used loosely in general talk.  “Federal” has a precise meaning when used to distinguish the form of government of the United States from that which usually binds together the counties in a state; but we constantly use it in a sense hardly distinguishable from that of “National.”  The following extract from an editorial on the Philippine question is a good illustration of this precise and semitechnical use of words, and the loose, not very accurate use of everyday speech: 

On the other hand, it is said that this policy of the United States toward its dependencies is insincere; that it is a covert plan of exploitation; that, as it is practiced, it is a denial in act of a mere promise to the ear; and that if it were genuine the United States would bestow self-government upon its dependencies by granting independence.

This criticism is obviously based on a confusion of independence with self-government.  Russia, is independent, but in only a very slight degree are its people self-governing.  Turkey has long been independent, but until the recent revolution the people of Turkey were self-governing in no sense at all.  On the other hand, Canada, though not independent, is self-governing.[13]

Many an argument goes to wreck through carelessness in the use of words of this sort.  Wherever the subject under discussion has grown into the partial possession of a special field, but still uses words drawn from everyday life, you must be careful that not only you, but your audience also, understand your terms in the more precise way.

Closely related to this kind of ambiguity, and in practice still more insidious, is the ambiguity which arises from the connotation or emotional implications of words.  The use of “republican” and “democrat” cited above runs over into this kind of confusion.  In collegiate athletics “professional” has come to have almost an implication of moral inferiority, when it is often dependent on pretty technical considerations of expediency.  In politics, to one class of temperaments “conservative,” to another “radical,” or at any rate “liberal” or “progressive,” carries the implication of the salvation or the ruin of the country.  All such words introduce a sure element of obscurity and confusion into an argument.  If a word stirs your feelings in one way and those of some of your readers in another, you cannot use that word safely; in spite of the most careful definitions and disclaimers the emotional bias will creep in and twist the effect of your words in the minds of some of your audience.  This emotional ambiguity is the most insidious of all ambiguities in the use of words.  The danger from it is so real that I shall return to it at greater length (see p. 158).