Learning and using multiple languages enables one to play in-between the languages. Since I believe (and I am not alone) that languages exist intertwined with cultures, one is hence also playing in-between cultures; perhaps unwittingly so.

This in-between interaction enables (at least me and, as I observe, also some others) a form of playful language (usage and construction) that can only exist and be understood by those enabled to be moving in-between them.

At least metaphorically (but I sense this is very practical or pragmatic as well), this is allowing the player to stand on the proverbial door sill. This is in turn allowing the player (limited in this writing here by the highly constraining, linear nature of language constructs, such as sentences in paragraphs) to be looking, at least, at the one language usage on one side and at the other on the other side (if applying the play between two languages only, while multiple language usage is plausible as well). The player then can be “tasting” (and, simultaneously, be creating ) the linguistic mixture, as an observer and producer. The player can do so in-between two or more languages.

This awareness is not particularly new nor is it unique.

For instance, in China’s broadcasts, of its voice radio performance art, one can, at times, listen to wordsmiths playing in-between English and Chinese. For instance, they might use an English word or two that sound like a very different Chinese word. Though, the audience or creators might be “limited” to Mandarin and some basic English, nevertheless, it is just that: a creative fluidity in-between languages (for the moment ignoring the motivation or the perception thereof, in this particular reference).

An example between Dutch and Chinese could be this: “poesje“, which is Dutch for “small cat“. It sounds, via slight shifts in the Dutch pronunciation, as /bu-shi/ , which could, besides conjuring a rude English wording, also be shifted into the Chinese “bù shì” (不是). These two Chinese characters stand for “not” and “is“, or slightly more freely translated, as “not yes“. In turn this could be used to mean something as “not“, “no“, “it isn’t“…

If “bù shì poesje” then what is it?

I sense one can see this activity as an analogy of potential processes and actual evolution in any creation or (in-between) any framework. One might perceive these as experiments of shifts and “perversions” (depending on one’s “political” stance) into innovations or into new and different languages or into potentially new meaning-giving. This could occur, at least, at the level of the individual or in-between a few initiated individuals. This movement could transcode from the absurd into the formal and vice versa.

Is this a movement similar to that one person’s crazy idea that can only become accepted if a second person endorses it (preferably a second person otherwise unassociated with the first person) and then becomes a movement by the undefined masses following it? I now see a thought turned into a (set of meaning-imbued) word(s), turned into a culture.

As a sidenote: 

"Framework" here is meant as a collection of thought creations (e.g. a connection of associated concepts). 

For instance, I, as one individual, over my life span, have cognitively collected a number of frameworks. Such Frameworks, I sense, are semiotic and thus have linguistic or meaning-giving features. I perceive them as being cultural in nature. 

I feel these, to me, do not simply have to consist of isolated memorized words. I imagine these might consist of unclear networks of not well-defined emotions, blurry definitions, attached to opaque images, other words and fading experiences. In turn these interconnected meaning-giving items are vaguely set into complexes of intuitions.  

I feel, for me, these sets form an undefined number of frameworks in my mind. Some seem fluid and temporary while others seem more stubborn and fixated. While some frameworks feel as if overlapping, others are contradictory to one another, adjacent or seemingly entirely unrelated, except then by one attribute: they are my metaphorical constructs in my brain. 

I use these frameworks as references to make sense of the world around me; ever so transiently. I also explore the spaces in-between frameworks. 

One such framework is my vague and abstract conception of one language; let's say English. Another framework could be another language. 

Such a framework could also be my adoption and adaptation of a set of believes one, and one's community, holds or a set of habits, or attributes recognized as memes of one human collective (e.g. a community or a set of ideas held in one's brain), etc. For instance: the Flemish, the Beijingers, the Belgians, the Europeans, The Han, The Asians, The people on the subway, the people in the building I work or those where I live, The people in a news clip, etc.; a set of cultural frameworks.

As another example, a framework I hold could also be built around the concept of "data" or a specific set of data. For instance: the number of people who suffered fatal or other injuries, say, due to road vehicles, let's say in the USA from one specific year to another.

I imagine this in-between play as potentially being an example (with practical implications) of Deleuze’s territorialization, de-territorialization and re-territorialization. Therefor the in-between is always a becoming rather than a being. I also see it as a possible candidate example of fluidity, and of inherent changes that occur beyond one or two or more fixed frameworks one might hold on to (e.g. the use and learning of one language only).

I sense this in-between activity, its existence, the existence of the potential links, the existence of the potential shifts in meaning and usage, are a collection of human output (somewhere floating between being willingly or being serendipitously expressed) which are too often ignored, and I dare state, which might have non-party political consequences.

As a second sidenote: 

"Political" here is meant as how we act as citizens among each other within the "polis"; i.e. the city of our daily activities and power-relations. 

I sense these in-between expressions might highlight or unveil or at least create imaginations about power-relations and the shift thereof across languages. 

I admit, they make me, rather then perhaps you, think about this. Granted,  possibly this tells me more about my own obsessions with power-relations rather than it stating anything substantial or corroborative about what I think to perceive. 

That stated, please let us continue to allow the process of potential discovery by means of initially unsubstantiated imagination and naive wonder.

Yes, for the moment I opt to sense that one can best achieve this exploration (either in daily personal experiences and poetics, or as a stepping stone towards rigorous analysis) with and in-between any number of languages and any number of other languages and dialects (yes, dialects, since some claim that “language” is a dialect “with an army”…) .

The experience of an (intangible) in-between space has been on my mind for as long as I remember. Especially the etymology as observable in-between two distinct official languages yet, with some degree of common ancestry.

For instance, the present-day English word ” mascot” or “mascotte” (in Dutch) compared to the Spanish word “mascota“. The latter means “pet” (English) or “huisdier” (Dutch), which again translated to English might make for a (to me) fun new word: “house-animal“…

In a moment of associated digression: Is a couch potato a species of “house-animal“? …

…” My favorite pet is a potato . It likes staying home, lie on the couch and watch a movie. It’s such a house-animal; I enjoy petting my potato.” …

–the pet owner (pulled from my imagination).

Coming back to the main storyline: one touches on the semantic realm of “talisman” (i.e. “mascot” & “mascotte“) while the other touches on the realm of companionship for a human and this of an animal, other than human (yes, imagine…), for instance, a dog or a tarantula (i.e. “mascota“) .

If we were to dig a bit deeper we could argue that both (“mascotte” and “mascota“) are about companionship yet the intuitively comparable power-relation might be different, or is it?

I am excitingly concerned about how one could achieve this comparison in a quantitative manner, besides my often-faulty yet beloved intuition, which I am presently applying. I also wonder, in a dance with an old polemic, whether we, as humans, should only value the quantitative (notice, please, my stress on ‘only’). For sure, this entire in-between language is not quantatative in nature; it’s pure nurture coming naturally to me. (I hope you can read the serious irony here).

Webcopy Services it has been shown that diabetes is a metabolic disorder which does not produce or viagra cialis on line properly uses insulin in the human body. The answer is correct that cialis for sale australia impotency and it is done by the suffering person itself. In case you’re suffering from fibromyalgia, then ask your doctor to prevent future complications that may lead to more serious health problem that you may not be aware of. * More powerful type of buy levitra that guarantees men treatment through erectile dysfunction* Achievement ratio is much more in contrast to levitra* The pill offers dual action, & inhibit PDE5 in addition to lessen the. Men generally face numerous troubles associated with levitra generic cialis fertility.

Coming back to the in-between language play: the word “mascot” can semantically and denotatively (i.e. as being,
“in accordance with fact or the primary meaning of a term“) be mapped with the word “talisman” which, in turn, can be mapped with words such as the nouns “charm” or “amulet“.

Some claim that a “mascota” has a “master” (…you still don’t see power-play at play? Think about the use of “pet” in relation to excessive loyalty of an employee to a superior); does a mascot have a master?

In some storytelling I have noticed that some iteration playing with the concept of the talisman also links the mascot to a master, as a pet is to one.

One can see the animation series, based on a game, entitled “Wakfu” for such narrative . In it the character named “Sir Percedal of Sadlygrove” is emboldened by his powerful luck-bringing sword …and as I notice how a charm or talisman is applied in narratives, these are not always charming nor offering good luck at all times. Yes, as could a cat, a mascot can scratch you the wrong way!

The offered mapping with the word “talisman” and with “Wakfu“, mentioned above, might be acceptable if one could allow for an imaginary and literary “good” demon-possessed item to be seen as a “talisman” or as a bringer-of-luck, does then my pet give me extra power?

Some teams do have, for instance, a living pet dog as a mascot. Moreover, and ever so slightly in dissonance, notice that etymologically, the word mascot is claimed to have associations with “witch”, “wizard”, “nightmare”, “mask” and “black”). Are my pets not what they seems to be?

While in “actual” life, I have heard of, someone carrying a plastic chain-restaurant’s spoon to a sports match, believing it allows their favorite team to win, in Wakfu it is, for instance, a consciously possessed sword.

This is obviously fantasy narrative –I mean, Wakfu. Yes, one might consider the above-mentioned spoon equally fantastical. Yet, this latter reference is a factual example. This is while perhaps one might feel more accepting towards a scarf or a never-washed t-shirt instead of a spoon.

By the way, in the spirit of this text, you might like to know that in Wakfu, these demons which posses linearly-practical objects, turning the items into charms of sorts, are called “shushu(s)”. Interestingly–talking about in-between languages– “Shūshu” ( 叔叔), in Chinese, means “uncle“. Besides the obvious family-relation, it is also used as a name of endearment–yes! that’s a “pet name” for ye– to refer to older male individuals who are not actually related by blood. For instance, my children refer to their Chinese school bus driver as Shūshu. Is this now a magic school bus? Perhaps, in a sense, in Wakfu, this is a sword, giving its adventurous user extra power. In effect, this Sir Percedal character, who wields such powerful sword, might have a relationship with this magical sword as if one has a relationship with a pet. The character is at times rather literally defined by the sword, as a sports team is unitingly defined by its mascot. Perhaps as this is as much as a master is defined by their pet and their pet by them (…it is said that the bacteria in one’s body are defined by the kind of pet one nurtures).

Is this where “mascotte” and “mascota” meet?

…maybe not, maybe the perceived link between “mascot” and “mascota” is entirely serendipitous. Or, maybe one can judge it as a negative form of cultural appropriation; but then, which culture is appropriating which (a topic that could use a posting of its own)? Maybe, in similarity with “salary” and “celery” which are sounding rather similar yet, one being healthier and the other being more or less edible (or something of the sort), such serendipity could be sufficient. In truth, I admit, the second meaning of the Spanish word “mascota” is indeed ” the animal that represents a team.” What then are the links between a pet and a mascot?

Do I believe in mascots as being like a talisman;.. I personally do not; it’s too irrational for my taste. However, I know many out there (e.g. in sports or in brand loyalty) who do. In human (pre)history we can surely uncover this strong and deep-seated conviction (e.g. in Shamanism, in the wearing of a powerful animal’ skin or skeletal parts, etc.). Is it in Shamanism where we could unveil the cross-over between talisman, mascot and pet? One might have heard of animal spirits… Is this where the Pharaohs and their cats lived in-between the world of the “pet” and the world of the “mascota”? Is the trans-language activity allowing us to, more or less easily, shift in-between more than just a linear translation?

The relationship and experiences I sense which I could have with a “mascotte” versus that of a “mascota“, versus that of a “pet“, are very different. While arguably “mascota” and “pet” are the “same”, I can guarantee you: I do not perceive them as the same; not at all (besides the rational yet reductionist knowledge they are “translatables” between English and Spanish). I could elaborate yet the feelings are still conflicting and chaotically intertwined as the yarn my cat-companions got their paws on during their not-so-quiet midnight hours.

As a third sidenote: 

I am learning Spanish. The arguments as to why I am can be covered in another posting. 

However, this exploration of the in-between aids me to stoke the fire of increased willingness to continue my studies. It also aids me to look deeper and see hints of associations between words, beyond one language alone (...there are links between pets and mascots). 

It allows me to slowly but surely unveil my blindness into other languages and areas:  Italian: mascotte; Portuguese: mascote‎;  Spanish: mascota‎; and to me excitingly surprising even  
Polish: maskotka‎. 

I imagine that the act of this inter-language play, functions as an object of my imaginary making. I imagine it as my personal talisman. As much as the meaning of "talisman" is that of being an object that completes another object, the linguistic inter-play completes a passion for learning via the ritual of the creative act. The in-between language play increases a sense of playful power, energy (rejuvenation of learning), and perhaps other learning benefits. 

Additional reasoning as to why this works for me could be yet another posting. 

Another example is the Spanish word “negocio“, which seems to mean “business“. Following, I believe I can claim that “Su negocio” means “(their/her/…) your business” as in, for instance, “their shop“. In English a seemingly similar word exists, “negotiation“. Sure, for both we can follow the thread back to the common source in Latin: negotiari (“to carry on business”), from negotium (“business”).

Nevertheless, one word, the English word “business“, feels –that is, as in the initial moment of my sensation of perceiving some meaning– as it connotes (to me, at least) a fixed point, a done deal. The other, the Spanish word “negocio”, when overshadowed with the English word “negotiation”, superficially connotes (to me) a process; not a done deal. This is all the while, contradictory, the Spanish word in isolation away from the English, could feel to me as referring to someone’s shop, someone’s business; a fixed location. I am confident, as time and thinking passes by, that my sensations might change.

Consecutively and for now, I continue to wonder whether in one or versus a combinatorial language-usage, the business owner might experience to be more confronted with the constant uninterrupted negotiations it takes to maintain a business in relation to many an intrinsic and extrinsic force, support, constraint, potential or many a stakeholder. On the other hand, this is all the while in the other language one (me) might more easily go with an assumption where, following a negotiation, one is “in business“. This feels perhaps as if arrived at a specific point of an almost unquestioned doing and being “in business”. Is one more or less delusional / irrational then the other? Does one lead to more or less entrepreneurial dare and risk taking than the other? I imagine yet, I cannot (yet) know. I do question whether anyone has done any research on differences in perceptions and consequential (in)action compared between (multi-)language groups?

I am noticing some writing, in various media outlets, and in a number of fields (e.g. in topics covering psychology, business, well-being, ethics, leadership, etc) that do mention the effect and affect of language usage on the well-being of one’s self and in-between oneself and others. The co-creation of the poetic experience with real-life consequences is exciting to me, to say the least.

In any case, I have been using this in-between language learning and expression for many years now. I also use it with friends across cultures (e.g. my Chinese friends) . This play seems to be universally sensed. At the least, pragmatically, it has helped to strengthen social bonds through playfulness.

Epilogue: My two cats are wonderful pets and this while they do scratch and destroy, as two little demons of the night. Look at their picture, heading this text! However cute, as far as them being charms or talismans, I am not yet convinced.  In retrospect, instead of having named them Luna and Molly I could have named one Charm and the other Mascota... oh well...