Dear Geist,

You're pretty chill about letting new words come into use, but don't you think the World Health Organization has gone too far in urging us to dump “social distance” and say “physical distance” instead? They changed the language habits of our lifetime in a few weeks, so why wouldn't they stick with it instead of starting at square one of COVID-19?

—Maureen in Charlottetown, bushed but baking

Dear Maureen,

As you suggest, WHO and colleagues did have reasons for changing the word. The short answer is that social distance doesn't cover the needs of the phrase. It made sense when people all over the world were dealing with the reality that every one of us would now have to reconfigure a lifetime of habits and assumptions about family, friends, colleagues, teachers and everyone else—and to do it immediately. But even as people settled in, they knew what was missing. A computer is not a hug, and loneliness is bad for us, physically and spiritually. We need connection, for every kind of health in every culture. People did the right thing, but once they had settled into the new normal, it wasn't long before they and their families and friends—as well as scientists, educators, health-care workers and anyone else who was listening—knew that social distancing needed a lexical tweak. Physical distancing is the result, well supported by federal and provincial health authorities around the world. It's a little shift with a big payoff–if we change that one word, we have an accurate and descriptive term, and we may even save lives. Language shapes culture, and culture responds to language. Welcome to the power of words!

—The Editors