English, gender and God

RrHain,I wonder if you have every heard of a concept called linguistic determinism? It comes in two flavors. The first is the 'hard' variety, and it holds that people cannot think other than in the ways their language allows. This version makes no sense to me because if this were the case it seems that language could not change, and it does. The second version is 'soft' linguistic determinism, which hold that language, though not an absolute controlling factor, strongly influences the way people think. This version I can accept. Numerous informal fallacies, for example, stem from the way language works. People tend to behave as if words are things, or as if a name implies that the thing actually is. People also tend to reject things for which they have no words, or things which described in language seem absurd-- like quantum physics or singularities or the idea that there might have been nothing at all before the BB. Scientists have been forced to accept such things as quantum wierdness, but try explaining it to someone not versed in mathematics. People also lump and group things. Grouped things share characteristics, and often share characteristics which are not justified. Like, say, the association of expensive dress with competent business sense.The point, basically, is that language and thought are inextricably intertwined. Words, in that they are connected to ideas, influence what and how people think. In that sense, a language can be sexist, or racist, or any number of things.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

And if the language makes a distinction and the person thinks that there is a distinction, then by what justification is there a claim of bias?

---

You are going to have to be more clear. There are several ways I can interpret this, but what it sounds like you are saying is that a person by default believes the biases of the language and thus that person can be considered biased rather than the language itself. It seems that you are arguing that either the person or the language can show bias, but not both. I am arguing that both can be biased. The language a person learns influences how that person thinks, but that person's experiences also influence thought and those experiences get fed back into the language through usage, and the language changes-- slowly. Still, you are justified in calling the language biased, just as, up to a point, you can still call salt water 'salty' even after you've mixed in some fresh water. A language is biased by its history, its past usages. You could call the person biased as well-- biased by the language, by experience, by any number of things.

quote:

---

Once again, we seem to be accepting the offended person's opinion as gospel while completely ignoring the other person.

---

If I were ignoring your side, I wouldn't be replying to you.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Hold it right there.

---

Calm down. I said up front that it wasn't clear to what you were getting at.

quote:

---

I am saying it isn't but instead it can be used in a biased manner.

---

Why not the possibility that the use of 'he' as a neuter is biased, but can be, and these days probably always is, used in an unbiased way?

quote:

---

So if I understand that definition and I am clear in my usage that that is the meaning I intend by that usage, by what justification is there for someone else to come along and say that I am being biased?

---

I don't think anyone has accused you of personally being biased. It is nonetheless possible to have a bias in the language you use.

quote:

---

I am saying that the language isn't biased, but the person is and will use the language accordingly.

---

How do you use 'he' and 'she' 'accordingly?' There isn't much wiggle room in English. Obviously female things, like females, are refered to as 'she.' Everything else is 'he' with a few exceptions-- ships, sports cars, that sort of thing. It is precisely this usage pattern that can be considered a bias.

quote:

---

But you're assuming that the language is biased to begin with.

---

I am assuming that the language embodies certain patterns reflecting the thoughts of its past speakers in its vocabulary and syntax. These patterns are taught to new speakers of the language, who in turn cause changes in the language via usage and pass that changed language along.

quote:

---

What if it isn't?

---

How can it not be? Bias is just a reflection of the language's history. Whether a moral judgement is made about that history is another thing altogether.

quote:

---

What if the language understands the difference between "he" in the neuter and "he" in the masculine?

---

How can the language 'understand' anything? The understanding is in the brains which created it and which use it, but the structure of a language is robust enough that patterns of thought get passed along for quite some time.

quote:

---

Does the mere fact that the same word is used for both inherently mean bias?

---

Well... yeah, in a sense. The brain works a lot more by association than by logic. Things named with the same word are associated. Not very long ago a poster here objected to the term 'apologetic.' I pointed out that it comes from a word meaning 'to defend publically' and that it does not derive from the English 'apologize.' The two were associated because of the similarity in the terms. It isn't logical. It isn't historically accurate. But there you go. The association was made. That's the way brains work.

quote:

---

But only if you assume there is salt in the water to begin with.

---

There is always salt in the water. That salt is the history of the language. This is quite a justified assumption.

quote:

---

And if the history of the language isn't that, what then?

---

History is bias. But bias can also be due to the tendency to associate similar things. I won't argue that it is reasonable, but it does appear to be fact.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

We write the way our parents talked.

---

Wow... not even close in my case. It is an interesting comment though, perhaps a reference to writing styles typically being more formal than spoken English? Or, even better, to the fact that spoken slang outstrips written styles?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I am calm. You're the one that's overreacting.

---

Spoken like a true paranoid. LOL ... how many times does this line crop up in B-movies?

quote:

---

I don't understand your statement.

---

You argue that a word isn't biased but can be used in a biased way. Why can't it work the other way around?

quote:

---

Nor did I say they were.

---

Quite a few things about your posts make me think you are taking this quite personally. It must just be something in your writing style.

quote:

---

How? If the definition is clear and the majority of speakers recognize the defintion and the context made it clear which definition was intended, where is the bias?

---

Words have connotations and associations which you seem to not recognize. People don't work like machines lock-stepping through definitions to the 'right' one. When a person hears or reads the word 'he' there are a great many more associations than 'an organism which produces sperm.'

quote:

---

In appropriate contexts. That's where usage comes in.

---

Doublespeak.

quote:

---

That should make it even more apparent that there isn't any bias.

---

Yes. Statements taken out of context CAN be used to support your arguments.

quote:

---

But is it? There is a difference between perception and reality.

---

This is all very glib, and I respect that; but what is the point? Can you elucidate?

quote:

---

So if I understand that definition and I am clear in my usage that that is the meaning I intend by that usage, by what justification is there for someone else to come along and say that I am being biased?

---

Lol... and back to my original answer. No one is saying you-- rhetorical you-- is being biased. Suppose your-- rhetorical your-- sweet little grandmother says to rhetorical you upon meeting rhetorical you's new friend, "Why, I didn't know you were friends with a negro?" hmmm... Grannie may have meant no harm. She may not be prejudiced one whit. But that phrase is going to hit like a brick, no matter how much defining she does. The point being, YOU don't have to be biased to say things that sound biased.

quote:

---

Because if the language makes a distinction, I understand that distintion, and you understand that distinction, how can there be any bias if we all agree that what was said was what was actually meant?

---

You can't treat language as if it were a formal, and stable, system. You can't treat it like frelling Boolean algebra! Language is fuzzy. Logicians figured this out long ago, hence the abundance of symbolic systems today. In other words, what you envision is impossible.

quote:

---

But what is bias if not a moral judgement?

---

You are fond of definitions. Try this.1) a line diagonal to the grain of the fabric
2) a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve
3) an inclination of temperament or outlook
4) deviation of the value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates
5) a systemic error introduced into sampling to encourage one outcome over the other( From Merriam-Webster )Also:
6) a partiality that prevents objective consideration
7) a surname
8) to influence in an unfair wayThere is nothing there that is necessarily a moral judgement. That you connected morality to it serves to support my point. There is more going on with language than you want to admit.

quote:

---

That is, just because many people find it difficult to talk of nursing without using feminine pronouns doesn't mean the language is forcing you to use feminine pronouns.

---

But you said it yourself. The language is biased toward feminine pronouns for that profession.Why are you now using the term 'forced'? No one has claimed that the language forces you to do anything, but only that it leans to one usage over others-- ie, it has a bias. It seems you are stumbling into a straw man. Remember the discussion we had about linguistic determinism? We both agreed that the strong version is untenable? Well, you are invoking the strong version here, and that is inappropriate.

quote:

---

Because the language is not tied to any one person.

---

Thus language, an abstract concept, can 'understand'? This makes no sense.

quote:

---

In a sense, the language exists outside of its speakers.

---

Do you honestly believe that a language exists if there is no one to speak it, read it, or write it?

quote:

---

There are many times when a dictionary is proscriptive.

---

I think dictionaries have historically tried to be proscriptive, with some exceptions I'm sure, and my grade school teachers certainly tried to make them proscriptive.In the sense that dictionaries probably do brake the mutation of definition, I'd agree.

quote:

---

In my own writing habits, for example, I often lose my nots.

---

Your example is irrelevant, as far as I can tell.

quote:

---

We all agree that those are the rules and that if you break them, you aren't saying what you mean to say.

---

No, I don't think we all agree to this. There are some patterns that cannot be broken without consequence, but but not all patterns are like that. Good writers break the rules all the time.But that is a bit off topic. The idea that the language is biased is the idea that proper usage implies-- more or less subtly-- meanings the user may not intend or even be aware of at all. A word carries more meanings than its strict contextually correct definition. Propaganda works on this principle. So does advertising-- ok, same thing. Poetry, metaphor, innuendo, and a great many jokes work on this principle. How can you be missing it? How can you be denying it?

quote:

---

But we're not talking about the brain. We're talking about the language.

---

Ya can't have one without the other. You can't have language with no brains producing it and no brains interpretting it. Language is the metaphor that connects brains, in a sense.

quote:

---

Are you saying the language is forcing you to think in a certain way? Or is it you are forcing the language to behave in a certain way?

---

'Force' is much too strong. ( Remember Sapir-Whorf-- weak version? ) But in a weak sense, the effect does work both ways. Propaganda is an example of the first, and the second shouldn't need much argument. Languages change.

quote:

---

But here's the thing: You were right. It doesn't matter how much a person may complain that he thinks the word is derived from "apologize." He's wrong. It doesn't mean that. No matter how much he can complain about the usage, he's wrong.

---

Doesn't matter. The word has a bad taste, whatever the correct meaning. That is how language works. Thats how language changes. Try looking up what is considered a synonym of 'apologetic.' Synonyms are pretty good indicators of a words connotations-- a word's feel. For 'apologetic' you get, among others, defensive, excusatory, and justificatory. In other words, the poster's reaction has some basis in usage.

quote:

---

No, there isn't. That's a pretty big claim you've made there, that everybody is incapable of understanding the difference between a general concept and a specific concept.

---

This is not my claim. It is not now my claim, nor has it ever been my claim. I imagine that everyone who uses 'he' as a general term, understands it to be general, but the word still carries associations with penises. It is the idea behind the 'don't think of a blue monkey' thought experiment. You can't help but have a fleeting thought of a blue monkey. When someone says 'he' you think of gender and then, if appropriate, correct it to 'general reference.'

quote:

---

Why is it we don't hear people complaining nearly as much about the need for a "you, general" pronoun to contrast with the "you, specific" pronoun?

---

Because 'you' in either usage is gender neutral. This should be obvious.

quote:

---

There's that assumption, again.

---

Do you deny that words pick up meanings as they pass mouth to ear over time? Do you deny that these meanings and connotations get passed along? Unless you deny these things, drop this idiocy. It amounts to saying that a language's history has no effect upon the meaning of words.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Or perhaps it is naught but an invention of your own desire to have me take it personally.

---

Like you say a few lines later...

quote:

---

That would require me having an emotional investment in you. I don't even know you.

---

quote:

---

Not even the person who called me the Anti-Christ.

---

Lol... I've gotten that one, too.

quote:

---

No, I'd say I'm the that is recognizing them. You are the one that is refusing to accept certain definitions

---

How is that? You are arguing strongly for one of many definitions of a word, rather than accept that a word has many variations of official and unofficial meaning, all of which get associated by the human brain.If you are talking about the word 'he' where have I rejected your definition? I accept it as one of several definitions/usages of the word. But it isn't complete. Your definition is sanitary and languages aren't.

quote:

---

I think that's my point! Thank you!

​

One of those associations is "generic person"

---

Indeed, one of those associations is 'generic person.' And I think this is your point. And mine. But somewhere just after this we part ways.Let me try to chart out what the differences appear to be.Lets take a word: gay.Then line up the definitons: A, B, C, D.The way I see your model of language is something like this: When you use the word you look at the meanings, pick the one you want, and throw the rest away.I consider this a bad model. I don't think langage works that way. The way I model language is like this: When you use a word you look at the meanings, pick the one you want but you keep the other meanings as well. Think of it as conceptually averaging the various meanings with context weighting the average toward ( hopefully ) the meaning intended.

quote:

---

Strange. You're the one that is removing all context. You respond to single words without providing any context for what prompted the word. Hack, hack, hack. How can we keep up the thread if you keep removing the context?

---

Look, I used to post quite a bit more context until the forum's administration asked that we make an effort to keep down the storage requirements. I try to give enough context that you can find the relevant paragraph in the post to which I am replying. I admit that it is a pain but I think you can handle it.

quote:

---

Just because a bunch of people think something doesn't mean it's true.

---

With language, it does. Language is nothing but "what people think it means."

quote:

---

If what I imply is the same thing as what you infer, how is there any claim that there is actually something different going on?

---

Because there is. Brains don't work this simplistically.Your hearer must interpret your statement. Your hearer must consider the various meanings of the words you use and choose among those meanings. Consequently, several meanings are called up, and those meanings linger. You can't forget them. It is a bit like a judge ordering the jury to 'strike that last comment.' It can't be done, not really. The idea has already been planted.

quote:

---

Um, what is "a partiality that prevents objective consideration" if not a moral judgement?

---

You are absolutely right. But that is one of 8 definitions. Most, but not all, of those 8 apply to this discussion. Your question was, "What is bias if not moral judgement?" I provided several alternatives, and you respond with 'but it can mean a moral judgement.' No kidding? Does it necessarily mean moral judgement? Not by a lot. You chose one of several definitions and treat it as if it were the only option. Does that really make sense to you?

quote:

---

Just because many people find it difficult...that doesn't mean the language is forcing you....

---

People have difficulty with it, at least in part because of the language. You can't seperate the language and the people who use it. Teach one generation to speak the language with a bias-- say, to refer to nurses as 'she'-- and that usage becomes ingrained in the language for several generations, give or take. And to an extent even becomes self-fullfilling, with little boys being less likely to consider nursing because 'that's for girls.' And, yeah, it is language as well as culture. The two are closely interwoven.

quote:

---

Because that's what people are saying. Schraf even posted studies showing that when masculine terms are used in the neuter, people think of males. She was using them to justify a claim of sexism.

​

I.e., "forced."

---

Do you understand the difference between 'influence' and 'force'? How about between 'tendency' and 'necessity'? I don't remember which studies schraf posted, but I have seen similar studies. They show tendencies, not absolute 'yes's' and 'no's.' You ought to be bright enough to figure that out.

quote:

---

It's that people are saying that a word has definition A and only sexists would attempt to give it definition B...in fact, the language, itself, is sexist for having a definition B.

---

If definition B is common enough the meaning bleeds through no matter what you intend. In this case, 'he' as male is far more common that 'he' as a neutral, so the effect is exagerated.

quote:

---

You're arguing the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

---

Sorry, I'm not, and can't figure out why you think so, unless you just simply don't understand the hypothesis.

quote:

---

"Niggardly" has nothing to do with race...no matter how many people want it to.

---

I agree that what happened to the politician is sad, but I also think he should have known better. Ignorance of one's language's changes is foolish, especially for a man whose position depends upon public opinion. Equally foolish is the insistence upon a usage that is quickly becoming archaic.'Niggardly' HAD nothing to do with race. It does now, apparently, at least in this country. Words pick up and loose meaning all the time. Some words have reversed meaning 180 degrees. If we were talking about historical changes, you'd understand this. But for some reason you want to deny that the process is still occurring.

quote:

---

Why? Are you saying that there is no internal logic to language? We've got computer programs that are pretty efficient at parsing language.

---

There is structure to language. I don't think I'd call it logic-- the structure is too mutable. But what is the point? Are you claiming that 'efficient parsing' is the same as 'understanding'? I've written programs to parse a number of different things, but my computer doesn't 'understand' it just follows instructions. Get one stupid curly-brace wrong and the whole thing goes to pot. If it 'understood' the task, it could compensate.

quote:

---

Not just the dictionary...the people who use the dictionary do it. If I say to you, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means," you will probably agree with me if I pull out the dictionary and show you that what you think it means does not appear in any of the definitions.

---

I would agree, up to a point. There are sometimes meanings and words which haven't made it into dictionaries. When I was a kid, you couldn't find the word 'ain't' in a dictionary-- at least, not the ones I tried--, even though millions of people were using it and had been for several generations. Now it appears in dictionaries, qualified as 'incorrect.' Eventually, the qualification will be dropped-- just a guess. Dictionaries lag behind usage, and sometimes lag behind quite a lot.

quote:

---

How would you know? You removed the context.

---

Whine. Whine. Whine.Do you think I cut out part of your post and responded to only that part? Don't be dense. The quote is a key, not the whole damn lock.

quote:

---

Are you seriously saying that a person who knows what he wants to say but accidentally misspeaks himself is not relevant in a discussion about meaning?

---

In this case, it isn't. Mistakes can be a source of confusion, but I don't remember anyone, and certainly not me, concerned about mistakes until you brought it up. I am assuming 'proper' use of the language.

quote:

---

So you're saying that a good writer could make "black" really mean "white"? What were you saying about doublespeak?

---

What's that phrase you like? "You aren't going to be disingenuous are you?" Writers can, and do, alter meanings. Writers can, and do, alter grammar.

quote:

---

But if I don't use those other meanings and context makes it clear that none of those other meanings are intended, why are you trying to shoehorn them in? Orneriness?

---

Not orneriness, common sense. You are old enough to know that there are 'hot' words-- words which, despite having innocuous technical meanings, elicit strong emotional responses. The word 'fat' is a good one. When used to refer to an overweight person it frequently triggers negative emotions, despite it being technically correct usage. It is absurd to ignore these effects. They are part of communication. A lot of words, and some grammatical structures even, are similarly, but much more subtly, 'hot.' These words may hint at negative meanings, positive meanings, or just different meanings.

quote:

---

And if the context makes it clear that none of those other meanings are intended, where is the justification for trying to insert them?

---

... because the brain is an associative machine.

quote:

---

Take your "bias" example. It really does mean to cut diagonally across the grain of the fabric.

​

Do you think anybody here meant that when using the word "bias" in this discussion up until this point?

---

No. It isn't a very common usage so I wouldn't expect it to occur to many people. But if there were a seamstress in our midst-- I don't know if there is-- perhaps it would have crossed that person's mind. And knowing that usage may have tinted that person's understanding of the word. Nor would I have expected anyone to intend that definition, but that it tints the meaning for someone aware of the definition is another thing altogether.

quote:

---

Only to those who are ignorant of the language.

---

I'd say the politician was ignorant of the language, and used a word which has meanings he didn't intend. Sorry, the users make the language. I've known for twenty-five years not to use the word 'niggardly.' It is staggering that a public figure couldn't figure that out, though I don't think he should have lost his job over it.

quote:

---

Are you seriously saying that out of politeness, we should defer to the listener for meaning?

---

We should defer to usage for meaning. It has nothing to do with being polite.

quote:

---

A speaker is now required to psychically determine the vocabulary of all possible listeners and adjust his language accordingly?

---

A speaker is required to communicate effectively with his target audience. Wow... now there is a concept!!! Didn't you learn that in grade school composition class?

quote:

---

If a listener thinks something, then the speaker really meant that?

---

Didn't say that. But the speaker needs to be aware of usage. This is called communication.

quote:

---

It is never justified for a speaker to say, "You misunderstood" and have it really be because the listener made a mistake?

---

People misunderstand things all the time. Of course this happens. But usage changes as well.

quote:

---

Actually, I can.

---

How then did you know that I was talking about a blue monkey? You must have had a thought about a blue monkey in order to understand the sentence.BTW, I thought you knew the difference between rhetorical and personal use of the word 'you'?

quote:

---

No, I don't. The context has usually made it clear long before we got to that word.

---

How? One sentence earlier 'he' could be used personally, or a few words earlier... Until the word has been used, it can't possibly be in context.

quote:

---

That doesn't answer the question.

---

How does this not answer the question? "Why don't people complain about the word you?" Because it is gender neutral in all usages, and everything-else neutral as well. What is there to complain about?

quote:

---

But that's my argument: A word's history does have an effect on its meaning.

​

And the history of "he" is that it is used in the neuter.

---

But choose one history over another? And ignore present usage to boot? It doesn't make sense.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Since this thread has seemingly petered out, I'll restrict my comments to a single point.

---

So you concede the other points then?

quote:

---

Except it isn't archaic.

---

Please do me the favor of responding to what I said, rather than responding to a mis-statement of what I said. In English, the verb tense used-- the present progressive-- indicates that the action is in the process of occurring but has not yet been completed. You responded as if I had used a tense indicating that the action was complete. Do I need to phone your grammar school teacher?Now let's look at this. I said the term 'niggardly' is rapidly becoming archaic. Take a look at the word's cognates-- niggard, niggardise, niggardish, niggardness, niggardous, niggardship. hmmmm... they've already become archaic according to my dictionary. Interestingly, the root word-- niggard-- has become archaic. This means that a fundamental method of determining the word's meaning has been pulled out from under the common English speaker. You can't derive the meaning of the adjective by considering the root. The root no longer exists in the language in a practical sense. Consequently, when someone tries to analyze the adjective they wind up associating the word with the 'wrong' root and the meaning changes.

quote:

---

I don't know where you live, but I hear the term often enough.

---

I haven't heard the word in 25 years, except for the issue in question. When I learned the word, it most definitely had racial connotations. That is how everyone used it. Usage is the ultimate determinant of meaning. That is why 'ain't' is now appearing in dictionaries-- albiet, with a disclaimer-- despite a century of attempts at squashing it.

quote:

---

He had no reason to think that the people to whom he was speaking wouldn't know a common word.

---

Except that it isn't a common word. It doesn't even show up in this list of 17,000 words taken from several major newspapers. In fact, I can't find it in any list of frequently used English words.

quote:

---

When did we agree that everyone has a fifth-grade education?

---

Ah... the arrogance of the educated.

quote:

---

There is no "change" in the term "niggardly." It does not mean anything about race, never has, and still doesn't.

---

LOL... and yet many many users of the language think it does. Words mean what people think they mean. We assign the meaning with usage. There is no way around that. Thus, if a whole lot of people think the word means something it did not mean, then the meaning has changed.

quote:

---

People heard "niggardly" and thought he said something spelled differently. It wasn't a question of "niggardly" picking up another meaning.

---

That is, people heard 'niggardly' and thought it meant something racist. Have you noticed how often this 'mistake' is made? If the mistake is made often enough, it ought to clue you in that the meaning is changing. People are using it, and understanding it, differently than they once did. Simply asserting that it ain't happening is foolish. It is happening right under your nose.

quote:

---

Just because people think something is true doesn't mean it is.

---

It does with language. Language is nothing but what people think is 'true.'

quote:

---

I'm willing to place miscommunication blame at the foot of the listener when it's appropriate.

---

So am I, but I've known for 20 years that this word was a very very bad idea. No amount of whining about its technical meaning is going to negate the emotions it is going to produce in the majority of hearers. This has been proven time and again. Denying this fact, and using a word very likely to produce unintended reactions is moronic. Communication is all about conveying the ideas you intend, why use vocabulary that has been shown repeatedly to cause problems? It is absurd, not to mention stubborn and arrogant.

quote:

---

What you're denying is that it hasn't happened in many instances.

---

Many instances? How many times are we counting this one word?

quote:

---

And since it hasn't, to ascribe ulterior motives to someone using the language in its still-generally-accepted manner is, at the very least, obnoxious.

---

Do you honestly think that if this were its 'still generally accepted' usage that there would be a problem? That is the whole point, isn't it? This is not its 'still generally accepted' usage. Certainly it is its official usage, but it is not the generally accepted one or there would not be such contraversy. Don't you get it? You are denying the 'general usage' in favor of the academic. You discount, with jabs about 5th grade educations, most of the speakers of the language and then turn around and invoke 'general usage.' God, that is funny!!!------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

However, I concede that no further progress can be made.

---

Yeah, all that repetition must get dull.I've noticed something about you, Rhhain. You tend to repeat the assertions you started with while avoiding challenges made to those assertion. I'm sure that anyone following your posts could cite examples. For one, you insist that 'niggardly' is a common word, but have you addressed my objection that I cannot find it in ANY survey of common English words?

quote:

---

You didn't call it archaic?

​

Do I really need to go through all the posts and present you with your own words again?

---

Perhaps I should post my words to you? "Quickly becoming" does not mean "is." This little quibble just makes it seem you can't read. It is especially perplexing since your next sentence indicates that you do understand what I am talking about.

quote:

---

But it isn't even becoming archaic.

---

So what is the story? You understand that I am talking about a process in the works and at the same time complain that I indicated the process is complete.

quote:

---

But we're not talking about the cognates.

---

And they are not related? Common words frequently have common cognates. Smart, smarter, smartly. Call, caller, calling. It is a clue, not a stand alone proof.

quote:

---

It's still in common use.

---

That assertion again... so far supported only by "I hear it a lot." That argument is wearing very thin.

quote:

---

Not long after the Howard incident, a teacher was investigated since she taught her class the word.

---

This counts against your case. If the word were as common as you believe, there would be no contraversy. People would not be investigated for using it. This is another point I've made several time which you've not addressed.

quote:

---

That simply means they don't know the language.

---

I think that Platonism is sneaking up on you again. Language isn't a Thing which one knows or doesn't. Language is created by its speakers and constantly modified by its speakers. Words are what people think they are. Language is usage. You've admitted this. It is absurd to turn around and claim that the majority understanding is wrong.

quote:

---

"Niggard" is not archaic, either.

---

Try using it on the street. Remember... So how is it that usage can be the ultimate determinant of meaning, yet the majority usage can still be wrong? Can't you see the blatant contradiction there?

quote:

---

Do we dumb everything down to a fifth-grade level lest we offend somebody?

---

Well, if the majority of speakers are at fifth grade level then they are the ones predominantly determining the meanings of words. Remember, usage is the ultimate determinant of meaning. Of course, your characterization of 'dumbing down the language to a fifth grade level' is ridiculous. Most people in this country have much better than a fifth grade level education, yet the contraversy continues. Why? Because High School and college educated people still find it offensive or too potentially prone to misunderstanding to be worth the risk, and choose not to use it. This is really quite reasonable. Common sense tells you not to use words that are prone to misunderstanding. It is kind-of a principle of good communication.

quote:

---

I was watching the French Open the other day and the commentator was talking about one of the athletes as a "game, young player." What I first heard was "gay, young player."

---

Try using a relevant example. This is not a matter of mishearing, it is a matter of understanding a word to mean something it did not used to mean.

quote:

---

Where did you learn it that it had racial connotations?

​

Be specific.

---

East Texas.

quote:

---

And the word has never had racial connotations in any mainstream usage.

---

What usage is it that is causing all the trouble now? You are in denial. It is main stream usage/understanding right now, today, that is causing all the trouble. You cannot simultaneously appeal to mainstream usage and refuse to acknowledge that usage. It is absurd.Needless to say, in the chunk of Texas I lived in as a child the word definitely had racial connotations, so your assertion is just laughably false.

quote:

---

Except that it is.

---

Is not. Is too. Is not. Is too... Don't be a child. Address some of the points raised.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

In addition, I've never even heard or seen "niggerly" anywhere

---

I have actually. In the slurred speach of my chunk of the south, 'niggardly' sounds just like 'niggerly.'------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Guess I just never met the right people down there

---

Incorrect. You never met the WRONG people down here. I live in Austin right now-- but for only another month ( Yeehaw )-- and I don't really hear the strong accent. But about two hundred miles east of here, where I grew up...------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The reason I keep asking the same questions over and over is because they keep not getting answered.

---

Don't make me go back through this thread and point out all the objections you've brushed off or ignored. Save face, and do it yourself. We'll be waiting.

quote:

---

Because without any idea as to what "survey of common English words" you're referring to, how can I possibly respond.

---

You mean you didn't read my post #140? Funny, you replied to it?

quote:

---

Page not found | Charlotte Mecklenburg Story

---

You did read through enough of that to get a feel for the date, right?

quote:

---

Etiquette International - The Art Of Gift Giving

---

LOL... I could never take these characters seriously. Please remember, we are looking for common use. I'll grant that you can find current use of the word, but the issue is COMMON use.

quote:

---

Again...I don't know where you live, but I see it being used all the time.

---

You've hardly demonstrated "all the time."

quote:

---

Yet another friend of mine used it just last night.

---

Then again, we aren't talking about you and your friends. We are talking about common usage. You are going to have to do better than 'My bud used the word just now.'

quote:

---

Well, there you go.

---

"Well, there you go." Your argument is "Well, there you go"?????

quote:

---

People hearing a different word entirely and being so sensitive to the issue of racism that even when they are shown that there was no racism involved, are absolutely certain that there had to be.

---

You've stated this several times now and, frankly, you can't know what people are hearing or what they think they are hearing. In other words, you've made up the rational that people are misspelling in their heads. But it doesn't matter really because how people arrive at the conclusion is irrelevant. If enough people are offended, the word is OFFENSIVE, even if the word used to mean 'fluffy bunny ears.' Remember, usage is the ultimate determinant of meaning. You pretend to agree with this statement, but desperately argue against the consequences. 'Red' means 'blue' if enough people make the 'mistake.' And during the transition you are going to see a lot of bickering and a lot a confused people-- exactly what we do see.

quote:

---

I did. That you don't want to respond to them simply means that there is nothing more to discuss.

---

You've got to be joking? How many posts did it take before you got around to something besides "I hear it a lot." LOL....------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Why? You were saying that nobody uses it.

---

No, Rhhain, this is not what anyone has claimed. Yet again, you've rewritten someone's claim to suit yourself. Quite sporting. The claim is, and has been for several pages now, that 'niggardly' is not in common usage as a synonym for 'miserly.' And that this usage has become so uncommon among most speakers of the language are unaware of it. And that furthermore, most speakers associate the word with racism.

quote:

---

And yet in 15 seconds, I found references that reach from current usage (and your claim of "after the big hullabaloo" is disingenuous at best) going back 20 and 40 years.

---

Going back 20 to 40 years does not demonstrate current usage. You've skipped one to two whole generations by going back that far-- disingenuous, to be sure. "Current usage" would be usage within a few years of right now.Of course, what you haven't even begun to do is show COMMON usage.

quote:

---

Why?

---

"Using a word specifically to fit an acronym hardly counts as common usage," because making a sentence from each letter of a word is a forced use of language, as is creating a word from each letter of a sentence.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Logical error.

---

Yes, yours.

quote:

---

You're comparing apples and oranges. You see, "niggardly" has only one meaning. "Pussy" and "gay" and "cock" have multiple meanings.

---

Sorry. "Niggardly" has multiple meaning as well-- one of them racist-- or there would be no contraversy. This second meaning has emerged recently, but it is very real. As anyone not living in a fantasy world should know, words are markers and they mean only what people think they mean, and with language, mob rules. So why the denial?Lets talk for a sec about about this mildly interesting but quite disingenuous distinction you make between 'speaker' and 'hearers.' You seem to think that only those speaking are 'users' of the language. This is equivocation on the word 'user.' You know damn well that both the speaker and the listener are using the language.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com