than the full integration suggested by comprehend.

 

Question 3: If I use only grasp and comprehend and never understand, how would native speakers of English perceive it?

Copilot's Answer:

Quote

Using only "grasp" and "comprehend" in place of the ubiquitous "understand" would likely come off as a deliberate stylistic choice—one that leans toward formality or even a bit of academic flair. Here’s what you might expect:

Perceived Formality: "Understand" is the neutral, everyday term that most native speakers use without a second thought. Relying solely on "grasp" and "comprehend" can give the impression that you're using a higher register, which might seem unnecessary or pretentious in casual contexts.

Nuanced Meanings: While "grasp" often conveys that you’ve quickly caught the main point of something, and "comprehend" implies a thorough, in-depth process of taking something in, "understand" covers a wide range of situations from the simplest to the most complex. Excluding it can sometimes make your language sound narrowly academic, as if you’re intentionally emphasizing certain shades of meaning even when a plain "understand" would feel more natural.

Social Reception: In everyday conversation, native speakers might initially notice the unusual choice of words. Some may appreciate the richer vocabulary, especially in discussions that call for precision, while others might find it a bit affected or overly formal if used in casual chatter. Over time, if it’s clear that this is your chosen style, most listeners will eventually adapt, though occasional conversations might feel a bit stilted compared to the common vernacular.

In summary, if you opt to use only "grasp" for lighter or initial understanding and "comprehend" for deeper, heavier ideas, native speakers may perceive you as speaking in a more formal or academic tone—even when the situation calls for simpler language. This isn’t necessarily negative; it just sets a specific voice that might be particularly effective in written or scholarly communication, while in casual speech it might seem a bit unconventional.

Would you like to explore more alternatives or discuss strategies for when to deliberately switch registers to suit your audience?

I thank my Divine Essence for imagining Copilot into existence.

[Reciprocality]

We understand the idea, but we don't understand whether it applies.

 

I understand that you feel that way, but I do not understand what you feel. I understand that seven horses on one ladder will make it break, but I don't understand that the ladder will break, what if it don't, could I understand something when that understanding is wrong?

The general rule is this: We understand what we do not need to judge/determine, but among everything we must first judge there is nothing to understand.

[Yimpa]

 

Edited Wednesday at 04:01 AM by Yimpa

[jimwell]

15 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

The general rule is this: We understand what we do not need to judge/determine, but among everything we must first judge there is nothing to understand.

Hmmm... You really think so? 

I think there are many things to comprehend in this world, and that's one of the reasons life is exciting - various things to explore and comprehend!

 

14 hours ago, Yimpa said:

 

 

 

I'm surprised somebody else has thought about this topic. He's good at explaining, but I trust Copilot's explanation more.

[LastThursday]

Understand is a perfectly good word and pretty normal. There's also "get it" and "grok". There's also the moment of suddenly understanding something: "penny dropped", "hit me", "realisation", "make sense", "become clear".  Use all of them, why not?!

Edited Wednesday at 08:45 PM by LastThursday

[Reciprocality]

2 hours ago, jimwell said:

Hmmm... You really think so? 

I think there are many things to comprehend in this world, and that's one of the reasons life is exciting - various things to explore and comprehend!

 

@jimwell But when we comprehend does the comprehension go from the external to the internal or from the internal to the external (it is a given that the content in the comprehension goes from the external to the internal, but the comprehension is surely not merely content)? Overall (over long timeframes) it may be bidirectional but in that moment of comprehension I would suggest it goes only one way, where the comprehension is a simulation of internal models to predict the outcome of the external system, infer its causes or construct its structure. 

Are these three modes of comprehensions infallible? If so, how? And if not, is it accurate to state that you have comprehended something if the comprehension is false? And if so, what makes a comprehension different from a judgement? And if not, then comprehensions are indeed infallible. 

But if comprehensions are infallible then how do you know in the particular case whether the idea is a comprehension and not merely a judgement? Are there clear general criterions to determine whether the external situation is comprehended, can you know that you have comprehended without criterions? Can the difference between a judgement and a comprehension be meaningful without also being subject to criterions that corresponds with the particular cases that instantiate them, and if not how can meaning be created purely semantically or abstractly, and if it can how does it by-pass the problems of self-reference and paradox?