The English language is extremely rich, since it is an expression of the thought of human beings, which obviously varies from completely irrational (mentals, retards, and etc.) to almost absolutely ordered and clear (scientists, some award-winning writers, and etc.).
It is, with no doubts, one of the most objective languages on earth, if not the most objective: An American creates a service center where they wash cars and he calls that a carwash.
We know, the same would rarely happen in last world countries: One of the things that seems to guarantee the inferiority of certain peoples and places is obviously the absence of objectivity in their communicational processes.
There is a joke that goes around in Brazil about the Portuguese: They say that a building is called edifício in Portugal because they started building the first one, and then started putting house over house and, when they thought it was not possible to add one more house, they said oh, it is difficult, isn't it? in Portuguese (ô, é difícil, hein?).
Truth however is far from that: Edifício is a word that relates to nothing known in Portuguese.
You go to the English language, however, and things make sense again (more sense!): We build it, therefore it is a building.
Of course one could say that we also build houses and yet we call them houses, not buildings.
As we said, it is about having more sense, not being absolutely logical.
Anyway, the point we wanted to get to is that words are tokens of discourse and the communicability factor that we give them is directly proportional to the number of words that accompany the token and to the correlation range we reach with those.
The sigmatoid disloyalty acquires at least two possible meanings in our writings in (Case Study no. 4): one that is attached to the usual context, like someone backstabbed us, and another that is attached to competition.
We may be disloyal with a friend because we did not defend them blindly, for instance, in a court.
Suppose we knew they had killed someone.
They asked us to say we believed they were innocent.
We stick to morality and we say they were guilty instead, this at the court.
We have then been disloyal with our friend (perhaps a friend from many years).
We have however been loyal in the competition for life with the deceased, for instance.
We have also been loyal to the declared values of our society (if we live in democracy, those are the declared values of the vast majority).
If Mary ever denounced Arthur to the ethical organs, Mary would be displaying loyalty to the professional category she belongs to, Interpreters, and to the ethical organ. She would also be defending her rights and acting in coherence with her (survival) needs.
Notwithstanding, she would be displaying disloyalty to Arthur in terms of friendship or fellowship.
If we want to have an actual professional class, we obviously would have to denounce. Only clean classes can be really strong, since lies fall to land quite easily.
On the other hand, Mary would be inside of a situation of dilemma if she were, for instance, a personal friend of Arthur.
She could also think that it is not a beautiful thing to do taking the job from someone else or making that person be badly regarded, what then represents disloyalty with her own moral paradigms.
All in all, loyalty is not an absolute thing: Like almost everything in human kind, if not everything, has to do with context, with situations.
Please help us keep on inspiring you by acquiring one of our online courses:
All You Ever Wanted To Learn About Translation