noproblem

No problem

by Bob on June 26, 2007

Someone says "Thank you" to another and he replied "No problem".

Well, that's saying something about the viral nature of language (a la William S. Burroughs) and its morphing in usage in society and common parlance despite what is considered proper usage and dictionary pronouncements of usage.

There are some times when answering "No problem" is a reasonable reply.

"Can you fix it?" or "Sorry you had to go through so much trouble" or "Oops, I stepped on your foot", etc..

But it's not a good answer for "Thank you". The proper and polite reply is "You're welcome".

When we reply "No problem" to "Thank you" as we know with "not"s in language and the Knots of Nots, as a corollary to Dr. R.D. Laing's book on psychology, "Knots", we see that one assumes that there is a problem which was avoided. That's a pretty good reflection of society today. Successfully avoiding a problem rather than making someone feel welcome. Language may be a virus and mutatable and uncontrollable, as William S. Burroughs wrote, and Laurie Anderson later sang, but it is very revealing as to societal attitudes. We may also look at language this way in relation to Memetic theory.

This may all be making a proverbial mountain out of a mole hill, but I think it is revealing and also, yes, of course, no problem.

Language can become a habit for which we have no awareness and no thought involved, as with automatic responses. These are very empty emotionally and are quite bland. Perhaps "No problem" has become one of these automatic, not thought out, responses, devoid of intended emotion. Of course one does run into the linguistic proverbial "Chicken and Egg" problem. I vote for the chicken, just on general principles. But although I jest, I digress. So we rewind to some fun scholarship.

Charles Darwin chimed in on this conundrum when he wrote in his "Descent of Man", therein quoting the German Orientalist and philologist, Max Muller on the tension and battle between words and grammatical forms:

* * *

The formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel. (67. See the very interesting parallelism between the development of species and languages, given by Sir C. Lyell in 'The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man,' 1863, chap. xxiii.) But we can trace the formation of many words further back than that of species, for we can perceive how they actually arose from the imitation of various sounds. We find in distinct languages striking homologies due to community of descent, and analogies due to a similar process of formation. The manner in which certain letters or sounds change when others change is very like correlated growth. We have in both cases the reduplication of parts, the effects of long-continued use, and so forth. The frequent presence of rudiments, both in languages and in species, is still more remarkable. The letter m in the word am, means I; so that in the expression I am, a superfluous and useless rudiment has been retained. In the spelling also of words, letters often remain as the rudiments of ancient forms of pronunciation. Languages, like organic beings, can be classed in groups under groups; and they can be classed either naturally according to descent, or artificially by other characters. Dominant languages and dialects spread widely, and lead to the gradual extinction of other tongues. A language, like a species, when once extinct, never, as Sir C. Lyell remarks, reappears. The same language never has two birth-places. Distinct languages may be crossed or blended together. (68. See remarks to this effect by the Rev. F.W. Farrar, in an interesting article, entitled 'Philology and Darwinism,' in 'Nature,' March 24th, 1870, p. 528.) We see variability in every tongue, and new words are continually cropping up; but as there is a limit to the powers of the memory, single words, like whole languages, gradually become extinct. As Max Muller (69. 'Nature,' January 6th, 1870, p. 257.) has well remarked:--"A struggle for life is constantly going on amongst the words and grammatical forms in each language. The better, the shorter, the easier forms are constantly gaining the upper hand, and they owe their success to their own inherent virtue." To these more important causes of the survival of certain words, mere novelty and fashion may be added; for there is in the mind of man a strong love for slight changes in all things. The survival or preservation of certain favoured words in the struggle for existence is natural selection.

--- Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter III, Mental Powers, pp.90-91.

* * *

All right, so clearly I like what Darwin, via Muller, wrote here.

When I lived in Paris, France, the French would answer to "Merci" (Thank You) with "Pas de problem" (no problem) which may have started it all. There had been another French reply to "Merci" when I was young: "il n'y a pas de quoi" (sort of like "It's nothing"). Now that's a whole subconscious Existentialist line of thinking, and for that we would have to go to Sartre.

And we can't forget the beautiful ballad and poem "La Belle Dame Sans Merci" by John Keats. A beautiful lady without pity. Sounds all too familiar.

So, as Burroughs wrote "Language is a virus from outer space". We might as well face it. Or head out to planet Mars. But there's likely already a McDonalds and Starbucks there. And we're all welcome. Even though we are indeed told that "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus". No problem.