English, gender and God

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How old is "George Elliott"?

---

​

George Elliot is dead. What a funny question.

---

How can an imaginary person die?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why does a persona have to be well-developed?

---

​

I dunno, why does a word have to mean anything?

---

That doesn't answer my question. Why do you insist that a "persona" has to be a "well-developed" ideation of personality?

quote:

---

In every instance of the use of the word "persona" I'm familiar with - including it's use by people with personas - the it refers to fictitious people with fictitious backgrounds, personal narratives, etc - in every way, alternate, well-developed people. Pen names don't have that.

---

As an actor, I've played many personas...including people who exist merely because the scene needs bodies.I'm very anti-method. It is a common practice among actors who follow the Method to fill in complete histories of their characters. For example, in the musical Marry Me a Litte, there are two characters, one male and one female. Though at one point she calls him "Ben" and he sings a song that could be interpreted to be a reference to her as "Harriet," that is simply an artifact of the fact that the songs are all interpolations. The script does not assign the characters names.A Method actor would create a name. I didn't. It wasn't important. The Method actor would say, "But if your character were asked his name, he'd know what it was!" And, indeed, that's true. Thankfully, my character is never asked what his name is in the entire production. It isn't like I run around actively concentrating on what my name is. I know what it is and I know so without having to give it any thought. But because nobody has asked me what it is in the last few hours, I haven't said it at any time. And thus, I won't waste my time worrying about it when I have other things to do.A persona can be as developed as it needs to be. If it's more, that's great, but sometimes all we need is existence.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do they?

---

​

Hrm, why would I write something if I didn't think it was true? Now who's playing games?

---

Just returning the favor. I think we're at another fundamental impasse.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But you just said George Elliot is a man. Ergo, "he."

---

​

I don't recall saying that. George Elliot is a woman.

---

Then you were wrong to say "Mr. George Elliot."

quote:

---

quote:

---

You mean the Bible isn't the word of god? (*blink!*)

​

You're determined to refuse to look at this from Paul's point of view, aren't you?

---

​

Why would I assume something that isn't true?

---

Because when you are trying to understand something that someone else has said, it is helpful if you have some idea of where he is coming from as it will guide you in interpreting his statement.

quote:

---

Yes, I'm unwilling to look at the point of view of somebody who's wrong.

---

Even as a method of understanding why he's saying what he's saying? You refuse to consider somebody's point of view just for the sake of argument so that you can see where it goes and understand why he is saying what it is that he is saying?I didn't say you had to believe it heart and soul. I simply said you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that somebody has a different set of premises from which he's working and that his statements might make sense given those premises.Do you really not see that it can help you show why somebody has made a mistake by taking the time to see where he's coming from?

quote:

---

Paul's view of the inerrant bible may be just another symptom of ingrained sexism.

---

It may be...but until you take the time to look at it from his point of view, you'll never know...it'll just be an assumption on your part.

quote:

---

I mean, the statement "Men are better than women" can hardly be considered sexist by your logic if we assume that women really are inferior to men. But why assume such a thing? Especially in the face of evidence to the contrary?

---

Because you have to demostrate the evidence!You've concluded that Paul is being sexist by his assertion that god is male, but you haven't demonstrated why.

quote:

---

You can be sexist without knowing it. It may not make you a sexist, personally, but your comments are still sexist, no matter how much you believe them to be accurate.

---

Is it sexist if it seems to be accurate?You may have contrary evidence, but what makes you think the person you're arguing with has that evidence? Have you asked him? Have you taken the time to figure out where he is coming from so that you can more easily demonstrate why you think he's wrong?

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's because it would appear that you're more interested in playing games than discussing things.

---

​

Honestly, that might be true. My willingness to really discuss evaporated about 100 posts ago. My interest in playing games has only risen as you continue to play games yourself.

---

Until that last post, I haven't played a single game.Perhaps that's the problem. But if you truly don't want to continue this with integrity and intellectual honesty, then do everyone a favor and let it drop. We've reached an impasse. I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind and while I can see the value of trying to find out why you think the way you do, you apparently don't have the similar desire but would rather screw around.Shall we let it go?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I think that's probably a good idea at this juncture.It was fun, tho.

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

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Except it isn't archaic. Not in the slightest. I don't know where you live, but I hear the term often enough. And no, it was not foolish of him. He had no reason to think that the people to whom he was speaking wouldn't know a common word.I'm reminded of a time when a couple friends of mine and I were talking. One I had gone to college with and the other was a newer friend who, while quite intelligent, didn't have such a formal education. At any rate, my college friend used the word "ubiquitous" and my other friend exploded: "You keep doing that! Using those big words and making me feel stupid!"Now, I certainly understand the frustration of my friend, but over the word "ubiquitous"? I readily admit that I have a huge vocabulary, but I didn't think "ubiquitous" was such a high-falutin' word.Same thing here. Since when did "niggardly" become obsolete? When did we agree that everyone has a fifth-grade education?There is no "change" in the term "niggardly." It does not mean anything about race, never has, and still doesn't.Just because people think something is true doesn't mean it is.

quote:

---

'Niggardly' HAD nothing to do with race. It does now, apparently, at least in this country.

---

No, it doesn't. People heard "niggardly" and thought he said something spelled differently. It wasn't a question of "niggardly" picking up another meaning. It was a question of them thinking he said something he simply did not say.They simply did not know the word and because it rhymed with a something they didn't like, they jumped to a conclusion.And that, I think, is the crux of the argument. I'm willing to place miscommunication blame at the foot of the listener when it's appropriate.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not at all.What you're denying is that it hasn't happened in many instances.In Romance languages, there is the concept of "perfection." Is the action completed? I very much agree that the language is changing.But it hasn't finished this particular change. 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.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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

John responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

So you concede the other points then?

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

You didn't call it archaic?Do I really need to go through all the posts and present you with your own words again?

quote:

---

Equally foolish is the insistence upon a usage that is quickly becoming archaic.

---

But it isn't even becoming archaic. It's still a common word. I hear it often enough.

quote:

---

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.

---

But we're not talking about the cognates. We're talking about "niggardly." It isn't even becoming archaic. It's still in common use. Not long after the Howard incident, a teacher was investigated since she taught her class the word.

quote:

---

Consequently, when someone tries to analyze the adjective they wind up associating the word with the 'wrong' root and the meaning changes.

---

That simply means they don't know the language. "Niggard" is not archaic, either.Just because you misheard what I said does not mean I misspoke or "should have known better."Do we dumb everything down to a fifth-grade level lest we offend somebody?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." Did I go ballistic? Of course not. I simply realized that I misheard what was said and corrected my own error. I didn't accuse anybody of any malfeasance, didn't immediately ascribe ulterior motives to anyone, or anything else along those lines.I simply acknowledged that I misheard what was said.If you mishear, that is not my fault.

quote:

---

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.

---

So we need to dumb everything down to a fifth-grade level?

quote:

---

When I learned the word, it most definitely had racial connotations. That is how everyone used it. Usage is the ultimate determinant of meaning.

---

Where did you learn it that it had racial connotations?Be specific.And yes, usage is the ultimate determinant of meaning.And the word has never had racial connotations in any mainstream usage.Do not confuse the word "niggardly" with a word that is spelled differently and pronounced differently (though somewhat similar).

quote:

---

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.

---

Except that it is.And thus, there is nothing more to discuss.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Same thing here. Since when did "niggardly" become obsolete? When did we agree that everyone has a fifth-grade education?

​

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

​

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

---

Rrhain, I can tell by the way you write that you are a really gay person.In fact, you just exude gaiety with everything you write on this board.You have got to be the gayest person here! You should really consider going around the country giving inspirational talks about how great you obviously feel it is to be as gay as you are and encourage others, especially schoolchildren, to live as gay a life as you do.Your posters and fliers could read, "BEING GAY THE RRHAIN WAY!!"I think you would be received really well!

quote:

---

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

---

Then why did a whole bunch of people get really upset when the politician used it?Isn't "a whole bunch of people" qualify as "the mainstream?"Oh, and like John, I haven't known that word to be used at all in 25 years or more. I was taught about it in middle school because it was in a book we were reading, but I have never known anyone, personally or professionally, to use it in conversation or in writing, in those 25 or more years, outside of an academic setting.In other words, I have never heard it used in common usage in 25 years.However, I would like to continue to compliment you on your gay attutude in all of this debate.

quote:

---

gay gaiety gayest gay gay GAY

---

LOL!!! Good point, except that it *is* a slightly different word. In addition, I've never even heard or seen "niggerly" anywhere, and the context should have been sufficient to prevent the misunderstanding. The ignorance of the audience is first and foremost the cause. Still, any speaker these days who doesn't have the good sense to find a synonym is really asking for it.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 06-05-2003]

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

schraf, sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat....You seem to think that I have a problem with being called "gay."Were you planning on setting me up on a date with someone?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

Then why did a whole bunch of people get really upset when the politician used it?

---

Because what they heard was not what he said. He said "niggardly." They heard a different word that is spelled differently but sounds quite a bit like "niggardly."As I said elsewhere, I was listening to the French Open the other day and one of the commentators was talking about one of the players, calling him a "game, young contender." What my ears heard, however, was "gay, young contender."(*blink!*)Did he just say that? Since I keep the closed-captioning on my TV turned on, I could follow the transcript and sure enough, it turns out that I misheard. Of course, I didn't need to look at the transcript because the context of the conversation was all about how this particular player was doing well in the tournament, had managed to exceed previous efforts, is working hard, and has promise to become one of the better players on the tour.

quote:

---

Isn't "a whole bunch of people" qualify as "the mainstream?"

---

Not if they misheard.Despite what everybody says, Mae West never said, "Why don't you come up and see me sometime"? Humphrey Bogart never said, "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca. And so on and so forth.Yeah, lots of people think they did, but wishing doesn't make it so.

quote:

---

Oh, and like John, I haven't known that word to be used at all in 25 years or more.

---

A friend of mine used it just last night.

quote:

---

In other words, I have never heard it used in common usage in 25 years.

---

Lucky you. Page not found | Charlotte Mecklenburg StoryFor a city of its size, Charlotte may still be described as conservative, but not unreasonably so. Twenty years ago a research specialist, reporting on Charlotte's governmental affairs, wrote: "The state tax limitation for parks and recreation necessitates the present niggardly budget of $22,000, but it is unlikely that the council would be willing to appropriate more if it could."By the way...that was the very first hit I got when searching for "niggardly budget accountant," since I was looking for the exact quote of Howard but forgot his name. You will notice that it has nothing to do with Howard.But wait...there's more: Etiquette International - The Art Of Gift GivingBeware of excessive spending. It is as much a faux pas as niggardly gift giving and may force the recipient to return your lavish gift. A gift from a junior executive to a client need not exceed $25. Mid to upper management should consider spending up to $50, while a senior executive may want to spend up to $100 for their best customers. A gift costing more than $100 would only be given in very special circumstances. No webpage found at provided URL: http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/802156/postsAs Charles Rossotti stepped down as the respected IRS commissioner last month, he warned that the niggardly budget for compliance has made complex cheating schemes relatively risk free. No webpage found at provided URL: http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/4397_comment.phpThe outspoken Anarchists of the "Serpent" disappear as they revel in the lawlessness that enables the Niggardly Asinine Zionist Media(NAZM) to paint a rosy picture of the social upheaval brought about by the Nazi takeover of a country(52651 & 132033).Again...I don't know where you live, but I see it being used all the time.And that took all of 15 seconds to look up.

quote:

---

However, I would like to continue to compliment you on your gay attutude in all of this debate.

---

Why thank you. I intend to continue to saunter gayly forward (as opposed to "going straight.")You seem to be of the opinion that there is something wrong with being gay or being perceived as gay...at the very least that I should be taking some sort of offense at it.Were you planning on setting me up on a date with someone?Then why does it matter?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

John responds to me:

quote:

---

I've noticed something about you, Rhhain. You tend to repeat the assertions you started with while avoiding challenges made to those assertion.

---

Incorrect. I address the challenge head on by showing how it doesn't deal with the logic I have presented.The reason I keep asking the same questions over and over is because they keep not getting answered.

quote:

---

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?

---

Because without any idea as to what "survey of common English words" you're referring to, how can I possibly respond.After just 15 seconds of searching, I found the following: Page not found | Charlotte Mecklenburg StoryFor a city of its size, Charlotte may still be described as conservative, but not unreasonably so. Twenty years ago a research specialist, reporting on Charlotte's governmental affairs, wrote: "The state tax limitation for parks and recreation necessitates the present niggardly budget of $22,000, but it is unlikely that the council would be willing to appropriate more if it could."By the way...that was the very first hit I got when searching for "niggardly budget accountant," since I was looking for the exact quote of Howard but forgot his name. You will notice that it has nothing to do with Howard.But wait...there's more: Etiquette International - The Art Of Gift GivingBeware of excessive spending. It is as much a faux pas as niggardly gift giving and may force the recipient to return your lavish gift. A gift from a junior executive to a client need not exceed $25. Mid to upper management should consider spending up to $50, while a senior executive may want to spend up to $100 for their best customers. A gift costing more than $100 would only be given in very special circumstances. No webpage found at provided URL: http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/802156/postsAs Charles Rossotti stepped down as the respected IRS commissioner last month, he warned that the niggardly budget for compliance has made complex cheating schemes relatively risk free. No webpage found at provided URL: http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/4397_comment.phpThe outspoken Anarchists of the "Serpent" disappear as they revel in the lawlessness that enables the Niggardly Asinine Zionist Media(NAZM) to paint a rosy picture of the social upheaval brought about by the Nazi takeover of a country(52651 & 132033).Again...I don't know where you live, but I see it being used all the time.Now, think about that last statement. There's a reason that I've said it before: Is it not true that "common words" are not consistent over groups? Remember my anecdote about a friend who blew up because another friend used the word "ubiquitous"? I'm sure you and I don't find that word to be too bizarre, but my friend did.Maybe it's just my luck that I happen to live around people who know the word and use it. But they do exist.Yet another friend of mine used it just last night.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where did you learn it that it had racial connotations?
Be specific.

---

​

East Texas.

---

Well, there you go. In New Mexico, we didn't have that problem, but what can you expect from Texas? At one point, there was a guy who was raising money to build a wall around Texas, ostensibly to keep non-Texans out. The largest contributions, both in size and number, came from New Mexico.We didn't have that problem is Caliornia, either.

quote:

---

What usage is it that is causing all the trouble now?

---

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.People are certain that Bogart said, "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca...but he didn't. The only reason they don't have the same visceral reaction is because there is no social dynamic involved in whether or not Bogart said it. Racism is a serious issue, however, so there is a much deeper response to scenarios that might be deemed racist.

quote:

---

Don't be a child.

---

Then stop behaving like one. I'm only responding to the level you are giving out.

quote:

---

Address some of the points raised.

---

I did. That you don't want to respond to them simply means that there is nothing more to discuss.Let it go.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Curious examples Rh chooses to show the common use of the word niggardly today.The first three are all in the context of budgeting. Two explicitly use the term niggardly budget - one from 60 years ago(!) and one postdating Howard's case which brought the phrase into the public eye. Really all this shows is that niggardly budget may be a cliche in the circle of those who discuss budgeting.Your fourth example is from a web page which is hardly representive of common English usage - for one thing the word niggardly is used here to construct the acronym NAZI and a related acronym NAZM.So we have:
a sixty year old example;
one use of the exact phrase in question postdating the very public controversy over that phrase;
another use in the same context as the phrase in question also postdating the public controversy;
a forced example of the word being used to create an acronym in another racially-charged context.Persoanlly, I think the Encarta dictionary gets the issue just right: Although the etymology of niggardly and niggard remains subject to debate, these words probably have a Scandinavian origin not associated historically with the origin of the offensive word Negro and its related offensive racist slurs. These are derived ultimately from Latin. Niggardly, then, is in no way a racial slur. However, the fact that the word sounds as if it might be one is reason to consider context very carefully before using it.As ever, the onus in the natural course of language is on the speaker or writer to take account of their audience or readership, rather than the formalized social niceties built on an idealized view of language that Rh seems to prefer.