|
U-Know! Forum » Young, Nazi and Proud |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 13:29
|
||
|
I forgot to add ... The reason everyone uses the word gay is that it puts them on the moral high ground. How can I possibly argue against a word that describes a repressed people? It would be very un-PC of me not to agree with you just because you used the word gay .. afterall I might be considered to be taking an anti-gay stance. Please pick a better example more fitting to the intellects of those that frequent this sparring arena. Thanks.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 13:35
|
||
|
The example of "gay" is used most often because it is the most obvious and most well known. I use it therefore, for the same reason i used the adjective "schizophrenic" because it is likely to convey the idea i want to the most people... the purpose of communication. There are numerous formal situations (i'm thinking here specifically of writing philosophy essays at Uni... but there are a multitude of others) in which words are very deliberately, and very specifically given meanings *outside* their dictionary definition. This academic colloquialism (for that is what it is) usually requires you to pre-define how you intend to use the word (e.g. "other") in a way that does not appear in the dictionary. I can't think of any more "formal" discussion than an academic treatise - yet i assume you accept this is a valid use of language... indeed an inevitable one. It is the same with vole crap on a culture-wide scale. Except, because we are all aware of the pre-definitions just by virtue of living in the culture; one assumes they don't require re-stating.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 13:42
|
||
|
Forgive me, but i think you miss the point. I am not arguing either in favour of, or against, the use of the word "gay". I am merely using it as an example of cultural-linguistic evolution outpacing the dictionaries. Gay is now defined, broadly speaking, to mean "homosexual" in most dictionaries. This is a simple fact. There's no value statement being made. At one stage it wasn't; it was defined to mean "cheerful". I was merely pointing out that the word had completely changed meaning long before the dictionaries caught up (which they eventually did). This is just history - a demonstration of the absurdity of believing languages ae locked in dictionaries. My point has got absolutely nothing to do with either meaning of the word. *Nobody* (except the dictionary and a retired army major in Cheltenham) used the word "gay" to mean "cheerful" after about 1984. Yet it was the early 90s before the dictionaries caught up.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 13:54
|
||
|
As I said ... during everyday goings-on of course colloquialisms and modern usage of words is what communicating is all about. Having said that, I would, in certain circumstances, rather be sure that what I say is not going to be misinterpretted than appear cool, hip or with-it and be misunderstood. Add to that, It is better to be certain of being able to make your point without the diversion of having to explain your useage of a word when some anal/picky twat decides that his only hope is to make you sound and look like a complete cunt over a word usage. There you go. How can he make me 'look like a complete cunt'? Well, he'd have to have a very detailed anatomical diagram for a start, otherwise he might fuck up at the first hurdle, which is, 'complete'. The rest of the challenge may be a little messy. The predefinition of an unusual word usage in a document, such as a thesis, is precisely to stop the above happening. You are defining a language of your own - for the context of that document ONLY, not for the world to understand. You are, by making that definition, admittedly using a word in a way that some (or a lot of) people will not understand and therefore is actually counter to your arguments.
|
|||
|
lissy 202 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 13:55
|
||
|
whoaaaah! ducks velvet glove... wish i could type as quick as i think.. talking of which, my use of language has changed since being on hh, certainly the written usage anyway.. because i'm so slow on keyboard i've had to learn to pick words that encapsulate and describe the other ten words i want to say.. my husband/flatmate is badly dyslexic and i've spent years rewritin his work just to make it understandable plus grammatical and spelling corrections.. he's always had problems communicating in general, language not being one of his fortes and sometimes i have wondered if his dyslexia has somehow stunted his linguistic evolution? he hates to talk, full stop.. hmmm was it s'thing i said?! anyway, his viewpoint is one where he feels spelling is irrelevant and unnecessary as long as your message is understood..coming from a girls school where i prided myself on my spelling skills i always found this attitude lazy and frustrating, being so caught up with the reverent beauty and inaccessibility of " language".. 13 yrs on, bizarrely , i find that i can now see his point.. still have to wade through his feckin werk tho!! wonder if dylan thomas was a chatty bloke?! xxx
|
|||
|
lissy 202 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 13:57
|
||
see !! in all the time it took me towritethat u2 have had a full scale intellectual debate BUGGER!! xxx
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 13:58
|
||
|
>> and a retired army major in Cheltenham You knew him too!? Small world. I was not saying that you were arguing for or against the use of the word gay. I never said that you were. I just said that if the word had not been adopted by the gay community (and it had remained a bad word) you would not be supporting the redefinition of the word in such a manner.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 14:10
|
||
|
What i was saying about specific academic redefinitions of words was that it is basically a non-geographically-specific colloquialism. If you are writing about Sartre's work; then you use the word "Other" in a way that means not only the common meaning (though it does mean that), but which also possesses an additional set of meanings. Most essays on Sartre will not bother to predefine the word "Other", because it is understood that the word takes on this additional meaning when used in that context. On the other hand, should you choose to discuss, say, the 'essence' of a person and use the word "animus" in that same essay (i.e. making a philosophical usage of a word not normally used whilst discussing Sartre), then you'd wind up writing "I'm using _animus_ here to mean blah blah blah". I believe that this "academic collquialism" can be seen as an analogy to a wider cultural-linquistic evolution. I believe that in the context i used "schizophrenic", it was the equivalent of using "the other" in a Sartre essay. That's all really.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 14:10
|
||
|
>> his viewpoint is one where he feels spelling is >> irrelevant and unnecessary as long as your >> message is understood Too fecking true. And the point of making sure you're understood is precisely what I am talking about. I do not know a great deal about GJ's social background or of the ,more loose terms he might employ. The same applies in reverse. So, if we were both to talk the way we talk everyday to our close friends and family then misunderstandings are bound to occur. However, if we were to speak in a uniform manner (i.e. what used to be called the Queen's English - and I'll probably get linched for that one later) then misunderstandings would not occur. The same occurs in Germany. Different regions all have their own dialects, almost different languages. My Bavarian partner can not understand a word my friend from the Mosel is saying when she is speaking to her mother! When the Mosel girl and my partner speak together the speak proper German. Yes some general slang terms are used but if they were to speak 'Mosel' and 'Bavaria' to each other they'd have no chance. Might as well put an Inuit in a room with an Australian Aborigine and expect them to find a solution for world poverty. We must also remember that there are people who enter these forums from abroad, non-native English speakers and we also have somewhat of a responsibility to these people.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 14:12
|
||
|
FW, you are *still* missing the point. Hugely. I am NOT "supporting" the redefinition. I am making no value statements or judgements at all. The word *has been* redefined. That's happened. Both in the culture and in the dictionaries. My point was that the dictionaries took a long time to catch up.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
