The Alleged Literalist.

It’s a very nebulous word; transition.
It’s much like when one explains a date as being, “interesting…”.

Now, that is not to say that every “interesting” is a horrifically egregious experience, yet one would not be remiss in the generalization that “interesting” is a benevolent surrogate for words of a less than delightful nature, which have yet to be formulated.
On the other hand, there are those who are generally at a loss for words who use “interesting” to mean something akin to, “I’d like to see him again, perhaps…”. [As an aside everyone one would benefit from stating said sentiment, plainly.]

“Transition”, is a similar such word, one that receives substantially more mental mileage than the ten keystrokes it affords. For example, were one to note, “We are in, sort of…a…“transition” right now…” the comment could be interpreted about thirteen different ways depending upon, but not limited to, body language, facial expression, tone, former sentiment, latter sentiment, et al. The word, and its variants, is simply too broad a noun, verb, and participle; used in a way that is often overly abusive of the finite definition.

Granted, I am loquacious by nature and often accused of being far too much of a literalist, but come now, if the race is ever to approach commonality in communication, this ever-growing exhibition of postmodernity within linguistics must be curbed. How is one to communicate effectively within a society that so liberally reinvents the usage of words on a whim? This orthopraxy is a direct function of and is in turn revelatory of the standard operating procedure of postmodernism, as well as its error.

All of that being said, this author finds himself in something of an interesting transition.